M'sia to say sorry to ex-CJ, will S'pore Gov do the same ?
-
The newly appointed Malaysian Law Minister is proposing that the present Badawi Government should make a statement of apology for the injustices done by the previous Mahathir administration towards Tun Mohd Salleh Abbas - the Lord President of the Malaysian Judiciary in 1988.
Will the Singapore Government also issue such a statement for being drawn into the entire scandolous situation in support of an ungrateful Mahathir Administration ?
In 1988, when Dr Mahathir had a head-to-head confrontation with the Chief Justice of Malaysia - the then Lord President Tun Mohd Salleh Abbas, the Singapore Government responded to Mahathir's request for assistance by sending Singapore's Senior Judge Sinnathurai to sit on a Panel of Justices in a tribunal to prosecute the Chief Judge of Malaysia.
The panel of justices that participated in Mahathir's scheme to remove his Chief Justice was drawn from Singapore, Sri Lanka, other Malaysian judges junior to the Lord President and the successor Chief Justice of Malaysia appointed by Dr Mahathir.
The political commentators during that period noted that with two judges from Singapore and Sri Lanka known to be Government appointees - {with their history of siding Government positions}, and including the then newly appointed Malaysian Chief Justice sitting on the tribunal - the fate of the Lord President Tun Abbas was practically sealed with only one other neutral foreign senior judge on the panel.
Singapore's Senior Judge Sinnathurai had presided in several high profile and controversial political cases and have always weighed heavily on the side of the Government despite the dubious evidence. Some of the prime cases included one involving the then NUS Student's Union President Tan Wah Piow supposed single handed riot inside the headquarters of the PIEU headed by Phey Yew Kok {now a fugitive}; as well as several cases involving J.B. Jeyaratnam.
Now that the Malaysian Bar Council is also supportive of their Law Minister's proposed Statement of Apology to correct the shameful and wrongful acts done to the then Lord President of the Malaysian Judiciary, Tun Mohd Salleh Abbas - will the Singapore Government extend a similar apology for being drawn into this same shameful act of undermining the pillars of Malaysian democracy that was supposed to be divided in the separate roles of the Executive Government, Parliament and the Judiciary ?
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/3/24/nation/20733676&sec=nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Malaysian_constitutional_crisis
http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004a/4m.html Part 1
http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004a/5h.html Part 2
http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004a/6f.html Part 3
http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004b/7i.html Part 4
http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004b/8k.html Part 5 Conclusion
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D7173EF934A35754C0A96E948260
http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004b/8b.html
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/raising_the_bar.html
http://swordofdemocles.blogspot.com/2005/07/price-of-truth.html
http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_officers_of_the_Republic_of_Singapore
-
God damn.. the 1988 Judiciary crisis will go down in textboook history, to be studied and reviewed when seperation of powers was not exercised and the executive branch decides to meddle with the judiciary. About time they apologise. But still.. Malaysia famous for this also. lol!
-
The present situation with the Malaysian Judiciary is a legacy from the Mahathir administration.
It is enlightening to see that the Badawi government is making attempts to restore some degree of credibility to the independence of the Malaysian Judiciary.
The present reform plans will include the setting up of an independent panel to make recommendation and appointments of judges for Royal approval, which at present is all in the hands of the Prime Minister, with the recommendations made by the Chief Justice whose position is also in the hands of the PM.
Will Singapore be fortunate enough to experience a new wind of change ?
PM LHL had the opportunity to make changes when he stepped into the seat of power, but he preferred to turn over the well worn stones, took a look at it, and preferred to place these worn out stones back into the well trodden path.
-
CJ is appointed by PM, do you think the judiciary is impartial?
-
There will be no need for the Chief Justice to say sorry to the people or the government to say sorry to the Chief Justice because firstly Chief Justices were connected to the government and will always be servant to the government and there is no reason to rock the boat. All he needs to do is to know all the expectations spoken or unspoken of the government and the PM and serve such expectations without question.
From past examples of critical MPs and ministers being dropped from their posts it will be absolutely clear that the best policy is to obey the power that be without question. Even the whole Straits Times is now totally subservient to the unspoken will of the government.
So it is nothing for connections appointed in such a manner to obey all wishes of the government - you scratch my back I scratch yours. So even there should be some pressure on the Chief Justice to carry out some wishes in defamation suits against opposition, there is no reason for the Chief Justice to feel contrite to the people for serving the unspoken bidding. Moreover if someone pays hims that kind of million-dollar salary he will do anything. That is human nature.
