Do laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law?

I have written before that “be you never so high, the law is above you” (NST, Jan 29).

So it is always dispiriting to find out whenever this fundamental principle of the rule of law is disregarded by the influential, rich, well-connected and the powerful with impunity.

The topical case before us is the two councillors of the Klang Municipal Council (MPK) who were reported to be erecting their mansions without any approval.

It was reported that for this contravention of planning and building laws, councillor Datuk Zakaria Mat Deros was only slapped with a fine of RM24,000 which has been described as the maximum fine permitted under the law.

Zakaria, who is also the Port Klang state assemblyman, was reported to have blamed his former architect for not first getting the necessary approval.

It was also reported that Zakaria also owns a restaurant in Port Klang which had recently been found to be unlicensed, and that council enforcement officers actually demolished a rival restaurant for minor infractions but took no action instead against Zakaria’s unlicensed restaurant.

Meanwhile, the other MPK councillor, Mazlynoor Abdul Latiff, openly admitted that he was also building his mansion at Kampung Raja Uda in Jalan Lengkungan without any approval.

He even had the audacity to claim, as reported, that other councillors had also built their mansions, much bigger ones, within the same area without building plans.

Mazlynoor revealed that he had, in fact, submitted a plan to MPK’s planning department in 2005, but it was returned to him as it did not conform to the sewerage infrastructure.

He added that as it involved costs, he went ahead with the construction and that he would submit the plans after Hari Raya.

So the fact remains that the development and construction of his mansion took place without any approval.

At the same time, the Menteri Besar of Selangor Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo had also referred the matter involving the appointments of Zakaria, his son Zainuri and his daughter-in-law Roselinda Abdul Jamil as Klang councillors to the Selangor Umno liaison committee.

This whole affair about the MPK councillors is now not only becoming a farce, but has raised three very troubling issues:

• Is the RM24,000 fine the only punishment MPK can mete out to Zakaria?

• Why do these two councillors have such scant regard for the laws which they are actually entrusted to enforce?

• Is there something wrong with the law, particularly in the manner in which we regulate our system of local government?

In my opinion, a fine of RM24,000 is not the only penalty which can be imposed against Zakaria for contravening the laws especially when it was also reported that no planning permission had been given.

It was therefore surprising that MPK did not take any action against Zakaria either under the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (“Act 133”) or the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (“Act 172”).

It appeared that, instead, MPK decided to fine Zakaria under paragraph 17 of the First Schedule of the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984, a subsidiary legislation made under Act 133 which reads:

“In all cases where work has been commenced before plans have been approved or a permit obtained a fee equal to ten times that specified in the relevant preceding paragraph may be charged.

“The payment of this enhanced fee will not exempt any person from being prosecuted by the local authority should it decide to do so.”

The paragraph says that the payment does not prevent MPK from prosecuting Zakaria.

The law governing the development of land and erection of buildings is contained in Acts 133 and 172.

Generally, before anyone develops his land, he is required to obtain a planning permission under Act 172.

The planning permission is usually valid for a period of 12 months during which time the landowner is required to fulfil the conditions attached to the approval, unless it is extended.

Having obtained the planning permission does not entitle the landowner to commence construction of his building. He is also required to obtain approval to the building plans and specifications under Act 133.

Section 26(1) of Act 172 provides that any person who commences, undertakes or carries out any development or permits the same to be done without any planning permission commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding RM500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

In the case of a continuing offence, a further fine may extend to RM5,000 for each day during which the offence continues after the first conviction for the offence.

Sub-section (2) also states that “unless the contrary is proved, the owner of the land in respect of which any act that constitutes an offence under subsection (1) is done shall be deemed to have permitted the doing of that act.”

Act 172 also allows the local authority which is the local planning authority to require the land to be restored as far as possible to the condition it was in before the development was commenced.

