Najib's and BN's commitment to anti-corruption question - looking back at Eric Chia and Kasitah Kadam's judgments

Our Prime Minister Najib and the BN government over the years have been trying to convince us that they are anti-corruption, and will act against corruption and other mal-practices. Alas, it is sad that only the 'small crooks' have been targetted - not the big crooks. 

Even, if the 'big boys' are arrested, charged and tried - the government still will do the needful to ensure that they are acquitted. Prosecution sometimes just fail to present a strong case - sometimes even by not calling important witnesses, that should have been called, and hence leaving judges no choice but to acquit. Remember, once a person is charged and acquitted, he/she cannot be charged again for the same offence.

We really need laws to ensure that we can take and charge persons vested with powers to court for their actions (inaction) that was deliberate or negligent that undermined the law and/or the good of the nations. Prime Ministers who signed agreements or did things detrimental to the law, rights and justice. We need the ability to be able to charge former PMs, Ministers, Director Generals, Auditor Generals, etc -- and they should never be given immunity by reason of the fact that these were done while they held a particular office. Prosecutors who failed to call important witnesses...who failed to present a proper case... so persons charged get acquitted by reason of their actions/omissions and/or gross negligence should also be liable to the people they serve.

Remember Eric Chia and Kasitah Kadam - both were acquitted because prosecution failed to call material witnesses.

The Eric Chia case...

In his 30-page oral judgment, he went on to fault the prosecution in every aspect of the case, from the way the main charge and alternative charge were proffered right to the tendering of documents, and its failure to call crucial witnesses.

Akhtar said the most glaring setback was the prosecution’s failure to call two material witnesses, who would have been able to confirm whether payment was needed for the technical assistance agreements (TAA) signed between Perwaja Rolling Mill Development and NKK Corporation.

He said former Perwaja company secretary R.R. Durai Rajasingam, who was involved in all Perwaja’s contracts, would have known the actual contents of the TAA.

“Yet the prosecution never called him. The question is why? I see nothing to say that he would be a hostile witness or give evidence against them.”

The judge also questioned the prosecution’s reluctance to call the five Japanese witnesses, including NKK Corporation, Japan, director N. Otani, who was present at the signing of the TAA in Japan in 1993.

“I wonder whether it was the Japanese witnesses who were reluctant or the prosecution was the one reluctant to bring them here,” he said.

Akhtar also said the prosecution’s contention that the TAA was free fell flat in its face when tendering its documents at the trial as they clearly stated that the agreements would be effective upon receiving first payment.

Another document by NKK Corporation not only requested for the payment to be in a lump sum but also stated the amount.

He said the prosecution failed to lead any evidence to show fabrication of that document, which it contended.- Star, 27/6/2007, Eric Chia acquitted of CBT

Now, see the similarities in the Kasitah Gaddam's case...

Former land and cooperative development minister Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam was acquitted and discharged by the High Court here of committing corrupt practice and cheating involving shares belonging to the Sabah Land Development Board (SLDB) in 1996.

Judge Justice Suraya Othman ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case on both charges for the court to call Kasitah to enter his defence.

“The essential ingredients of both the offences of corrupt practice and cheating were not made out on the facts before the court. In the circumstances, the accused stands acquitted and discharged of both the charges against him,” Suraya said in her 74-page judgment.

Kasitah, 62, was the first Cabinet member to be charged with such crimes....

.

,,,,Kasitah had claimed trial to using his position as SLDB chairman for his financial gain by taking part in the decision to approve a proposal to sell 16.8 million shares held by the board in Sapi Plantations Sdn Bhd to Briskmark Enterprise Sdn Bhd, where he was promised 3.36 million shares in Sapi Plantations on Oct 22, 1996.

On the second charge, Kasitah was alleged to have cheated the SLDB board members by omitting to disclose the offer by PPB Oil Palms Sdn Bhd to allocate five shares of the company for each share of Sapi Plantations in the proposal by company for listing on the KLSE.

He thereby dishonestly induced them to approve the sale of 16.8 million shares held by SLDB in Sapi Plantations to Briskmark Enterprise whereas they would not have approved the sale if they had known about the offer by PPB Oil Palms.

Justice Suraya said the failure of the prosecution in not calling six board members who were present in the meeting was detrimental to the case as it had created a big gap over the question of whether the board members were actually cheated by the accused.

She also said that evidence by lawyer cum board member Catherine Yong was very damaging as she did not indicate that Kasitah had misused his position or influence her or other board members during the meeting.

Besides that, the judge said there was no element of inducement on the part of Kasitah to the board members.- Star, 13/8/2009, Kasitah freed of corruption charges

When you do not have sufficient evidence and necessary witnesses, you must never charge a person in court. And, if you fail to convict, then it is time for Malaysia a law that requires the government to pay COMPENSATION to accussed persons - to compensate their loss of liberty, their costs, etc... 

When it comes to material witnesses, it is normal practice to first record a statement by the witness usually under oath - so, even if there is a sudden change of testimony when he is called, that witness can be challenged with reference to the earlier statements  given. Such witnesses could also be charged in court...

Witness can be summoned through the issuance of subpoenas (court orders) and a failure to comply with the said order can give rise to contempt proceedings taken against such witnesses...

So, why was there a failure to call material witnesses? Was there some order...or some other intervening factor at play that wanted the said accused persons acquitted? Or was it just incompetence, negligence or inexperience on the part of the assigned prosecutors? All we can do is speculate...

See also earlier post:

Kasitah Gaddam & Eric Chia - Prosecution's failure to call witnesses - Was it just incompetence OR....?

