Deaths in police custody- far too many?

Deaths in custody of suspects occur with little media or public attention, forget outrage. And a death in custody should raise far more concern than a death out on the streets – the suspect is under police control, in police hands and generally less able to cause a life-threatening situation.

At least not if the police are doing their job properly.This could be either cause or consequence of our attitude to the treatment of people in custody. There seems to be an assumption that if they’ve been arrested, they must be guilty, at least of something. So perhaps, on some level, they deserve to be treated badly. How else do we explain the indifference of our media and the general public when repeatedly confronted with tales of torture and abuse in police custody.

Despite numerous complaints and police reports lodged by victims, family members of victims, lawyers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), there is a perceived lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the police in its investigation of allegations of police brutality. It is well documented that in the normal course of events, complaints go unanswered. When the police do "answer" complaints, there are usually standard statements that the police followed all proper procedures. For cases of deaths in custody, the police often respond in reported cases that the deceased died of "heart attack," "stomach ulcer" or “natural causes.” In cases where there is a death by police shooting, it appears that the standard statement to the press is that the deceased attacked and the police acted in self defence.

For most complaints, the response is that the police are investigating or that the matter was investigated internally and the police are satisfied with the findings that the police personnel acted properly.

In many cases of death in custody or by police shooting, however, there is a pattern emerging judging from the responses of those associated with the victims who have said that the police obstructed the complaint process by withholding or suppressing evidence of police brutality and colluded with hospitals to ensure that no cooperation is given to family members and lawyers who demanded evidence of abuse and impropriety.

One of the main factors that contributes to the violations of the human rights of suspects while in police custody is the readiness of magistrates in granting remand orders to allow the police to investigate alleged crimes. Although the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) allows remand orders to be granted not exceeding 15 days if investigations cannot be completed within 24 hours of the arrest, the police invariably inform the magistrate that the suspect is being investigated for an offence and the magistrate in the majority of cases as a matter of grants a remand order against the suspect without checking the desirability for such an order. The magistrate normally performs this task in an administrative manner and fails to scrutinise the propriety of the arrest, the investigation done in the preceding 24 hours and the connection between the suspect and the crime.

In most cases, no investigation is carried out at all within the initial 24 hours, and in many cases there is no logical connection between the length of remand period and the alleged offence. As an illustration, a person suspected of being a drug dependent is sometimes remanded for a week or more when the only “investigation” that was needed was to obtain urine samples for a drug substance test.

Often remand procedures are carried out with neither the proper participation of the suspect nor the presence of a lawyer if he or she has one. The situation is made worse as there is a general lack of information regarding the fate of a suspect. A telephone call is not regarded as a right and is discretionary. The whereabouts of a suspect and details while under remand are normally not easily forthcoming from the police. Family members and lawyers are usually given the runaround concerning the place of detention. Access to the suspect and details as to when the suspect is to be brought to court for a remand order or to be charged are also often denied.

So when Selangor State police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar promised that there would be no cover-up into the death of criminal suspect A. Kugan while under custody at the Taipan police station in Subang Jaya, there were immediate concerns from the public that the investigation into this death will be conducted by the police themselves. Historically there had been documented cases in the past where relatives of those who have died in police custody and after, have alleged that the police have obstructed the complaints process, suppressed evidence and apparently collude with hospital officials and medical officers.

This case underlines the crucial importance for the preliminary investigation to be vested with an independent body. It is therefore timely for the Government to transfer such powers to an independent and external mechanism such as the proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). This will ensure that procedures carried out following a death are transparent, open and fair, and that investigations are rigorous, speedy and effective. The relatives of people who have died in custody need to know the circumstances surrounding that death. They must feel satisfied that all the facts have been brought out into the open and thoroughly examined in a just and fair manner.

In the United Kingdom, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the UK version of our proposed IPCMC has the power to conduct preliminary investigation itself or to manage and supervise the investigation with other agencies. The IPCC also enjoys mandatory referrals on cases of death in custody and police shooting. There must be amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to include best practices on preliminary investigations in cases of death in custody and include procedures to seal a police station as a crime scene for an independent investigation including a temporary suspension of officers in charge of the lock-up. These procedures are important to prevent tampering of evidence and any possibility of conspiracy or collusion between persons involved in the case. It is also important that the pending bill on the Coroners Court which provides for an automatic inquest to be implemented immediately.

