The following fantastic piece of writing is by Terence Fernandez in the Malay Mail here :
No order in enforcing the law
OCTOBER 4 ― Several months ago, a tense meeting took place in the VIP room of the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA).
Those in the room comprised the top brass of several agencies and their superiors from the civil service, including very senior government officials.
The meeting was held at the airport as these officers wanted to meet a senior officer of an enforcement agency who was returning from a long trip abroad.
The discussion was on the status of an investigation into serious allegations concerning the misuse of taxpayers’ money.
The enforcement agency officer was livid that several of his subordinates who were involved in the investigations had been swiftly moved out without notifying him.
This action led to suggestions that a cover-up was being attempted to protect high-ranking individuals and impacted public perception on the government and this particular enforcement agency.
The question the officer asked regarding the transfer of his men was a simple: “Why”?
And the answer from the senior civil servant was a terse,“We were following orders.”
The officer responded: “The difference between the two of us is that you follow orders while I follow the law.”
Then he laid down the gauntlet. The officer went on to cite an enactment that actually allows him to arrest those who ordered the move and those who signed the transfer letters for interfering in an on-going investigation.
Forty-eight hours after that meeting, the brave officer got his staff back. But it was at a cost.
He has since left the service, knowing very well that he had crossed a line that is not usually breached ― especially in an environment where “Saya Yang Menurut Perintah” (Your Obedient Servant) could also mean looking the other way, not asking questions and knowing your place in the pecking order.
He was one of few civil servants who decided he wanted to be the one who signs off as“Saya Yang Menurut Undang-Undang” (I who follow the law).
As clichéd as it sounds, laws are there for a reason and orders that are given should be with the intention of upholding that law and protecting the sanctity of rules and regulations which keep the peace and ensure everyone’s rights are safeguarded.
So when your house is invaded at 4am by policemen for a remark you made about a dead person on social media ― the officers may be following orders but did the one who issue the directive follow the law?
When someone is arrested for tweeting his or her views about a thorny issue, is the arrest based on law or orders?
When your constituency has moved and your neighbourhood has split up, it is certainly against the law but orders will prevail.
So when people are removed from their positions because they had defied orders and followed the law, what does that tell you about the perception that there is no place for good men and women in the government?
What does that tell you about the people who run the government and in some cases helped enact that very law which they themselves do not want to be subject to?
Some of those who were part of that high-powered welcoming party at the airport and many others in positions of authority should reflect on this. Who are they serving? The country and its people or the powerful few on whom they depend for a livelihood.
OCTOBER 4 ― Several months ago, a tense meeting took place in the VIP room of the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA).
Those in the room comprised the top brass of several agencies and their superiors from the civil service, including very senior government officials.
The meeting was held at the airport as these officers wanted to meet a senior officer of an enforcement agency who was returning from a long trip abroad.
The discussion was on the status of an investigation into serious allegations concerning the misuse of taxpayers’ money.
The enforcement agency officer was livid that several of his subordinates who were involved in the investigations had been swiftly moved out without notifying him.
This action led to suggestions that a cover-up was being attempted to protect high-ranking individuals and impacted public perception on the government and this particular enforcement agency.
The question the officer asked regarding the transfer of his men was a simple: “Why”?
And the answer from the senior civil servant was a terse,“We were following orders.”
The officer responded: “The difference between the two of us is that you follow orders while I follow the law.”
Then he laid down the gauntlet. The officer went on to cite an enactment that actually allows him to arrest those who ordered the move and those who signed the transfer letters for interfering in an on-going investigation.
Forty-eight hours after that meeting, the brave officer got his staff back. But it was at a cost.
He has since left the service, knowing very well that he had crossed a line that is not usually breached ― especially in an environment where “Saya Yang Menurut Perintah” (Your Obedient Servant) could also mean looking the other way, not asking questions and knowing your place in the pecking order.
