As if making a concession, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the ministry would comply with a court decision to return 172 watches seized in a crackdown last year from the Swatch Pride collection.
What choice does the ministry have? None. It has always been embarrassing and shameful when civil servants are ordered to carry out their duties, and it was no different this time.
Yet, defiantly, he continued to defend the crackdown and other ancillary issues that occasionally arose from the date of the seizures, saying that it followed procedures and laws. If so, why the unprecedented order?
But Saifuddin got one thing right - the ministry must comply with the decision, or it will be cited for contempt.
Yesterday, judge Amarjeet Singh ordered the ministry to return all the watches within 14 days, saying that the seizure was illegal as it was done before the prohibition over the items was gazetted under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA).
The government seized the Swatch watches in May last year but only gazetted a ban several months later - in August.
Forced to retreat with their tails between their legs, what else could they do? Only the smirks on their faces could no longer be seen.
Putting cart before horse
The High Court ruling has exposed weaknesses in the system and re-ignited talk about a deep state operating within it.
What other explanation can officialdom provide for their severe lapses in the seizure, having put the cart before the horse?
Why were they so defiant that they seized the watches without a prohibition notification as required by the law?
Was it a case of “shoot first, talk later,” as the court has found?
When previously asked to comment on claims that the raids were illegal, Saifuddin brazenly said: “No (issue). We have a clear source of power.”
However, procedures had to be followed to exercise these powers, and this is where it all went wrong. Despite being told that procedures had not been followed, it was defiance — dependent on ministry officials.
In the aftermath of the raids, I wrote: “If it was aimed at showing that the federal coalition government is greener than the opposition, it did not work. If it was aimed at placating conservatives that it was against LGBTQ+ elements, it was ignored.
“Seizing and later banning Swatch watches with rainbow colours did much more - making the prime minister and country a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.”
Last month, in an interview with Mehdi Hassan, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim disagreed with the action to seize the watches.
“We have told them. It was a decision taken by a particular department. They are overreacting,” he told Hassan, a British-American broadcaster, political commentator, columnist, author and co-founder of Zeteo.
Before that, in September last year, touching on the watches, Anwar told CNN in an interview: “I will not defend that action; it is excessive.”
Despite Anwar’s views and displeasure, certain quarters in the ministry decided to ignore those views, apparently because it was within their powers, character and training to disregard diverse views.
So, shouldn’t Anwar and his Madani government be embarrassed by this episode? Does the deep state care?
Lesson learned?
I then wrote: “What is wrong with a simple ‘we made a mistake, and we apologise’ instead of dragging the issue through the courts?
“But then, the Madani government cannot be seen as less “holy” than the opposition, which continues to harp on Islam being under threat.”
So, what happens next? This case has been in the news worldwide and continues to make headlines.
It was not a lone wolf doing his own thing but a group's concerted effort that caused this.
Or will the errant officers responsible for the mess they created be held accountable? Wouldn't they be asked to explain why they went on a gambol?
Will they be rewarded now instead of in the afterlife for what has been perceived as protecting their religion from Western culture and lifestyle?
Civil servants who refuse to respect the law can put no monetary value on this unnecessary exercise. The adverse publicity is immeasurable as this issue has been making headlines globally.
Can a lesson be learned? Yes. Draw a thick line separating religion from government affairs, but then, that would be asking for the impossible. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.