Another issue that requires urgent implementation is the installation and proper maintenance of closed-circuit televisions (CCTV) in all police stations especially lock-ups and interrogation rooms with clear guidelines on how these recordings are to be kept safe.

Cases of death in custody have to be scrutinized in a more stringent manner since it involves human life and the question of right to life that is enshrined in our Federal Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is the best opportunity for the government to immediately implement the proposals above to ensure that relatives of the victims are offered redress, perpetrators brought to justice and to ensure an effective police force that will enjoy greater public confidence and credibility.

There has just been too many deaths in custody, and allegations about police torture in Malaysia, it is time for these deaths to stop.

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, then why shouldn't booth in the plural be beeth?

The Government's decision on whether the teaching of Science and Mathematics currently in English, should revert to Bahasa Malaysia will reveal yet another flip flop policy that is being treated like a political football to be kicked around.

In a sense the decline in the proficiency of English was inevitable following the switch in the medium of education from English to Bahasa in 1968. But really the extent of the decline could have greatly reduced if there had been a clear policy to the future role of English in our education system where a certain degree of bilingualism could have existed in our schools. Instead what we saw was the almost total elimination of English as a medium of instruction and almost 40 years after the tabling of the National Language Act 1967, there is still no clear direction as to the role of English except calls for it to be relegated to just another subject in schools.

Khairy Jamaluddin had recently recommended for the policy to be ditched on the grounds that rural students due to their poor command of English had failed to grasp the concepts of science and mathematics, compounded by the fact the teachers themselves are facing difficulties in teaching in English. Khairy then posed this question How do you expect to answer exam questions in English when it is not entirely taught in English in the first place?


With the benefit of hindsight many now realise that the transitional period for the switch to English was far too short especially since Bahasa Malaysia is so clearly entrenched a the medium of instruction. The paramount importance now is to ensure that students be given a solid foundation in English from the beginning of formal schooling. Teaching methods should have been adapted to suit the changed circumstances. Similarly teacher training courses should have been modified to help the teachers and lecturers cope better and faster.

Lee Kuan Yew who formulated the English medium policy in Singapore, made this assumption explicit when he said "Language is a key to the acquisition of knowledge. If a student is unable to understand a language, then he is unable to receive information or knowledge in that language. It is therefore crucial that a breakthrough must be made in the English language as early in life as possible".

Malaysia's goal should be to create a bilingual education policy with an aim to create a general populace who are bilingual and biliterate at a high level. No one can deny that in any given society today, English is the language of science and technology, while mother tongues were designated the transmitters of cultural values and norms. English should be maintained as the medium of instruction for Science and Mathematics as its usage would encourage familiarity to embrace the massive corpus of knowledge available on the Internet and reference books. The government should invest heavily with the provision of proper infrastructure to help teachers and students in teaching and learning the two critical subjects in English rather than to simply ditch the policy.

On the flip side of the argument, not being able to understand English certainly has its benefit if this following story is anything to go by:-

In 1997, the Chief Minister of Selangor was arrested in Brisbane airport with the equivalent of AUS$1.26 million in currency in his luggage.

Australian law requires that amounts above $5000 be declared. The Chief Minister had no identifiable source of significant wealth and had been a school teacher before entering politics. In addition to the cash, he and his wife were found to own property in Queensland and another six properties in New Zealand.

The Chief Minister avoided prosecution for currency smuggling by claiming he misunderstood the customs declaration form because it was in English and he was not proficient in the language.

Sept 16th- Constitutional gymnastics or Apocalypse now ?

The major question that Malaysians are wondering is how would Anwar over come the constitutional wrangle of forming the new government and even if the Dewan is summoned and a vote taken and Anwar is endorsed, wouldn’t the proper procedure is for the King to dissolve the Dewan and for fresh parliamentary elections to be held?

The Prime Minister and the Cabinet remain in office as long as they command a parliamentary majority. If there is a vote of no confidence or if defections from its fold rob the ruling party of its majority, then under Article 43(4) the prime minister has two choices.

> First, to resign and pave the way for the King to appoint someone else as prime minister.