Furthermore there is no imminent danger of the government losing its power because GRC has taken care of such possibility. The government will always stay in power because GRC has totally driven out all potential candidates who could speak up objectively and justly against wrong doings by the government. Even Chiam is keeping very quiet now because why should he speak harshly against wrong doing when the government has also taken care of this career indirectly with high pays and all the retirement benefits.
The sorry will come only when it is threatened to lose votes like losing 4 GRCs in 2010 election.
There is no chance for the oppositions to find candidates of sufficient quality or commitments or passion now because those who have such abilities have already been exiled and the rest have been threatened and sued either until bankruptcy or extinction or next to extinction.
The only thing the government needs to do their pretending to serve people is to keep priming the property market and IR and its GLCs so that they will have more and more monies to use to buy votes and carry on governing.
All the people who could survive will be the elites and rich but the middle class will eventually be downgraded to the lower income groups with just enough to pay higher and higher taxes and fees to keep up with such a selfish power that be system.
-
since pap has 2/3 majority, they can change the rule by having GE every 10 years, and increase election deposit to $100k per candidate to deter opposition from contesting.
-
More than that - they can abolish election as well and make themselves king and princes who own all your properties and even your lives.
-
its a good step forward
-
Apologise, Karpal urges Dr M in open letter
PETALING JAYA: Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh has asked former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad whether he would be prepared to tender an unqualified and unconditional apology to former judges Tun Salleh Abas, Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh.
In an open letter to Dr Mahathir, Karpal Singh said, in his view, it was Dr Mahathir who had single-handedly destroyed the judiciary which has yet to regain its equilibrium after the 1988 crisis.
He said if there was no response within a week, he would raise the matter when Parliament sat next month.
“It is my view that you abused the provisions of Article 125(3) of the Federal Constitution leading to the setting up of the two tribunals which found the three judges guilty of misconduct,” Karpal Singh said in the letter.
“These three judges were unfairly removed from office.
“It is not the present Government which should apologise, but you (Dr Mahathir) yourself personally.
“The necessity for you to apologise cries to high heaven. Your acts caused the judges concerned and their families untold pain and suffering.”
Karpal Singh added that it was the least Dr Mahathir could do to atone for what transpired 20 years ago.
-
The following piece is the most concise synopsis of the events in 1988 in Kuala Lumpur that led to the dismissal of the then Lord President of the Malaysian Judiciary, Tun Mohd Salleh Abbas - and the mention of the constituting members of the Tribunal that dismissed Tun M. Salleh Abbas.
The following synopsis was written for a book written by Tun Salleh.
May Day For Justice
The UMNO Eleven case was quickly dismissed. The removal of Tun Salleh also saw the resignation of Deputy PM Datuk Musa Hitam who, according to popular wisdom, could no longer stomach Mahathir's ways.
The Background Behind Tun Salleh's Book
The Removal of Tun Salleh Abas
Mahathir was continually upset with the Judiciary because the verdicts in a number of cases went against the Government. According to then Deputy PM, Datuk Musa Hitam, one of his favourite slogans was "Hang the Lawyers! Hang the Judges!" From 1987, he intensified his verbal attacks against the Judiciary in the news media, making damaging statements which clearly demonstrated that he did not understand the role of the Judiciary as being independent from the Executive and Legislative arms of Government. That the Judiciary exists as a check-and-balance against the excesses of the Executive appeared to have been a concept he never fully grasped. Instead, he accused judges of the sort of political interference that would result in confusion and loss of public confidence in the Government. Hence, to curtail the powers of the Judiciary and subsume it beneath the Executive became one of his cherished dreams.
In April 1987, after an UMNO leadership contest in which Mahathir very nearly lost to Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, there were allegations that several delegates who had voted were drawn from branches not properly registered under the Societies Act 1966. An appeal was filed by eleven UMNO delegates to have the elections declared null and void. This was a very serious matter for Mahathir because if the appeal succeeded, fresh elections would have to be held and he might lose. The matter finally came before Justice Harun Hashim of KL High Court who ruled that under the existing law, he had no choice but to declare not just the elections invalid, but the whole of UMNO an unlawful society as well. The country and, more particularly, UMNO, went into a state of shock.