Is it all an 'image rectification' exercise by MACC and the BN government?

Malaysian government is finally acting against corruption and graft... (Or are they)?

But alas, it is not the 'big crooks' that get charged, only the smaller unknowns especially when it comes to those from the BN.

During the tenure of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, 2 'medium-sized' characters were charged, an UMNO Senator , i.e. the Land and Cooperative Development Minister, Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam......, and an aging business tycoon, Tan Sri Eric Chia Eng Hock.

There was a big show in charging them, but do you know what happened to these cases? They were both acquitted. Why?

Well, based on newspaper reports, "In both cases, it was as if the prosecution was not interested in ensuring that they be found guilty - and they failed to call important crucial witnesses, hence sabotaging their own case. Is this also not 'corruption'?". See earlier blog posting, that also has the 2 newspaper reports, which clearly showed the reasons for the acquital.Kasitah Gaddam & Eric Chia - Prosecution's failure to call witnesses - Was it just incompetence OR....?

Thus, I am not at all convinced that there is serious political will to eradicate corruption in Malaysia. MACC, please prove me wrong.

There also is that 'double standards' when it comes with dealing with corruption. For example, why were those found guilty of money politics (or corruption) in UMNO never charged in court. See earlier post:-'Corruption' and Discrimination in UMNO - Has the report to MACC against Ali Rustam (and KJ) been made?

Many policemen and public servants are also dealt with through internal disiplinary mechanisms, and not charged in court - Why? See earlier post: Arrest, charge and try 'dirty cops' in the same way as other persons in Malaysia. Art 8 - Equality and Equal Protection of the Law should apply to ALL

Some say that sudden activity by MACC on cracking down corruption, is just an image cleansing exercise by MACC and the BN government. Teoh Beng Hock's death has affected the image of the MACC for sure.

We must fight corruption - and we need an independent body to do that work. The MACC should be investigating the big boys as well, and that would include our Prime Minister as well, as there have been allegations of corruption made against him as well.

With regard the Opposition and/or the Pakatan Rakyat, you must also fully cooperate with the MACC and the police when they are investigating reports lodged against your members, MPs and ADUNs. Do not hinder investigations on the basis of the belief that the BN government is targeting the opposition. If you do not cooperate, then will you still have the moral credibility to point fingers at the BN and its cronies? Hence, if there is corruption within the party, take the immediate step to report it, so that proper investigations could be conducted. Do not be like UMNO - who just like to keep it an internal, away from the police and the MACC.

The credibility of the MACC is also in question when BN MPs and ADUNs get arrested and charged for corruption. Did you not give a 'clean bill of health' to these persons just before the elections. By the way, that is NOT the role of the MACC (or the ACA). Do not waste time investigating election candidates at the request of their party. Investigate the reports of corruption only.

Have things changed in Malaysia? Has the government of the day finally decided to fight corruption at ALL levels? I w0nder...

SHAH ALAM: Six people were charged in various Sessions Courts here for misappropriation of funds, criminal breach of trust, false claims and misrepresentation.

Among those charged by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Com­mission (MACC) was Sabak Bernam’s Barisan Nasional MP Abdul Rahman Bakri, who faces eight counts of making claims of RM10,000 each for events that never took place.

He was accused of having committed the offences when he was the Sg Air Tawar assemblyman prior to the 2008 general election.

Abdul Rahman, who claimed trial to all the charges, was charged under Section 11 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

If found guilty, he can be jailed between six months and 20 years, and fined not less than five times the sum or value of the gratification or RM10, 000, whichever is higher, for each charge.

In the dock: (From left clockwise) Abdul Rahman, Yap, Wong, Mohd Rosli, Firdaus and Yahaya.

The commission’s legal affairs and prosecution chief, Datuk Abdul Razak Musa, told judge Syafeera Mohd Said that the anti-graft agency offered Abdul Rahman bail of RM30,000.

However, Abdul Rahman’s counsel Datuk Salehuddin Saidin asked for bail to be set at RM8,000 and said a high amount would only burden his client, who was innocent until proven guilty.

Syafeera rejected Salehuddin’s request, set bail at RM30,000 and fixed Dec 14 for mention of the case, and April 26 to May 7 next year for the trial.

A group of eight Barisan MPs turned up at the court to lend Abdul Rahman moral support, including Tenggara MP Datuk Halimah Mohd Sadique, Parit Sulong MP Datuk Noraini Ahmad and Silam MP Salleh Kalbi.

Abdul Rahman’s aide, Mohd Rosli Busro, was charged at another Sessions Court on eight counts of abetting his boss.

Mohd Rosli claimed trial and judge Mat Ghani Abdullah fixed bail at RM9,000 with one surety, and set April 26 to May 7, 2010 for his trial.

Also charged at Mat Ghani’s court was former Teratai assemblyman Yap Soo Sun, who faced seven charges of making false claims for events that never took place.

Yap claimed trial and Mat Ghani set bail at RM25,000 with one surety as well as fixed May 3 to May 7 next year for the trial.

At Syafeera’s court earlier, Yap’s aide Firdaus Abu Zarin was also slapped with seven charges of abetting Yap by providing fake documentation for him to make the bogus claims.

She set bail at RM8,000 with one surety. Both Yap and Firdaus, who were also charged under Section 11 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, will be tried together.

Also in the dock was Selangor exco member Ronnie Liu’s special assistant Wong Chuan How, who was charged in Syafeera’s court for two counts of misappropriating funds.

He was accused of fraudulently submitting a claim of RM2,500 to the Sepang District Council for the purchase of mini-flags that were never delivered.