> Second, to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve the Dewan Rakyat and call fresh elections.

Role of the King: Under Article 40(1) the King is a constitutional monarch who is bound to act on advice. But in a number of enumerated situations he is constitutionally entitled to act in his own discretion. Dissolution of the Dewan Rakyat is one such area: Article 40(2)(b). The King may pick from a whole range of possibilities.

> First, he may accept the advice to dissolve the Dewan Rakyat and, in keeping with a long-standing constitutional convention, allow the prime minister to remain in office as a caretaker leader pending the election and the summoning of the new Dewan Rakyat. This period can last 120 days from the date of dissolution: Article 55(4).

> Second, the King may accept the advice to dissolve the Dewan but insist that the prime minister and Cabinet must vacate their office. The King may then appoint a neutral, caretaker government from within the previous Parliament to pilot the nation through the election period. This exceptional course of action has never been resorted to in Malaysia. But it has legal basis in Article 43(2).

> Third, the King may reject the advice to dissolve the Dewan Rakyat. Instead he may explore the possibility of appointing a new prime minister who, in his judgment is likely to provide a stable and viable government. There are fascinating possibilities as to who may be chosen.

Motion of no-confidence: The Federal Constitution in Article 43(4) clearly envisages the possibility of a government being defeated on a motion of no-confidence. However, the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat have no specific provision for such a motion.

It is a matter of interpretation by the Speaker as to which Standing Order must be invoked to table this motion. What is certain is that what the Constitution permits, no lesser law can forbid. Depending on which Standing Order is invoked, a notice of 14 or 7 or 1 day(s) must be given.

If a motion of no-confidence passes, then under Article 43(3) & (4) the entire Cabinet and not just the prime minister must step down: Datuk Amir Kahar vs Tun Mohd Said (1995).

A government facing a motion of no-confidence can hit back by advising the King under Article 55(1) to prolonge the Dewan for a period up to six months. It is a contentious issue whether a constitutional monarch can refuse such partisan, undemocratic advice.

Party-hopping: Defection refers to the phenomenon of Members of Parliament elected by the rakyat on one party ticket, switching camps during mid-stream.

A variety of measures exist to curb this practice. In some countries any one who defects loses his seat but is allowed to return to the electorate at a by-election to regain his mandate. In other countries a defector is barred from holding any remunerative political post for the remaining tenure of the legislature unless he is re-elected.

In some countries the size of the Cabinet is prescribed by law so that there is no temptation of offering Cabinet posts as incentives to cross the floor.


Assuming that all these problems are overcome, and an Anwar government is established in Putrajaya with a slim majority, what guarantee is there that the UMNO-BN opposition will not try to topple the new government?

The melancholic fact is that this is the inevitable phase of new politics in Malaysia.

Sept 16th- Hello change ! Good bye morality?

Since economics and politics are intimately connected and with the growing perception that the government is struggling to manage the economy, there is an increasing number of critics pushing for unprecedented political change by means of getting elected representatives of the ruling party to cross over to the opposition. Realpolitik aside, this has resulted in a great debate which has engaged Malaysians to ponder the morality of it all, a debate that will now reach the apex on Sept 16th.

Selecting Sept 16th was no doubt brilliant for the significance of the date to the targetted MPs of Sabah and Sarawak .

Many Malaysians are still in a dilemma as to what position to take on this defection issue and on larger issues of whether democracy would wither with a change of government through drastic means or should Pakatan Rakyat wait till the next general election to secure a convincing mandate to form the next government. For one reason or another, the issue of crossing over is a bad precedent and has hit our conscience like a one ton flying rock. However on the same token, many right minded Malaysians, are terribly upset by the never ending political manoeuvrings centered around the sodomy allegations against Anwar that they are now prepared to look the "other way" on the defection stance.

On one side of the fence there are Malaysians who strongly believe that party-hopping ignores the decision of the majority of the people and causes political instability. They believe that cross overs are synonymous with the BN when it successfully enticed MPs from the PBS to cross over to the BN in the 1994 Sabah state elections and ironically against the purpose and existence of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition which are guided by noble democratic principles to serve the people.