In most modern democracies, a political catastrophe of this magnitude would have result in the immediate resignation of the party's President and Prime Minister. But Mahathir did not resign. He informed the country that the Government would continue running the country. Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and Tunku Abdul Rahman called for a vote in Parliament to establish Mahathir's legitimacy but those calls were ignored. Mahathir then set in motion the machinery to form a new surrogate party called UMNO Baru. His opponents, however, wanted the old party revived. The eleven UMNO delegates then launched an appeal in the Supreme Court to have the 1987 elections alone declared illegal and the party not an unlawful society.
Mahathir fully understood the danger to him of this pending appeal. He had to act quickly. In October 1987, he launched the notorious Operation Lalang in which at least 106 people were arrested and detained without trial under the ISA, including three very articulate critics, the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, political scientist Dr. Chandra Muzaffar and leading lawyer Karpal Singh. The official reason for the arrests was that a highly dangerous security situation had arisen but this has been strongly disputed as nothing more than a shameless fabrication. The broad sweep included even environmentalists and Consumer Association spokesmen. Four of the most outspoken newspapers -The Star, The Sunday Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh - had their publishing licences suspended. When, after five months, the papers were free to publish again, they were no longer the same.
Mahathir's next move was to push through Parliament far-reaching amendments to the Constitution so that the Executive gained in power enormously at the expense of the Judiciary. There was general indignation at this rude behaviour which shocked a good many people. The indecent haste and the fact that the amendments were made at a time when the Government's main critics were in detention, including the Opposition Leader and six vocal MPs and outspoken newspapers demoralized added further to the appalling injustice of the situation. Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's beloved first Prime Minister, put it succinctly: "It was legal, but was it just?" Others noted angrily that the Constitution had been raped once again. In a speech, the outgoing President of the Bar Council, Param Cumaraswamy, said:
"The Prime Ministe's vile and contemptuous allegations, and the accusations levelled at the Judiciary and our judges left many shocked beyond belief. His speech which was full of venom, hate and spite with no substance whatsoever, illustrated his complete and total ignorance of the role of the Judiciary and the judicial process itself. He has indeed defiled and defaced the Constitution. It is surprising that those 142 MPs who voted in favour, after taking the oath that they would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, had no compunction about destroying one of its basic structures."
One visiting parliamentarian was astonished at the lack of public debate. In his own country, he said, such amendments would have taken years.
Next, after having curbed the independence of the Judiciary, Mahathir set about destroying its integrity. This was the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in 1988, a move which Tunku Abdul Rahman described as "the most shocking story in modern legal and judicial history,"
Tun Salleh Abas was a man of humble origins - his father was a sailor and small village trader - who rose to become Lord President, the highest judge in the land and head of the Judiciary while remaining a deeply religious man.
By March 1988, Mahathir's scandalous and violent public attacks on the Judiciary had so provoked the judges that Tun Salleh was obliged to call a conference. Twenty judges met in the Supreme Court one week after the debilitating and shameful Constitutional amendments were made. By unanimous agreement, a letter was drafted to the King (also the Sultan of Johore) and copied to all Sultans, expressing disquiet over various comments made by the Prime Minister. The letter was delivered on 25 March and Tun Salleh left soon after for medical treatment in the United States followed by a pilgrimage to Mecca. He had a most important duty to perform upon his return: he fixed the hearing of the crucial UMNO Eleven appeal for June and, because of its overwhelming significance, decided that a full coram of nine Supreme Court judges should hear this. Three days later, Tun Salleh was suspended from his official capacity by the King on recommendation of the Prime Minister. In the same hour that he received the suspension letter, the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Abdul Hamid took the UMNO Eleven case out of the calendar so that the link between the two was difficult to deny.
Tun Salleh's suspension came after he refused to bow to Mahathir's pressure to either resign or retire, even though financial inducements were offered, including mention of a lucrative job in the International Development Bank in Jeddah. The initial reason given for the suspension was that the King had taken great displeasure over the letter Tun Salleh had written on behalf of all judges. According to official records prepared by the Attorney General, the King had requested Tun Salleh's removal in an audience with the Prime Minister on the "Wednesday morning of 1 May 1988" after the weekly Cabinet Meeting.
