Sunday, February 7, 2016

Apandi, harsher laws will protect me from journalists

this exclusive article by syed ibrahim

“based on true story  based on the  high profile heist, 
Mohamed Apandi Ali's harbouring a criminal Najib alone is not enough, this needs to be communicated as  Speed of diffusion: how quickly is your message likely to spread Credibility of the message: How credibly is your message likely to be perceivedDetail delivered: How much detail can you provide in your communication, brand conversations to real time interfaces of service and information delivery.  To survive in this century will need to be trusted and social media is as a good way of building this trust.well.means of communicating include PR releases When any legitimate and genuine right to know is not duly entertained by the government, the government will in fact be opening the floodgates of leakeages of state secrets. Amending the OSA is not the remedy.need to move from conventional thinking towards more active engagement that tracks active trends Social media tends to be useful medium. One communicates frequently rather than at the end of the year. It also acts as a useful feedback mechanism. The intended audience responds in real time to your work. It lets you know whether you are on or off target.  lets you communicate in very many ways. You could use text, images, multimedia etc. Depending on the context the content can be crafted in the appropriate manner. You could also choose the medium depending on


This is the era of social change enabled by platforms such as whatsapp, facebook, twitter, change.org and many more. Its driven by people congregating together around shared concerns, digital activism and ongoing conversations Instead of tightening the grip of OSA to prevent the "Wikileaks culture",also read this WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,   it is high time for the government to enact the much awaited Freedom of Information Act.there were multiple examples of the connected voters taking control. No longer just passive voters , the voters  expects a dialogue, specially when it comes to socially responsible activities. The social risk of doing governance likely to increase as reputation and responsibility converge in a world of demanding voters.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak can use all the power he has at home to muzzle his officials in Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency, the Auditor-General, Bank Negara Malaysia and threaten or charge his detractors and critics  the Sedition Act and the Multimedia and Communications Commission.  But there is one thing he should know and that is, he has no influence whatsoever with the Swiss and Singapore authorities.
The changing communication landscape means that voters are increasingly using the internet for communicating their message. Social media has started playing an important role in  communication. Companies regularly communicate


Mohamed Apandi Ali who claimed he was merely following “his master’s footsteps” in clearing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak of any wrongdoings linked to state-investor 1MDB.

"I am not answerable to him. I am free to exercise my constitutional right to comment on a case that is of great public interest, so long as I do not cross the limit of freedom of speech," Abu Talib told 
“If he (Apandi) was ‘just following his master’s footsteps’ then he would not have been in the confused state of mind when he made his decision and ordered the MACC to close an on-going investigation.
“In the current circumstances, his decision had raised more questions on allegations against the PM and the state of investigations relating to activities of 1MDB and persons connected with the company,” Abu Talib told
investigations can also be carried out under Sections 217 or 218 of the Penal Code, related to a public servant disobeying a direction of law with the intent to save a person from punishment or property forfeiture
(A-G) Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali's decision not to frame charges against Datuk Seri Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing over alleged financial scandals has little impact over the prime minister's defamation suit against former MCA president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik, lawyers said.
"The non-prosecution by the public prosecutor does not disprove what Ling is going to prove in the suit. The civil case is a different ball game altogether  Ling needed only show a substantial proof that money was deposited into the private bank accounts of the prime minister.


Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak can use all the power he has at home to muzzle his officials in Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency, the Auditor-General, Bank Negara Malaysia and threaten or charge his detractors and critics  the Sedition Act and the Multimedia and Communications Commission.  But there is one thing he should know and that is, he has no influence whatsoever with the Swiss and Singapore authorities.



Mohamed Hanipa Maidin     Published Today 1:25 pm     Updated Today 1:33 pm      24 comments


  
MP SPEAKS I really don’t know whether the present attorney-general (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali is going to leave a meaningful legacy in the history of such a noble profession. What is certain is that Apandi has been making problematic decisions and bizzare recommendations.

So far, he has proudly used (or misused?) his discretion under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution in not prosecuting 1MDB for "cheating" Bank Negara under the Exchange Control Act.


Apandi also decided, prematurely, to close the file against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on the RM2.6 billion controversial donation. Instead of prosecuting National Feedlot Corporation's boss on the Cowgate scandal, he prefered to discontinue with the trial, leaving the trial judge with no alternative but to acquit the accused.


Now, the AG is proposing a weird alternative to solve the problem of leakages of state secrets - 10 strokes of the rotan and life imprisonment.


He is also waging a war against the media by mulling the idea of not letting the journalists off the hook if they report on an official secret. In defending such a harsh punishment, he takes the law in China as his legal precedent.


Apandi even boldly says that the right to know is not granted in the Federal Constitution!


When the highest lawyer of the country inteprets the highest law of the land in a pedantic way, it is really a national tragedy.


To begin with, the constitution is not an ordinary legislation in which one may offer a narrow and restrictive interpretation of such a law. On the contrary, the constitution is a sui juris (legally competent) document, which stands on its own. In interpreting any provision of the constitution, even the doctrine of stare decisis (judicial precedent) is of a little value.


Narrow and pedantic intepretation


The narrow and pedantic intepretation of our Federal Constitution would only expedite its suicidal process. Unfortunately, this is what the present AG is doing to our esteemed constitution.


I am not sure how Apandi came to a misconceived conclusion by saying that the constitution does not give us the right to know. Yes, no one will find the phrase "right to know" in the Federal Constitution. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


If absence of the phrase "right to know" justifies the denial of such a fundamental right, then the AG should have also extended such a logic to other phrases as well.


Phrases such as "'the right to dissent", "the right to information", "the right to write", etc, are also absent in our constitution. Does it mean such rights do not exist at all in the constitution?


In actual fact, whether the AG knows or otherwise, the right to know actually exists in our constitution. Such a right is encapsulated in the right to freedom of speech, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.


The fundamental right to freedom of speech is meaningless and illusory if it is not accompanied by the right to know. In fact, the right to know precedes the right to speech. Or rather, the former creates the latter. One does not demand the freedom of speech unless the right to know is also present.


Out of touch with reality


As far as his suggestion to amend the Official Secrets Act (OSA ) is concerned, Apandi is definitely out of touch with the present reality. In the absence of the culture of transparency, accountability and good governance in doing any business, any state in the world is bound to face the nightmare of a "Wikileaks epidemic".


When any legitimate and genuine right to know is not duly entertained by the government, the government will in fact be opening the floodgates of leakeages of state secrets. Amending the OSA is not the remedy.



If transparency reigns supreme, there would be no justification for people to share any state secret in public domain. If it is otherwise, sharing state secrets would not be viewed in contempt.

No comments:

Post a Comment