Avoid ‘Turun Anwar' rally, civil servants told
PETALING JAYA : Civil servants have been told to avoid the 'Turun Anwar' rally in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday.
Chief secretary to the government Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar said it was inappropriate for civil servants to take part in the rally 'because the action is not in accordance with the principle of loyalty to king and country as espoused by the Rukun Negara'.
'They are civil servants, how can they (be part of the rally?) Every day, every week, we recite the pledge (of) loyalty to king and country,' Bernama quoted him as telling reporters after launching a sports carnival in Putrajaya today.
Perikatan Nasional has planned the rally at Dataran Merdeka to push for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's resignation.
The organisers expect up to 300,000 participants, although a similar protest in Shah Alam earlier this month drew just over 300.
Police were reported as saying, however, that they expect between 10,000 and 15,000 people to join the rally.
Acting Kuala Lumpur police chief Usuf Jan Mohamad said more than 2,000 officers and personnel will be deployed to facilitate the rally and ensure the safety of all involved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
37 minutes ago
- The Star
Malaysia won't bend to external pressure, says PM
PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (pic) has warned foreign powers doing business with Malaysia, including the United States, not to impose terms to pressure or undermine national policies, reaffirming that the country will not bow to powers that 'cross the red line'. 'Malaysia maintains clear red lines in international negotiations that our national policies must not be interfered with,' he said. 'For example, if they (foreign powers) claim our bumiputra policy is discriminatory, Malaysia firmly says no. The country stands by its accepted and established national policies. 'Even if the United States does not agree with our terms, we will stand by our principles. We hope they will agree, but we have already set our red lines,' the Prime Minister said. He said the country intends to continue trading amicably with all countries. 'However, no country can be allowed to impose terms that pressure or undermine our national policies,' he reiterated. Anwar said Malaysia is currently engaged in complex trade negotiations with the United States, which include issues like tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump's administration. 'In the procurement system, Malaysia must maintain the right to give opportunities to local companies. This is a non-negotiable position in our discussions. 'Therefore, our negotiations with the United States are more meticulous and firmer than usual,' he said, dismissing those who questioned Malaysia's stand on the US tariffs. On another matter, Anwar called on civil servants to ignore those who said that the government has not performed well. Pointing to the approved investments at the end of last year, which were the highest in the country's history, he said investors from other countries have shown strong confidence. 'The investment value in 2024 reached RM3.7bil to RM8bil, including major investments in the electrical and electronics sector and Amazon Web Services, which committed US$10bil. 'This achievement has gained recognition at the international level, reflecting strong investor confidence in Malaysia,' he said at a gathering with staff of the Prime Minister's Department yesterday. He also cited several figures, including 3,494 manufacturing investment projects approved by the Malaysian Investment Development Authority between 2021 and June this year. Out of the approved projects, 3,095 projects have been realised and are operational, representing a high implementation rate of 86.4%, added Anwar. 'Annual realisation rates were 90.6% in 2023 and in 2024 it was 79.2%. In the first quarter of this year, the rate is 49.8% (mostly new projects still in the early implementation phase),' he said. He said Malaysia rose from 34th last year to 23rd in the IMD World Competitiveness Ranking, the only country to climb more than 10 places and attributed the jump to strong economic performance and government efficiency.