These are Malaysians who genuinely fear that with the political instability, the people will be neglected since those who matter will all be absorbed in either maintaining the status quo or enticing a cross over. With the rest of the world, in the midst of an economic crisis, Malaysia should be focusing on improving the economic situation especially since foreign investors are moving their money out of the country at an alarming rate due to domestic political uncertainties and record inflation rate.

Then there are the true blue BN voting Malaysians, especially in the rural constituencies who were held sway by politics of developmentalism and traditionally voted along ethnic lines. So for these voters who entrusted this administration with their lives in the March elections of 2008, will they not feel 'jilted"if the crossover takes place?

But yet how is it that there are Malaysians that still do not have a sense of indignation or outrage against the cross overs?

It is probably due to the countless, nameless and idealistic Malaysians who stood on the front lines heroically braving the charges of the FRU and water cannons, FOR their resolute belief that Malaysia under Anwar was capable of better things. The NGOs and human rights group who had campaigned valiantly for Anwar and the Pakatan Rakyat , in earnest faith, that PR stands for combating corruption and promises of good governance. For them, will the Sept 16 crossovers be the best way forward for Malaysia? And would it really reflect the will of the people?

The Malaysians who are for the crossovers have argued that the past general elections in Malaysia have always been tainted with the specter of money politics, phantom votes, use of government machinery, media bias which made the act of polling so tarnished as to bring the question the validity of the elections hence the crossover of BN MPs is merely to readdress an anomaly.

Given their past experience with the elected political leadership, these Malaysians have witness many democratic rights sacrificed on the altar of rapid economic growth to satisfy the cravings of a group of ruling party elites who continue to eat the fat off the land.

The question is if there is a change in the Prime Ministership, and Anwar Ibrahim is in power, would everything would be smooth sailing?

There is no doubt many Malaysians have embraced Anwar and his brand of politics. They sincerely want him to become the Malaysia’s next prime minister as he has the intelligence, the interest of the people at heart and the kind of inspiration to spur the people on to heights of glory as a nation. If he does become the PM, it will be one of the world’s most remarkable political comeback tale of Mandela porpotions and Anwar owes it to all Malaysians to stand true to his ideals.

After 51 years of independence, Malaysians in general are self confident, mature and form a psychologically liberated and secure society to accept any sudden change of government .

However the underlying principle is that change should be by high moral standards and never shrugged off as collateral damage.

Have you oft regretted your speech, Never your silence?

What a wake up call it was on Saturday after going to bed the previous night with my final thoughts being that ah tomorrow's headlines would probably read " Ahmad retracts statement...I was misquoted says Ahmad........Ahmad will apologize says Dr M, KJ, MP of Kinabatang and Jerai, UMNO Penang.....zzzzzzz..... wow! hang on a sec, what!!!!

Ahmad: I don’t owe anyone an apology NST 6/9/08

Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail maintained that he had done nothing wrong despite being accused of making seditious remarks about the Chinese community.

"I said them in relation to the country's history during pre-Merdeka days. I explained how the Chinese, Indians and Malays were treated by the British.

"Yes, I did mention that the Chinese were immigrants. No one can deny that fact.

"I have said before this that I am not a racist. I do not owe anyone an apology.

Yawn.... U got it wrong again my dear Ahmad ! Oh dear! we live in such a state of paradox these days....to apologize is human, to demand an apology is divine.

Of course Ahmad, if one goes back in time to the pre-merdeka days, most people were immigrants or at least are thought to be so. Before the formation of Malaysia as a modern nation state a few decades ago, people in the region moved freely without any consideration of, or restriction by national boundaries, which were created only as a result of the formation of the modern nation state. When the Chinese and Indians came from China and India, Malay civilization had developed in the Malay archipelago and the Malays had their indigenous system of government here until the British colonized the land both directly and indirectly .The earliest inhabitants whose descendants still exist today in Peninsula Malaysia are the aborigines called Orang Asli. Recognizing this historical fact does not mean disqualifying the Malays as indigenous people. Similarly, recognizing the Malays as indigenous does not mean disqualifying the Chinese and Indian in Malaysia as rightful citizens of the country.