He was also charged for committing criminal breach of trust involving a cheque amounting RM5,000.

Syafeera set bail at RM5,000 and fixed March 29 to April 2 for Wong’s case to be heard.

He was charged under Section 11 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 for the first offence and Section 406 of the Penal Code for the second offence.

Earlier, Wong’s counsel Salim Bashir asked the court to set a lower bail as the accused was middle-aged and had health problems.

Later in the day, Wong was taken to Mat Ghani’s court where he was charged under Section 406 of the Penal Code for criminal breach of trust involving another cheque amounting RM2,500.

He also faced an alternative charge of misusing the cheque under Section 403 of the same code.

Mat Ghani also set bail at RM5,000 with one surety and fixed March 8 to 12 next year as trial date.

Wong claimed trial to all three charges.

Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s former aide Yahaya Saari was also charged at Syafeera’s court for misleading Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Bhd chairman Datuk Abd Karim Munisar into giving him RM50,000 to organise an event to celebrate Pakatan Rakyat’s 100 days in office.

He was also charged for using fake documents to open a bank account for PKR.

Yahaya, who was charged under Section 420 of the Penal Code for the first offence and Section 471 of the Penal Code for the second offence, claimed trial and the court fixed bail at RM10,000 and set April 19 to 23, next year, for the trial.

If found guilty, Yahaya faces a jail term of up to 10 years, whipping and a fine for the first offence and a maximum of two years’ jail or a fine or both under Section 465 of the same code for the second offence. - Star, 4/11/2009, Sabak Bernam MP and five others charged with graft

Arrest, charge and try 'dirty cops' in the same way as other persons in Malaysia. Art 8 - Equality and Equal Protection of the Law should apply to ALL

Like UMNO, it seems that the Malaysian police is also above the law....maybe not the correct phrase. It seems that the law for every other person just do not apply to the Malaysian police.

When there is evidence of them being corrupt, they may not get arrested, detained, charged in court, tried and sentenced if found guilty. (Apparently, there is a 'secret' procedure that takes place and if found 'guilty', they only get warned, fined, sacked...and if there is insufficient evidence, they just get sacked..is this not a violation of the Federal Constitution - Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law). I say secret because the public may not be aware of the fact that this or that 'corrupt' cop is being investigated and what happens... The 'secrecy' also may not serve as a deterrent ...or as motivation for others to provide evidence/complaints about other corrupt cops.

I am still waiting for the police (or MACC) to charge that UMNO big-wig who was found 'guilty' of money politics (i.e. corruption, in my books), so guilty that he was disallowed from continuing his quest to become a top leader of UMNO....

There is less corruption in the police force now, said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission statistics from 2000 to May 2009 made available to the New Sunday Times show that in the last three years, arrests of policemen by the MACC decreased from 158 in 2006 to 117 last year.

In the first five months of this year, only 46 arrests have been made. In the last 10 years, 942 policemen were arrested. Of the number, 225 have been charged, and 250 are awaiting charges.

In addition, 227 policemen, who could not be taken to court due to insufficient evidence, were referred to the police disciplinary division and sacked.

There was a dramatic peak in 2006, with 158 arrests, up from 56 the previous year.

“In 2006 it went up because at that time I encouraged whistle-blowers,” said Musa, whose contract has been renewed for one year from Sept 13.

Up till then, the arrest figures had been declining. But after 2006, the number fell again.

He said the second decline was due to a drop in corruption among policemen.

“There are black sheep in any organisation, but we don’t want bad hats in the force. We want to clean our house.”

However, corruption is but one element of a lack of integrity.

From 2002 to May this year 2009, there were 7,157 cases of disciplinary offences involving policemen.

A total of 3,300 of these concerned insubordination and irresponsibility accounted for 2,126 cases.

More serious offences like subordinating public duty to private interest and using public position for personal interest were fewer in number (24 and 115 respectively).

Of these, 7,157 cases that went up to the disciplinary division, 7,136 have been dealt with.

A total of 3,600 policemen were warned, 2,305 fined, and 440 sacked.

The remainder received penalties ranging from forfeiture of emoluments to a reduction in rank. Only 217 were absolved of wrongdoing.

Former Transparency International Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said:of the figures, “Statistics are statistics. It’s a question of interpretation.

“Even if the statistics show an improvement, the public’s perception has not improved.

“Although it takes two hands to clap, the people in authority have got to exercise greater integrity because they hold the public’s trust.”

The adviser to the Selangor Crime Prevention Foundation said: said the people’s perception of the police being selective in nature did not help bolster build up the image of public confidence in them.

“Sometimes, the police take very heavy-handed action; sometimes they take only light action and sometimes they just stand by watching and do nothing.”

He said with the extension to the IGP’s contract, Musa hads the “golden opportunity to be tough and crack the whip”.

“I hope Musa will be able to give the final blow to knocking down the crime rate.”

He said to show their commitment to keeping a clean police force, all top police officers should declare their assets and liabilities every year.

The declaration should either be done publicly , or confidentially to a body of eminent persons.

Further declarations should also be made as and when an officer acquired an asset or liability.

“The best way to get the ball rolling is for the IGP himself to come out and declare his assets and liabilities.,” said Navaratnam.

“If subordinates know their leader is tolerates ant of corruption, they will take the risk of being corrupt.

“But if the subordinates know their leader is intolerant of corruption, they will not dare to be corrupt.” - New Straits Times, 6/9/2009, ‘Dirty’ cops feel the heat

US Senate beat Malaysia in acting on the 'corruption and refugee' allegations

There are many refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia today - FACT.

