Southern Grandma

Here's something to tickle our funny bone. There's something about the wholesome goodness of some of us who speak straight from the heart without pretension and all the hypocrisy... Maybe some of our rural folks do possess the qualities we have lost!

Ah, the States! I think of Elvis Presley, Jimmy Carter, John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Jim Reeves, Skeetle Davis, Johnny Horton, Donny and Marie Osmond, Dolly Parton, Eddie Rabitt and so many other folksy southern people many of whom have the unique southern accent when they speak ...

Lawyers should never ask a southern grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer.

In a trial, a southern small town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"

She responded,"Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."

The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"

She again replied,"Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."

The defense attorney almost died.

The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you to the electric chair."

I Salute You, Sir.

For a long, long time I was a cheer-leading supporter of the government and did things that some could consider as 'patriotic' wherever I was but times have changed and I have seen and heard the pain and suffering of my fellow citizens. Indeed, my half-blinded eyes have now truly opened to the reality of the present situation.

I am not saying I am against the government; on the contrary, I have not given up my support on many other matters.

I do not agree though with the disturbing decisions rendered by the judiciary on certain matters in the past and these decisions affect the lives of not only us in the present but the many generations to come after us. Their future is of paramount importance to me as a responsible , law-abiding citizen and also a God-fearing loving parent.

It is because of this simple concern about justice and fair play for all that I am critical of how the government is attempting to resolve the present possible law-breaking Lingam case and the questionable independence and integrity of the judiciary.

It is therefore, a welcoming breath of fresh air that we hear such good news as that of victory over barbaric inhuman human actions.

The following letter is taken from Malaysiakini-the must read online news portal that is many more times better than all the mainstream papers put together in Malaysia.

I proudly salute this honorable gentleman of steely courage and conviction.

A history-making judge
Kim Quek
Oct 23, 07 12:20pm

For the first time in history, a Malaysian judge heavily punished the government for gross abuse of its draconian law – the first big slap on the face of the Executive, long accustomed to unrestrained and unconstitutional persecution of political dissidents with virtual impunity from compliant attorney general and judiciary.

In a judgment that is bound to illuminate the Malaysian judiciary for a long time to come, High Court Judge Hishamudin Mohd Yunus ruled on Oct 18 that the state has violated the constitution and awarded political detainee Abdul Malek Hussin RM 2.5 million in total compensation.

Malek was arrested by the police under the dreaded Internal Security Act (ISA) in September 1998 in the tumultuous days of Reformasi (reform movement) following the sacking and imprisonment of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.

During the 57 days of detention, Malek was subjected to - in the words of Judge Hishamudin - “vile assault, unspeakable humiliation, prolonged physical and mental ill-treatment”, and completely deprived of legal counsel.

In March 1999, Malek filed a civil suit, citing a police special branch officer Borhan Daud, the then Inspector General of Police Rahim Noor, and the government as correspondents.

In his judgment, Hishamudin found no evidence of Malek posing any threat to national security but every indication that the detention and torture was politically motivated arising from Malek’s support to Anwar Ibrahim and his reform movement.

As such, Malek’s detention was unlawful, and a violation of his constitution right under Article 5(3).

In hard hitting language, the judge described the defendents’ behaviour as “inhuman, cruel and despicable”.

He awarded an exemplary damage of RM 1.0 million “to show the abhorrence of the court of the gross abuse of an awesome power under the Internal Security Act, and to ensure that the extent of abuse is kept to the most minimal, if not eliminated completely.”

In his 41-page judgment, Hishamudin pin-pointed several police officers for breaching the law and concocting evidence.

He also expressed displeasure at the Deputy Public Prosecutor for having implicitly colluded with police officers in thwarting Malek’s complaints.

Courageous judgment

Justice Hishamudin is no stranger to human rights watchers, who have been impressed by his consistent record in delivering independent and impartial judgment - a remarkable feat in a judiciary perceived to often bend to the wishes of the high and mighty, in scant regards to the constitution.

His most notable judgment is perhaps his decision in May 2001 to free two Reformasi activists – N Gobalakrishnan and Abdul Ghani Haroon – arrested under ISA at the height of repression against the Reformasi movement under former autocrat Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

In the present judgment, Hishamudin’s courageous and righteous act has undoubtedly brought cheers to a nation long dismayed by unrelenting decline in judicial integrity and most recently shocked by the stunning revelation of the Lingam video clip.

In this latest scandal, lawyer VK Lingam was allegedly conspiring with present Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in a telephone conversation to “fix” judicial appointments, apparently inspired by their personal loyalty to then premier Mahathir in 2002.

Subsequent events had turned out to tally with the scenario outlined in the Lingam-Fairuz conversation, thus strengthening the credibility of this tape.