Therefore, it is "in bad taste" for Ahmad to argue that Chinese citizens of Malaysia are 'immigrants in relation to the Malays or for that matter others to argue that Malays are also"immigrants" in relation to the Orang Asli. One should not politicize the issue. It is misleading and meaningless to quarrel over who are more indigenous or who among the citizen are more "immigrant". Such arguments in this multi-ethnic country can only lead to distrust and hostility between ethnic groups. In a democratic nation-state every citizen is equal before the law and no category of people can claim to have more rights.Malaysia should move towards a vision of prosperity and justice for all. History bears irrefutable witness to the self evident truth that no harmony is possible between races in a multi ethnic society where either seeks aggrandisement at the expense of the other. The mutual need for each other, for mutual completion and fulfillment is frustrated if one seeks to devour the other. Invariably, the end result is material and spiritual impoverishment, stagnation and death for both individual and society. The equation is infallible.

In the interest of national unity, the country should move away from the likes of Ahmad Ismail , a crude and visceral politician, whose hoity-toity rantings is both confused and confusing and brings to mind John Alexander Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford who said in 1914"...if you would work hard and intelligently you should be able to detect when a man is talking rot..."

Ahmad, your five minutes to fame is up!

Will ACA moderate the Maika scandal debate?

Kula challenges Samy to debate on Maika shares..... Kulasegaran said in his website that Maika Holdings was touted as an economic vehicle and a miracle to lift the Indian poor from the shackles of poverty and Maika was launched with much hype and hope, causing many plantation workers to invest in the company. "The new dawn of a golden opportunity that was promised to the Indian poor never arrived. http://kula.blogsome.com/

Malaysia's greatest financial scandal to plague the Malaysian Indian community , the Maika-Telecoms share controversy, which defrauded 66,000 shareholders will rear its ugly head again. In a debate.... if DAP's M.Kulasegran has his way.

In order to enlighten us all as to the gist of what the proposed debate would unravel, it is therefore necessary to locate the history and facts behind this scandal which full credit must be given to the pioneering work of Edmund Terence Gomez of the Aliran fame for investigating this scandal in 1992.

Formed along the similar lines of the MCA's Multi-Purpose Holdings and the government's Amanah Saham Nasional, Maika Holdings Berhad (Maika) commenced business in 1983 under the patronage of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). Although the original plan by the MIC was to ensure that at least RM30 million worth of Maika shares were subscribed to, a fantastic RM106 million was raised from almost 66,400 shareholders many of those being working class Indians employed in the plantation sector. The MIC president Datuk Seri Samy Vellu's objective was to establish Maika as a major conglomerate. Despite Maika's large capital base, the investments were in a myriad of business activities with little directional purpose or acumen which resulted in none becoming major business enterprises. Although a number of major acquisitions were made into some major companies such as United Asian Bank, TV3. United Oriental Assurance, the equity acquired was not enough to give Maika effective control over these companies.

Despite being touted as a catalyst for the economic upliftment of the Indian community, Maika's performance had been abysmal. It registered profits from 1984 to 1986-the total amount of profits for three years amounted to only RM16.5 million. Maika registered losses from 1987 to 1990 and declared dividends only three times during this period which the amount was a mere 11 sen per share. Throughout its corporate history, Maika had to constantly deflect allegations that it was a convenient ground for political patronage and corruption.

The Malaysian Government, implemented its privatization policy in 1984 which among other things enabled shares of certain public enterprises be sold to the public and in accordance with National Economic Policy (NEP), by special allotment of shares to entities such as Maika. The shares of these privatized entities where bought at par value would undoubtedly fetch a huge premium when sold. From the period of 1985 , Maika had applied allocation of shares (usual amount requested was 1 million shares) in MAS, MISC amongst others. For this purpose, the Managing Director with the prior approval of the Chairman and Board of Maika Holdings, would approach the President of MIC to use his good offices to secure the special allocation of shares for Maika.

In September 1990, Telekoms Malaysia then known as STMB made an announcement of its proposed public issue. In view of its financial position at that relevant time, Maika approached the principal underwriters for the Telekoms share issue, to seek facilities to finance any allotment of Telekom shares to Maika. In October 1990 Maika was informed by the Ministry of Finance that 10 million shares had been allocated and Maika then proceeded to successfully raise a loan of RM50million to finance the share allocation in full.