There are serious doubts as to whether this audience actually took place. The first of May 1988 fell on a Sunday, not Wednesday as the Attorney General recorded. Even if the day of week were corrected, there can be no Cabinet meeting on a Sunday. That the King expressed great displeasure only on 1 May, when he had in fact received the letter on 25 March cast further doubt over this assertion. It is difficult to believe that the King wanted Tun Salleh removed purely because he had protested about the public insults directed against the entire Judiciary by the head of the Executive. In any event, royal displeasure would not be a constitutionally valid ground for dismissal. Indeed, Mahathir advised the King as much in a letter written four days after this probably fictitious audience; however, the Prime Minister went further in the same letter to say that he would investigate Tun Salleh for any evidence of misbehaviour. In any event, the King did not clear up the mystery and, in an audience with Tun Salleh, actually asked the latter to step down without giving reasons although the Conference of Rulers had already asked for his reinstatement. Amazingly, Tun Salleh was suspended and a Tribunal set up to determine his fate before any formal charges were laid.
The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a Lord President. While the Tribunal need not be an inappropriate means, its composition was to say the least, disgraceful. It was composed of six acting and retired judges, although the Constitution required an odd number to prevent deadlock. Of these -four from Malaysia, one from Sri Lanka and one from Singapore -only the Sri Lankan enjoyed a rank comparable to Tun Salleh's. This was contrary to the very reasonable dictum that one should be tried by one's peers rather than one's juniors. The fact that two retired Lord Presidents of Malaysia were available but not invited was glaring. There were grave conflicts of interest with three of the Malaysian judges that should have disqualified them from sitting: Tan Sri Abdul Hamid who was next in line to succeed as Lord President and who had also participated in the conference of 20 judges which resulted in the letter to the King; Tan Sri Zahir who, being also the Speaker of the Lower House, was beholden to Mahathir, the principal complainant in the matter at hand; and Tan Sri Abdul Aziz who, although a former judge, was then a practising lawyer and, more incredibly, had two suits pending against him at that time. But Tun Salleh's objections were ignored and when the Bar Council issued a statement calling for the Tribunal to be re-constituted, both the New Straits Times and The Star refused to publish it. Further, it was decided that the Tribunal would sit in closed sessions although Tun Salleh had requested a public hearing.
The charges, when finally published, were manifestly absurd. Running over 12 sheets of paper, it was clear that quantity had been substituted where quality was lacking, and some of them actually related to Tun Salleh's behaviour after suspension. Many of them related to his speeches and press interviews, whereby sinister meanings were imputed to various innocuous comments that he had made. To cite an instance, in a speech at the University of Malaya, he had said: "The role of the courts is very important to bring about public order. If there is no public order there will be chaos in this country and if there is chaos, no one can feel safe" On this basis, Tun Salleh was charged with making statements criticizing the Government which displayed prejudice and bias against the latter. Another statement of his, "In a democratic system, the courts play a prominent role as agent of stability but they can perform this function only if judges are trusted," resulted in the charge that he had ridiculed the Government by imputing that it did not trust the judges. These charges were doubly ludicrous in the light of Mahathir's many poisonous attacks against the Judiciary.
It is not surprising that Tun Salleh, after reading this catalogue of fantasy crimes, refused to appear before what was so evidently a kangaroo court. The Tribunal, after refusing representations made by Raja Aziz, Tun Salleh's leading counsel, that it had no constitutional validity to sit, chose instead to proceed so hastily that it wound up deliberations, including the examination of witnesses with just four hours work. As it prepared to issue its Report, Tun Salleh's lawyers sought an urgent stay of proceedings in the High Court. This would normally be granted immediately at the least possibility that an injustice may be about to be done but, here, events turned into utter farce.
Instead of immediately reaching a decision as expected, the presiding judge, Datuk Ajaib Singh, after the court had been in languorous session the whole day that Friday, adjourned hearings for 9.30 am the next day. On Saturday however, the judge emerged in court only at 11.50 am and, even then, postponed hearings again for the Monday! In desperation, Tun Salleh's lawyers, knowing that the Tribunal could easily release its Report before then, sought the assistance of Supreme Court judge, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman, in his Chambers. The latter agreed to hear them in open court in half an hour's time and called a coram of all remaining Supreme Court, one of whom, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop, refused to sit. The soap opera reached an apogee of ridiculousness when Tan Sri Abdul Hamid, head of the Tribunal and Acting Lord President, gave orders for the doors of Supreme Court to be locked and for the seal of the Supreme Court to be secreted away!
Undeterred, the five Supreme Court judges ordered the policeman on duty to open the door forthwith. After less than half an hour, the Court ordered the Tribunal not to submit any recommendation, report or advice to the King. Tun Salleh's lawyers were typing the Order to serve personally to the Tribunal at Parliament House when news arrived that the gates of Parliament House had been locked! At this point, Justice Wan Suleiman rose to the occasion and, calling the office of the Inspector General of Police, told a senior officer that any impediment to serving the Order would constitute contempt of court. The gates of Parliament swung open and, at 4 pm, Raja Aziz and his team served the Order to the Tribunal members who were found to be still hard at work on a word-processor that Saturday afternoon. All six members accepted service without complaint.
