Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to function as the legislature has not committed contempt of court

Is sworn silence the answer?

PM Najib have lost all sensitivity to shame and seem so incapicitated in restoring honor and dignity. And to bout it all, there are people willing to dig in deep to profiteer along the wayside result will be the creeping rise of a bureaucratic state which, as history teaches us, privileges efficiency over accountability, stealth over transparency, decisiveness over debate. We have reached a point where the battle to split the nation is so deeply wedged that it appears that the future is bleak.

 Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to function as legislature  in this context of parliamentary retreat from its core province of lawmaking, while it is tempting to accuse the government of bypassing norms of parliamentary democracy in pushing through ordinances, the boot might equally be on the other foot. Governance by ordinance is symptomatic of the changing nature of separation of powers in Malaysia, with an alternately disruptive and pliant Parliament playing into the hands of an assertive executive.It is important to keep in mind http://lawmattersjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/ is not advocating removal of checks and balances is making a case for “balance of checks.”Here’s where Miles’s law comes into the picture. If one isn’t a part of the government, a line of argument can be that a government without adequate capability could well abuse power out of sheer incompetence and not just malevolence. Therefore, it needs a tighter layer of checks and balances to protect democracy.The balance of checks will, therefore, be influenced by where you sit.Najib This is not to say that Naib does not make sense. Perhaps, a stint in the government exposes people to experiences that makes them wary of a theoretical ideal. However, if one is not a part of the government, argument does not sound convincing.will likely stir a fair bit of debate

Introspection will take us back to the beginning. Betrayal is impossible without trust. We did not trust Najib to be honest. We trusted our political class, and it continues to search for new and inventive ways to betray us again.A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. When  political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda and, former police commando Sirul Azhar Umar' was smuggled out to safety, the authority of state abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over years of UMNO rule; this central truth has not.
On democracy, inclusion and prosperity raises an interesting question on the extent to which instruments which enforce rule of law in Malaysia should be used to check the state from abusing power. Very likely the answer would be influenced by Miles’s law: “where you stand depends on where you sit. government’s capacity to deliver lags that of institutions such as judiciary and media which are meant to check government excess.The media was told not to cover or write about the talk tonight by senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah at Permatang Pauh, the constituency of jailed Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. This is in contrast to what happened to the historical experience of other countries where “strong government” emerged before institutions that check their excess.’s challenges with government’s capacity, or lack of it,reluctant to submit itself to judicial oversight.  about inadequate capacity in government encompasses not just Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, but also others. The government does seem to hold institutions such as judiciary and media, to cite two examples, in higher esteem than their performance would warrant. However, for the moment let’s assume the state does lag in capability when compared to other institutions that enforce rule of law. If that is the case, can there be a convincing argument to give it a little more space when it comes to designing checks and balances?

Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee characterize as not dependent s committed contempt of court by disclosing the court’s in camera evidence to the public.The conviction of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy last week has continued to raise doubt over Malaysia’s judicial independence, it was “impossible” to rule out collusion.the Federal Court ruling in Anwar’s case regressive, and said it suggested Putrajaya was applying questionable laws to see off political rivals.“With the jailing of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim last week, Malaysia appears to have again resorted to dubious law to eliminate political challenges... whether at the government’s instigation, or acting on its own initiative,  the judges were entirely judicially impartial,Malaysia’s highest court trod a regressive line on Mr Anwar’s case,”the manner with which the trial was conducted lacked credibility and left a bad impression on Malaysia y acted independently to rid the government of a vocal critic.“In any case, the nature of the so-called crime and the hounding of Mr Anwar over the years has stained Malaysia’s reputation,” it added.This is contrary to the default rule in the common law world, Putrajaya would have no qualms resorting to heavy-handed tactics to preserve the status quo after the opposition made significant gains in the past two elections.“A challenge to the government has been quashed. Yet the government insists the judges determined Mr Anwar’s guilt with no political interference and the independence of the judiciary was in no way compromised,our national reputation and dignity is being raped by our own politicians. Our freedom to bring about positive change is being punished by the law enforcers. Our democratic responsibility to enquire about the sex, murder and money trails is sinking real fast.

