HOW well are we coping with the problems confronting us?

In Perak, the sultan had acted to form a new government. Some maintained that he should have dissolved the state assembly and called for elections. The court has been asked to resolve the issue.

But did the action taken by the sultan involve his personal matter or was it a state matter? The ruler acted under the state Constitution so it would be a state matter. Would Karpal Singh be correct in saying that he held the sultan personally responsible for the Perak debacle? If not, then would an apology to the sultan not be appropriate and forthcoming?

There has been a misconstruction on the development of our law on the immunity of the rulers, in failing to distinguish between a personal and official act of the rulers, but which, nevertheless, has caused the public to perceive it as a discourteous and dishonourable act against the sultan.

However, one cannot help feeling that the cause is rooted in the decision taken by the court itself that crossovers are legitimate. But why must that be the case given that Article 10 does not expressly say so?

It is open to the court, therefore, to determine whether a crossover is a matter of high principle which should be allowed, or one which merely seeks to create mischief which should be disallowed.

It strikes me as rather strange why the parties have not considered putting aside their political differences and forming a coalition government. Too much politicking at the expense of the deteriorating economy will help no one.

We need to bear in mind that even if elections are held now, the racial balance in Perak is such that any government installed will have a very slim majority and face the risk of again being toppled.

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how Parti Keadilan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim can initiate the reconciliation process, having legitimised the idea of crossovers in the first place. He has put us in an unenviable situation, so it is up to him to unravel it.

We can’t afford to split hairs to say that some crossovers are legitimate and some are not, if the end result is to destabilise the government in power.

An equally important matter that has aroused public attention is the manner in which the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) is functioning of late.

As a body which, when the occasion arises, seeks to question the integrity of anyone regardless of their status or station in life, it must be seen to act fairly and justly in its responsibilities. Otherwise its impartiality will be questioned and will hamper its efforts to get the public to cooperate. This will defeat the purpose for which the MACC is set up.

The manner in which the body has acted lately raises the question whether it knows how to function.

The MACC’s work is strictly to adduce evidence to present its case to the court. It may be done on its own or through the attorney-general. The court will then determine whether the evidence adducted is sufficient to establish a case. The MACC is not obliged to disclose to the public how the evidence is adduced and what the nature of the evidence is.

But, nevertheless, if MACC officials speak on it, then they must show that they are acting impartially in their investigations. If they do not proceed against another individual they must also explain why. Otherwise they cannot blame the public for accusing them of having double standards.

ABDUL RAZAK ABU SAMAH, Bohor, Pahang

Source: NST – February 27, 2009