These refugees come mainly from Burma (Myanmar), Southern Thailand, Southern Philippines,...

Refugees normally just run for their life and liberty, and this means that many would have not left their country 'legally' or entered Malaysia "legally". Most will not even have passports.

How many refugees are there? Between 100,000 to 400,000...we really do not know.

Malaysia treats many of these refugees as undocumented migrant workers - but really they are not. They are refugees and asylum seekers, and they should be seen as such.

Remember Malaysia has 2.4 million documented migrant workers [and maybe another 3-5 million undocumented migrants]

The problem today is the UNHCR - who only registers refugees, and let them go. Where would they get money for food and board? Where would they stay? With the Vietnamese refugees in the 70s and 80s, there were UNHCR Refugee Camps where the refugees stay until they are sent to a third country...(or until they were sent back to Vietnam...)

UNHCR controls the branding of persons who are refugees - but alas, they too have their prejudices and politics.

I believe that the Malaysian Government should take on the role of giving recognition as refugees/asylum seekers. In fact, State Governments can also do so - maybe Pakatan Rakyat should start...

Of late, over and above the hardships that these migrants suffer - there was news about Malaysian officials involved in asking for money, and if not they will be 'sold' like slaves...Allegations have been made sometime ago - but alas, Malaysia have been slow to act, to investigate, to act against those errant officers, and put a stop to it.

Shame - shame Malaysia - for some US Senate Committee have looked into it before us - and have released a damning report...

It should have been SUHAKAM, some Parliamentary Select Committee, some Commission of Inquiry in Malaysia ....

Malaysia must now look into this and act against the perpetrators ...(but we may be hoping for too much, for Najib just appointed person/s found guilty for 'corruption' or corrupt practice into the UMNO Supreme Council. So serious was the wrong that the Disciplinary Committee did not stop at a stern warning but barred him from contesting for the No.2 post in UMNO.)

Appointed Supreme Council members:

- Datuk Kamilia Ibrahim (Wanita)

- Datuk Razali Ibrahim (Youth)

- Dr Wan Norashikin Wan Nordin (Puteri)

- Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim

- Datuk Seri Nazri Abd Aziz

- Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom

- Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin

- Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam

- Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz

- Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman

- Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim - Star, 24/4/2009, Umno to hold special assembly to amend constitution

So, is Malaysia capable of doing anything with regard to this issue...

WASHINGTON, Apr 23 (IPS) - The mistreatment of Burmese migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia is the focus of a report released Thursday by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

After receiving disturbing reports of trafficking in 2007, committee staff conducted a year-long review of the allegations. The report, "Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand," is based on first person accounts of extortion and trafficking in Malaysia and along the Malaysia-Thailand border. Committee information comes from experiences of Burmese refugees resettled in the United States and other countries.

Many Burmese migrants, escaping extensive human rights abuses perpetrated by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and the Burmese military junta, travel to Malaysia to register with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), for resettlement to a third country, according to the report.

Once in Malaysia, Burmese migrants are often arrested by Malaysian authorities, whether or not they have registered with the UNHCR and have identification papers. Burmese migrants are reportedly taken by Malaysian government personnel from detention facilities to the Malaysia-Thailand border for deportation.

Upon arrival at the Malaysia-Thailand border, human traffickers reportedly take possession of the migrants and issue ransom demands on an individual basis. Migrants state that freedom is possible only once money demands are met. Specific payment procedures are outlined, which reportedly include bank accounts in Kuala Lumpur to which money should be transferred.

It has become commonplace for the authorities to use the vigilante RELA force to periodically arrest and "deport" Rohingyas, a Muslim minority, but since Burma does not recognise them as citizens, the practise is to take them to the Bukit Kayu Hitam area on the Thai-Malaysia border and force them to cross over into Thailand.

Migrants state that those unable to pay are turned over to human peddlers in Thailand, representing a variety of business interests from fishing boats to brothels.

Human rights activists have long charged that immigration, police and other enforcement officials, have been "trading" Rohingyas to human traffickers in Thailand who then pass them on to deep sea fishing trawler operators in the South China Sea.

"People seeking refuge from oppression in Burma are being abused by Malaysian government officials and human traffickers," said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

The committee has received numerous reports of sexual assaults against Burmese women by human traffickers along the border. One non-profit organisation official states that "Most young women deported to the Thai border are sexually abused, even in front of their husbands, by the syndicates, since no one dares to intervene as they would be shot or stabbed to death in the jungle." Women are generally sold into the sex industry.

"(The Burmese refugees) are treated as a commodity and frequently bought and sold and we have been condemning this practise for a long time," Irene Fernandez, executive director of Tenaganita, a non-profit group that protects migrant workers, told IPS in January. "Our demands have always fallen on deaf ears despite the accumulating evidence of the involvement of uniformed officials in the trade."

The report, the first of three, states that Malaysia does not officially recognise refugees, due in part to concern by the government that official recognition of refugees would encourage more people to enter Malaysia, primarily for economic reasons. Also, Malaysian officials view migrants as a threat to Malaysia’s national security.

"Malaysia does not recognise key international agreements on the protection of refugees and foreign nationals. Nor does it apply to foreign migrants the same rights and legal protections given to Malaysian citizens," Fernandez said.

Foreign labor is an integral building block of Malaysia’s upward economic mobility. While Malaysia’s total workforce is 11.3 million, there are approximately 2.1 million legal foreign workers and an additional one million illegal workers, though no accurate information is available.