Section 72 of Act 133 also provides that where the local authority is satisfied that a building has been erected or is in the course of erection without the building plans and specifications being approved by the local authority, the local authority may require the landowner to do any one or more of the following acts:

(a) to stop work;

(b) to demolish such building within such time as the local authority may specify; and

(c) to take steps as may be ordered by the local authority.

It follows that MPK obviously owes the public an explanation as to why it has not invoked the above-mentioned sections of Acts 133 and 172.

I am sure the public would like to know whether a stop work order or demolition order has been issued; and what steps MPK has ordered these two councillors to take.

Without a satisfactory explanation, it will not stop the public from asking whether MPK is practising double standards when it comes to enforcing these two pieces of legislation against a public perception that local authorities have no qualms whatsoever to tear down buildings and extensions of ordinary folk and even places of worship if they have been erected without prior building plan approval.

Is this another case of what Oliver Goldsmith would describe: “Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law”?

Why do these two councillors have such scant regard for the laws which they are actually entrusted to enforce?

Mazlynoor’s response is rather disturbing. This law enforcer seemed to be saying that there is nothing wrong with what he did when there are so many other VIPs also doing it.

Such a response is indeed unbecoming of a councillor who has been entrusted to enforce the very same law which he showed no regret whatsoever to have breached.

There just cannot be one law for the rich and connected, and another for the poor and unconnected.

Everyone is entitled to be treated equally in his dealings with the public authorities.

If this persists, this case will remove any deterrence against anyone who disobeys the law.

This whole affair now reminds me of the words of Shamsul Hoque, the director of Legal Education and Training Institute of the Bangladeshi Bar Council who once described law as a scarecrow. This was what he wrote in 2003:

“The scarecrow is put in a cornfield to frighten birds away. The innocent, simple birds are really scared and they don’t dare to come near the field. But some birds strong and greedy do not get frightened. They are often found not only to come near the scarecrow, but also to perch on its arms and head to rest after eating the grain to their hearts’ content. Seeing these birds enjoying food and security, some other birds ask themselves, ‘They are having good meals. The scarecrow does not scare them. Why should we be fools and starve?’ So all the birds join in the feast.

“A law is made with the express intent to help people in getting justice through a legal system, thereby aiming to achieve the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. But very often the law fails to serve this purpose.

The innocent, simple, illiterate and the poor cannot access legal procedure because it is highly expensive, complicated and time-consuming to them.

So they look upon law from a distance as a frightening scarecrow.

“On the other hand, some people in society like those strong, greedy birds, tame, twist or tarnish a law and use it for their own benefits. Some others follow suit and seize the opportunity, too.

Thus the law is made into a no-more frightening, rather a tattered scarecrow.

“It is this second group that is mainly responsible for making many laws ineffective. Not only that, they make law an accomplice in fulfilling their greed for power and possessions.”

Is there something wrong with the law, particularly in the manner in which we regulate our system of local government?

A councillor is indeed a very important person. He forms part of the local authority which exercises its powers and performs its duties under the Local Government Act 1976 (“Act 171”). As the local authority is also the approving authority for planning permission under Act 172 and building plans and specifications under Act 133, he is therefore a member of the decision making body.

In discharging his duties, he is well protected by law. Section 125 of Act 171 and section 95 of Act 133 grant him general immunity against any personal action, liability, claim or demand whatsoever.

However, it is the state government and not the federal government, that is, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that has supervisory control over the local authority.

Under Act 171, the federal minister is only required to be consulted by the state authority under eight situations:

(1) declare any area in such state to be a local authority area;

(2) assign a name to such local authority area;

(3) define the boundaries of such local authority area;

(4) determine the status of the local authority for such local authority area and such status shall be that of a municipal council or a district council;

(5) change the name of any local authority area;

(6) change the status of a local authority area;

(7) alter the boundaries of any local authority area; and

(8) merge two or more local authorities into one local authority.

But the main reason why state governments and local authorities do take into account any advice given by the federal government is simply because of financial consideration as financial grants and loans are provided by the federal government to the local authorities.