When first world outrage meets third world reality, what we get is a surfeit of legislation and a spiraling deficit of justice. We can enact all the laws we want, but in a country where very few interactions with the forces of administration occur without needing force or inducement the law on paper not only becomes ineffective, but it often turns into an instrument of exploitation. We seek minute perfection at the top, but make do with routine injustice at the bottom, and react only when the injustice turns horrific, preferably in a large metro town involving someone from the educated middle class. The disinterest in fixing the realities on the ground means that every new incident that displeases us, creates fresh outrage and new acts of tokenism. The cycle is seemingly never-ending, and hopes that someday, the realization will dawn that nothing has really changed, have so far been belied.

When a problem occurs, an administrative tantrum is thrown. This could take the form of banning something, increasing the paperwork involved in getting permission, making regulations more stringent, or as in the case of airports, making people go through the same checks many number of times. Regulations in India are often a bribe paid to the system to make it work better. When the intent of extra rules or regulations is to try and ensure that work that should have got done in the normal course of affairs gets done then we have a case of redundancy that has been built into the system.

In many ways, this is the single biggest problem that the country- its inability to translate legislative intent into delivered reality. Without fixing this, political will, elusive as it is in any case, counts for little.

Over the last few years, we have seen the gradual emergence of the idea of citizenry. As we transition from locating ourselves in a social matrix to a more civic one, we start depending much more on the rule of law. The ability of societal mechanisms to provide order, and to create a sense of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable is rapidly diminishing. The societal interdependencies begin to play a less significant role, and the responsibilities shift to more secular structures like the state.

Traffic, for instance needs a system of rules, monitoring and punishment that needs to work. The smooth flow of traffic depends, among other things on knowing that others will follow rules and will get punished in case they don’t. When this does not happen, or happens sporadically, every individual needs to fend for himself and use every means available to make his way. This is what is happening not only in traffic but also in most other walks of life.

A rule of law is not about creating the best legislation, but it is about creating a sense of predictable order. It comes from people knowing that there is a discernible relationship between action and consequence and that there is a price to pay for crossing boundaries that have been set. When things work as they are meant to, in an everyday unglamorous way. Where getting routine tasks accomplished is an act that is truly routine, and not a heroic endeavor. An environment of certainty needs the uneventful discharge of everyday responsibilities by those charged with these roles.

But as the latest incident involving an IPS officer in Punjab who has been transferred for daring to challan a judge for a parking violation demonstrates, far from pushing people to do their jobs, today there is a chance that they can be punished for doing that they are supposed to.

Today, bail is denied frequently as a way of frontloading punishment- here too the system compensates for its own inefficiencies by creating an alternative form of punishment. In an attempt to make a difference, the judiciary ends up subverting what should be its primary concern- delivering outcomes that are not swayed by any considerations external to the statutes laid down by law. If the law itself becomes malleable enough to be deployed with increasing amounts of discretion, then an air of great uncertainty gets created. Today, no business, for instance knows what judgment will come next and who will be made answerable, often for actions that go back decades.

Watchdogs that seek to keep an eye on the exercise of power either get compromised, or like the courts, overcompensate creating a greater sense of uncertainty. Activists press for more legislation to plug the gaps that exist in the delivery of justice, and the media wants instant and visible action to be taken, which results in more meaningless action. In a system where the instrument of delivery of administrative actions is deeply flawed, all attempts at improvement from above end up providing more ways in which extractive exploitation can take place.

The fact that this regime is in power because of the promises they have made to provide better governance is a good sign for it puts pressure on the system to make a visible difference. Thei government has embarked on an ambitious project- the attempt is to move from a mental model of governance being about dispensing resources to one that actively seeks outcomes, but this needs an ability to convert programmes into measurable and repeatable actions on the ground. This will need a dramatic overhaul of the administrative infrastructure, and its understanding of the nature of power. It might be relatively easier to ring in the big changes, but the real challenge might lie in making a palpable difference in the everyday experience of governance. Boring, predictable governance is the need of the hour but to deliver that what we need are sweeping administrative reforms. Other more glamorous reforms will be rendered meaningless without fixing the nuts and bolts of governance.

It may be from the horse's mouth Probe, IGP!

read more Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda and, commando Sirul Azhar Umar' was smuggled out to safety,