Malaysia's Judiciary shows its Neutrality and Independence
Atobe
While there are countries that have Royalties as guardians of their respective nations and citizens, and they are mostly expected to be above politics.
As guardians to the nation and citizens, Royalties are allowed to exercise their independent judgment and advise the Political Leadership - as much as the Royalties are expected to take advise in return from the Political Leaders.
In Malaysia now, the Royal Council of Rulers are flexing their independence following the disgusting deterioration of the standards and reputation of the Malaysian Judiciary, and are now determined to restore the Malaysian Judiciary to its glorious past - untethered to the Political Leaders, and above all forms of politics.
By WONG CHUN WAI The New Straits Times, 1 November 2007, Thursday
KUALA LUMPUR: The position of Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Rahim, whose tenure ended yesterday, will be discussed at the Conference of Rulers which will be attended by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today.
Although the matter is not on the agenda, it is almost certain that a few Rulers will bring it up for discussion in view of the controversy surrounding the post of late.
Royal meeting: The Keeper of the Rulers' Seal Tan Seri Engku Ibrahim Engku Ngah (left) receiving the Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah at the 212th Rulers Conference at Istana Negara in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. The Sultan is followed by other Rulers and Mentris Besar. — Bernama Abdullah is expected to share his views on Ahmad Fairuz, who is said to have applied for an extension, with the Rulers.
It is learnt that the Ahmad Fairuz subject will crop up under “other matters arising.”
Ahmad Fairuz, who turns 66 today, reportedly had his statement recorded by the Anti-Corruption Agency investigating the video clip controversy.
A lawyer was filmed talking to supposedly a senior judge on his handphone, purportedly trying to broker the appointment of judges.
There have been many speculation over the position of Ahmad Fairuz and who could possibly succeed him.
All judges are to retire on reaching 66 unless they received an extension but there has been no announcement that Ahmad Fairuz's term had been extended.
According to a source, contrary to certain reports, Ahmad FairuzÂ’s position was not discussed at the meeting yesterday, which was attended by only four Sultans.
Another source said the matter was not brought up at yesterday's Cabinet meeting either.
Among the others expected to attend the meeting today are the Sultan of Perak, Sultan of Kedah, Sultan of Selangor and the other heads of state. The other Rulers will be represented by their crown princes or Regents.
It has been reported that the Rulers can make their recommendations on the appointment of the Chief Justice but the Prime Minister would have the final say on who should hold the position.
Ahmad Fairuz's started his career in the judicial service as a magistrate in Penang. He has also served in important positions such as the Legal Adviser of Kedah/Perlis, Johor and Selangor, Official Assignee of Malaysia, chairman of the Advisory Panel in the Prime Minister's Department and Special Commissioner of Income Tax.
He was appointed a judicial commissioner in 1988 and a High Court judge two years later.
He was promoted to the Court of Appeal in 1995 and became a Federal Court judge in 2000, Chief Justice of Malaya in 2001 and president of the Court of Appeal in December 2002.
He was appointed Chief Justice on March 17, 2003.
While Malaysia will re-assess and reform itself to return independence to its judiciary, Singapore's judicial system remains tethered to the POWER OF ONE, with all selections passing through the scrutiny of the Sole Self-Serving and Self-Appointed Guardian of the Judiciary.
Atobe
Will the Singapore Law Society demonstrate the same courage in being honestly explicit on the state of affairs with the Singapore Constitution - as the Malaysian Bar Council has shown ?
The Malaysian Constitution and the Singapore Constitution are copies formulated by the British Colonial Government, and both Constitutions have been bastardised by their respective politial leadership, with repeated changes to the Constitution that makes the original piece no longer recogniseable - becoming pieces of nonsensical papers filled with contradictions.
Sadly, the Singapore Law Society has conducted itself with circumspect so as not to infringe the OB Markers that the Political Leadership have placed - to prevent legitimate criticism to its continued violations of the Constitution.
The Malaysian Bar Council had dared to come out of the closet, as they have reached the breaking point of decency in the manner that the Judiciary has deteriorated - the following is a news report from a Malaysian tabloid.
By SHAILA KOSHY The New Straits Times, Thursday, 1 November 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: The judiciary and Parliament are responsible for the current state of the Federal Constitution.
Senior constitutional lawyer Raja Aziz Addruse said the checks and balances that were in the 1957 constitution did not exist anymore.
He cited the reasons for this change as a failure of the courts to uphold fundamental liberties, executive interference and the amendment to Article 121 which meant that the courts' jurisdiction was now as that determined by Parliament.
“Fundamental liberties no longer exist; this is a harsh thing to say but the courts don’t seem to think that fundamental rights are important,” he said yesterday at a coffee table session on “What the Constitution means to me” on the last day of the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.
“To me, the constitution now means nothing because it can be changed at any time.”
Another senior constitutional lawyer, Sulaiman Abdullah, said that if the former prime minister had played sports he would have known the importance of rules (in the form of the constitution) and the need for impartial referees (in the form of judges).
Sulaiman, who called the constitution a vibrant document, said: “Its imperfections are not in its provisions but in those who have the duty to uphold the Constitution.”
“It is not perfect but we have to make it work,” said a former negotiator for Sabah's entry into Malaysia, Tan Sri Thomas Jayasuriya.
“As Sultan Azlan Shah pointed out in his opening address on Monday, an independent judiciary needs an independent Bar.”
For lawyer Nizam Bashir, the 1957 constitution provided all that was needed to create Malaysia.
“But after 50 years, we see a gap between the aspirations for Malaysia and the reality,” Nizam said.
“The remedy lies in our hands: we need to have the courage to stand up and be counted.”
Lawyer-cum-politician Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said he sensed that “in the comfort of our economic growth people don’t seem to care too much about the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers.
“Let’s be concerned about our future. If we keep accepting everything as normal we will erupt,” he said, in calling for a return to the Merdeka pact of the founding fathers.
Other panellists in the session chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk VC George were Sarawak Attorney-General Datuk JC Fong and lawyer Edmund Bon.