Also, the federal government and the state governments form the National Council for Local Government set up under Article 95A of the Federal Constitution and which is chaired by a federal minister.

It follows that it is the state authority, which is essentially the state executive council, that has control over local authorities, and the Menetri Besar, being its head, actually calls the shots.

Section 9 of Act 171 provides that the state authority may from time to time give the local authority policy directions of a general character relating to matters which appear to the state authority to affect the interests of the local authority area, and the local authority has to give effect to all such directions as soon as possible.

Section 10(7) of Act 171 then provides that if the mayor or president of the local authority does not agree with the other councillors as to the exercise of any of his powers or of the powers of the local authority, he shall refer the matter to the Menteri Besar whose decision shall be final and binding on the local authority.

As regards the appointment of the the Zakaria family members as MPK councillors, section 10(2) of Act 171 provides that councillors of the local authority shall be appointed from among persons who are ordinarily resident in the local authority area and who in the opinion of the state authority:

(a) have wide experience in local government affairs or;

(b) who have achieved distinction in any profession, commerce or industry; or

(c) are otherwise capable of representing the interests of their communities in the local authority area.

Therefore, even though councillors are political appointees, the state authority must adhere to these criteria when appointing them.

The interests of the local community is of paramount importance and the most important criterion is whether the appointees are capable of representing the interests of the local community.

The government must be mindful of this; otherwise there is nothing to prevent a ratepayer later from challenging any appointment.

It follows that Dr Khir should have perhaps first referred the matter to the state executive council instead of his party.

While politically this may make sense as councillors are usually local political leaders who wield considerable grassroots support, legally it is the state executive council which should decide who should be appointed and re-appointed.

However, so long as we continue to read about these unhealthy antics of local councillors, the calls of bringing back local elections will grow louder. But is this a solution?

It is said that while elections may bring about transparency and accountability at local politics, a local authority controlled by the opposition may find it difficult to run its local authority area as many local authorities cannot survive without financial grants from the covernment as revenue collected from the local assessments is just not enough.

I am of the view that the time has come for the government to look again at Act 171 to address the many weaknesses in the Act so that the system of local government can meet up with the ever-demanding needs and expectations of our citizenry today.

The last time a Royal Commission was set up to study the system of local government was in 1965 which produced the Athi Nahappan Report in 1969 that led to Act 171.

Perhaps, as a start, section 10(2) can be amended to require the state authority to consult either the minister or the National Council for Local Government in the appointment and re-appointment of local councillors.

Worry that some parents may forgo responsibility

The Star

By Soo Ewe Jin

ROGER Tan, who is a member of the Bar Council, said it is understandable that concerns have been raised on the need to amend Section 95 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976.

This was after the Federal Court ruled in the Karunairajah case in 2004 that the word disability in this section only covers “physical” and “mental” disability and cannot cover financial dependence.

The court held that there was no legal basis for interpreting the exceptions in Section 95 to include financial dependence for the purpose of pursuing tertiary and/or vocational education after the “child” had completed the age of 18.

It overruled the Court of Appeal which had attempted to extend the obligation of the parent after the child turned 18 by using a creative interpretation of “disability” to include financial dependence as well.

The Federal Court ended by saying: “A case had to be decided according to the law as it stands, irrespective of a judge’s personal view on it and moral obligations can never take precedence over the law. What the law should be is a matter for the legislature.”

Tan pointed out that despite the court’s interpretation of Section 95, it was clear from other provisions and other laws that the age of majority is not so clear-cut.

Under Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, for example, the guardian is responsible for the support, health and education of the child until he/she reaches 21.

Tan argued that the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, which limits the maintenance of a child only up to 18 years of age, is thus contrary to the Guardianship of Infants Act and unfairly discriminates against children of divorced parents.

On a more obvious practical level, many people are aware that income tax provisions allow taxpayers to continue to claim relief (at a higher rate) for children beyond 18 years of age if the children are pursuing tertiary education thus acknowledging the responsibility of a parent to maintain his/her children beyond the age of 18.

