Call on Abu Talib to publicly declare all his business and corporate interests as well as his incomes and assets to establish that there could be no conflict of interest in the discharge of his duties as Suhakam Chairman

(Petaling Jaya,  Wednesday): On 24^th April 2002, I called on the incoming new Suhakam Chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman to set an example of openness, accountability and transparency by publicly  declaring his business and corporate interests, as he is on the board of over half a dozen companies, to ensure that there could be no conflict of interest in the discharge of his duties as Suhakam Chairman with his corporate interests.  

Abu Talib’s response to my call in an interview with Malaysiakini on the same day was that “if there is a conflict of interest” between his Suhakam duties and his corporate involvment, he “would then have to choose”.

This is not a satisfactory enough of an explanation and accounting on the part of Abu Talib considering the circumstances of his past as Attorney-General for 14 years from 1980-1993 which was marred by a long series of controversies which reflected  his  utter contempt for democracy and human rights and raised  disturbing questions about his suitability, credibility, independence and integrity as Suhakam Chairman entrusted with the statutory duty to  promote and protect human rights.

Among the infamous controversies which prominently featured Abu Talib  and which still reverberate in the country to this day because of  their adverse far-reaching effects on democracy, human rights, accountability and good governance   although he had stepped down as Attorney-General for a decade were:  

• The RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal, in failing to initiate any prosecutions to allow it to become “a heinous crime without criminals”; 
• His abject defence of the Internal Security Act and the 1987 Operation Lalang mass arrests, even claiming that the police remand holding centres for the detainees were like “a five-star hotel”; 
• His role as chief government legal adviser in making draconian laws in the country, like the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Official Secrets Act (OSA), even more draconian, repressive and subversive of the democratic spirit and culture with amendments like abolishing judicial review for Ministerial abuses of ISA detention-without-trial powers and making an OSA conviction, however trivial the offence, punishable with  a mandatory minimum one-year jail sentence;
•   His role in the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and two Supreme Court judges, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah in 1988  which plunged the country into an unprecedented crisis of the judiciary;
•   His role as the  legal brain in the  government responsible for  the series of assaults on the 1957 Merdeka Constitution during his 14 years as Attorney-General, in particular the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1988 which “diminished the judicial power of the courts while enlarging the already formidable power of the Attorney-General ( Rais Yatim, Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia, p.102).  In his book, Rais, presently the de facto Law Minister, said the 1988 constitution amendment endangered  the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and undermined the rule of law.
• His  1989 directive to destroy eleven videotapes and four envelopes of 2,000 photographs in the Vijandran  pornographic videotape scandal.  

Early last year, Abu Talib was involved in one of the biggest financial scandals of the government, the RM1.88 billionTime dotCom IPO bailout using Employees’ Provident Fund, Pensions Trust Fund and  Khazanah, as he was the Chairman of Time dotCom Bhd.

This further compounds the question whether Abu Talib  has the stuff to  independently  and credibly discharge the statutory duties as Suhakam Chairman to promote and protect human rights, even if it means having to openly and publicly disagree with the Prime Minister and the government on fundamental issues of democracy and human rights.

Can Abu Talib, after being the point-man of the Mahathir administration for 14 years to trample on democracy and suppress human rights, be transformed in the next two years into the point-man to stand up to Mahathir to  protect and promote human rights as mandated by the Suhakam Act 1999?

DAP Deputy National Chairman, Karpal Singh yesterday asked Abu Talib to seriously consider resigning as Suhakam Chairman as no individual or organization can with confidence refer any complaint to the commission in relation to human rights abuses by the government.

Abu Talib should give Karpal’s call very deep and serious consideration.  This is why over the weekend, I had listed out eight tasks and tests for Suhakam affecting its  credibility and integrity,  especially in the backdrop of the 100-day boycott protest and disengagement with Suhakam by 32 NGOs, with   the restoration of the confidence of the NGOs, Bar Council, Opposition political parties and concerned Malaysians in Suhakam as the primary challenge.

If Abu Talib feels that he could rise to the completely new challenges of Suhakam Chairman and  free himself from  the mental  fetters of 14 years as Attorney-General to unquestionably and obediently  implement the human rights policy of the government to stifle civil liberties  and undergo a transformation to embrace a completely  new concept and commitment to human rights, including publicly breaking ranks with the government’s anti-human rights policy, then he should immediately send out a clear message to NGOs, the Bar Council, Opposition political parties and concerned Malaysians to give him a chance to prove himself.

This must be followed by his publicly declaring all his business and corporate interests as well as his incomes and assets to establish that there could be no conflict of interest in the discharge of his duties as Suhakam Chairman.

If he is not prepared to take these steps, then he should return his commission as Suhakam Chairman to the  Yang di Pertuan Agong so that a suitable nominee could be appointed instead to spearhead the statutory responsibilities to protect and promote human rights in Malaysia for the next two years.

(22/5/2002)