The plot thickens when a bunch of PKR MPs - led by the party’s former deputy president Rafizi Ramli - are mooting for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate an alleged judicial appointments scandal.
It truly fascinated me when Rafizi and his MP friends from PKR categorically alleged there were some irregularities in the appointment of senior judges, including the chief justice.
With Rafizi’s latest move, perhaps Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has to eat the humble pie by conceding the issue has attained national status.
In justifying the setting up of the proposed RCI, Rafizi believes an RCI’s jurisdiction would be wider and all-encompassing.
His rationale is that the RCI would be empowered to investigate issues beyond the realm of a proposal by the Defend the Judiciary Secretariat under Article 125(3) of the Federal Constitution, which, in his view, could only probe allegations against the Federal Court judges.
Rafizi, in essence, demands a consistent approach. After all, on the last occasion - during the VK Lingam scandal - PKR did call for an investigation by the RCI.
‘Toothless RCI’
I have learnt that former law minister Zaid Ibrahim does not agree with the idea of setting up the RCI. He argues that a slew of previous RCIs were powerless and visibly impotent in ensuring their recommendations were implemented by the government.
In fact, Zaid has come up with a rather drastic proposal. He believes the prime minister ought to be subjected to a “no-confidence vote in Parliament.”
“I tend to agree, RCI may not be a good option, albeit for different reasons. Given the economic woes faced by the people at the moment, it would be prudent for the government to utilise public funds in helping out the people instead of defraying the RCI, let alone a toothless RCI.”
The sentiment on the ground seems to drive home this message: the government has miserably failed to ease the people’s economic burden despite gloating with a series of public announcements of purported billions in foreign investments.
A Grab driver who got the impression that I am still an MP seriously lamented to me, “YB, why does the government have to expand the SST (sales and service tax) when Anwar consistently claims many foreign investors have agreed to invest billions of dollars. Can you speak out in Parliament on our behalf?”
Anyway, I fully subscribe to the idea that the Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Election and Institutional Reform conduct an inquiry.
This committee should be able to summon all the relevant witnesses to testify on this very issue, and such witnesses should include the prime minister himself.
In addition to that, such an inquiry should be publicly televised. Whether the MPs ought to proceed with a no-confidence vote thereafter, in my view, would be, inter alia, determined by the outcome of the said parliamentary inquiry. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy law minister.
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.