While Malaysia accepts the presence of Burmese and others from outside of the country for the purpose of contributing to the work force, persons identified as refugees and asylum seekers on their way to a third country are viewed as threats to national security.

In an interview with The New York Times, RELA’s director-general, Zaidon Asmuni, said, "We have no more Communists at the moment, but we are now facing illegal immigrants. As you know, in Malaysia, illegal immigrants are enemy No. 2."

Many of the approximately 40,000 Burmese refugees who have resettled in the United States since 1995 have come via Malaysia.

In August 2008, committee staff met separately with officials in Malaysia’s immigration department and the prime minister’s office, to convey the committee’s concern regarding the extortion and trafficking allegations. Immigration Director-General Datuk Mahmood Bin Adam and long-time immigration enforcement official Datuk Ishak Haji Mohammed denied the allegations of mistreatment against Burmese migrants at the hands of immigration and other Malaysian officials.

As reported recently in the Malaysia Star, "Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar also denied claims that thousands of illegal foreigners held at detention centres were 'being sold off' to human trafficking syndicates. ‘I take offence with the allegation because neither the Malaysian Government nor its officials make money by selling people.’"

However, according to the report, on Apr. 1, 2009, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan stated that an investigation has been launched.

The flow of refugees from Burma to Thailand, Malaysia and other countries has cost Burma’s neighbours millions of dollars in food and humanitarian assistance. The committee calls on officials of impacted ASEAN countries to measure the financial cost of hosting refugees displaced from Burma, and to request financial compensation from Burma’s military junta for costs incurred in caring for the refugees.

It asks the government of Malaysia to address the trafficking, selling and slavery of Burmese and other migrants within Malaysia and across its border with Thailand. As a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Malaysia is urged to consider alternatives to detention for refugees and asylum seekers, especially for women and children.

"Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak should act on this U.S. Senate report to protect the rights of refugees and victims of human trafficking," said HRW’s Pearson.

The report advises the U.S., in coordination with other donor countries, to continue providing funds to facilitate sharing of information on human trafficking among authorities of Thailand and Malaysia; and to provide technical and other assistance to the governments of Malaysia and Thailand so that the trafficking of Burmese and other migrants may be more actively pursued and prosecuted. - IPS, 23/4/2009, MALAYSIA: Burmese Refugees "Treated Like a Commodity"

Back home, Malaysiakini reported that pressure is again on Najib to do the right thing..

There is mounting pressure for newly-minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to take action in the wake of a damning United States Senate report on human trafficking in Malaysia.

MCPX

New York-based Human Rights Watch has called on Najib “to protect the rights of refugees and victims of human trafficking.”

Meanwhile, veteran parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang urged the government to respond to allegations that Malaysian officials are complicit in the human trafficking of refugees.

“This is not only most damaging to Malaysia’s international image but raises also grave questions about Malaysia’s human rights commitment in Asean,” said Lim.

Two days ago, the US Senate released a report which once again put Malaysia under the spotlight on its long-standing problem of human trafficking.

The report was the result of investigations prompted by allegations of the trafficking of thousands of Burmese refugees in Malaysia who were held in detention centres around the country.

They were deported to the Thailand-Malaysia border, where they were extorted for up to RM2,000 each in return for safe journey back to Malaysia.

According to the report, as many as 10 percent of these refugees never made it back to Malaysia because of their inability to pay their ransom and were sold to human peddlers.

The male refugees were mainly sold as slaves into fishing industries, factories, plantations, while the female refugees were either sold as sex or domestic workers. There was no documentation on the fate of children.

‘Most young women deported to the Thai border are sexually abused, even in front of their husbands, by the syndicates, since no one dares to intervene as they would be shot or stabbed to death in the jungle,’’ an NGO worker was quoted by the report.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations which produced the report, titled ‘Trafficking and Extortion of Burmese Migrants in Malaysia and Southern Thailand’, comprised 18 senators led by former Democrat US presidential candidate John Kerry.

Gov’t officials in cohort with traffickers

In addition, the report cited troubling allegations of Malaysian officials - including Immigration Department officials, police and Ikatan Relawan Rakyat (Rela) officials - colluding with human traffickers for personal gain.

“Burmese migrants are reportedly taken by Malaysian government personnel from detention facilities to the Malaysia-Thailand border for deportation. Upon arrival at the Malaysia-Thailand border, human traffickers reportedly take possession of the migrants and issue ransom demands on an individual basis,” said the report.

“Migrants state that freedom is possible only once money demands are met. Specific payment procedures are outlined, which reportedly include bank accounts in Kuala Lumpur to which money should be transferred.

“The committee was informed that on some occasions, the ‘attendance’ list reviewed by traffickers along the border was identical to the attendance list read prior to departure from the Malaysian detention facilities.”

The matter was of interest to the US because the approximately 40,000 Burmese refugees that have resettled in Malaysia since 1995 came mainly from Malaysia.

Currently, Malaysia has not acceded to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol on Refugee, and does not officially recognise refugees, although the government allows the United Nations High Commissioner (UNHCR) to carry out registration and resettlement of refugees.

The report also criticised Rela for possessing too much power and noted allegations of their aggressive treatment towards refugees, including arresting and detaining refugees regardless of UNHCR documentation.

Under the 2005 Malaysian Securities Regulation, the volunteer corps allows members to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants, enter premises without a search warrant, bear firearms and demand documents.

First-hand accounts of extortion

The report also quoted first-hand accounts of trafficking and extortion.

One victim recounted how he received threats that he would be beaten, shot and killed if he was unable to pay up his ransom.