Such subjugation of judiciary to political manipulation has in fact been common knowledge, as evident from many cases of glaring perversion of justice whenever the interests of the ruling power so dictate.

The deterioration of our judiciary has however hastened in recent years as seen in the rapid promotion of judges of dubious records in a process shrouded in secrecy.

Some of these promotions are seen as rewards for having “delivered” in the shameful Anwar trials and appeals.

Skewed judicial system

A prominent example of this skewed system of promotion is seen in the contrast of fortunes between Justice Hishamudin and Justice Augustine Paul (of the infamous Anwar trial fame).

While Paul, newly promoted to High Court to handle the Anwar case in 1998, had leapfrogged to the nation’s highest court (Federal Court) by 2005, Hishamudin has remained stagnant as a High Court judge since 1995, despite his illustrious judicial record.

Another example is Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram, the most senior judge who has made Malaysians proud for his many impartial and courageous judgments, has been by-passed for promotion to the Federal Court 14 times by his juniors since his direct appointment to the Court of Appeal in 1994.

Some of these promoted on the express train had stayed in the Court of Appeal for only one year, notably those who were seen to have “delivered”.

The moral of the story in our judiciary is obvious: fortune only smiles on those who are obedient and submissive, but woe to those who are steadfastly principled.

Under such a system, is there any wonder why our judiciary has been traveling on a downward slippery way?

While our spirit is buoyed by the Hishamudin judgment, we must temper our joy with the realization that the likes of Hishamudin and Sri Ram are rare gems that numerically could not influence the course of our judiciary.

As they say, one swallow does not a summer make. Judicial reform is a long journey, and we haven’t even started yet.

But start we must, as the Hishamudin judgment has already opened our eyes to the immense benefits that a just judiciary can bring to the nation.

Judicial reform a must

Imagine our courts are filled mostly with judges of Hishamudin’s integrity – from High Courts to Court of Appeal to Federal Court – and led by a chief justice of impeccable honesty and competence.

Wouldn’t that be the best deterrent against the rampant breeding of corruption and abuse of power that is raging in every strata and section of our government – the cabinet, judiciary, attorney general’s chambers, police, government departments, anti-corruption agency, election commission, statutory bodies and GLCs (government linked corporations)?

In fact, a competent judiciary can act as a powerful agent to cleanse our political and administrative systems of corruption.

Corollary to that, wouldn’t a revamped judiciary bring about a more level playing field for political contests through restoration of citizens’ constitution rights while suppressing similar infringement by the incumbent power?

Through such restoration of democracy, we will surely see the natural replacement of the corrupt and the incompetent by the bright and the dedicated to lead the nation.

In summary, a cleaner administration in a more vibrant democracy, served by a competent judiciary, is certainly the right recipe to restore investors’ confidence, which has seen steady decline in the last decade.

Judicial reform is therefore a crucial move that will bring about a turning point in our history - arresting the present decline in government quality, rejuvenating the leadership, while serving as a major catalyst to boost our economy.

It is for this reason that we cannot afford to compromise on our quest for a royal commission of enquiry to look into the judicial rot revealed by the Lingam video clip, as a first step towards full reform.

And you can contribute towards making this objective a reality by supporting a petition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to set up such a royal commission.

All you need to do is to email your name with IC number to: savethejudiciary@gmail.com. The full text of the petition can be read at: http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com.

A Little Boy's Prayer

One day, in a galaxy far, far away, in a land that is ridden with corruption, a little boy says a prayer before going to bed...

Dear Lord,
I pray for papa, mama and I-oh yes, not forgetting Sayang, my faithful doggie-here. Please help us to keep our little farm with our few chickens and vegetables in the ulu* here. It is the only home we ever have. Please make the big man in a big, big helicopter go away. He wants papa and mama to give his big master our home for money. Papa and mama say they will not sell it away. They want Sayang and I to have something one day. Now the big man says, "We give you big money now. If we tell our friend, the judge, to let us take the land from you, we will get it so easily and you will get very, very little money!"

* the countryside

STOP corruption before it's too late! It greedily eats away at the soul of the nation, destroying it forever in the end.

A Big Malaysian Debate

I own a rather worn out glossy color comic with the title "Judge Colt". It's about a judge who's known as "The Hanging Judge" dispensing merciless justice in the Wild, Wild West but unfortunately, he does it with a zeal in his hunt for the murderers of his family.

I've had the comic for over 30 years and today the words that were used in his delivery of his judgment fills my head "You shall be taken out and hung till you're are dead, dead, dead".

So you can see it can be rather dramatic to play the role of a just judge.

Well here's a debate by mail to Malaysiakini that allows you and I to be the judge as to who's right or wrong ...

