The many mysterious U-turns of our de facto law minister

LETTER | I refer to de facto law minister Liew Vui Keong’s report card.

Promise 27 of the Pakatan Harapan manifesto election is to abolish oppressive laws that were inherited from the British colonial era or those enacted by BN.

These acts are, namely the Sedition Act 1948, Prevention of Crime Act 1959, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, the National Security Council Act 2016, mandatory death by hanging in all acts and draconian provisions in the Penal Code. 

However, 21 months into power, the rakyat is yet to see any significant law reforms.

On Oct 10, 2018, the minister announced to the press, "Death penalty will be abolished. Full stop,” after chairing the "Law Reform Talk" in Universiti Malaya. 

However, in March last year, Liew changed his mind. No more total abolition. Judges will be given power over the imposition of the death penalty.

The next month, it was announced that Putrajaya needed more time to study the issue of the death penalty. 

On July 4, finally some details. After receiving heavy objection on total abolishment, Liew took a step back to abolish only the mandatory death sentence for 11 serious criminal offences. 

He said that the bill was expected to be tabled in Parliament the following week. Seven days passed and Liew changed his mind again. The bill would be tabled in October instead.

In October, the law minister decided that he will table the bill in March this year. The excuse was the special task force set-up to look at alternative sentencing for death row prisoners was only expected to submit its report by this January. 

One cannot help but wonder why only set up the special task force in September when the pledge to abolish all death penalties were made in October 2018. 

Surprisingly, the establishment of this task force is considered to be an achievement according to his report card.

At least six U-turns on the issue of the death penalty. More to come? What are the odds?

On attempted suicides, as the World Health Organisation (WHO) puts it: “Suicide is a complex issue and, therefore, suicide prevention efforts require coordination and collaboration among multiple sectors of society, including the health sector and other sectors such as education, labour, agriculture, business, justice, law, defence, politics, and the media.

The penalties for attempted suicide in our law are severe, maximum jail time of a year. Last week, a person with a disability (PWD) was sentenced to six months in prison for attempted suicide in Terengganu. 

No doubt, Section 309 that criminalises attempted suicide is one of the most archaic provisions in the Penal Code.

Liew had first announced Putrajaya’s intention to decriminalise attempted suicide during a Parliament sitting on Oct 15 last year. 

I wonder why there is no moratorium on attempted suicide that led to the conviction of the PWD in Kuala Terengganu. 

Liew was quick to criticise how the Singapore criminal justice system is unjust (and heart-wrenching). But it is wise to learn from our counterpart across the causeway on how swift their law reform process took place, in particular, the decriminalisation of attempted suicide and outlawing of marital rape.

Mental health is one of the main reasons for suicide. Liew had in his statements stated that Putrajaya will only consider decriminalising attempted suicide if there is an effective alternative mechanism to deal with mental health, and sustainable and viable mechanisms in place for these individuals to access mental healthcare.

These statements sound impressive but were utterly mind-boggling. Does it mean we have to continue punishing those who attempt suicide simply because they could not access mental healthcare treatment?

Furthermore, the minister is probably ignorant of the fact that Malaysia has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Though there is room for improvement most government hospitals have mental healthcare facilities.

It begs the question of what he meant by “effective alternative mechanism to deal with mental health” and whether he had communicated with the Health Ministry on access to mental healthcare. 

Or was it just an excuse for his inaction?

And what has happened to the Sedition Act and proposed Freedom of Information Act?

Liew had on several occasions promised to enact a Freedom of Information Act. Until now, the media is wondering when they will be consulted on the bill? 

Let’s not forget how the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission 2019 (IPCMC) Bill was criticised for not having any meaningful public consultation before it was tabled in Parliament.

The Sedition Act 1948 has been on review since last March and the law minister had announced that a new law will be enacted to replace it. 

Pakatan Harapan supporters had expressed disappointment as it reeks of political hypocrisy, coming from those who were once victims of such repressive laws.

Pending the abolition of the Sedition Act, police have investigated the organisers of the Women's Day march on March 9, 2019, and Sabahan Jufazli Shi Ahmad under the Sedition Act 1948. 

Preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin‘s sentence was enhanced to one year from nine months jail for his 2014 sedition charge after the Shah Alam High Court allowed the appeal by the prosecution. 

All these happened amid the promise from the minister last May that Putrajaya will abolish the Sedition Act last year.

Last we heard in June 2018 that the Home Ministry had set up a special committee to review existing laws, especially those in relation to national security.

Among the laws are the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota) and the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca). 

Who are the committee members? Have the findings been made public? Or is it still work in progress and pending stakeholders’ consultation? The rakyat is sick of all these excuses.

Strangely enough, on July 10, last year, Putrajaya decided to withdraw the Bill to amend the National Security Council Act 2016. 

No solid reasons were ever put forward. In August last year, the minister made another U-turn by refusing to commit to the total abolishment of the National Security Council.

And instead of introducing artificial intelligence on how judges should sentence criminals, what about reforming the legal aid system in Malaysia to advance access to justice?

People should not be jailed just because they are poor. It should be noted that the PWD who was convicted for attempted suicide was not represented by a lawyer. 

The rakyat is also eager to know the update on fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim’s case and the status of the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) to investigate judicial misconduct. Shouldn’t all these be reflected on the minister’s report card?

Liew had also expressed how “nauseated” he was by Kinabatangan MP Bung Mokhtar Radin's sudden concern for Sabah-Sarawak rights. 

Personal hygiene aside, will the people of Sabah and Sarawak see the passing of the constitutional amendment that honours the 1963 Malaysia Agreement (MA63)? 

How about family members of death in custody victim? 

Will the IPCMC Bill ever be passed?

Law is the expression of the general will. Abraham Lincoln had said, “The government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.” 

To avoid being a one-term administration, Pakatan Harapan is in need of an able minister to look into concrete and meaningful law reforms that do not announce any major decisions prematurely.

To win the support of his peers and opposition, getting behind the pillar while his deputy tabled the bill in Parliament is never an option. Not to mention dancing on stage right after the defeat of Warisan in Kimanis. 

A minister in "Malaysia Baru" must be brave enough to take the bull by the horns. The Parliament lounge should not be a place for a coffee break to avoid “noisy” opposition members but a platform to engage with opposition members for their buy-in on major bills.

Please be serious, no more U-turns.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.