Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| How BN has Debased Commissions of Inquiry Posted: 01 Aug 2011 01:17 PM PDT
By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM The presumptuous conclusion by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) that Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) committed suicide even though the experts had not concluded so should be an occasion for Malaysians to ponder the debasement of Commissions of Inquiries set up by the BN / Alliance government all these years.
1. No Public Consultation over Composition of the RCI During the recent phone hacking scandal by the News of the World in Britain, the Prime Minister David Cameron was forced to immediately set up a commission of inquiry. He did this first of all by consulting the leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband and they then discussed the composition of the commission. The moment the scandal had been exposed by The Guardian, the expectations of the people regarding the composition of the commission were widely discussed in the British media. David Cameron could not ignore this or the commission of inquiry would have been denounced at the outset. Thus, the first condition for the composition of any RCI must be BROAD PUBLIC CONSULTATION. The BN has time and again ignored this requirement whenever it appoints commissions in this country and this includes SUHAKAM commissioners as well as other commissions. To ensure the composition of RCIs is credible, certain procedures must be in place to ensure the commissioners' INDEPENDENCE, IMPARTIALITY and COMPETENCE. These conditions can only hold if the government consults the Parliamentary Opposition and respected members of civil society. Membership of the RCI must include representation by appropriate groups to ensure plurality and fairness. The RCI could be headed by a judge but the members do not necessarily have to be entirely made up of judges. The Teoh Beng Hock RCI was a rushed job by the BN government due to public pressure and only after dragging its feet for so long after Beng Hock's death. Competence would include expertise in human rights and humanitarian law. On this point, former High Court and Court of Appeal judge Datuk N. H. Chan has commented that the Teoh Beng Hock commission had no business forming such an opinion as none of the experts it called upon gave the opinion that Teoh committed suicide. He pointed out that this went against Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950, which states that when a court has formed an opinion on a point of science, the opinions of experts are relevant facts. "Without any relevant fact, that is to say, without an opinion from an expert, a court is unable to form an opinion upon... the scientific point that Teoh Beng Hock took his own life. In this case, none of the experts gave the opinion that Teoh took his own life," (The Malaysian Insider, 1 Aug 2011)
2. Ignoring Recommendations by RCIs The BN (including its predecessor Alliance) government has also debased RCIs by ignoring their salient recommendations. This is an affront to the people and a total waste of public funds. The Athi Nayappan RCI on Local Government had recommended the reintroduction of elected local government during the sixties but the BN government has chosen to ignore this important recommendation to restore Malaysian democracy to what it was at Independence. What sort of transformation is the Najib talking about when we have regressed compared to our democratic institutions at Independence? The RCI on the Police in 2005 had a most important recommendation which has direct bearing on Teoh Beng Hock's death, namely, the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Committee (IPCMC). Up until today, the BN government has been dragging its feet on this. Independent Police Complaints Committee Now, if the IPCMC had existed prior to TBH's death, it could have stepped in and investigated his death from the moment his body was found. The MACC and the police would have been obliged to step aside for the IPCMC to complete its full investigation and bring the culprits to justice. The longer the BN government puts off the establishment of the IPCMC, the more it must be responsible for other deaths and torture under the police or enforcement agencies' custody. The British IPCMC covers not only the police but also enforcement agencies including the customs and Inland Revenue. And as we know too well, torture under detention without trial continues under BN rule and that is all the more reason for an IPCMC. The government must also ratify the Convention against Torture. This will ensure international scrutiny to stop torture in Malaysia.