Another victim described that he was taken to Thailand-Malaysia border twice by Malaysian immigration officials and forced to pay RM3,000 for his release on both occasions.

“When we arrived at the Thai border, it was already dark. The Thai agents were already there when we arrived at the border river bank. The agents took us to Thailand by boat. The city we arrived in was [deleted]. We were there for about a week. The Thai agent gave us very bad meals, they fed us twice a day.

“They asked us to contact our friends and family who live in Kuala Lumpur. My friend sent RM1,500 to Hat Yai from Kuala Lumpur by [deleted] Bank. After they received the money, I was sent back to Kuala Lumpur. After a week, I was arrested again and sent to the Thai border again.’’

One was told that inability to pay ransom would result in him being sold to Thai agents to work in the sea as a fisherman without pay.

Many others noted that they were returned to Malaysia after their friends in Kuala Lumpur paid up their ransom.

Nevertheless, the committee credited the Malaysian government for allowing UNHCR to carry out refugee protection and assistance activities since 1975.

The report also revealed that on April 1, police chief Musa Hassan announced that the police has started investigations on allegations of extortion and human trafficking of Burmese refugees.

Recommendations for Malaysia

In its list of recommendations, the report suggested that relevant governments and organisations request for financial compensation from Burma’s military junta for costs incurred in caring for refugees.

Government, police and anti-corruption officials were also implored to address the trafficking selling and slavery of refugees, assist victims of trafficking within the country.

In addition, they were encouraged to consider alternatives to detention for refugees and asylum seekers, especially women and children.

Lastly, the report appealed for unhindered access for UNHCR officials to all facilities within the country where refugees are detained so that they may carry out registration work, and for the abolishment of Rela.

As of now, there are approximately 87,000 Burmese refugees in Malaysia who fled Burma because of ethnic and political persecution by the military junta.

Of these, only 57,000 are registered, with the majority being Chins (25,000) and Rohingya Muslims (16,000), and the remainders including ethnic Arakanese, Kachin, Karen, Shan and Mon.

However, despite the release of the scathing report, the authorities have not let up on their effort to round up refugees.

“The Malaysian authorities rounded up and detained some 300 migrants, including small children, during raids in the Imbi neighborhood of Kuala Lumpur late Wednesday night,” lamented advocacy officer Amy Alexander from California-based Chin Human Rights Organization.

Kennedy Lal Ram Lian, coordinator of the Chin Refugee Centre in Kuala Lumpur, said: “No one has been released - not even UNHCR card holders. More than 10 Chin detainees are UNHCR-recognised refugees awaiting resettlement to a third country. If they are deported to the border, they are at risk of being sold to traffickers.”

Government in denial

Meanwhile, opposition parliamentarian Lim has sought a meeting with government leaders to discuss the controversy.

“The Malaysian Parliamentary Caucus on Myanmar will convene a meeting on the (US Senate) report and seek a meeting with Najib and the new foreign minister, Anifah Aman.”

However, his parliamentary colleague Charles Santiago (right) is pessimistic that action would be taken.

“Instead of acting on these recommendations ... ministers would categorically deny the report, rubbishing it as an attempt to discredit the government,” predicted the Klang MP from DAP.

After all, former home minister Syed Hamid Albar had denied such claims before.

“I take offence with the allegation because neither the Malaysian government nor its officials make money by selling people,” he was quoted to have said.

Santiago said he had repeatedly raised the issue in Parliament.

“They would sing the same rhetoric of having carried out an investigation on the immigration officers and found them to be squeaky clean.”

The MP nevertheless called on new Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein to open a new investigation on the matter. - Malaysiakini, 25/4/2009, Najib told to act on damning trafficking report

An Independent Malaysian Judiciary? ..Rule of Law according to UMNO-led BN...is that what we have in Malaysia?

The Malaysian Judiciary had the opportunities to show Malaysians (and the rest of world) that it was ...'Independent, ..... BUT alas the recent Federal Court decision which favored the UMNO-led BN seems the fact that the Malaysian Judiciary is still in the 'gutters'...

The appointment of a person so-closely previously linked to UMNO as the head of the Malaysian Judiciary certainly did not help the cause of improving the image and the reputation of the Malaysian Judiciary. The public 'confession' by the head of the Judiciary of being involved in bribery when he was a lawyer...the subsequent public denial of this fact...and the subsequent allegation (which, by the way, was not retracted by the newspaper or the reporter)...and the later revelation of an audio recording that showed that he, the head of the Malaysian Judiciary, had indeed 'lied' - and of course the fact that no action was taken by the UMNO-led BN government of the day against the head of the Judiciary speaks a lot of the state of the nation today..

Rule of Law - what rule of law? Today, we seem to just have a 'Rule of Law' as defined by the BN (or rather UMNO) - or that favours the UMNO-led BN. The differential treatment of them who are pro-UMNO (and pro BN) and the others by the Police, the AG, the Election Commission, etc... of late tells us all of the state of the nation today. With the appointment of Najib as new PM - one wonders and worries about the future of the nation...

Will all those who were found guilty of 'money politics'/corruption in UMNO be ever investigated...charged...tried, etc..

A recent article by a former Court of Appeal Judge concerning the recent UNANIMOUS decision of the Federal Court (the highest court of the land) - which he says was '...a perverse judgment of the Federal Court...'.

The front page of The Star newspaper yesterday carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.

It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.

Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.

… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S. Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

This is a perverse judgment of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the Government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one’s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Don’t these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL.

It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book “Landmarks in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:

"There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at ?23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. ?23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

"In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: “It struck at the very heart of trade union action.”

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN Government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:

"To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.

The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus, which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.

The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, “What Next in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:

May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it — and do so knowingly — they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And he posed this question:

Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand. — loyarburok.com

Justice N.H. Chan is a retired judge from the Court of Appeals. - Malaysian Insider, 19/4/2009, When the highest court in the land could bring down the government of the day — N.H. Chan

Pay us money, and we(RELA) will not take action against you - sounds like the 'protection money' one pays to...

Once in a while 1 or 2 RELA members are caught and get charged in court, but alas it is for taking some comparatively very small bribes...

This is one of a few are sometimes , possibly mere 'show pieces' to show that action is being taken against corruption of RELA... and many a time, it is the big guns that get off scot free...

Abolish RELA - government should employ more public servants as immigration enforcement officers and/or police.

In the same court, Rela member Abdul Rahman Mat Yatim, 50, was charged with accepting RM150 from Dedy Kurniawan as inducement not to lodge a police report against Muhammad Rizal, whose passport had expired.

Rahman was alleged to have committed the offence at Restoran Az-Haar Corner at No 29G, Senawang Commercial Park, Jalan Commercial Senawang 7 in Senawang about 11pm on Sept 4, 2006.

He was jointly charged with another Rela member, Sannasi Ramaiah, 46, with three other counts of receiving RM150, RM200 and RM500 from Roni Ertika not to lodge a report about Muhammad.

Both men, who were unrepresented, allegedly received RM150 at the same restaurant in Senawang about 11pm on Sept 4, 2006, and RM200 and RM500 at a house in Jalan Peniaga 3, Taman Senawang Jaya in Senawang about 2am on Sept 4, 2006.

Zamri fixed bail at RM1,000 on Rahman's first charge and RM4,000 for each accused on the three joint charges.

The cases will be heard on March 12. - The New Straits Times, 13/2/2009,Puspakom, Rela officers charged

Fight Corruption in Courts - Get rid of corrupt Judges and court staff...and Zaki Azmi

What will happen to Zaki Azmi - who just yesterday admitted that he too had to bribe court personell...

If he bribed, or his lawyers bribed or his staff/agents bribed...action must be taken immediately..

"It took me six months to be nice, to bribe each and every individual to get back into their good books before our files were being attended to.

"That was my personal experience, and I am telling this to all the clerks and all the registries to stop this nonsense and I know this is happening, even as late as last week... a lawyer came to see me."

He added that the clerk asked the lawyer to come the next day to collect the file after saying "tapi jangan lupa, ya", signalling him to come with cash. - New Straits Times, 8/11/2008 -Stop it now, corrupt court staff warned

The law is clear, and one such provision that makes it an offence is

Anti-Corruption Act 1997

10. Offence of accepting gratification.

Any person who by himself, or by or in conjunction with any other person-

(a) corruptly solicits or receives or agrees to receive for himself or for any other person; or

(b) corruptly gives, promises or offers to any person whether for the benefit of that person or of another person,

any gratification as an inducement to or a reward for, or otherwise on account of-

(aa) any person doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place; or

(bb) any officer of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public body is concerned,

shall be guilty of an offence.

11. Offence in giving or accepting gratification by agent.

If-

(a) any agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business;

(b) any person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gratification to any agent as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; or

(c) any person knowingly gives to an agent, or if an agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which to his knowledge is intended to mislead the principal,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

12. Acceptor or giver of gratification to be guilty notwithstanding that purpose was not carried out or matter not in relation to principal's affairs or business.

(1) Where in any proceedings against any agent for any offence under paragraph 11(a) it is proved that he corruptly accepted, obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification having reason to believe or suspect that the gratification was offered as an inducement or a reward for his doing or forbearing to do any act or for showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business he shall be guilty of an offence under that paragraph notwithstanding that-

(a) he did not have the power, right or opportunity so to do, show or forbear;

(b) he accepted the gratification without intending so to do, show or forbear;

(c) he did not in fact so do, show or forbear; or

(d) the act, favour or disfavour was not in relation to his principal's affairs or business.

(2) Where in any proceedings against any person for any offence under paragraph 11(b) it is proved that he corruptly gave, agreed to give or offered any gratification to any agent as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do any act or for showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour to any person having reason to believe or suspect that the agent had the power, right or opportunity so to do, show or forbear and that the act, favour or disfavour was in relation to his principal's affairs or business he shall be guilty of an offence under that paragraph notwithstanding that the agent had no power, right or opportunity or that the act, favour or disfavour was not in relation to his principal's affairs or business.

14. Bribery of officer of public body.

Any person who offers to an officer of any public body, or being an officer of any public body solicits or accepts, any gratification as an inducement or a reward for-

(a) the officer voting or abstaining from voting at any meeting of the public body in favour of or against any measure, resolution or question submitted to the public body;

(b) the officer performing or abstaining from performing or aiding in procuring, expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing the performance of, any official act;

(c) the officer aiding in procuring or preventing the passing of any vote or the granting of any contract or advantage in favour of any person; or

(d) the officer showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour in his capacity as such officer,

shall, notwithstanding that the officer did not have the power, right or opportunity so to do, show or forbear, or that the inducement or reward was not in relation to the affairs of the public body, be guilty of an offence.

17. Duty to report bribery transactions.

(1) Any officer of a public body to whom any gratification is given, promised, or offered, in contravention of any provision of this Act shall report such gift, promise or offer together with the name, if known, of the person who gave, promised or offered such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Agency or police officer.

(2) Any person who fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both.