Furthermore, in other provisions of the Law Reform Act 1976 a father’s responsibility for his child in other areas extends beyond 18 to 21 years.

For example, a person under 21 is still required to obtain his father’s consent if he/she wants to marry.

It is because of such uncertainties that lawyers feel the legislature should step in to amend Section 95 to compel the obligation to pay maintenance for children beyond 18 if they are receiving education or training.

Otherwise, parents can refuse to do so, seeking refuge behind the Federal Court decision of Karunairajah which has stated in no uncertain terms that parents are not obliged to maintain children above 18.

As the letter to The Star dramatically puts it in its headline, “Law allows dad to dump girl at 18”, it will be the children of divorced parents who will suffer the most and who would be indirectly penalised by the breakdown of their parents’ marriages.

Tan said he could understand what the “Deprived 18-year-old” is going through as she is still in college and is certainly in no position to financially fend for herself.

“It is sad that these children who are at the threshold of their education would have to waste their talent and potential, and sacrifice their future merely because the legislature has not deemed it fit to compel their parents to maintain them once they attain 18,” said Tan.

Corruption will slay the innocent

GEORGE Washington, the first President of the United States, once described the judiciary as "the firmest pillar of government".

In other words, of the three pillars of government, namely the legislature, executive and judiciary, the last-named is the pivotal pillar that supports democracy and the rule of law.

In our country, I cannot stress how important the role of the judicial branch is in defending the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land because our courts have the power to nullify any law passed by Parliament after Merdeka Day, which is inconsistent with the Constitution.

This explains why, when our judges are appointed, they take an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

It is therefore worrying to read about judicial corruption, a topic which has been dominating our newspapers in recent weeks.

It is worrying because if there is indeed any truth in any allegation of judicial corruption, this firmest pillar which is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution will crack and ultimately collapse.

But judicial corruption is not just exclusive of a particular country. It is an insidious disease capable of pervading any country if left unchecked.

In one of his extra-judicial writings in 2001 entitled Tackling Judicial Corruption — Globally, Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia wrote: "In the days of the British Empire, the spectre of a corrupt judge or magistrate was so horrible that it could largely be dismissed as impossible.

"The judicial traditions had a strong ethos of honesty and integrity. A judge on the take was unthinkable.

"The problems of the judiciary were different: Laziness, bad temper, dilatoriness, ignorance of the law, prejudice.

"Financial corruption was out of the question, although it was not unknown for judges sometimes to be corrupted intellectually by ambition, the hope of promotion or the prayer for a title.

"Nowadays, this fundamental assumption of the legal profession cannot always be taken for granted in every country of the Commonwealth of Nations, still less of the whole world.

"The international principles of human rights may promise that the judge shall be competent, independent and impartial. But in many countries, especially in the lower judiciary, corruption is sadly a way of life.

"Insidiously, it has invaded the judicial seat. It has intruded into court registries. Without a ‘tip’, a file may be lost and will never make its way to a hearing. Without a bribe, a favourable decision may not be assured."

Indeed in the days before the time of Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin (who was the Chief Justice from 1994 to 2000), venal allegations against our judiciary were almost unheard of.

But during his time, the most talked-about allegation of judicial graft was that contained in a 33-page pamphlet written by a High Court judge, Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid.

This missive later caused Syed Ahmad to resign on July 1, 1996. In it, there were 112 allegations: 39 of corruption, 21 pertaining to abuse of power, and 52 of personal misconduct, immorality or other indiscretions.

On March 15, 1996, when ordering an investigation into the matter, the then Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah was quoted by the New Straits Times a day later to have said: "The investigation is aimed at striking at the venomous elements who are out to discredit the judiciary and subvert justice in our beloved country.

"As Attorney-General and Public Prosecutor, it is my duty and responsibility to ensure that the judiciary and the legal profession be cleansed of these treacherous elements who, by their vile, insidious, devious, and scurrilous allegation in this pamphlet had sought to undermine the integrity of the judiciary and administration of justice in this country.

