Thursday, 26-Feb-2004 8:40 AM

“Justice must not only be served; it must also be seen to be served”

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The developments in Parti Keadilan Nasional (keADILan) over the last couple of weeks have certainly been an eye opener, if not a wakeup call. Two very significant happenings are the crossover of the 12 grassroots leaders (mostly from the Youth Movement or Pemuda keADILan), and the sacking of its Executive Secretary, Lokman Noor Adam.

Let me first touch on the Lokman episode. To be absolutely honest, I both support and do not support the sacking, and I will explain why in due course.

I believe in the age-old adage that “justice must not only be served, it must also be seen to be served.” In the Lokman sacking, the nagging question would be then: was justice seen to have been served?

Now, this is crucial to the whole episode. No one would even want to talk about whether he did or did not get a fair trial if in the first place there was no appearance of a trial. In politics, appearances are everything and the only thing. Therefore, keADILan, of all parties, should be most sensitive to this point seeing that the very name of the party means ‘justice’ in English.

I am not saying that there was no inquiry or that the impartiality of the panel set up by the party to conduct the inquiry is suspect. They are after all leaders of some standing in the party -- the Deputy President Abdul Rahman Othman, Vice President Tian Chua and Treasurer Datuk Kamarul Baharin Abbas. But the very fact that they ARE party leaders, whether of integrity or otherwise, would start tongues wagging. And this is most unfortunate as I feel these leaders should have been insulated and isolated from this whole episode and not put in a situation where they would get dragged into the whole affair.

Anyway, what is done is done and it is too late to lock the stable door once the horse has bolted. What keADILan now needs to do is ensure that such an episode can be avoided in future. Maybe keADILan should establish a permanent disciplinary committee that can act as judge and jury for future incidences of this nature. Maybe this committee can comprise of a retired judge and some practicing lawyers (say like Zainur Zakaria) who hold no party positions and have no political ambitions whatsoever -- people who can interpret the party constitution and the legal ramifications of any action or decision.

All complaints of indiscipline or breach of the party constitution should be brought directly to the attention of the disciplinary committee, which would then decide whether the complaint is legitimate and serious enough to warrant some form of action. Some indiscretions may only require a warning, others a show cause, while only the more serious and blatant ones would warrant sacking.

This disciplinary committee would of course be set up with the endorsement of the Supreme Council (Majlis Pimpinan Tertinggi or MPT). However, once it is set up, the MPT should no longer interfere in its work or try to influence its decision. After all, is this not what keADILan is fighting for, an independent judiciary? The members of the disciplinary committee can be appointed for two-year terms after which their tenure can be extended if the MPT is satisfied with their work and if those due for reappointment are prepared to continue serving on the committee.

The independence of the disciplinary committee would be to the extent that all cases should not be ‘filtered’ by the MPT before they are sent to them. This will avoid ‘selective prosecution’, like what the opposition has accused the government of practicing. Further to that, the disciplinary committee should be above the MPT in that it can take action against any MPT member, the President included. Technically, therefore, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail can be sacked from the party if a legitimate and serious complaint against her is brought to the committee’s attention and if it finds her guilty of breaching party discipline or violating the party constitution.

The setting up of such a committee, and a totally independent one at that, would probably make keADILan the first political party in Malaysia to practice what it preaches. And dare the party leaders put their fate in such a committee that will maintain party discipline and decorum without fear or favour? This is the true test of the pudding. And, as they say, charity starts at home, so keADILan should reform this shortcoming before it shouts at others to reform.

Actually, Lokman brought the problem upon himself when he chose to boycott the hearing, citing the three-man panel set up to hear his case as biased. Lokman may be entirely out of line here but he managed to raise enough doubts, though still only an allegation and which he was not able to prove at that. But then he managed to recruit many sympathisers who share his view that he was unfairly sacked. People no longer talk about what he did and whether what he did was detrimental to the party. They focus on the manner he was sacked and, unfortunately, this has now become the issue instead of what the real issue should be, and that is the damage he has done the party.

Now, on the positive aspects of this whole episode, it is good that the party took this stern action. In the past, the main complaint about the party is that it is indecisive and appears reluctant to act lest the members merajuk (sulk) and leave the party. This was interpreted as weak leadership. For some time now the members have been saying if these people want to merajuk let them merajuk, and if they chose to leave the party, then good riddance. Whatever the consequences, the party should never kowtow to any particular individual and no individual should be allowed to hold the party to ransom.

Take the case of the one-time state chief of Melaka, Omar Jaafar. In late 2002, he raised hell at the party’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Sungai Petani, Kedah. In a huff, he led a group of about 100 to stage a walkout in protest against the proposed keADILan-PRM (Parti Rakyat Malaysia) merger. Outside the hall he shouted at all and sundry and accused the party leaders of being munafik (hypocrites). That same afternoon he called a press conference and slammed the party.

What Omar and his gang of merry men and women did was no less damaging than what Lokman did. The AGM was ‘open’ and witnessed by the entire media, the mainstream media included, which without a doubt is anti-opposition. As if it is not enough the government-controlled media twists everything the opposition says and does, did we need to give it even more ammunition?

Some people tell me Omar then conducted a campaign to oppose the merger. Many who in the beginning supported the merger now oppose it all because of the success of this anti-merger campaign conducted by the party’s own leaders. Yet no action was taken against Omar and his anti-merger campaigners.

The growing anti-merger sentiment resulted in some Pemuda keADILan leaders resisting the plan to merge keADILan’s and PRM’s Youth Movements into a new entity called Angkatan Muda. And the reason cited was that PRM’s Youth Movement is not all male but has females as well. Is this a valid and genuine reason to oppose the merging of the two Youth Movements or it is just an excuse concocted to justify opposing the merger?

Anyway, the fallout from all this was most damaging indeed. Some who felt that the party was bulldozing the merger and was not allowing the members to voice their opinions quietly left the party and went into retirement. Luckily they did not join Umno. Others went into confrontation with the keADILan Youth Leader, Ezam Mohd Nor, and the bad blood soon turned ugly. Finally, they too left the party, and this included some of those in the group of 12 who recently joined Umno.

Maybe they were paid to join Umno. I seriously do not know. But even if they were, my deep suspicion tells me that money was a by-the-way thing. It was not the main inducement. What prompted them to take that leap was the irreconcilable differences with Ezam, and this was brought about by the strong anti-merger sentiments.

Can we now say that Omar did not commit a major crime, maybe worse than that committed by Lokman?

And this is my bone of contention. The party should have acted much earlier, and acted tough, but it did not. And that resulted in chaos. Now, in the Lokman case, the party did just that, it acted tough. So, I suppose, I, who have criticised the party for non-action in the past, will have no choice but to support the tough action against Lokman. And, my only complaint now would have to be; too little too late.

If Omar had earlier been made an example of and the anti-merger campaign nipped in the bud, we might not have seen the exodus of those 12. Even if we did, it would not have been 12 but probably less than half a dozen.

It is not that we are forbidding freedom of speech. Of course one may speak out. But there is a proper forum for this and once the party has made its decision we all need to abide to it. You are also free to oppose any party decision if your views are opposite to that decision. But you must never conduct a sabotage exercise to undermine the party. At worst, if you feel the party no longer adheres to the principle it was set up for, you leave the party. Plain and simple!

Check your voter registration here