Impartiality is backbone of every system of govt

 

How can a foreign national come to this country, run an employment recruitment company, get a “Datuk” title and go on holiday with a minister?

From whom does a security guard get the courage and more importantly the power to become the guardian of morals and impose dress codes on those visiting government offices?

How does a local authority use funds collected from ratepayers to fight the very same people who contribute to the well-being of the community?

How does a police officer arbitrarily open investigations for criminal defamation against consumers who complain about defective goods or poor service?

There are many answers to these questions. To say the system has broken down is probably correct. To say the system is rotten to the core may be spot on.

To say that money is a great mover cannot be termed as incorrect but if someone answers: “The system no longer exists”, it is fundamentally correct.

Perhaps, this is why we see the proliferation of many decisions and principles that are legally and morally unacceptable and far from the tenets of the Rukun Negara.

What is the purpose of screaming “Rule of law” knowing very well that it is lip-service and that some are getting preferential treatment?

What do we have to say when a poor mother goes to jail for stealing milk powder for her baby while corporate wrongdoers get a slap on the wrist?

The concept of rule of law is central to good governance. It is the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law. 

This ensures a non-arbitrary form of government and more importantly prevents the arbitrary use of power.

The system allows arbitrary decisions in some rare instances but if they are misused or abused to favour certain parties, it can turn into selective persecution or favouritism – depending on the issue and how it is perceived. 

Jurists have argued that the rule of law implies that the creation of laws, their enforcement, and the relationships among legal rules are themselves legally regulated so that no one - including the most highly placed official - is above the law. 

Common sense no longer dictates

Naomi Choi, professor of Political Science at the University of Houston notes: “The legal constraint means that the government is subject to existing laws as much as its citizens are. Thus, a closely related notion is the idea of equality before the law, which holds that no “legal” person shall enjoy privileges that are not extended to all and that no person shall be immune from legal sanctions. 

“In addition, the application and adjudication of legal rules by various governing officials are to be impartial and consistent across equivalent cases, made blindly without taking into consideration the class, status, or relative power among disputants.

“In order for those ideas to have any real purchase, moreover, there should be in place some legal apparatus for compelling officials to submit to the law.”

But what we have been encountering over the past few months is sufficient to conclude that the powers-that-be have their own but different interpretation and concept. 

How do we reconcile the fact that while the majority of the populace is subject to norms and the rules of the land while a privileged few get away with all and sundry?

When a convicted felon is given VIP treatment and ordained like a celebrity, we know that common sense no longer dictates and that indicates that it is no longer shameful to steal from the people.

How do our leaders go on missions to attract investors when their interests are not protected because of some ridiculous reasons (read: excuses) for deliberately breaking the law?

Opinions, views and complaints on such issues matter little. It’s like water off the duck’s back but if this continues, does it augur well for the future of the nation?

Isn’t anyone worried about the breakdown of the system? Why hasn’t anyone taken cognisance of the many indiscretions by public officials and held them to be accountable?

Suggestions that the country is going down a slippery slope are summarily dismissed for political expediency. Commentators are slapped down and termed as “doomsayers”.

Even the right of expression which is enshrined in our Federal Constitution has come under threat. Even satire is unacceptable.

What more would anyone expect from a government which was not elected and run by a few selected people cobbled up to just hold the fort.

Answers to the questions above will not be forthcoming.

Lest this writer is accused of speaking to people who are as deaf as a doorpost, let it be a reminder that all’s not well despite all those rosy pictures that are being presented. - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist and 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.