On What Basis Has The IGP The Right To Act And Arrest For Sedition Those Who Question Court Decisions, When He Himself Has Flagrantly Broken The Law With An Unlawful Of Refusing To Obey And Enforce A Direct Court Order?(e/c)

Press Statement By Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng In Komtar, George Town On 26 June 2014.

Inspector-General of Police(IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar should stop making threats of taking action for sedition, against those who question the decision of the Federal Court that the BN Federal government had a right to ban the Catholic weekly “The Herald” from using kalimah “Allah”. The IGP’s warnings is unbecoming for a police chief charged with protecting the public, and smacks of double-standards when no action is taken against UMNO leaders from Perkasa, who on 23 June 2014 repeated their calls for the closure of the vernacular Chinese and Tamil primary schools.

Malaysians have a legal and constitutional right to question any court decision that is finally decided. This is in accordance with political, social, and judicial norms of our country since Merdeka. Criticism of court decisions based on the law also complies with international practices and natural laws. If court decisions can not be questioned, then this is no longer a democracy governed by rule of law but a dictatorship governed by men pretending to act under divine laws.

Police failure to act against those who bully and threatens minority groups or PR leaders who oppose BN only shows how the IGP has politicized the police force into becoming a tool of BN. Instead of upholding the law, the IGP has chosen to break the law by refusing to enforce child custodial orders issued by the Ipoh High Court. The High Court’s order to the police that the Muslim parent who had unilaterally converted the child, must return the child to the mother, is following universally and internationally accepted practices of human decency and humanity of reuniting mother and child.

The refusal of the IGP to comply with civil court orders is clearly a breach of statutory duty that has exposed Khalid Abu Bakar as completely unfit for such a high and important position because he has conveniently forgotten one of the primary police duties under Section 20 of the Police Act 1967 is to execute any orders of summons, subpoenas, warrants legally issued by the courts. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s suggestion of referring such child custody cases to the Federal Court fails to address, correct and punish such open contempt of courts and defiance of the IGP’s statutory duty.

On what basis has the IGP the right to act and arrest for sedition those who question court decisions, when he himself has flagrantly broken the law with an unlawful of of refusing to obey and enforce a direct court order?

LIM GUAN ENG

==============================================================
槟城州首席部长林冠英于2014年6月26日在乔治市光大发表的文告:

当全国总警长连自己都公然地违法,违抗法庭的谕令拒绝执法采取行动,他本身还能基于什么权力以煽动罪名对付及逮捕质疑法庭判决者?

全国总警长丹斯里卡立阿布巴卡应该停止威胁要以煽动法令对付那些质疑法院裁决者,只因为他们质疑联邦法院裁决国阵联邦政府有权禁止天主教《先锋报》刊物使用“阿拉”一词。全国总警长的警告,根本不符合作为保护公众的警界一哥。而且,全国总警长还双重标准,没有采取行动对付在6月23日重复恫言要关闭华小与淡小的土权巫统领袖。

马来西亚人拥有法律及宪法的权力质疑任何法院最终的裁决。这都权力是来自独立以来依据政治、社会及司法的惯例。以法律观点批评法院裁决也是符合国际惯例与自然法。若法院的裁决不能被质疑,那就不再是以法治为基础的民主施政,而是伪装成神规戒律,行人治独裁施政之实。

警方无法采取行动对付那些只因为反国阵,就欺凌及恐吓少数群体及民联领袖的滋事份子,这证明了全国总警长已经将警力政治化,成为国阵的工具。原理应维护法治的全国总警长,却选择违抗法律,拒绝怡保高庭谕令在改教扶养权争议中执法采取行动。高庭谕令警方必须要单方面将孩子改教的穆斯林父亲,将孩子归还给母亲,这乃是依据人性尊严及人道主义,让母亲与孩子团聚的普世与国际社会可接受之惯例。

全国总警长拒绝履行法庭谕令,已经是明显的渎职,并暴露出卡立并不胜任全国总警长这么高阶及重要的职位。因为他已经轻易忘了在1967年警察法令第20条文下,警方的首要任务就是执行法庭合法发出的任何传召、传讯及搜查或逮捕令。还有,首相拿督斯里纳吉一边厢只会建议将孩童扶养权的争议案交给联邦法院,但他却完全没有指出、纠正及惩罚公开违抗法院谕令的渎职全国总警长。

当全国总警长连自己都公然地违法,违抗法庭的谕令拒绝执法采取行动,他本身还能基于什么权力以煽动罪名对付及逮捕质疑法庭判决者?

林冠英

0 Responses to “On What Basis Has The IGP The Right To Act And Arrest For Sedition Those Who Question Court Decisions, When He Himself Has Flagrantly Broken The Law With An Unlawful Of Refusing To Obey And Enforce A Direct Court Order?(e/c)”


Comments are currently closed.