Not fair to prejudge new Suhakams chief
The question then arises whether Abu Talib's past performance as AG should, in fairness, be held against his future performance as Suhakam's chairman? He too has the human right to be judged fairly.
In terms of the former AG's capability, there has not been any imputation to the contrary. His experience in law instead places him in good stead for discharging his duties as Suhakam's chairperson.
But we have, according to Lim Kit Siang, this problem of character — credibility. Reference has been made to his complicity in removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas, the neglect to prosecute culprits in high places in respect of the 1984 RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal and also a directive to the police to close the case on Vijandran's sexual escapades.
It must be remembered that an AG is a government's lawyer, a hatchet man, a cabinet officer answerable and beholden to his political master. All the same, basic fairness is expected and even an AG is not expected to act unconscionably at his client's directive.
Could an AG refuse to carry out the instructions and directive of his boss? Can a lawyer for the government not carry out the instructions from his client — the government represented by the prime minister? Yes, if he were prepared to relinquish and be discharged from that position.
But let's be realistic. It is difficult to see right from wrong — which itself is a matter of controversy depending on one's points of view — when one is in such a position of power and influence. But let not the "sins" of the boss' decisions weigh too heavily on subordinates who have to carry out instructions and from whom allegiance is expected, and normally given to the boss.
A more righteous, principled and independent stand from a character like his critic, Lim Kit Siang, is moot because he certainly would not be landed such a government appointed position in the first place, let alone keep it for long.
Abu Talib's appointment as Suhakam's chairperson should be viewed with a little more buoyancy — than despondency — of hope.
It should be recollected in his favour that he ably discharged his duties in the royal commission, which investigated and held with fairness the then Inspector-General of Police Rahim Noor's responsibility for the infamous 'black-eye' of jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.
The point is — if there were no outcry and criticisms (especially by the DAP) of his appointment to the royal commission or the manner by which he performed his duties as member thereof then, would it not now be incongruous for his detractors to criticise his appointment as chairperson to Suhakam, leapfrogging in the process beyond his exemplary service in the royal commission to the remoter past of his record, as AG? It looks as if he is not allowed to have any kind of redemption from the controversial past.
The argument that he could not serve in Suhakam by reason of his past record as AG is no more valid, and no less speculative, than (say) the counter argument that he would serve the position of Suhakam's chairman with distinction because — well — it is a sort of last hurrah to redeem his past controversial public record before he fades away from public life in retirement as a public hero!
Yet to an extent, the aforesaid debate on his relative merits or demerits is irrelevant because his appointment is by the king on the prime minister's advice and the latter is not obliged to entertain the views of NGOs and opposition politicians. (The prime minister would probably say that all should thank him for not disbanding Suhakam after it had incurred the government's displeasure in respect of its stand against the Internal Security Act and enquiry into police actions in the demonstrations besides Kesas Highway, and but that for his commitment to this institution, it might long have been otherwise abrogated).
We should grapple with the fundamental reality that for Suhakam to carry out its functions of advancing human rights meaningfully in this country, it must not only command the confidence of the NGOs and civil groups. It must also command first the confidence of the prime minister that its proposals are, in the context of the circumstances, reasonable, and strike a balance between citizen's rights and that of national security or political stability.
And what better person is there than an ex AG who knew not only about legal rights of citizens but also implications of national security, the powers, and dangers of draconian laws?
The point is what good is there for the greater public cause of restoring in gradual stages civil rights to clamour for an appointment of someone endorsed by civil groups and the opposition parties but to whom the prime minister or the government does not listen to at all, and who is then cast aside as being anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment?
For someone who starts with the capital of government's confidence, he has to next garner public confidence quickly in the months ahead. Let his performance be judged by whether he could do it then.
I say let his performance in this capacity be arbiter, and I agree with the Bar Council's endorsement of his appointment on the implicit premise that it is not fair to prejudge a person's future performance based on his past record in a different role.
Besides, there are also 12 other commissioners to provide check and balance against partiality.
Like it a not, the Malaysian journey through the vessel of Suhakam to civil rights is not likely to be an overnight trip but an odyssey bearing the situation here.
Sure, the odyssey will be fraught with failure and success, disappointments and renewed commitment along the way but the destination is easier to reach if the captain who steers Suhakam enjoys the confidence of not just one side of civil groups and the larger public, but the government as well.