It would appear that justice had at last prevailed but, four days later, all five Supreme Court judges were suspended. Almost every rule that was broken to suspend Tun Salleh was broken again to suspend them. The prohibition order they had made were revoked within days. A second Tribunal eventually reinstated three of the judge: Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoff Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah but Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Edward Seah were removed from office.
Source : http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/5544/mayday.htm
The fact that the past Singapore Government - under LKY - had participated in this shameful act instigated by PM Mahathir to neutralise the Malaysian judiciary for the personal political ambitions of PM Mahathir - will require a similar apology from this present Singapore Government for the past mistakes and injustices made by LKY in support of Mahathir.
From the moment the Tribunal was formed, the various members that were put in place to constitute the tribunal - it was obvious that most of the judges have reputations of having continuous allegiance to their respective Government's political agenda - with the exception of the judge from Sri Lanka, who was the only judge in the tribunal that held completely dissenting opinions from the others.
1988 Malaysian Constitutional Crisis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Malaysian_constitutional_crisis
-
At least Singapore is safe from this type of situation.
No one in judiciary dares to make a move against Lee Kuan Yew.
It is his playground.
Kudos to that old bastard.
-
Originally posted by t_a_s:
CJ is appointed by PM, do you think the judiciary is impartial?
Its up to the judges themselves.
Abdullah was appointed by Mahathir to succeed him, thinking that Abdullah is a softie and easily manipulated. Turned out Abdullah is independent of Mahathir..
-
They can start with me
I'm a victim of grave abuses from people in power in Singapore with access to telepathic person(s). They have friends here too. All abuses are to convince people I'm mentally ill to cover their grave evil. Telepathy is not a far off fiction. It's a fact. I've realized I'm fighting a 12 year old.
I refused medication because I'm not sick now the abuses are to convince people that I AM.
What's wrong with your leaders?
-
There isn't going to be an apology for Malaysia's ex-CJ after all.....
Straits Time 29th March 2008 - Page 34
-
LHL to make changes? My foot! In fact some time last year the parliament passed a law that allows him to decide on the appointment of 2 judges or some thing close to that.
-
Originally posted by hloc:
There isn't going to be an apology for Malaysia's ex-CJ after all.....
Straits Time 29th March 2008 - Page 34
The cabinet may have decided not to make any public apology at this time, but the Law Minister has not given up on this matter.At the same time, the ex-PM Mahathir has this Monday, issued a challenge to any of his detractors to bring him to court if they believe so strongly that the sacking - of the Chief Judge and his brother Senior Judges in 1988 - was wrong.
This matter has not come to an end, but an interestingly new development has started that may allow some justice to be given to the axed-Justices.
Dr M throws challenge over judicial crisis issue
PENANG: Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad challenged his detractors to show where he had gone wrong in the so-called judicial crisis of 1988 and take him to court.
He said all actions taken that led to the sacking of then Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas was done according to the law and constitution.
“If they (the critics) can show in which part I was wrong, I am willing to be charged in court,” he said when fielding questions from Tanjong Malay Association members at a hotel here yesterday.
Dr Mahathir said it was illogical for him or the Government to apologise to Salleh because actions were taken in accordance with provisions of the law.
On the five states and one Federal Territory currently controlled by the alternative coalition, Dr Mahathir said the opposition parties might be able to win the hearts of even the Malays if they could rule fairly.
On de facto PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, he said cynically that “everybody loved Anwar.”
“When he is with the Jews, the Jews love him. When he is with the Muslims, the Muslims love him. When he is with the temple groups, they love him too.
“Everybody loves him. He is a convincing orator. He talked bad about me to foreigners. He told them I put him in jail,” he said.
On talks that Anwar stood a chance to be the next prime minister, he said he would make a “good prime minister of Israel”.
On Umno vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s allegation that Dr Mahathir introduced the 30% nomination quota to contest top Umno posts to protect himself when he was in power, Dr Mahathir said the policy was to ensure only serious candidates contested the post.
“During my time it was easy to get 30% nomination.
“But not now, because most of the leaders in Umno today are ‘yes men’ who do everything to please the leadership,” he said.
