What we stand for

G25 is committed to pursue a just, democratic, peaceful, tolerant, harmonious, moderate and progressive multi-racial, multi cultural, multi religious Malaysia through Islamic principles of Wassatiyah (moderation) and Maqasid Syariah (well-being of the people) that affirms justice, compassion, mercy, equity.

Malaysia is to be led by rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights and upholding the institution of the country.

We aim to ensure, raise awareness, promote that Syariah laws and civil laws should work in harmony and that the Syariah laws are used within its legal jurisdiction and limits as provided for by the federal and state division of powers.

There should be rational dialogues to inform people on how Islam is used for public law and policy that effects the multi ethnic and multi religious Malaysia and within the confines of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the nation.

We work in a consultative committee of experts to advise the government and facilitate amendments to the state Syariah laws, to align to the Federal Constitution and the spirit of Rukun Negara.

It is imperative to achieve a politically stable, economically progressive Malaysia and to be able to enjoy the harmony, tolerance, understanding and cooperation in this multi diverse country.

A response to the Attorney General

Sunday, November 15, 2015

 

 

We, members of G25, wish to refer to the interview that the Malaysian Insider had with the Attorney-General as published in the Malaysian Insider on 14 November 2015 under the heading ‘Why the snub, Apandi asks Bar Council’.

 

We wish to make the following comments.

 

Firstly, we are perturbed to note that the Attorney-General is reported to have said –

 

‘G25 consists of those have-been government servants, isn’t it? Have-beens.’

 

With respect to the learned Attorney-General we consider it arrogant, crude and unnecessarily offensive for him to have referred to us as “Have-beens’.

 

Secondly, Tan Sri Apandi appears to be under the delusion that since we have retired from Government service therefore we could no longer contribute constructive ideas for the good governance of our country.

 

Thirdly, the recent press statement of G25 on the role of the Attorney-General as the Public Prosecutor and our proposal for the creation of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions was issued by G25 collectively as a group. It was not issued by our colleague Dato’ Noor Farida, let alone issued by her in her personal capacity. Thus it is unfair and uncalled for the Attorney-General to have singled out Dato’ Noor Farida in his criticism of our press statement.

 

Fourthly, it is not quite accurate for the Attorney-General to have said –

 

‘And that system has gone fine since Merdeka. And I see no reason to change that. Is this now the only country where the public prosecutor and the A-G are the same person? It’s happening all over the world. It’s a Commonwealth practice. Why didn’t she [Dato’ Noor Farida] get this grand idea when she was in Eastern Europe? Why?’

 

 With respect, surely the learned Attorney-General cannot be ignorant of the legal developments that had taken place in developed Commonwealth countries such as England and Wales, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where by statute or by convention the Attorney-General ceases to exercise the powers of prosecution; such powers being vested in the Director of Public Prosecutions, who exercises such powers independently of the Attorney-General. In some jurisdictions, the role of the Attorney-General regarding prosecutions, if at all, has become merely supervisory in nature. The purpose of these developments are essentially to enhance integrity in Government by statutorily ensuring the independence of the prosecution decision-making function from inappropriate political control, direction and influence.

 

In England and Wales the Attorney-General still exercises control on the prosecution of certain serious offences; but in the vast majority of cases the prosecution is carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions independently of the Attorney-General.

 

In India the Attorney-General has no powers of prosecution. Such powers are vested in the respective Union/State Director of Prosecutions.

 

Link to article in The Malay Mail

 

Related story 

 

G25: AG ‘arrogant, crude’ for calling us ‘has-beens’ 

 

 

 

 

Please reload

Follow Us
  • Facebook - Black Circle
  • Twitter - Black Circle
Recent Posts

Thursday, March 26, 2020

Friday, March 13, 2020

Friday, March 13, 2020

Please reload

Search By Tags
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now