(3) Any person from whom any gratification has been solicited or obtained, or an attempt has been made to obtain such gratification, in contravention of any provision of this Act shall at the earliest opportunity thereafter report such soliciting or obtaining of, or attempt to obtain, the gratification together with the full and true description and, if known, the name of the person who solicited, or obtained, or attempted to obtain, the gratification from him to the nearest officer of the Agency or police officer.

(4) Any person who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

Zaki Azmi also talks about a new incident - where some lawyer told him about yet another incident of corruption... Action must be taken against the said clerk ...and, of course, the said lawyer too...

Will action be taken against Zaki Azmi? Probably not - for after all he was UMNO...and he is now the head of the Malaysian Judiciary - the head of the 3rd Branch of Government..

After all, we remember the allegations made in that 1st Statutory Declaration of that PI Bala of what the police did when it came to statements made about Mohd Najib Razak (the UMNO Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister...) - they just left it out of the statement recorded. [Of course, shortly thereafter PI Bala withdrew the 1st SD with a 2nd SD]. In the 1st SD, he also talked about the Prosecution and their questioning...and how nothing was asked about Mohd Najib Razak...

So, I would not be surprised that no investigation and/or prosecution will be commenced against this now, very powerful, man - Zaki Azmi...

The report appeared in the New Straits Times - not some cheap tabloid - so, it is more likely than not that Zaki Azmi did say that - admitting to participating in acts of corruption...in committing a crime (or crimes). It was a direct quote - not some conclusions that the reporter made in writting up the report. [I hope the reporter did record it - and the relevant authorities immediately get hold of that recording ...and 'notes' of the said reporter...]

Speed is of essence. Seeing, how important and powerful (and his previous connections to UMNO) Zaki Azmi is, I would not be surprised if they are not able to get New Straits Times to "make a correction" - stating that he never said that. They may go ahead and blame the honest reporter...or maybe the 'sub-editors' or the 'editor'... Maybe, even the reporter may come out and say that he/she made a mistake,...blah...blah. But alas... sometimes the truth has a way of getting out ...and has gotten out through this newspaper report, I believe...

We shall see...we shall see...

I believe that we will also see some arrest of court staff...maybe also judicial officers for corruption...even some lawyers...on corruption charges..

Zaki Azmi is desparate to get himself accepted by the majority of Malaysians. He (and maybe the people behind him) are trying very hard to do this. Interviews here and there ...statements here and there - hard to believe it is all coming from good old Zaki Azmi himself...

The manner in which he was brought in by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the UMNO-led BN government from a mere lawyer to Federal Court Judge ... President of the Court of Appeal...and now head of the Malaysian Judiciary...stinks...just stinks.

UMNO led-BN just had to get their man in charge of the Malaysian Judiciary as soon as possible - more so when the signs of the times showed that the continued control of the UMNO-led BN was getting very very shaky. Before March 08, Zaki Azmi was President of the Court of Appeal. (I believe that if they could, they would have made him the Head of the Judiciary before GE2008 - ...but fear of consequences...fear that it may be a bigger issue used by the Opposition...may have prevailed - and Zaki Azmi was placed in the number 2 position...)

13 or 14 months ago, Zaki Azmi was a lawyer - and last month he became the Head of the Malaysian Judiciary

Early September 2007 - Lawyer to Federal Court Judge

December 2007 - Appointed the President of the Court of Appeal (No.2 in the Malaysian Judiciary)

October 2008 - Appointed Head of the Malaysian Judiciary

Normally persons are first appointed High Court Judges, later maybe elevated to become a Court of Appeal judge, and maybe several years later elevated to become a Judge of the Federal Court...

Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi will today become the first lawyer to be appointed directly to the Federal Court. The only other lawyer to have bypassed the High Court in Malaysia was Justice Datuk Gopal Sri Ram - Star, 5/9/2007, Lawyer Zaki to be made Federal Court judge

And 3 months later, in December 2007, Zaki Azmi is appointed as the number 2 of the Malaysian Judiciary - the President of the Court of Appeal...

Only 3 months experience as a Judge - and he is made No. 2 of the Malaysian Judiciary ...Not at all good.

Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi will take over from Abdul Hamid as Court of Appeal president

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who made the announcement in a statement yesterday, said both appointments had been consented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin upon his advice after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. - Star, 6/12/2007 -Abdul Hamid confirmed as CJ

See also earlier posts about Zaki Azmi, including one dated 11/10/2008 and .....

What we need immediately is to end corruption in the courts...and the public must be educated as to how and where they can lodge complaints (or their reasonable suspicions) about acts of corruptions in court. It is important that the report and/or the complainant be protected - for if not, there may be a 'black-listing' by the court and court personell...

This was what happened to Zaki Azmi when he complaint - and that was apparently why he had to resort to bribing...

We must have a procedure that protects the complainant - and prevents repercussions from the court and its staff. [same applies with the police, etc...]

Recalling an incident in 1987, Zaki said he was "blacklisted" when he complained to the chief registrar of two missing files belonging to his clients.

"It took me six months to be nice, to bribe each and every individual to get back into their good books before our files were being attended to...- New Straits Times, 8/11/2008 -Stop it now, corrupt court staff warned

We need now public eduacation as where we should lodge complaints about corruption, etc against:-

a) Judges
b) Majistrates and Session Court Judges
c) Court Staff
d) Deputy Public Prosecutors and Government Lawyers,
e) Lawyers and Law Firm workers/agents

& the assurance that we, who complain, will not be 'black-listed'....etc

Well, first things first - let there be an investigation on Zaki Azmi - vis-a-vis his admission that was reported in the New Straits Times