How do we define public interest in Malaysia? How do we decide whether business tycoon Eric Chia should be charged for a crime in a court of law? Or whether, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda should be charged with \”intent to murder the accused, in the headlines grabbing case?\”

Or for that matter, whether previous and current IGPs should be investigated for crimes against the state, if the printed and published rumour is valid and true? Or, whether the deputy minister should also be fully investigated and charged for the purported wrong-doing!

The New Sunday Tines headlines on Sunday read, \”The law hits back?\” But, the same nagging question remains in my mind. \”Whose law and whose public interest are we talking about?\”

There is of course the \”law of the underworld,\” which appears to reign in Sarawak, Johor and nationwide, if the Malaysia Today allegations are true. Then there is the \”law of the mainstream Umno; which can raise the keris\’ and make racial comments without impunity.\” There is the unwritten law of the BN; although I am not sure who or what that is anymore. Then there is the law of the public services; like who gets promoted, transferred and demoted or sacked. There is the law of the people on the ground. There is the law of the jungle. There is the law of Rela. Finally there is the law of Jabatan Hal Ehwal Islam who can even go into the premises of two Indian restaurants and remove \”two different religious symbols, using Islamic interpretation of common law.\” Who and what defines public interest law in Malaysia?

When the former chairman of Tenaga Nasional Ahmad Tajuddin Ali resigned suddenly some time back, no one knew the real reasons. After some months though, the NST did a full page interview of the man who had served this nation excellently, regardless of where he was placed. In the interview, he answered one question with more or less the following words; \”Tenaga Nasional belongs to the people and not the government of the day.\”

To me, he was trying to define what public interest was in the case of this public institution. Too often, in Malaysia, especially over the last two decades, we have gotten used to the definition of national interest as if it is always public interest.

\’Executive state\’

Minister Dr Rais Yatim, in his doctoral dissertation called this nation an \”executive state.\” In fact, on the basis of such an argument; the federal public services amended the National Land Code to allow \”forcible acquisition of private land in national interest.\” But who then defines such national interest? In each state of the federation, it was often defined by the state government, or very often, single-handedly by the chief minister. And, as it is now well known, the abuses were aplenty and the federal government had then to further refine the law to \”better protect public interest.\” But, in the many other instances of the rest of federal, state and local governance in Malaysia, this question has not been adequately asked or answers proffered.

\"\"

I am not a personal fan of either Chia or Razak, although I know the latter as a casual friend. Chia became an object of study for me after he took over the leadership of Perwaja Steel under the Mahathir Administration. I am personally less interested with the financial aspects of Perwaja deals but instead the simple procedural aspects of how the steel plant in Gurun was built and the quality of leadership that was lauded and celebrated in those days. For the building of the Pewaja plant in Gurun, I have reason to believe that no plans were submitted and none was approved before the construction of the plant. The building was simply \”pushed through the system.\” Those were the days of \”a can-do kind of leadership style.\” Saying \”no it cannot be done because the due processes\” was not allowed for it may mean instant 24 hour transfer; as was evident in the famous case of a former civil servant in the Ministry of Finance.

And, unlike in Kemaman, where the district officer and president of the municipal council took the same company to court over non-compliance, in the Gurun case \”the Majlis Daerah Kuala Muda saw no wrong, heard no wrong and spoke no wrong.\” They closed both eyes to abject abandon of due processes. Anything really new happening here? For that matter, I remember the late Tun Abdul Razak personally \”transferring a senior PTD officer from Penang to Pahang\” by the simple stroke of his pen. Forget that all \”transfers of government officers are protected and preserved as the absolute right of the JPA and SPA.\” Maybe the now discredited Klang kingpins have all learnt these tricks by staying close to the Umno leadership all these years. Therefore, in the Klang Municipal Council case, the operative rule is also \”build first and then seek approval.\” Therefore who needs Minister Ong Ka Ting\’s rapid approval system to define the public interest for public services delivery?

So what is the real problem with such approvals or non-performance or poor performance of public interest duties in so many domains and spheres of public life? Is it not the unfortunate incompetence of the public services officers which is the core issue here? I have called this a kind of \”uninformed incompetence\” in some of my other writings; as the absolute inability to understand the rule of law and learning to respect it. It happens when one does not know (either chooses to ignore or not to know) the laws, rules and regulations and the related due processes but insists on doing a public service job one is not competent enough to do. Such workplace values are bordering on \”the idiotic and stupid.\” My specific criticism here applies to the DPP team in the Chia case. Pardon me, but they appear to be \”uninformed incompetents\” in terms of the due processes of laws and justice in this country.

AG should resign

Any Malaysian is innocent until proven guilty. That is our system of law. How then could such a prominent and senior citizen related case take so long only to be simply dismissed without even the defence witnesses being called? The judge decided that there was not even a case for the accused to be charged in court. Now, is that not reflective of the absolute incompetence of the Attorney General\’s Office? They would and should have studied the prima facie case before making the criminal charge against an otherwise innocent but prominent Malaysian of a fairly serious offence. What is insulting for the accused is that the main witness was never even called to make an appearance. How incredulous! What injustice in our so-called system of justice! Frankly, I think the AG should resign over such uninformed incompetence and the obvious miscarriage of injustice.

I can only sympathize and empathize with Chia and his family for the national system of injustice being applied selectively against him. I am sure that if he is put on the witness stand he can and will speak even more about his \”national service in the interest of the Umno-dominated government.\” He is therefore rightly angered about the destruction of his family relationships.

The government of the day (in the name of public interest) has wrongly ruined the life of one man who was a hero to them at one time and now reduced to being treated like a crook who never was; as it so appears now. What is wrong with our system of justice or is it not really our system of injustice? Or even more fundamentally, have we reached a stage of such political decadence in this nation that we cannot even differentiate public interest from national interest as particularly defined by the government of the day. Who then can and should define real public interest?

My \”Theory R\” suggests that in our state of federal constitutional governance, the Constitution defines and gives authority to the laws of the land. This then is what is \”Right\” in Malaysia. Of course, the many stakeholders and interested parties will always seek to interpret the laws towards their interpretive interest and bias; as we found out in the Lina Joy case. But, if the Public Services of Malaysia (as sworn to allegiance to the King and to uphold the Constitution in Malaysia) understand their role and respect their oath of allegiance; they can help define what this pre-defined public interest is, as encapsulated in the Constitution of 50 years.

There are also due processes which have been defined by Constitutional Law; simply follow the law of the land and try not to be beholden to any specific political party of the day. In Malaysia though, our public service culture today appears to be to uphold only national interest as defined by the elected government of the day. That is not the concept of political neutrality; it appears like blind political compliance. Nonetheless, such compliance must always be related to adherence to the laws of the land! Theory R would suggest that we must know the right things based on law; then we have to do the right thing as advised by law and finally we must do it with the right attitude; as our conscience dictates us. When one is in the public services, I think the dictum set by our former lord president the late Tun Mohamed Suffian, still holds:

\”In a multi-racial and multi-religious society like yours and mine, while we judges cannot help being Malay or Chinese or Indian; or being Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever, we strive not to be too identified with any particular race or religion – so that nobody reading our judgment with our name deleted could with confidence identify our race or religion, and so that the various communities, especially minority communities, are assured that we will not allow their rights to be trampled underfoot.\”

God Bless Malaysia as seek to celebrate 50 years of the right independence.