JUNE 14 — The Inspector-General of Police decided not to take sides (over the different rulings of the civil and syariah courts) and instructed the children be placed in a childcare centre while “a solution is being worked out”. He must think it the judicious thing to do. The thought of “Illusions of grandeur” suddenly hit me. 

A visual of a bedecked “His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Dr Idi Amin Dada, Lord of all Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire (CBE) in Africa in general and Uganda in particular” flashed.  

Yup, the notorious Idi Amin (President of Uganda 1971-79) who provided the world comic relief in between destroying the Ugandan economy and murdering his countrymen. After he fled into exile in Saudi Arabia, Colonel Gaddaffi and Saddam Hussein had the stage to themselves.

No, the IGP and Idi Amin are not the same. One is a police chief while the other, president of a nation.

Now back to the subject matter. A policeman is the all-encompassing guardian and enforcer of the law for a civil society. When he does not obey a legal order, he has reneged on a sworn duty. He has brought shame on his uniform and his country.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the M. Indira Gandhi and S. Deepa rulings. But if our police chief insists that he is deeply troubled with his personal beliefs, the moral thing to do as an upright citizen is to relinquish his post. He was made the police chief based on the civil law and that is the law he is sworn to protect and uphold. There are provisions for cases which fall directly under the syariah courts. Then he is also sworn to protect and uphold based on those specified jurisdictions. 

Instead, he has now created another “court” and decided on a stay of execution. We have the civil court, the syariah court and now, the IGP “court”? Need to re-configure  the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) syllabus? 

The IGP must rightly be cited for contempt of court.

On lawful orders

What if the IGP was merely acting upon instructions — a good civil servant following orders? Then he is not a particularly good civil servant. His position demands that he is acquainted with the notion of “a lawful order”. 

The last time I was this miffed was a quarter century ago when the late Tun Abdul Hamid Omar sat in a tribunal to hear the Tun Salleh Abas case, citing he was acting upon instructions from the King. Hamid Omar was the next in line to be the Lord President if Salleh Abas was dismissed. 

Salleh Abas was dismissed and Hamid Omar did replace him.

I truly suspect the executive is overstretching themselves to look for a political solution either because they think they have been inconvenienced by the law, or that they sincerely felt an “incongruence”. That’s why the government has urged the involved parties to seek redress from the Federal court and even hinted that the cases would be given priority.

But the law must still take its course. That is the very basis of the Rule of Law.

Rule of Law

If the Rule of Law had been applied judiciously, the nonsensical views on race and religion wouldn’t have taken place. Our Penal Code had that covered. Seems the authorities had their eyes and ears covered more intact.

The National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) had drafted a few bills dedicated towards national harmony, unity and integration for government consideration. We can still meet those objectives by incorporating their 21st century thinking and ideas to enhance sections within the Penal Code relating to racial disharmony. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Bottom line is — enough laws but not enough will in the enforcement.

Postscript

The government must uphold the Rule of Law most strenuously. The Law is the very reason why Pakatan Rakyat’s constant taunt of the BN being a “minority” (48 per cent popular vote) government holds no traction. The Law says 133 seats forms the government over 89 seats, that’s why.

These two custody cases have never been about the “superiority” issue of the courts. Their jurisdictions are very clearly defined. For instance, how can we say the medical service is “superior” to the police service, or the Customs & Excise Department over the Fire & Rescue Department? 

I just think this ludicrous “siege mentality” by the self-professed champions of race and religion is too malignant and invasive already. It’s been absurdly directed to the thinking that observing a civil law is subordinating a syariah law. 

There are consequences when the Rule of Law is ignored!

Khairy Jamaluddin’s call for the IGP to uphold the law is in character. He knew full well there will be segments within the wing who would accuse him of not “defending the syariah court” or something to the effect. He did the right thing in wanting things done right. KJ is definitely one of our few good men.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.