"Today is the Ides of March. But unlike that fateful day in ancient Rome where the brutish beasts succeeded in killing Caesar, today we launch this pre-emptive strike at these conspirators and Insya Allah, we will ferret them out, whoever they are, and bring them to justice."

Then on July 9, 1996, Mohtar announced the completion of the investigation and revealed that the police and the Anti-Corruption Agency had questioned 12 top judges, including Eusoff, and had also examined their assets.

But Mohtar said the police had found the judges clean, adding that the matter had been closed with Syed Ahmad’s resignation, which was sufficient punishment for him.

Mohtar was also quoted to have said: "I hope the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary will not be doubted henceforth."

But the Bar Council did not think so. It immediately called upon Mohtar to review these complaints from the standpoint not only of criminal wrong, but whether they disclosed grounds of judicial misconduct rendering a judge unfit for office. But Mohtar was not moved.

To my mind, such a decision undermined the integrity and impartiality of our judiciary. Mohtar’s Ides of March statement at the commencement of the investigation made it crystal clear that it was actually aimed at identifying the authorship of the allegations.

In his words, what was launched on March 15, 1996 was his "pre-emptive strike" at the "treacherous elements" in the judiciary and legal profession who had authored the "vile, insidious, devious, and scurrilous" allegations.

That is why it is correct for the Bar Council, former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Anuar Zainal Abidin, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Shaikh Daud Md Ismail and many other senior lawyers to now call for the allegations to be investigated again. After all, there is no limitation period for prosecuting and punishing criminal wrongs.

In fact, some of the allegations in the pamphlet cast aspersions on judges who appeared to have an impeccable record of integrity and are known to be incorruptible.

I do not know whether that was the writer’s ploy to avoid being identified, but when the name of a good judge is maligned, we owe it to him to have his reputation restored so that whoever appears before him will not doubt his judicial integrity and impartiality.

It follows that if at all any of the allegations against the judiciary is found to be untrue and calumniatory, Syed Ahmad should also face the legal consequences of his action.

Resignation might be a sufficient punishment for him, but it could not undo the damage he did to the Malaysian judiciary.

Likewise, if the allegations are true and action is taken, this will no doubt repair and re-strengthen the damaged pillar of justice while at the same time undo the injustice caused to Syed Ahmad.

The other report of alleged judicial corruption was related in a court proceeding at the Muar High Court on April 22, 2005. The case involved a deceased lawyer and four others who were accused of murder.

One of the prosecution witnesses, a court clerk, gave evidence on the role he played in "shopping for judges".

The New Straits Times on April 23, 2005 reported that the deceased lawyer had told the witness that he wanted a certain panel to hear the appeal.

The presiding High Court judge then immediately ordered a media blackout of the evidence before the court on the grounds that it would be unfair to allow the publication of names of persons who had yet to be implicated.

Most cases involving judicial corruption reported in other countries normally involve corrupt lawyers who acted as intermediaries between the litigant and the corrupt judge.

In some cases, family members of the corrupt judges were also involved. More often than not, the litigants would not know how much had been paid to the judges or pocketed by the corrupt lawyers as there was no direct contact between the litigants and the judges.

Such perfidious complicity between a lawyer and a judge stinks to high heaven.

Therefore, the allegations by Syed Ahmad and the court clerk in the Muar case were indeed troubling.

Allegations of judicial corruption are very serious, and every such allegation must be investigated thoroughly and not swept under the carpet so that the citizenry will continue to have faith in the administration of justice.

In fact, judicial corruption threatens not only judicial independence but also the rule of law. It saps our nation’s soul. It saps our spirit as a nation in coming to grips with governmental corruption when this firmest pillar should have been in the forefront in the fight against this evil.

We must devise a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that corruption does not seep into the administration of justice.

Eradicating judicial graft is the joint responsibility of all stakeholders in the administration of justice — the judges, lawyers, litigants, government, legislature, the community and the media.