Source: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/3/31/nation/20799371&sec=nation
-
The present Malaysian Government has stated that they will not apologise for the controversial actions taken in 1988 in dismissing the Lord President of the Malaysian Judiciary, Tun Abas and two other Superior Court Justices but will take actions to redeem them.
This statement follows the call to reform the Malaysian Judiciary by the Regent of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah made at the Conference of Malaysian Judges on Wednesday.
The Regent of Perak had stated that ''the judiciary must be restored to the position it had in the Constitution from the time of Merdeak until 20 years ago''.
This statement must surely be a side-swipe at the shameful acts in dismantiling the independent powers of the Judiciary by retired PM Mahathir in 1988 - {see the second extract below}.
New Straits Times : 2008/04/11
Government to redeem sacked judges
PUTRAJAYA: The government is not in favour of an apology but will try to redeem the judges sacked in 1988, the prime minister said.
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the question of an apology for the judicial crisis did not arise.
"However, there must be ways to restore the position of (the then lord president) Tun Salleh Abbas. We have not gone into details yet but we will be discussing the matter."
He was asked whether the government would apologise to the judges.
"I do not see why we should apologise but let us decide when a cabinet paper on the matter is presented."Karpal Singh, who is DAP national chairman, had recently said it was former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who should apologise as it was during his tenure that the crisis occurred, which led to the sacking of Salleh, Supreme Court judges Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah.
Abdullah added that reforms of the judiciary would be carried out as promised by the government.
"Appropriate changes need to be carried out. However, we were unable to carry out judicial reforms before the general election as there were a host of other more important things that needed to be implemented such as economic reforms and the needs of enhancing the public service delivery system.
"If our economy is bad, we will face lots of problems and the people also want fast and efficient services by government officers. Reforms of government-linked companies (GLCs), police and efforts to curb corruption have been carried out and are still being implemented.
"All these take time. However, we are now entering the era of judicial reforms. At the cabinet level, this has been discussed. Studies and preparations have been done and the reforms will definitely be carried out."
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim had said an apology was something "we can do if we want to, but it is up to the leaders (to decide)".http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2210653/Article/index_html
New Straits Times : 2008/04/10
Raja Nazrin: Time for judicial reform
'THE time is right to review the way judicial appointments and promotions are made... The present climate provides an excellent opportunity to press on with the needed changes and the first step must be to ensure that power is once again vested in the judiciary... The judiciary must be restored to the position it had in the Constitution, from the time of Merdeka until 20 years ago. Unless that is done, the doctrine of separation of powers, which underscores Malaysian democracy, will remain effectively muted... The recent general election ushered in a host of changes and new political realities. It sent a clear message that we cannot continue on a course of ‘business-as-usual’... MALAYSIA NEEDS A JUDICIAL RENAISSANCE...’
PUTRAJAYA: The time is right to review the way judicial appointments and promotions are made, the Regent of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah said.
Pressing for a "judicial renaissance", he said the calls for a more transparent mechanism, one in line with other developed countries, should be given serious attention.
"Malaysia needs nothing short of what I would call a judicial renaissance. Without it, one of the pillars holding up this nation will remain in a significantly weakened state," he said in his address at the three-day annual Conference of Malaysian Judges yesterday.
In the absence of judicial reform, injustices would continue to perpetuate and efforts at developing social cohesion and nation-building would be severely compromised, Raja Nazrin said.
"The most basic first step we must take is to ensure that judicial power is once again vested in the judiciary. The judiciary must be restored to the position it had in the Constitution from the time of Merdeka until 20 years ago. Until then, the doctrine of the separation of powers, which underscores our democracy, will remain effectively muted."
Raja Nazrin said judicial review of the administrative practices was an essential aspect of being a nation with laws.
"Until judicial power is revested in the judiciary the same way executive power is vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the cabinet and legislative power in parliament, it would be difficult to convince anyone that we are a nation governed by the rule of law.
"The most politically stable and economically successful countries are those where the law matters a great deal and where the judiciary is highly respected."
Raja Nazrin, whose father the Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah had often spoken up on judicial independence, said a more transparent mechanism for judicial appointments should be given serious attention.
"There is merit in the suggestion for a judicial commission that will make recommendations to the prime minister who, in turn, consults the Conference of Rulers." The present environment, Raja Nazrin added, provided an excellent opportunity to introduce "much-needed changes".
