The appointment of the AG: some pertinent issues and thoughts
Suraya Nur
Not even a month in power, the Pakatan government is careening towards a constitutional crisis. The proposal to appoint Tommy Thomas as Attorney General (AG) to replace Mohamed Apandi Ali has drawn the ire of the Agong and the Malay Rulers.
Sources close to the government indicate only one name was submitted for the Agong’s consideration by the government and it is adamant that its choice must be approved.
The government’s choice has shown up a number of anomalies.
The Pakatan Manifesto clearly states that the AG should be an elected MP, which leads us to Contradiction No. 1. as Tommy Thomas is not one. This is not the first time that actions contrary to the Manifesto have been taken by the Prime Minister.
Is it to be construed that the Pakatan Manifesto is a document that was hastily drawn up to be used as election propaganda in GE 14 ? Now that victory has been achieved, it is to be discarded as we would a soiled rag. It appears election promises do not matter much to the coalition.!
Should not the new AG be appointed only after the present AG who is on “ garden leave’’ an euphemism for forced leave be dismissed from office, as he has so far shown no indication of resigning. One step at a time , Pakatan Harapan. Adherence to the adage “ less haste more speed” might serve the party well.
Why has the nomination of Tommy Thomas stirred up so much emotions in the country? His skill as one of the top lawyers is in no doubt, though he lacks expertise in Criminal Law. And being a non-Muslim would be unable to advise on Syariah affairs. Let us examine what is holding up his appointment.
His detractors may cite that as a young lawyer he was given to rash, uncontrolled outbursts against the court and judiciary. His verbal onslaught against the court and judiciary has continued to date, thankfully in more tempered tones.
Some may remember in December, 1998 he was charged with contempt of court and given a six months jail sentence. He was cited for issuing a press statement after a settlement had worked out in a mega defamation case against him by Vincent Tan. Thomas was represented by Cecil Abraham. On appeal his jail sentence was later reduced to a RM 10,000 fine.
Following this case, and altercations relating to his reckless behavior in this case he was asked to leave his firm, Skrine & Co, of which he was a partner.
Thomas has also been vocal on his views on Islam as the state religion of Malaysia. At various forums he has stated that Malaysia is a secular state.
Though at various times he has been called a secularist, he is actually a practicing Christian. A Mar Thoma Syrian Christian to be exact, a small sect which originates from Kerala.
In dire contrast, Tun Dr Mohamad Mahathir announced in Parliament in 2002 “that Malaysia is not the moderate Islamic country as generally perceived by many foreigners but a “fundamentalist” Islamic country (17 June, 2002, Malaysiakini)
Can such opposing and contradictory views co exist in the government ?
Another misgiving about Tommy Thomas is his political views which veer to the left. He was a vocal and ardent supporter of the Malaysian Communist leader Chin Peng, who terrorized Malaysia in the 1930’s and 1940’s, prior to Independence.
Though it canno tbe held against him that he represented Chin Peng unsuccessfully in his bid to return to Malaysia from Thailand, what is worrying is his sentiments towards the communist. He eulogized in Chin Peng’s obituary that “posterity would remember him as freedom fighter’’. Such sentiments are mindless of Chin Peng’s cruel plunder and murder of many innocent lives, mainly Chinese.
The DAP assembled a delegation to attend Chin Peng’s funeral in Thailand. It is not clear if Thomas was in the delegation to attend the funeral.
Thomas’ links with DAP have been long standing and strong, particularly with Lim Guan Eng.Thomas has represented Lim in his corruption cases as well represented the Penang Government to sue the election Commission and the Federal Government.
Rumblings of discontent are already being heard in the Pakatan Harapan government, particularly in the decision making process. Of the component parties, PKR won the most seats in GE 14, that is 49 seats. But it appears DAP is having more clout and voice. More aggrieving to members seems to be its apparent influence on the Prime Minister.
It is generally believed that the choice of Tommy Thomas was made at the suggestion of DAP.
Many in PKR are Malay nationalists and DAP’s leftist liberal stance does not still well with them. Moreover, DAP has still not learnt to be gracious in victory, not having learnt the lessons of 13 May 1969 fully. A contributory factor to the bloody riots of 1969 was DAP’s loud sloganeering and arrogant and jubilant display of victory.
While both the government and the Palace are loath to acknowledge we are facing a constitutional crisis but the situation can be calmed if all parties work towards the common good.
An immediate solution would be for Tommy Thomas to reject the nomination for AG to diffuse the crisis. A great sacrifice no doubt! Will national good take precedence over personal gain?