Malaysiakini
an hour ago
- Malaysiakini
Joining rally doesn't mean disloyal to king, country
YOURSAY | 'Malaysians have the right to attend the function or stay away.' Stay away from 'Turun Anwar' rally, chief secretary tells civil servants Vijay47: Chief Secretary Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar, the 'Turun Anwar' (Down with Anwar) gathering is a properly constituted event even if not everyone shares its intention. A permit has been applied for and, in a surprising turn of reality, granted by the police. So, how does attending it break any law? How is a legal activity against the king and country? All Malaysians, including civil servants, have the right to attend the function or stay away. Nobody needs your permission, thank you very much. I would suggest that instead of earning more ridicule and contempt, you stick closely to what you were appointed for - the proper management of the civil service. My small relief is that you, like many others of similar intelligence, did not claim that attendance at the rally would be against the Constitution. V S: Civil servants should not think for themselves, as the Madani government thinks for them, says the chief secretary. It is the right of every Malaysian civil servant or otherwise to freedom of expression. You have no right to make such threats just because they are civil servants. They have a mind of their own. Try saying that to the civil servants in Kelantan and Terengganu. They know who to choose. Zaheed: Instead of making the civil service more efficient, the chief secretary to the government is more concerned about civil servants attending the protest. Learn to be efficient like the private sector. What is happening? Are the departments sleeping, or have they failed to keep up with the times and age? T Mataz: The chief secretary must put out a public notice, that any federal government employees found to have participated in the 'Turun Anwar' rally on July 26, will automatically be dismissed from service and their pension benefits will be forfeited. This action is permissible, as all federal government employees have pledged their support for the elected and royally appointed federal government. This is the fact, and there shouldn't be any ambiguity from the chief secretary's office. If that's considered too harsh, then red flag the most troublemakers among them, ensuring they are never promoted to higher office for their disrespect to the king and country. Darmakochi: Participating in a rally scheduled to be held in Kuala Lumpur on July 26 does not mean you are not loyal to the king and the country. Expressing displeasure toward someone whose performance is below the expectations of most of the citizens who had voted him for that position has nothing to do with 'loyalty to king and country', This rally is to highlight the problems caused by this Madani government. OceanMasterII: Indeed. What they say may not be right, but under the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and expression, including gathering in public space to express their dissatisfaction orderly over the government of the day. That includes expressing dissatisfaction over the prime minister, who is an elected representative of the people. Which part of the law are they breaching, and where does the loyalty to the king and country come into question? If the civil servants have the right to vote in electing their representative, they must have the right to express their dissatisfaction if their elected representative is not performing. Fyddeep: All this 'Turun' nonsense. Why no 'Turun Umno' (Down with Umno) for supporting a convict? Why no protest against (former prime minister) Najib (Abdul Razak) for not paying his fine, among other things? All these are empty vessels making unwanted noises. For our country to progress, we must stop all this nonsense. Go and do your work instead of making noise every day. The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now. These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Simplified: How judges are selected in Malaysia vs UK, Australia, Singapore, India
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Amid recent controversy over the selection of new top-ranking judges in Malaysia, the government has launched a new study to compare how judges are appointed in the UK, Australia, India, and Singapore. Here's a simplified comparison of how judges are selected and appointed in these five Commonwealth countries, some of which have an independent body called a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Malaysia (Has JAC) Malaysia has a nine-member JAC chaired by the Chief Justice, with the other members being the other top three judges, and five members appointed by the prime minister (a Federal Court judge and four eminent persons). There is a two-step process now, namely selection and then appointment: Step 1: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) filters and selects candidates based on merit, then recommends names to the prime minister. (Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009). Note: Under the JAC Act, the PM can ask the JAC for two alternative names (for vacancies for the top four judges, Federal Court and Court of Appeal). Under the same law, the PM does not need to give any reason for rejecting the names, and there is no limit on how many times the PM can ask for other names. Step 2: After accepting JAC's recommendations, the prime minister submits the names to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Agong then appoints judges based on the prime minister's advice and after consulting the Conference of Rulers (Federal Constitution's Article 122B). The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. The JAC also sends candidates' names for background checks by five agencies: the police, the