"I am confident the judiciary, filled with men and women of great insight into the law, will exercise its oversight to ensure that the exercise of power is not exceeded, that correct processes are adhered to and that outcomes are just."
Raja Nazrin outlined six features of a judicial renaissance:
- A revesting of judicial power in the judiciary;
- The elevation or promotion of only judges of the highest integrity and intellect;
- The establishment of a judicial commission on the appointment and promotion of judges;
- A less restrictive approach by the Federal Court in its review of judicial decisions which manifestly involve miscarriages of justice;
- The inclusion of mechanisms to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge by judges in new areas such as Internet and information technology, maritime and arbitration and traditional subjects like constitutional law and human rights; and
- The establishment of a commercial court with specially trained judges.
Raja Nazrin described judges as "the real soul" of any legal system.
"Efforts to compromise legal principles and undermine judicial independence and authority are virtually universal, there is a perpetual contest between the political executive and the courts anywhere.
"Our efforts cannot, therefore, be partial and half-hearted. No matter how great the legal institutions we build, once we stop maintaining them, the surrounding jungle of abuse will start to reclaim them.
"If the judiciary is filled with the highest calibre of men and women that this nation has to offer, there is nothing to fear. We must never fear truth, knowledge and wisdom. We should always fear their opposites."
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/Frontpage/2209242/Article/index_html
-
As stated..... No Apology After All.....
-
The fact that the present Malaysian Government is prepared to redeem the reputation of the sacked justices in the 1988 Malaysian Judicial Crisis - is better then any apology.
In itself, the very act to redeem can be seen as contrition for the wrongs that were done to the sacked justices during that painful period.
-
Ok..... so the thought that Raja Nazrin is doing all this for his own politic career never crosses your mind
Or that the Present Malaysia Govt is only trying to save it own skin....... -
Politics aside - the fact remains that the sacked justices suffered a miscarriage of justice, and had their reputation smeared, and the reputation of the entire judiciary had been wrecked.
The fact that the apology was initiated by a non-elected Minister of Law - Zaid Ibrahim, who is above politics - speaks alot about the resentment felt by the larger legal community, and the deep concern in the deteriorating state and standards of the Malaysian Judiciary.
It is even more commendable that the Regent of Perak has stepped forward - to speak on behalf of the Council of Rulers [Sultans] - and addressed the deteriorating constitutional issues created by twenty over years of Mahathir's systematic dismantling of the Democratic Institutions, which also included Mahathir's actions that even sidelined consultations with the Council of Rulers, even as Mahathir consolidated his own political autocratic powers by neuteralising the Judiciary as a third force.
What make you think that the Regent of Perak - Raja Nazrin - will think of starting his own Political Career by siding with the Judiciary, when he easily pick up his ''monthly million ringgit royal allowance'' without the pressures from petty politics ?
What makes you think that the present Government is trying to save its own skin by restoring an Independent Judiciary that will surely be able to challenge the Government's position and create problems for the Government ?
-
What make you think that the Regent of Perak - Raja Nazrin - will think of starting his own Political Career by siding with the Judiciary, when he easily pick up his ''monthly million ringgit royal allowance'' without the pressures from petty politics ?
What makes you think that the present Government is trying to save its own skin by restoring an Independent Judiciary that will surely be able to challenge the Government's position and create problems for the Government ?
One word...... POWER.
Something which money can't always buy...... or at least the chance to pick up more million RM a mth.
-
The Council of Rulers have already everything that they can wish for - what do they want to do with more power ?
As a Regent or Sultan - they answer to no one, and do not have to please nor listen to anyone
As Polticians - they have to answer to everyone, please nearly everyone, and listen to All.
Power alone is useless if you are the only capable one and end up having to do everything yourself - which can be detrimental to yourself when things go wrong, and the buck stops at your desk.
With almost everything that the Regent and the Council of Rulers could possibly lay their hands on, what is the point of having more power - when at the end of it all, power corrupts, and make the power holder contemptible in the eyes of the public ?
-
As a Regent or Sultan - they answer to no one, and do not have to please nor listen to anyone
They are only figure heads..... much like the Queen in England or the King in Thailand..... much respected no doubt, but have no real politic power.
For years..... the power of the Sultans are very much kept check by Umno..... This would be a good time for the Sultan to embrass BN by bring out such things..... Didn't the 'Head' Sultan most recently refuse to accept some BN chosen minster for his state..... forcing the PM to eat humble pie and withdrawn that minster
The fact that the present Malaysian Government is prepared to redeem the reputation of the sacked justices in the 1988 Malaysian Judicial Crisis - is better then any apology.
