My column last week described why I think a leading lawyer's dignity has been denied by our judicial system, all because of the so-called performance management system being implemented by the chief judge. Last week also, about 30 criminal lawyers met to discuss how they should protest this 'expediency syndrome' that appears to do injustice to those who still fall under our 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine within our system of governance.
France is the only exception, as far as I am aware, that follows the 'guilty until proven innocent' doctrine. This means that in the French system, they are much slower in making any false accusations and presumably will never make an assertion without absolute certainty regarding the evidence gathered and charge being made.
Therefore I am writing on why we must defend the dignity of every individual person, regardless of our particular views or perceptions about them. Their dignity must be preserved through our 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine.
Our system must learn to protect and preserve the same dignity of all public figures who have, in the recent past, become unfortunate victims of false charges and poor accusations. We appear all too free to make assertions and false accusations, as is becoming evident, by the rising number of 'corruption cases' thrown out without a defence being called. This appears to be a trend now.
The specific case I refer to is that of Robert Phang, the now former MACC advisor, whose appointment term with all other advisors would end soon, regardless. Having read Robert Phang's press release a few times, allow me some 'guesstimates' in the direction of arguing that our presuming innocence in every such case is absolutely critical, even if, and especially when we may have a rather flawed judicial system. Why?
Firstly, it is very obvious that different values and levels of 'tolerances for nonsense' exist even within the MACC regarding good and able processes of governance. For instance, it is obvious now that the MACC advisors hold differences of opinion on whether the attorney-general is part of the problem, or part of the solution in matters related to some large cases under investigation.
Therefore the chairperson of one of their committees was essentially reprimanded for making an 'unauthorised statement' on the matter and drawing a wrong conclusion on the AG's 'innocence.'
Was there a case or not?
Robert Phang was therefore in the eye of this storm, and consequently, it all now almost appears like a battle of the good against evil forces, whomsoever these are! Phang can now be only viewed as the 'knight in the white armour' and therefore any method whatsoever to bring him down appears legitimate to some.
France is the only exception, as far as I am aware, that follows the 'guilty until proven innocent' doctrine. This means that in the French system, they are much slower in making any false accusations and presumably will never make an assertion without absolute certainty regarding the evidence gathered and charge being made.
Therefore I am writing on why we must defend the dignity of every individual person, regardless of our particular views or perceptions about them. Their dignity must be preserved through our 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine.
Our system must learn to protect and preserve the same dignity of all public figures who have, in the recent past, become unfortunate victims of false charges and poor accusations. We appear all too free to make assertions and false accusations, as is becoming evident, by the rising number of 'corruption cases' thrown out without a defence being called. This appears to be a trend now.
The specific case I refer to is that of Robert Phang, the now former MACC advisor, whose appointment term with all other advisors would end soon, regardless. Having read Robert Phang's press release a few times, allow me some 'guesstimates' in the direction of arguing that our presuming innocence in every such case is absolutely critical, even if, and especially when we may have a rather flawed judicial system. Why?
Firstly, it is very obvious that different values and levels of 'tolerances for nonsense' exist even within the MACC regarding good and able processes of governance. For instance, it is obvious now that the MACC advisors hold differences of opinion on whether the attorney-general is part of the problem, or part of the solution in matters related to some large cases under investigation.
Therefore the chairperson of one of their committees was essentially reprimanded for making an 'unauthorised statement' on the matter and drawing a wrong conclusion on the AG's 'innocence.'
Was there a case or not?
Robert Phang was therefore in the eye of this storm, and consequently, it all now almost appears like a battle of the good against evil forces, whomsoever these are! Phang can now be only viewed as the 'knight in the white armour' and therefore any method whatsoever to bring him down appears legitimate to some.
Therefore, there suddenly appears this unnamed and unknown blogger and the accusation about Phang's apparent corruption with no time frame. It remains a very lame accusation, very neutral and equally general; and it appears that it cannot be made to stick against anyone, not even to a real crook!
But, the more important question and issue for me is why are we therefore fighting only the ghosts of these hidden hands; and not the real people themselves? Robert Phang is a real person who has dignity. So, he fights back!
Why then did the MACC commissioner say (as per Phang's statement) that there was no case against Robert Phang when later his deputy says there is a case to be investigated? If an advisor, who is like the member of the board of directors of a company for good oversight and governance, cannot get a straight answer to a legitimate question, who is really and actually running the MACC, if not the commissioner as the executive chairperson?
Are there puppeteers outside MACC who are really calling the shots? To me, unless the conflicting statements within the MACC leadership system are clarified, there are some serious questions and doubts to be raised about the current MACC leadership and their system of operations.