It is of cardinal importance that judges and members of the legal profession are imbued with strong ethical values of honesty and integrity.

We must perpetuate a culture whereby any bribe will be met with such public revulsion that public shame will deter any thought of bribery in the administration of justice.

All said, the problem lies with the person who sits in the seat of justice.

Corruption cannot be exterminated by having more than one judge to hear the case or replacing bench trials with jury trials.

At the end of the day, a corrupt judge, a corrupt lawyer or a corrupt juror will always have this innate inclination for ill-gotten and quick enrichment.

The Chinese have a proverb which says: "Though the sword of justice is sharp, it will not slay the innocent."

But let me tell you, the innocent man will still be slain if the swordsman is corrupt.

For this reason and as proven elsewhere, the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission in sieving through judicial appointees is still the most effective way to arrest judicial graft.

Tell your dad 'I love you' now before it's too late for that

Tan Sue Yong (missing since 23 May 2000)

TODAY is Father’s Day. May I wish all fathers a Happy Father’s Day.

Let me tell you a story about a great dad. Applying our societal standards, he was a nobody. He possessed neither wealth nor fame. But to his children, he was the greatest gift from God.

Sue Yong was born on Sept 24, 1917 to a huge and wealthy Zheng family in the province of Fuzhou, China. Sue Yong’s grandfather, Zheng Peng Hui was a renowned and wealthy physician sharing the lineage of the famous Chinese poet in the Qing Dynasty, Zheng Ban Qiao.

They lived in a huge mansion and were served by many servants. He was the 19th generation of the Zheng family.

In 1947, with the prospect of the communists taking control of China, Sue Yong and his young wife Swee Mei decided to leave China. The Zheng’s family assets were later sequestrated by the communists when they came to power on Oct 1, 1949.

Upon arrival, the young childless couple decided to settle down in Sepang, Selangor. There, they laboured as pig-farmers.

Living under poor and malnourished circumstances, Swee Mei’s pregnancies were often fraught with problems. She suffered several miscarriages and three sons died a few days after their births.

For Sue Yong, the life of luxury of his China days had also come to an end. There was no way he would return to China. Malaya was his new home.

In Sepang, they lived in poverty and under constant fear of the communist insurgents Malaya was fighting at that time. As the pig farm was located far away from home, their livelihood was severely affected by the many curfews imposed by the security forces.

In 1958, they decided to move down to Yong Peng. By this time, he had to work even harder to feed his five young children. Lunch and dinner were often porridge with soya sauce or a few slices of preserved bean curds.

In Yong Peng, Sue Yong toiled as a labourer for landowners who required him to clear their smallholdings of weeds and lallang or make drains along the perimeter of the land. He did all these by using his cangkul, and for a meagre wage of six ringgit a day.

Apart from having to work under the hot sun with his bare hands, such job offers were not regular. So, the household income was partly supplemented by his two elder daughters who gave up school to work as rubber tappers at the tender age of 10, each earning about two ringgit a day.

Their quality of life only started to improve from the mid-1970s when Sue Yong started to get tree-felling contracts. But this job required him to live in jungles for one or two months, felling trees and clearing secondary jungle with his chain saw.

Beloved Dad and Mum

It was an extremely dangerous job. So, whenever the taxi pulled up in front of the house with his tools, it meant Sue Yong had come home safely.

But when he had to leave again for new assignments, his family would worry for his safety again.

Often, Sue Yong had to dye his grey hair whenever he went around trying to secure contracts, fearing that prospective employers would find him too old to take up the job. He did not retire until he was 71, and that was also upon his children’s insistence.

For him, education for his children was the best investment. Despite advice from relatives that he should get his children to stop studying and start tapping rubber or helping him out with his contract work, Sue Yong was adamant that he would do everything for his children so that they would not be deprived of education and end up to be like him.

This is one fine example of what Ruth E. Renkel said: "Sometimes the poorest man leaves his children the richest inheritance."