Do bear in mind though, that this "Uncle Yap" seems to be a "Malaysian republican" as he takes the stand that East Malaysians are not accepted as partners in the formation of Malaysia.

Sabah, Sarawak could have ended up Indonesian
Uncle Yap
Sep 18, 07 3:38pm

I refer to the Malaysiakini article 916 – A personal testimony. I am indeed honoured that an eminent person like Sim Kwang Yang (whose writings in Malaysiakini I have long admired) has taken note of my slightly different perception of the formation of Malaysia.

I have always been an adherent of the concept of ‘substance over form’ and whichever way you look at it, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak joined the other 11 states of the Federation of Malaya and this enlarged nation was renamed ‘Malaysia’. Each of the three added one more point to the star and one more stripe to the erstwhile flag of the Federation of Malaya.

The then Yang Di-Pertuan Agong (the Raja of Perlis) became the head of Islamic affairs of these three states that did not have a Malay ruler, just like Malacca and Penang and later, Wilayah Persekutuan. The constitution of Malaysia was essentially identical to that of the Federation of Malaya.

People who argue for the form would have you believe that the local leaders of Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak negotiated with the independent Federation of Malaya as equals. Yet none have addressed the issue that the sovereignty of these three states- pre-Aug 31, 1963 - rested with Queen Elizabeth II. All three were British possessions whereas the Federation of Malaya was an independent country and a member of the United Nations.

May I ask Sim what would happen if Brunei one day were to join Malaysia, say on Jan 1, 2009? Would Brunei be celebrating Malaysia's centenary on Aug 31, 2057 or would it be the 48th anniversary? No one has yet to cast a dent on my drawing of a parallel of the formation of Malaysia with that of the United States of America.

Many East Malaysians often forget that in the early 1960s, the effete Britain (after the debilitating WWII) was anxious to get out of the Far East and of other far-flung colonial possessions and was desperate to offload its Borneo burden. If Tunku had not been pressured to take on this burden, it was an accepted hypothesis that if North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei were to be somehow allowed to become independent, they would not last six months with rapacious and avaricious Sukarno's Indonesia next door.

We have traveled the same road for nearly five decades and our destinies are somewhat, for better or for worse, entwined. Problems we have many but surely we do not need to add another by this annual parade of denial and whining about the date of independence and nationhood.

The name ‘Malaysia’ was coined to be a better, fitting name for an entity enlarged to include the Borneo states. Prior to Aug 31,1957, the term ‘Malaya’ included the nine Malay states and the Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. (Even the term, ‘University of Malaya’ was first used for the union of the Raffles College and King Edward School of Medicine, both of which were located on the island of Singapore.)

That slight name change is now being quoted to support this erroneous perception that North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore ‘formed’ Malaysia as equal partners with the Federation of Malaya in 1963. To any thinking person who look not merely at the form but at the substance, this cannot be further from the truth.

All three joined the federation as three additional new states to the existing 11 and that is the substance.

Here's the rebuttal by "Tanak Wagu":
Sabah, S'wak would not have fallen to Indonesia
Tanak Wagu
Sep 28, 07 2:10pm

Uncle Yap in his letter ‘Sabah and Sarawak could have ended up Indonesian’ tries to suggest that if Sabah and Sarawak were allowed to be independent, they would have ended up being invaded by Indonesia.

This is simplistic thinking, and also the type of propaganda churned out in Malaysian school textbooks. If Sabah and Sarawak were allowed to go independent, the British would have taken appropriate measures to ensure that these states would not be easily colonised by Indonesia. A case in point would be Brunei, which despite its small size still exists independently. But please bear in mind, there is still British military presence in Brunei up to this day.

In his arguments, Uncle Yap also fails to look at the importance of the Malaysia Agreement. If Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were to be merely added as the 12th, 13th and 14th states of Malaya, then there would be no need to draw up the Malaysia Agreement. Please also note that the creation of Malaysia necessitated the United Nations to send a fact finding mission
to this country.

When Singapore joined Malaysia, it already had an internal self-government with Lee Kuan Yew as the prime minister. Two weeks before Malaysia was formed, Sabah had become an independent state.

Uncle Yap asks what if Brunei was to join Malaysia now. Should we celebrate Malaysia day on another date he asks if that happens? Do remember that if Brunei is to join Malaysia, we do not need to celebrate Malaysia day as beginning from any new date. This is because Malaysia was already formed 44 years ago. Unless of course Malaysia intends to change its name to Malaysianei. Then yes we should celebrate Malaysianei as beginning from the date Brunei joins us.

Flashback into an event that could but did not occur following the Japanese occupation of Malaya.

Click to enlarge!