In my study on the subject of dignity in the workplace, the meaning of dignity can be experienced either in the positive or the negative, especially when one is squeezed between major concerns related to any overlapping jurisdictions related to truth matters in any given situation.
Let me apply this model for our mutual consideration.
Through no fault of Phang's, and entirely as a direct result of his public persona and roles he assumed, and presumably in order to keep his own conscience clear on matters which became public news, he is now 'forced to resign' even though the MACC advisors themselves were not in favour.
The advisors declared that Phang was cleared of any wrong doing, but then they never made any accusations about him either. His resignation is related to the need to, as he puts it, 'walk his talk'. He hopes that the MACC or whoever has jurisdiction on this matter of this so-called wrong-doing must now clear his name or charge him accordingly.
MACC must either charge him or leave no stone unturned to find and charge the unnamed and unknown blogger with relevant crimes of destroying the reputation of a man who appears to have given his life to serve noble causes in the public spheres of life.
His dignity must be defended; and especially by MACC because he could not have been appointed without his credibility and record having been checked and verified before his appointment in the first place.
In such an instance, I would like to generalise, that the dignity of this one advisor is also closely related and linked to the future direction of the leadership of MACC. Her leadership under the current commissioner needs to be assessed in terms of the benchmarks of integrity; especially the gap between espoused theory and practice.
The nation needs to see and begin to believe that MACC works and does her job without fear or favour in the fight against corruption in this nation.
I for one, will give the commissioner the benefit of the doubt, but only if he is willing to come forward and explain the lack of leadership integrity within the MACC on matters related to a governor of their system.
To me, if the governor is not honest and transparent, the MACC leadership only reflects that value. For after all, as Peter Vaill my professor once told me, “John, too often it is good and honest people who die first, while the crooks succeed!'
Modern day Egypt has shown that Pharaoh-like despots and such leadership models cannot survive in the turbulent world of change. It will be people who stand with courage of integrity who will, because their passion in truth matters.
Why then did the MACC commissioner say (as per Phang's statement) that there was no case against Robert Phang when later his deputy says there is a case to be investigated? If an advisor, who is like the member of the board of directors of a company for good oversight and governance, cannot get a straight answer to a legitimate question, who is really and actually running the MACC, if not the commissioner as the executive chairperson?
Are there puppeteers outside MACC who are really calling the shots? To me, unless the conflicting statements within the MACC leadership system are clarified, there are some serious questions and doubts to be raised about the current MACC leadership and their system of operations.
In my study on the subject of dignity in the workplace, the meaning of dignity can be experienced either in the positive or the negative, especially when one is squeezed between major concerns related to any overlapping jurisdictions related to truth matters in any given situation.
Let me apply this model for our mutual consideration.
Through no fault of Phang's, and entirely as a direct result of his public persona and roles he assumed, and presumably in order to keep his own conscience clear on matters which became public news, he is now 'forced to resign' even though the MACC advisors themselves were not in favour.
The advisors declared that Phang was cleared of any wrong doing, but then they never made any accusations about him either. His resignation is related to the need to, as he puts it, 'walk his talk'. He hopes that the MACC or whoever has jurisdiction on this matter of this so-called wrong-doing must now clear his name or charge him accordingly.
MACC must either charge him or leave no stone unturned to find and charge the unnamed and unknown blogger with relevant crimes of destroying the reputation of a man who appears to have given his life to serve noble causes in the public spheres of life.
His dignity must be defended; and especially by MACC because he could not have been appointed without his credibility and record having been checked and verified before his appointment in the first place.
MACC's integrity in question
In such an instance, I would like to generalise, that the dignity of this one advisor is also closely related and linked to the future direction of the leadership of MACC. Her leadership under the current commissioner needs to be assessed in terms of the benchmarks of integrity; especially the gap between espoused theory and practice.
The nation needs to see and begin to believe that MACC works and does her job without fear or favour in the fight against corruption in this nation.
I for one, will give the commissioner the benefit of the doubt, but only if he is willing to come forward and explain the lack of leadership integrity within the MACC on matters related to a governor of their system.
To me, if the governor is not honest and transparent, the MACC leadership only reflects that value. For after all, as Peter Vaill my professor once told me, “John, too often it is good and honest people who die first, while the crooks succeed!'
Modern day Egypt has shown that Pharaoh-like despots and such leadership models cannot survive in the turbulent world of change. It will be people who stand with courage of integrity who will, because their passion in truth matters.
KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed above are truths that matter to him as an individual citizen wearing private and civil society hats and therefore are not opinions of the university or faculty. Do send feedback to him at kjjohn@ohmsi.net
Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/156105
No comments:
Post a Comment