3. Justice for Teoh Beng Hock While we dispute the conclusion by the RCI that TBH committed suicide, it is very clear from the report that the MACC officers had harassed him to a point that was unacceptable. Therefore, the government must bear responsibility for allowing such a culture to pertain in its enforcement agency, the MACC. Consequently, the government must compensate adequately the family of Teoh Beng Hock for the loss of someone so dear to them. This does not detract from the fact that the culprits responsible for TBH's death have still to be brought to justice. |
| Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #76 Posted: 31 Jul 2011 11:23 AM PDT
Only the Koran is perfect. Contrary to accepted wisdom, the sunnah is not the practices and sayings of the prophet, rather what some scholars interpret to be so. M. Bakri Musa Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life Reform in Islam The Quest For Answers Muslim leaders are no better. They smugly and gleefully gloat over the ills of the West without once pausing to look over the inadequacies of their own society. Meanwhile the West progresses while Islamic societies stagnate. Envy and jealousy are common human faults. As a result today there is considerable rage against the West among Muslims. The 9-11 Al Qaeda's attacks on America are only the latest and most vicious manifestation of this ugly emotion. I suggest that Muslims emulate, not hate the West. The energies of Muslim leaders and scholars should instead be directed to picking the best out of the West for emulation. Condemning (or destroying) does not take any talent. Bernard Lewis's critique of Islamic societies in What Went Wrong, suggests that contemporary Muslims in pondering their fate should stop asking the question, "Who did this to us?" and more usefully substitute, "What did we do wrong?" and, "How do we right it?" That Lewis is not a Muslim does not in any way diminish the wisdom of his observation. Muslims can begin to answer the "What we did wrong?" by first critically reexamining the sunnah and Shari'a. Foremost we must remember that both are the creations of man and have qualities inherent in all such endeavors, including the possibility of errors and imperfections. Only the Koran is perfect. Contrary to accepted wisdom, the sunnah is not the practices and sayings of the prophet, rather what some scholars interpret to be so. It is instructive that the collection of ahadith (plural for hadith) considered most authoritative is that of Imam Bukhari. But he was not even born until nearly two hundred years after the prophet's death. It is equally instructive that he rejected thousands of purported sayings of the prophet (pbuh). The essential criterion he used was the lineage of the oral propagation (isnah), relying heavily on the piety and reputation of the transmitters. The assumption is that the pious would not willingly fabricate or embellish. May be not willingly or consciously, but our memory does play fools on us, regardless of our piety or wisdom. Being a mere mortal, we can expect errors on Bukhari's part both in including the less-than-truthful ahadith as well as excluding some legitimate ones. Remember, only Allah is perfect. Had Imam Bukhari and the early scholars not put as much effort on evaluating the theological pedigree of the transmitters and instead concentrated their intellectual energies on reconciling the purported sayings and practices of the prophet (pbuh) with the message of the Koran, their ensuing treatises might have been considerably different. Or perhaps Bukhari, knowing full well how entrenched some of the beliefs in the purported sayings and ways of the prophet (pbuh) were in the minds and culture of the Muslims then, dared not personally challenge the perceived wisdom. He knew only too well the fate that befell "deviationists." Thus he ingeniously devised the "science" of hadith by using his considerable intellect and prodigious memory to tracing the lineage and transmission of each hadith. With this "science" he found a neutral or objective way of dispensing with the more outrageous and embellished sunnah and ahadith. Were he to simply dismiss them through his own independent research and critical thinking, he would have been lynched. As it was, he had his share of denigration and banishment for daring to dispense with some of the more popularly accepted but obviously preposterous ahadith. Today over a millennium later, there is no possible way of independently ascertaining the veracity of the lineage and pedigree of the sunnah. In the interpretation of the Koran, modern scholars pay as much attention to the "occasion of the revelation" as to the text, thus giving us a much richer and more perceptive reading. We should likewise do the same in interpreting the various ahadith, that is, examine the occasion of the purported sayings as well as analyzing their historical and sociological contexts. Many scholars, past and present, have cautioned Muslims on attributing infallibility to the sunnah and Shari'a. We should reserve that only for the Koran. Kassim Ahmad has suggested doing away completely with hadith. For that audacious position, his book was banned in Malaysia and he was branded an apostasy. So much for Muslim tolerance in Malaysia! I disagree with Kassim, but I find his views refreshing even though his analyses and reasoning are less than rigorous. We must have an open mind and treat the hadith and sunnah as historical and sociological vignettes in order to understand the Koran better. To me the current debate on whether Malaysia should adopt the Shari'a and whether it is an Islamic state is futile, nonproductive, and highly divisive. Such controversies are nothing more than wayang kulit (shadow play) or sandiwara (staged theater) between UMNO and PAS out to display their religious aroma. At least wayang kulit and sandiwara are entertaining and help bring people together. The bigger question that has yet to be addressed and is being shunted aside in the preoccupation with trivia, is how to make the present laws and institutions conform to the ideals of the Koran. Next: Islamization of Education
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan