Impatiently Waiting For Meaningful Reforms

---

At the launch of the book “Lim Kit Siang: ‘Malaysian First’ Volume 1 and 2”, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim made a few remarks on the issue of the appointment of Musa Aman as Sabah governor.
As if to clear the air on Rosmah Mansor’s recent acquittal, he also stressed there was no interference in the case of the wife of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak.
Via this article, I intend to share a slew of rebuttal points to his statements.
Anwar argued that the appointment of Musa as Sabah governor falls within the jurisdiction of the state and Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA).
I also subscribe to his view. In other words, he is absolutely right to argue that point. Based on the Sabah constitution, the appointment of Musa as governor is definitely within the jurisdiction of the state and the YDPA respectively. This is clearly enshrined under Article 1 of the state constitution.
The Sabah constitution enacted the appointment of the Sabah governor to be made by the YDPA - at his discretion. The only catch is that the YDPA has to consult the chief minister.
Newly appointed Sabah governor Musa AmanThough there is no requirement for the YDPA to refer to or consult the prime minister on the said appointment, Anwar told the media that the YDPA did refer to him, possibly asking for his advice.
Perhaps the YDPA, ex abundanti cautela ( just to be on the safe side rather than because it was strictly necessary) did consult Anwar to ensure he made the right choice.
I must say this is, no doubt, a good practice reflecting good governance.
Anwar also stressed that he could not overstep constitutional boundaries as outlined in the Federal Constitution.
To begin with, nobody wants him to exceed the constitutional and legal boundaries. Hence, the issue of overstepping constitutional boundaries as duly enshrined in the apex law in this case, in my view, may have not arisen at all.
As a general rule, the decision by the YDPA ought to be duly respected.
The issue is Musa’s record
The only issue in this case is Musa. He could not be said to be absolutely free from any blemishes. Yes, he has a tainted record.
Therefore, his appointment has been subject to public opprobrium and rebuke from day one.
While Anwar may have had no say in such a controversial appointment, perhaps he should have privately advised the King of the possible unwarranted repercussions due to such a baffling appointment.
Probably his critics would contend that Anwar has an onerous duty to ensure the name, image, goodwill, and integrity of the institution of the monarch remain intact and not be unduly besmirched with such a polemical appointment.
To rub salt in the wound, Anwar seems to have gone the extra mile with the issue of Musa’s appointment. To his discredit, he, unfortunately, was trying very hard to score some political points on this issue as well.
His statement that the court’s decision to acquit Musa of corruption and money laundering charges in 2020 was made during the tenure of the previous government, with the greatest respect, was gratuitous. Like it or not, the political undertones of such remarks are palpable. On this type of issue he - being the prime minister - should have displayed statesmanship par excellence.
While he was entitled to claim that the court’s decision to acquit Musa was made during the tenure of the previous government, for the sake of completeness, he should have equally stated that Musa was duly prosecuted during Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s tenure when Pakatan Harapan became the government after voters totally rejected Najib and his Umno/BN-led government then.
Powerful and influential leaders like Musa and Najib, for instance, may not have been successfully probed and indicted assuming there was no change in the government.
Anyway, by making such a statement, Anwar may unnecessarily give his critics some “free bullets”. His political opponents may counter-argue that during his tenure as prime minister, Musa seems to have hit the jackpot!
Independence of the judiciary
Anwar also stated that he did not interfere with the court’s decision to acquit and discharge Rosmah from charges related to money laundering and tax evasion. He, therefore, asked the people to respect the court’s ruling.
Truth be told, I personally believe he did not interfere with the court’s decision to acquit and discharge Rosmah from the aforesaid criminal indictments.
Rosmah MansorAnd Anwar was also right to claim the court’s decision in acquitting Rosmah was solely within the court’s authority. It would be fair to assert that via his statement, he seems to imply that the independence of the judiciary during his tenure as prime minister is firmly guaranteed.
As if such a statement was not adequate, he also added these words: “ I have not met with any judge, nor have I engaged in discussions with the chief justice regarding court decisions”.
It is respectfully submitted that he did not have to issue such an additional remark. It was completely unnecessary. After all, the court’s interference may come in various forms. In politics, the perception that the judiciary is truly independent and impartial matters.
Like him, every one of us has no problem fully respecting the court’s ruling. But respecting the judgement of the court does not mean such a decision should be taken as gospel truth and cannot be questioned at all.
After all, every decision of the court should be subjected to public scrutiny and public criticism too. The only caveat is that such a criticism ought to be respectfully exercised. It must also be done by deferring and adhering to the principle of sub judice and respecting the appellate process.
Attorney-general’s performance
Finally, Anwar also remarked that if an appeal is necessary, that will be the sole decision of the attorney-general (AG). Yes, he was right.
But in our current system, the AG is under the supervision of the Prime Minister’s Department.
Based on records, the performance of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) especially in handling cases involving corrupt practices and abuse of powers by some “big fishes” has left much to be desired.
In some cases, due to public outcry, the AGC did file a notice of appeal but once the heat abated, the appeal was unduly withdrawn. Worse, the AGC chose not to pursue the trial despite the fact a politician was called for defence for 47 criminal charges.
Despite repeated calls for his government to expedite the separation of the office of the public prosecutor and the attorney general, such pleas seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
Anwar has been vocal in claiming that his government is committed to introducing reforms hence people have legitimate expectations for such reforms to be consistently and seriously carried out.
Unfortunately, his promises to bring meaningful reforms still ring hollow. - Mkini
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---