God gave man two eyes, two ears, and one mouth. Why? He wants us to seek and see truth; hear and understand truth; and therefore seek and speak the truth; without fear or favor. Our seeing and hearing must also be stronger than our speaking. And, in that context too, we should only really fear God Almighty, and never mere man, when we speak!
Within such a context of human ABSOLUTE TRUTH, I find it disturbing that the cause of the \”close-one-eye MP is now being rallied by other backbencher Members of Parliament!\” But first, the facts of the original episode.
That particular MP started by telling a half-truth; then he tried covering the real truth, then modified even the half truth; and finally acknowledged the truth that he asked the Customs Department to close one eye for his own business interests. If that episode was being heard in a court of law, I believe, he may have been guilty of applying undue pressure to get a decision in his own favor.
I believe the former DPM was even charged over such an issue. I will even call it bribery (via threats or blackmail) or corruption (via undue influence). But, alas, it appears that our members of parliament believe that they can speak with both immunity and impunity; without recourse for the ordinary citizen who elected them! My article seeks only to remind the MPs that in the court of public opinion a lie is a lie; and truth will find you out, some day. Since three years are almost gone, that year of re-reckoning will arrive soon enough!
And, as if one lie was not bad enough, the same MP again goes on to send an SMS to the Customs Head of the jurisdiction, \”applying undue pressure again in favor of his business interests.\” Initially, he even lied that he sent the short messaging text. Then, slowly but surely, he tells the real truth but then tries to \”cover-up\”, by claiming that he was sending it to a long term friend; but the problem is that the same \”friend\” was the one who reported the matter to the press.
This close one-eye episode can easily become a \”popular soap opera movie\” if some one cares to make such a movie called \”one-eyed truth in Malaysia\”. Maybe, unlike the truth of Sepet, it might even make some popular viewing among our backbencher government MPs.
Height of ignorance
Then, even more recently, to add further insult to injury, the same backbenchers in parliament decided to \”reprimand the former Chief Secretary to the Government\” that he should not question their immunity, when it was reported that the cabinet secretary, who holds the rank of a cabinet minister, was going to discuss the matter with the Attorney General!
The epitome of such arrogance was when the same MPs repeated the \”threat\” to the new and incoming Chief Secretary Mohd Sidek Hassan, again last week!
This to me is the height of both ignorance and arrogance of these \”unknowing MPs\”. The Cabinet Secretary is the ex-officio secretary to the cabinet. He is also the head of the entire public services of this nation, whose ultimate head is the Yang Di Pertuan Agong. No other civil or public servant holds a more important and significant portfolio in our British system of parliamentary governance.
And that issue even led my good friend Dr Ismail Noor to write a letter to the Editor in the NST of Sept 7,2006, regarding this issue as well. As secretary to the cabinet of ministers, the Chief Secretary is fully trusted to ensure the proper administration and governance of the nation, and all its institutions; not just the public service.
In the public service, he is head of the so-called team of neutral and executive agents and agencies in many executive schemes and services. The Customs Department and especially the officer who reported the \”undue influence\”, are an equal and integral part of this neutral public service.
It was well within the dignity, honor, and responsibility of the chief public servant to protect them from the \’marauding of unethical individuals\’ who are only interested in their own and personal wellbeing, often even at the expense of the public interest or the public good! It makes little difference that these are MPs; after all they are only legislators and not executors of public policy.
To me the former Chief Secretary did right to take sides with his Customs officer and I would urge the new and current one KSN to actually table a paper in cabinet requesting these backbencher government MPs to \”not lie in Parliament, and especially work hard to uphold the integrity and dignity of the institution of the Parliament, as per the PM\’s promise to the people of this nation.\”
Parliamentarians are never elected to serve their own interests; and if they cannot serve the public interest, they should either resign or be asked to resign. At a minimum, they should be disciplined by the government whip.
The police too?
But what is even worse is that I now believe that the above issue of the \”close-one-eye culture\” is even more serious than it appears on the surface. Now, the Royal Malaysian Police have \”officially suggested that they too can close-one-eye to wrong doing.\” And, rightly so, the minister of transport and the cabinet are aghast!
Let me review how \”nonsensical\” the police proposal appears in the head and heart of this retired public servant; who used to take PTD officers to the Police College to be trained in the principle of the rule of law and law enforcement in Malaysia.
The job of the Royal Malaysian Police Force is to help the civil government maintain the internal security and peace in the nation. One major area of such \”peace maintenance\” is on the roads (whether Federal, State or Local) of the Federation. They are therefore a federal department under the jurisdiction of a federal minister.
But, the rule of law principle of the nation defines that we are a nation driven and administered by both written rules and codified regulations. The duty of the police force is only to enforce the laws but they DO NOT HAVE jurisdiction to adjudicate the offence. They issue the summons on behalf of the federal government based on the rules and regulations. If the \”accused does not comply with the laws\” they can only refer the case to the Attorney General\’s Chambers for the public prosecutor to take the matter to court.
Moreover, the issue of adjudication of rates may even belong to the cabinet colleague and minister of transport who is responsible for the roads administration.
The only probable exception to such \”enforcement\” is the system of compounding of a fine for an offence which does take place; whereby to shorten the judicial due process, and this too only if the \”traffic rules offender\” agrees that he has done something wrong. Then, the senior police officer with the relevant authority is authorised to \”settle the case\” based on the plea of guilt and a plea of leniency by the offender.
The importance of the public service
Even in this specific exception, the police force has no discretion other than as provided by the law.
Therefore, to make this \”system of compounding of an offence into a plea bargaining tool and to negotiate it as a large-scale settlement policy\” is not only a lack of respect for the rule of law principle but is further evidence that we are becoming a rule by law state!
Therefore, my conclusion on this issue and to avoid our growing culture of one-eyed jurisdiction, may I ask the Chief Secretary to go ahead and follow-up with this serious matter with AG as to how the public services can respect the rule of law principle without slowly becoming a \”rule by law\” system of governance.
For that matter, maybe all your other cabinet colleagues should be encouraged to read a book by the Dean of the Harvard Law School, Philip K. Howard entitled, \” The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America \”.
Furthermore, maybe the KSN should also coordinate a meeting once every three months or so, wherein all CEOs of the different government agencies can meet up with the PM and relevant members of the cabinet to review \”how we can improve the governance of the nation based on rules and regulations rather than the rule by law which seems to prevail.
Integral to such good governance is also the separation of powers between the judiciary, as adjudicator; the executive as executor, and the parliament as the law makers. Some would argue, as did John Rohr, that to \”run a constitution\” you need the public services to function as a neutral fourth party of good governance.