He was also a loyal Malaysian as he would often say Malaysia was his home and would be his final resting place.

Since he came over here in 1947, he only went back to China once in 1983. That trip meant a lot to him because he had always wanted to make this "pilgrimage" to fulfil his wish and duty of paying his belated respects to his departed parents.

A duty no doubt he fulfilled with admiration by collecting the relics of his late parents and having them buried with a beautiful tomb erected in their memory.

But alas, just as he was able to enjoy the fruits of his labour in his twilight years, Sue Yong went missing on May 23, 2000 after taking an evening walk. He was 83. It was devastating for me. Tan Sue Yong is my father.

When I received a call from my mother on that fateful evening, I immediately rushed back. With the help of local Rela members, we mounted a search around Yong Peng town but could not find him.

For the next few days, the police field force and dog units joined the search. After one whole week of looking out for him in Yong Peng without any success, the reality of never seeing my dad again began to sink in.

I remember hugging my wife and crying together as we agonised over our missing dad. We could not understand why someone who had given so much to us, would have his life end in this manner.

When news came that dad was spotted taking a bus in Air Hitam, Johor, I knew he was now on the move, and no longer in Yong Peng. So, I had to abandon the search in Yong Peng and return to work.

That evening, when driving my family home, tears just flowed down as I felt so helpless at that time. I felt as if I had failed him for not being able to find him. I felt as if I had not done enough despite all the time, money, resources spent and help from so many kind people.

So, on Father’s Day 2000, which also fell on June 18, I took out advertisements in national newspapers seeking help in locating him, but to no avail.

Six years have passed. By the seventh year, the law will presume he is dead if he is still missing. But hope is what I will not give up and will continue to pray that God will help us find him — whether dead or alive.

Until then, it is difficult to have any closure on our part. The tomb that he himself designed and which was built some 20 years ago is still empty.

Our tears still flow whenever we look at his photo or dream of him. We have dreamt of him many times hoping that he would reveal to us his whereabouts, but we would wake up each time just as he was about to tell us where he was.

Dear Malaysians, though we are not rich, our lives have been enriched by him. Our dad taught us honesty, hard work and filial piety.

Always more concerned about providing for his family, he did not drink, smoke or gamble, let alone indulge in unfruitful activities. He even helped around with household chores.

Many a time, the mere thought of what our dad went through to bring us up would always provide us the much-needed jolt to remind us how blessed we are because of him.

On this special day, I pay tribute to this great man in my life. We are not who we are today if not for our beloved dad. The toil and sweat he had put in would not be in vain.

Because of him, all his grandchildren are now able to receive tertiary education. We are a family brought up by a man deprived of everything but who gave his all to us. He will remain in our hearts forever.

So Malaysians, I have no doubt this evening many of you will take your dad out for dinner. But except for this special day, when was the last time we took our dad out for a meal or sat down to have a good chat with him?

And when was the last time we gave him a pat or a hug or said, "I love you"?

In fact, just a week ago, our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, when launching the Royal Malaysia Police Family Day, advised us to value our family members while they are still alive and shower them with love so that there will be no sense of guilt later.

I could not agree more with our Prime Minister, and I leave you to read Robert Paul Moreno’s The Time is Now:

If you are ever going to love me
Love me now while I can know
All the sweet and tender feelings
From which the true affection flows

Love me now while I am living
Do not wait until I am gone
And then have it chiselled in marble
Sweet words on ice-cold stone

If you have tender thoughts of me
Why not whisper them to me?
Don’t you know it would make me happy?
And as glad as can be

If you wait until I’m sleeping
Never to waken here again
There will be walls of earth between us
And I won’t hear you then

I won’t need your kind words
When the grass grows over my face
I won’t crave your love and kisses
In my last low resting place

So if you love me, even a little bit
Let me know while I’m living
So that I can treasure it

The writer is a lawyer. Please visit www.missingourdad.com for more information about his missing father.