According to the then Managing Director of Maika, Tan Sri Rama Iyer. the President of MIC was informed of the successful allotment of 10million Telekom shares to Maika and the possibility of obtaining full loan financing. The president had replied that the offer to Maika would be for only 1 million shares and not 10 million and that he would contact the Ministry of Finance for clarification.

Subsequently, Maika would then receive a fresh letter of offer from the Ministry of Finance withdrawing the first allotment of 10 million shares and instead allotted 1 million shares.

The MIC President offered explanations through the Tamil language paper Tamil Nesan and at MIC meetings insisting that Maika could not afford to take up 10 million shares as it was in a cash flow problems. When queried in parliament, the Finance Minister in 1992, disclosed in view of Maika stating it could only take up 1 million shares, the remaining 9 million shares were allocated to three companies(which represented the interest of the Indian community) proposed by Maika . Maika Board later denied knowledge that these three companies existed and that it was not their recommendation that 9 million shares be diverted to these three companies.

The three obscure companies in question, first two were actually RM2 shell companies.

Hounded by allegations of impropriety, the MIC president revealed that out the 9 million shares in question, 8.92 million were sold for a profit of RM7.168million. The proceeds from the sale were channeled to MIC's education investment arm, Maju Institute which was to use the funds to set up the RM25 million MIC sponsored TAFE College. The President made it quite clear he personally decided to allocate only 1 million shares to Maika as it would be financially crippling for Maika to fork out RM375,000 monthly to service the RM50 million loan facility for the full 10million shares.

As quoted in NST dated 16/5/92, the MIC president said" I could have have given all the shares to Maika Holdings if not for their past business record. They have to learn to do business on their own not depend on shares and hope to make money out of it"

Subsequently, what followed was a 17 month long investigation by the Anti Corruption Agency into the Maika-Telekoms shares scandal which ended with the ACA clearing the MIC president of any wrong doing. What this whole exercise failed to do was to clear the doubts in the minds of all Malaysians.

Fast forward 2008, will this proposed debate bring forth answers to the following questions?

1) Why was there a need to reduce the number of Telekoms shares allocated to Maika since Maika had obtained a financing approval for 10 million shares?

2) Could it possible that the shareholders of Maika, (some of whom have pawned their jewellery
or borrowed from Ah Longs at exorbitant interest rates to participate in Maika) derive some benefit if these 10 million shares were acquired by Maika?

3)What was the selection criteria for these three companies to receive 9 million shares on behalf of the Indian community?

4) What is the proof that these companies have passed over the profits of the Telekom share sale to MIC's education investment arm?

5) Who were the individuals behind these three companies?

6)How could a shell company be allotted 3 million shares by the Ministry of Finance?

No doubt when the public has the answers, other lessons will be become apparent. But unless there is full accountability, it will be business as usual. This scandal was a great tragedy for the Indian community and the only thing that we can learn from it is that without full public disclosure, there can be only limited public accountability and thus increased scope for impropriety.
Bring forth the debate!

'Daddy, what does Pendatang mean" ?

It was thought provoking when Anwar said Ahmad Ismail is a low class politician. A politician with stature would never have to resort to such crass comment to emphasize a point. Malaysians were shocked that it was uttered with impunity in the presence of the BN Chief Whip . No doubt Najib's apology has calmed the national outrage to a certain extent. But really now, Ahmad Ismail's remarks were really offensive and he must face the consequences for provoking the precipitous state of ethno-religous conflict and tensions in the country..

What is really tragic is the Prime Minister of all Malaysians”s response to the remark. Rather than posturing as statesman, its high time Abdullah Badawi recommends in the national interest that the AG exercise his prosecutorial discretion (duty) to charge Ahmad Ismail . This will deter any politicians from both side of the divide from fanning ethnic clashes.

Malaysian politicians must never go down that path of pandering to the racist sentiments of their constituents as Malaysians of all races, religions and geographical locations need to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sun.

At a time of great economic turbulence and political uncertainty in Malaysia when underlying racial tensions will be exacerbated and exploited for nefarious purposes, the Prime Minister needs to act decisively to prevent the Mother of all May 13th from resurfacing.

By no further action . it would derail all efforts of national unity and the battle for relevance of the ruling coalition partners.