In itself, the very act to redeem can be seen as contrition for the wrongs that were done to the sacked justices during that painful period
Is it better than an apology
.... I'm not too sure. To me, it is like one Japanese Minster telling the 'upper house' that they should gives an apology to China for the Naking Killing during WWII....while the rest of the minsters 'shoot' him down. Do you think the Chinese Govt would see this as... - better than an apology - Till the day.... when the PM of Malaysia himself is willing to offer an apology publicly..... suggestion of an an apology only..... is as good as no apology.
But I personal find a better question in the following...... - IF BN had won the election with flying colours.... and had crash all the opps held states...... would any of the Sultan or even minster, dare to bring up the matter...... too bad that we wouldn't get to find that out......
-
Originally posted by hloc:
They are only figure heads..... much like the Queen in England or the King in Thailand..... much respected no doubt, but have no real politic power.
For years..... the power of the Sultans are very much kept check by Umno..... This would be a good time for the Sultan to embrass BN by bring out such things..... Didn't the 'Head' Sultan most recently refuse to accept some BN chosen minster for his state..... forcing the PM to eat humble pie and withdrawn that minster
If ''the 'Head' Sultan most recently refuse to accept some BN chosen minister for his state...... forcing the PM to eat humble pie and withdrawn that minister;;;'' - do you not think that the 'Head' Sultan have displayed his ''benign power'' ?
Are you not contradicting your own position concerning the Royalty being only a figure head ?
For years, under the Mahathir Government - the Sultans have largely kept their peace despite the many displeasure with Mahathir, with the Kelantan Sultan being the most intransigent at reconciling relations with UMNO and BN.
The Council of Rulers have largely kept their peace so as to avoid a Constitutional Crisis with Mahathir, even as much as they resent Mahathir's methods.
Is it better than an apology
.... I'm not too sure. To me, it is like one Japanese Minster telling the 'upper house' that they should gives an apology to China for the Naking Killing during WWII....while the rest of the minsters 'shoot' him down. Do you think the Chinese Govt would see this as... - better than an apology - Till the day.... when the PM of Malaysia himself is willing to offer an apology publicly..... suggestion of an an apology only..... is as good as no apology.
But I personal find a better question in the following...... - IF BN had won the election with flying colours.... and had crash all the opps held states...... would any of the Sultan or even minster, dare to bring up the matter...... too bad that we wouldn't get to find that out......
If an apology is so important, why do you think that LKY refuse to accept an apology from James Gomez and expect something more substantial from the WP's leadership ?
The fact that PM Badawi is prepared to reinstate the reputation of the 1988 sacked Chief Justices, instead of giving a verbal apology reflects the benevolent character of Badawi, who prefer substance more then the form.
Your creativity with your confused analogy of a Japanese minister's attempt at an apology is laughable.
Did you not read Japan's previous PM Koizumi expressing his ''deep remorse'' over his country's World War Two aggression against Asian neighbors ?
''Japan squarely faces these facts of history in a spirit of humility and with a feeling of deep remorse and heartfelt apology always engraved in mind. Japan has resolutely maintained, consistently since the end of World War Two, never turning into a military power, but an economic power -- its principal of resolving all matters by peaceful means without recourse to use of force.''
{ http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/japan/2005/japan-050422-voa03.htm }
Since Badawi became the Malaysian PM - he has shown himself to be very careful and deliberate before he move to make any decisions, likewise with the apology to the sacked Justices.
Where did you read that ''PM of Malaysia is willing to offer an apology publicly'' ?
BN's victory in Trengganu was overwhelming - winning 24 seat out of 32 , yet the Regent of Trengganu, who is also the Yang di Pertuan Agong - refused to bend to PM Badawi's choice for Pahang's Mentri Besar.
Did you appreciate the reason for PM Badawi's ''giving-in to the Regent'' ?
Did you realise that it is written in Trenganu's State Constitution for the Sultan to pick his Mentri Besar ? http://bacalah.wordpress.com/
This is not the first time that the Royalty has resisted the Malaysian PM's choice to head the BN State Government -
Similarly, the Sultan of Perak had also rejected the Mentri Besar's nominee from the Joint Government formed by PKS, DAP and PAS.
During the late 1980s, the Sultan of Johor had also rejected then PM Mahathir's nominee for Mentri Besar, and had opted for his own choice in Muhiddyn Yassin.