He was one of few civil servants who decided he wanted to be the one who signs off as“Saya Yang Menurut Undang-Undang” (I who follow the law).
As clichéd as it sounds, laws are there for a reason and orders that are given should be with the intention of upholding that law and protecting the sanctity of rules and regulations which keep the peace and ensure everyone’s rights are safeguarded.
So when your house is invaded at 4am by policemen for a remark you made about a dead person on social media ― the officers may be following orders but did the one who issue the directive follow the law?
When someone is arrested for tweeting his or her views about a thorny issue, is the arrest based on law or orders?
When your constituency has moved and your neighbourhood has split up, it is certainly against the law but orders will prevail.
So when people are removed from their positions because they had defied orders and followed the law, what does that tell you about the perception that there is no place for good men and women in the government?
What does that tell you about the people who run the government and in some cases helped enact that very law which they themselves do not want to be subject to?
Some of those who were part of that high-powered welcoming party at the airport and many others in positions of authority should reflect on this. Who are they serving? The country and its people or the powerful few on whom they depend for a livelihood.
(I will answer this question. These are the Tan Sri Par_ah and the Dato Anak S_ndals. There is no two ways about this. The Malaysian Civil Service, including the so called PTD has created some vile, sh*t eaters who are either living up to their DNA or they are a disgrace to their DNA. The worse conglomeration of Third World villagers who put on shoes and shirts. That is what some of them have become. The only way these low life can even step out of their houses in the morning is because they have no morals. These are a people without morals. There are serious issues with their mothers and fathers.)
They can take inspiration from the contents of a memo by then Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed to his staff in January.
It best exemplifies a public official who is steadfast in his belief that the rule of law is paramount.
Having to deal with pressure over the MACC’s investigation into SRC International Berhad, Abu Kassim felt he needed to assure his officers that they have his backing to act.
Abu Kassim is quoted in the memo as saying “I would rather retire than take action against officers who have all along been upholding justice and defending MACC’s independence, apart from carrying out their duties according to the laws of the country.”
He repeated this advice in a speech at a farewell dinner on July 26.
It’s a shame that the likes of Abu Kassim and the officer mentioned at the beginning of this article had to pay the price for upholding the law and doing the jobs they had taken an oath to execute.
It is a pity that some of their bosses and even counterparts have forgotten or chosen to forget the Rukun Negara that they had recited in school. The fourth tenet “Kedaulatan Undang-Undang” or the Rule of Law is an oft-ignored principle, alongside “Keluhuran Perlembangaan” (Upholding the Constitution) and of late even “Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan” (Good conduct and morals).
There are many men and women in government who form the silent suffering majority. The intimidation of our civil servants will continue and laws will continue to be bent and used selectively.
But take comfort in the words of the American philosopher Eric Hoffer: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.”
It best exemplifies a public official who is steadfast in his belief that the rule of law is paramount.
Having to deal with pressure over the MACC’s investigation into SRC International Berhad, Abu Kassim felt he needed to assure his officers that they have his backing to act.
Abu Kassim is quoted in the memo as saying “I would rather retire than take action against officers who have all along been upholding justice and defending MACC’s independence, apart from carrying out their duties according to the laws of the country.”
He repeated this advice in a speech at a farewell dinner on July 26.
It’s a shame that the likes of Abu Kassim and the officer mentioned at the beginning of this article had to pay the price for upholding the law and doing the jobs they had taken an oath to execute.
It is a pity that some of their bosses and even counterparts have forgotten or chosen to forget the Rukun Negara that they had recited in school. The fourth tenet “Kedaulatan Undang-Undang” or the Rule of Law is an oft-ignored principle, alongside “Keluhuran Perlembangaan” (Upholding the Constitution) and of late even “Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan” (Good conduct and morals).
There are many men and women in government who form the silent suffering majority. The intimidation of our civil servants will continue and laws will continue to be bent and used selectively.
But take comfort in the words of the American philosopher Eric Hoffer: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.