Of Immunity

Why do people want immunity from prosecution?

The Malaysian Sultans lost their immunity in 1993 when a series of abuses were done to the rakyat. The rulers have since adapted except for a fracas or two involving the younglings. As a result, people still retain their respect for this institution.

With the amendment, the Malay Rulers can be charged on any personal wrongdoing, outside of their role and duties as a Ruler. However, the charges cannot be carried out in a normal court of law, but in a Special Tribunal under the purview of the Council of Rulers.

Blackwater is a military contract provider to the US army in Iraq. After years of immunity and wanton killings, the Iraqi government finally managed to arm twist US into lifting of its immunity in exchange that Iraqi government does not ask US to leave. Natural juctice is the allowed to flow. Blackwater security guards charged with killing 14 Iraqis

(Image)

"In 2006 four people were killed and 43 homes destroyed in a nearby suburband in 1993 a 12-storey condominium tower collapsed, burying 48 people mainly maids
and children." (AFP)

Statutory immunity granted to local authorities under the Section 95 (2) of the Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) has protected the government over many incidences of mismanagement and covers up the effects of corruption, incompetency and bad decision making. The Highland Towers incident in 1993 shows the unfairness of this clause when the local authority was deemed immune to any criminal charges. Subsequent civil suits by residences was also negated and their final loss was confirmed this year.

The majority decision delivered by Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad said that if
the local councils were made liable, it would open the floodgates to further
claims for economic loss, and this would deplete the council's resources
meant for the provision of basic services and infrastructure. (MB)

And I thought that the council's resources comes from the rakyat who pay taxes and all the assestment rates. So, is it fair that the councils can wantonly decree and decide and even if their decision is damaging and causes people to die, they are free from prosecution? If Sultan and occupiers can be made liable for their mistakes, why is the local council special and beyond reproach?

My heart goes to all who have lost and are impacted by this event. I too live in a high rise condo beside a hill and that scares me.

Why do people want immunity from prosecution? Ask your local councils for the answer.

Lina's Response

This is a serious degradation of our rights. Kudos to CJ Sabah/Sarawak Richard Melanjum for spotting the many mistakes of the defence case. There is no point if majority decision is again used as both other Judges would not want to stir up problems and drive down their popularity vote. Since the assault on Judiacy in 1988, the Malaysian legal careers are more interwined with politics. How sad.

Nation Thursday May 31, 2007
Lina unhappy with decision
KUALA LUMPUR: Lina Joy is extremely unhappy with the Federal Court judgment.
“I am disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important fundamental right that exists in all persons; namely, the right to believe in the religion of one's choice and equally important, the right to marry a person of one's choice and to raise a family in the Malaysia context.
“The Federal Court has not only denied me that right but to all Malaysians who value fundamental freedoms,” she told The Star, through her solicitor Benjamin Dawson.
“I am hoping that my case would have made a difference to the development of constitutional issues in the plight of many others.”
Asked whether she would leave Malaysia for good, Lina, who is believed to be overseas at present, said: “It would extremely difficult to exercise freedom of conscience in the present environment.”
Lina, 42, was born Azlina Jailani to Malay parents. She was brought up as a Muslim but at the age of 36 became a Christian.
In 1999, she managed to change the name in her identity card to Lina Joy but the National Registration Department retained her religion in the card as Islam.
On April 23, 2001, the High Court refused to decide on her application to renounce Islam as her religion on grounds that the issue should be decided by the Syariah Court. It also dismissed her application for an order to direct the department to drop the word “Islam” from her identity card.
On Sept 19, 2005, the Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, also rejected her appeal.

The day Islamic Law is higher than Malaysian Constitution

Apalling!! My rights are taken away just like that! With the line of argument that Islamic law was here earlier than British Laws, the lawyers for government and both consenting Muslim judges forgot that our country .. Malaysia .. was build with the integrity and respect of the law of the day. If this set of law did not help us to come to our state yesterday, which set of law did? The Syariah law? Untill year 2000, the syariah law is on par with traditional courts of Sabah and Sarawak. And today, Syariah seemed to supercede our Constitution.

Islam has higher status in Malaysia
PUTRAJAYA: Islam has a higher status than other faiths in Malaysia, said a lawyer holding a watching brief for the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association.

Pawancheek Marican said Article 11 of the Constitution restricted propagation of other religions to Muslims.
“Our Constitution favours Islam. Islamic law is part of the law of our country,” he said.

Another lawyer, Zulkifli Nordin, who is holding a watching brief for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM), said there were rules for Muslims to follow before they could renounce Islam.
“These rules are the Quranic law and the sunnah,” he said.

And again, the argument that something earlier is better and correct. If that is so, i guess the Hindu and Buddhist law should be even earlier. Or the traditional coursts in Sabah /Sarawak should have the same weightage.

“We have to take into account that Islam was here from the 13th century. The Malay Sultanate became Muslim and, later, its people,” he said, adding that the system was interrupted with the intrusion of colonial powers.
“The law that was applied then was Islamic law and several centuries later, Malaysia became a fully Islamic country.”
He said everything about the Malays then was governed by Islam and Malay customs. On the other hand, British law was limited and based on Christianity.
“Unfortunately, the British were the stronger party and had their way on what should be Malay customs and Muslim law,” he said, questioning the need to conform to the British legal system after the country’s independence.

Sulaiman said the Malaysian Constitution was unique in that it had a special place for Islam.
He added, however, that Muslims could not declare their renunciation of Islam without the involvement of religious authorities because there would be Constitutional repercussions.
“For instance, one may declare himself a Muslim in the morning and by the evening he is not a Muslim. Or, he is a Muslim when it’s time for zakat and not a Muslim during the fasting month,” he said.
This prompted Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim to ask: “Are you saying that a Buddhist can be a Buddhist in the morning and a Christian in the evening?”
Sulaiman answered there was nothing to stop anyone from doing so.

So, should there be something that stop people from doing so ? Either other religions have their own courts but fundamentally, stopping someone from doing the thing that they decide is already against the spirit of freedom. And in specific to religion, it is against article 11. CJ Ahmad is not wise enough to spot that.

He said several legal representatives of non-governmental organisations had, in their submissions last week, made attacks on the position of Islam.
“That is a total reversal of what the Government had set out to achieve,” he said.
The NGOs had supported the view of Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who gave his dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal, that the NRD’s refusal to make the amendment in Lina’s identity card without an order or certificate from the Syariah Court was null and void.

I believe it is not attacks on Islam as the respect on the constitution requires it.The challenge is the arbitary changes that happens , deviating from the original intent of it. It is a defense against a system designed to do so. So, is Sulaiman admitting that the government has a hand in this?

Anyway, i believe this is the best 50th year Merdeka gift that all non- Muslims receive from our government. The court is not only leaking water this year.