NST Leader: Travel ban? Yes and no!

New Straits Times

13 hours ago

WAS Fahmi Reza, Malaysian graphic artist and activist, banned from overseas travel? The answer should be as easy as yes or no.
But according to the Immigration Department, the answer was, at least on June 6 as Fahmi found out at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport as he was about to board a flight to Singapore, yes and no depending on whether it is the department's English or Bahasa website.
Being bilingual, Fahmi read both only to get different responses. How could one department have one system but two different responses, albeit in two languages? The English version said there was no travel ban, but the Bahasa copy asked him to contact the Immigration Department, suggesting there was a restriction of some sort.
Mind bending. The department did try to explain the puzzle through a statement, but it appears to blame the system. Little wonder, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has directed the department to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter.
Looks like nothing gets done without the intervention of the prime minister. Or in extreme cases, unless a royal decree is issued. We cannot take the nation to a good place if the public service only springs into action when intervention is from the top.
But that is the developing pattern we detect, when a blunder like this or road tragedies happen. We have a question for the Immigration Department's top management: Why didn't they spring into action the moment they detected the mess up?
Frankly, the Immigration Department has a lot more to explain on Fahmi's overseas travel ban controversy than merely issuing a statement that appears to point the finger at the system.
Now it has become a national issue, with the conversation being joined by non-governmental organisations and even former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad.
As an aside, there was irony at work in the case of Dzulkifli. It was MACC that requested the travel ban. All are agreed on one point: no agency should have unchecked power to restrict a person's freedom of movement. Or to put it differently, every agency that is given the power to do so — we can't deny our laws do empower agencies to do so — must direct itself properly in law.
This is an old public law principle expounded in the seminal English case of Wednesbury, which is part of our common law. Lord Greene there was speaking of the exercise of discretion, but if it applies to good judgment it must apply more so to the exercise of power.
Make no mistake. We are not saying freedom of movement or speech is absolute. There isn't a country in the world where either is absolute. But what is called for is transparent due process.
Our government agencies could do better when it comes to due process. The people, including Fahmi, must understand that there isn't absolute freedom.
Similarly, our agencies must know that there isn't such a thing as unchecked power. Power granted by the law must be exercised properly in law.