anti-corruption body, the companies commission, the insolvency department, and the tax authority. The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. — Picture by Raymond Manuel UK (Has JACs) After the UK's constitutional reforms in 2005, there are now three bodies involved in selecting and recommending potential judges (the JAC for England and Wales; Northern Ireland's JAC and the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland). Looking specifically at England and Wales, the 15-member JAC is chaired by a layperson, with six judicial members, two professional members, five laypersons, and one non-legally qualified judicial member. The JAC's role is to select candidates on merit, having good character, and to encourage diversity in the range of available candidates. The JAC has a detailed list of items that a candidate has to declare when applying to be a judge (such as criminal convictions, traffic offences, being bankrupt, tax issues) to assess if they are of 'good character', and will also carry out character checks with professional regulatory bodies and the authorities such as for insolvency and tax. The JAC selects judges up to the High Court level, while the JAC would also be part of independent selection panels to select higher-ranking judges or judges at the higher courts. Generally, the Lord Chancellor (who is a Cabinet minister) may accept the JAC's recommendations, and has limited powers to reject or ask for reconsideration of recommended candidates. Generally, the King will appoint judges on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, based on the recommendation by the JAC or an independent selection panel. For certain positions such as Supreme Court judges, the Lord Chancellor's recommendation — based on the panel's recommendation — would go to the prime minister, and the prime minister would advise the King on the appointment. Australia (No JAC) Under Australia's Constitution, the Governor-General 'in Council' appoints judges. (The Governor-General is the head of state, a role that is played by the Agong in Malaysia and the King in the UK.) This means that the Governor-General appoints judges on the advice of the prime minister and Cabinet. The Attorney-General (who is part of Cabinet) makes recommendations to the Australian government on who should be appointed as judges. For the appointment of High Court judges, the federal Attorney-General is required by law to consult with the attorney-general of the states in Australia. The Attorney-General's website states that the Australian government's process for appointing judges 'may include' advertising, consulting with the legal professional community to request nominations, and getting advisory panels to assess candidates and give recommendations to the Attorney-General. The website also lists the personal and professional qualities that a judge should have, including outstanding legal expertise; excellent written communication skills; temperament, integrity, impartiality, tact and courtesy. Singapore (No JAC) Under Singapore's constitution, the President appoints judges on the prime minister's advice, if he agrees with the prime minister's advice. Before giving his advice to the President, Singapore's prime minister 'must consult' the Chief Justice on appointments of judges (except for the appointment of the Chief Justice). India (Had JAC for a few months) After amending its Constitution and creating a new law in 2014, India introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) — which had the duty of recommending individuals 'of ability and integrity' for the President to appoint as judges. The NJAC was meant to be a six-member panel, chaired by the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the minister in charge of law and justice, two eminent persons. (A three-member committee comprising the CJ, the prime minister, the Opposition Leader would nominate the NJAC's two eminent persons, with one of the eminent persons required to be a woman or from a minority or marginalised group.) But just months after the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act came into effect in April 2015, India's highest court, the Supreme Court, in October 2015 struck down both laws as unconstitutional. India then returned to using its existing 'collegium' system, which is where a group of senior judges select and recommend candidates for the President to appoint. For example, to appoint new Supreme Court judges, there would be a collegium of five judges (the Chief Justice and the four most senior Supreme Court judges), who would give their recommended names via the Chief Justice to India's government. The Chief Justice would give the recommendation to the law minister, who would then forward the recommendation to the prime minister to advise the President on the appointment of the new judges. To JAC or not? Like Malaysia, the four other countries we are looking at are members of the 56-member Commonwealth. In the UK-based Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law's 2015 report on the best practices for appointing judges in the Commonwealth, it was found that it is now 'uncommon' for only the executive branch of government to be responsible for appointing judges. At that time, the report found that 18.7 per cent (nine out of 48 independent Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia and Singapore) was where the executive was solely responsible for judicial appointments, while 81.3 per cent (39 out of 48 such as India, Malaysia, UK) had a JAC. This figure will now be 38 out of 48 as India has scrapped its JAC, but the 2015 report had noted that a number of countries, which established JACs in relatively quick succession (including the UK, the Maldives, Pakistan and Malaysia) after 2003 showed a 'clear trend' favouring JACs. Recommended reading:
