Nazri's interview with Aniza Damis of the NST ('Interview with Nazri Aziz: The walk, the video, the panel', 28.10.2007) is classic Nazri. In his inimitable style, Nazri reminds us of how much we are to blame for the Government we have.
I am at a loss as to how to summarise the points he makes without doing him too much justice, so I have set out the interview below. It is a chilling indication of how far removed the Government is from the needs and aspirations of the people, of how drunk with power those who lead us are. It dramatically underscores the need for us to start thinking about what we need to do to improve the system around us. Judging by Nazri's comments, the Government is in no hurry as its interests, and by that I take it those of the individuals who form the government, are served.
My comments have been inserted (bold, italics) where necessary. The version set out is from the on-line edition of the NST. I have not edited text, but have compressed sentences for ease of reference.
MIS
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, who is the de-facto law minister, talks to ANIZA DAMIS about the controversial video clip, the judiciary, the Bar Council and bloggers
Q: Is there a crisis in the judiciary? Why is there a perception of there being one?
A: There isn’t a crisis. It’s a false allegation. The perception has been created by some people. When I go back to my constituency, nobody talks about it. When people do not go to the courts to settle their disputes, that’s when there’s a crisis. But I don’t see that. The few people who are unhappy, make a lot of noise. It is reported, people read, and think there is a crisis.
Crisis means it involves the whole country but nobody talks about it. I even asked my fellow members of parliament (MP) but nobody talks about it. So, what crisis are we talking about? The crisis is in the minds of those who created it.
This is hardly a surprising answer from this Minister. Is there a crisis? The answer is obvious. If true, the video shows that appointments and promotions were not made on merit but rather allegiance. It shows that corporate and political interests were factors, as well as patronage. It shows that at least one senior member of the Judiciary (if the conversation was in fact with a senior member of the Judiciary), responsible for appointments and administrative decisions, was beholden to external parties and was prepared to exercise discretion and make decisions by reference to external considerations. If true, the rot has gone deep. This is a crisis.
If it was not a crisis, why did the Government set up the Investigative Panel.
And, as for talking to his fellow MPs, the Minister is obviously not talking to the right MPs. The Opposition has been screaming for a Royal Commission.
Q: Some 1,000-2,000 lawyers were involved in the Bar Council walk. Are you saying that that many lawyers have been misled?
A: Only 1,000 went to the ground. There are 13,000 registered members of the Bar.
Q: You don’t think 1,000 is enough?
A: 1,000 of 13,000 — is that a majority? What’s the big deal?
In a democracy, the minority cannot control the majority. The minority does not speak for the majority.
The Bar marched. The Bar is charged with upholding, without fear or favour, the due administration of justice by the Legal Profession Act. The Bar and the Judiciary are the twin pillar of the justice system. It was and is a big deal.
Democracy is not about majoritarianism. It is about exercise of rights by the majority having regard to the rule of law and the Constitution, and with regard to the equal rights of all. If it was a question of simple majority, the law would be as dictated by the majority. Though the Minister appears to think that this is the case, this is not the correct position in law. The Constitution does not appear to figure in the Minister’s analysis. This is surprising considering the oath he took to uphold the Constitution when being sworn in as a Minister and a Member of Parliament.
Q: Aren’t the views of the minority also important?
A: But (they are) not (the) majority. If there are any decisions to be made, it has got to be the majority.
The views of all minorities are important. It is the Rule of Law, not Rule By Law. It is might for right, and NOT might is right.
Q: So, if you wanted to be convinced (that there is a crisis), you would need 7,000 lawyers to walk?
A: Even then, it’s still not important to us, because the lawyers are not the only people who use the courts. The ordinary people use the court in their disputes.
It must be a majority of the population who feel that there is a crisis. Otherwise, there is nothing.
The population, reflected by civil society, has turned to the Bar for leadership on this issue in light of its pivotal role in the justice system. Civil society itself has reacted. Civil society is made up of a range of interest groups, of diverse backgrounds.
If it did not matter, why was there a tremendous police presence during the march.
Q: Do you really want that many people marching in the streets?
A: No. You don’t have to have millions of people marching in the streets. Let the people decide, whether there is a crisis or not, through the legal means of sharing your dissent or anger — through the ballot box.
The events of Pantai Batu Buruk and all the other demonstrations held recently show how the Government would react to a gathering of the rakyat. Nazri himself has declared that the Election Commission is not independent.
A: Then you can say, “Let’s have elections once every three years then.” We have to work within the system that we have.
Q: So, what you are suggesting is, if people are unhappy with the judiciary, they should vote BN out?
A: Ya.
I disagree. The Government is not the Judiciary. The Judiciary is not the Government. I do agree that amongst other things, the rakyat should treat this as an election issue.
Q: But what if people want a BN government, but they also want you to ensure a clean judiciary?
A: So then go talk to the judges — why talk to us? I’m the Executive. How can they ask me to sack the chief justice (CJ)?
No one is asking the Minister to sack the Chief Justice. The rakyat are asking for a Royal Commission of Enquiry. The Minister is being disingenuous. The power to suspend and enquire is with the Agong acting on advice. The power to establish a Royal Commission is with the Agong. Petitions have been submitted to the Agong asking for a Royal Commission.
There is no question of speaking to the judges. The Head of the Judiciary is the Chief Justice. He is implicated.
Q: You’re the de-facto Law Minister. And they are not asking for a sacking — they are asking for a more transparent appointment system.
A: We’re talking about the independence of the judiciary. I don’t speak for the judges. You want to clean up the judiciary, go and speak to the judge.Then, once the judges decide, we will accommodate the procedures. Lawyers can criticise the judges or judiciary if they want to. But if I, as an MP, criticise, then I am interfering. So, the best thing the lawyers can do is speak to the judges — tell them how important it is to clean up the judiciary.
I’m sure the judges are also concerned about their image. And if they so decide, and say, “Look, it is time that we change", then we will accommodate them — amend the Constitution, or whatever. It has to come through the judiciary — not from me. When they (the lawyers) went to the prime minister they are asking him to interfere. Tak boleh (Cannot).
Twenty years ago, they were very angry with us. The prime minister used the procedure to sack the CJ. Now you are asking us to use the procedure to do the same thing? Why is it that 20 years ago we cannot do that, but now we can? Is this at the whims and fancy of the Bar Council members?
I feel their problem is with the individual; not with the system.
There is a Malay saying: Marah nyamuk jangan bakar kelambu. You are upset with one individual, you want to throw away the entire system. Later, if you have another system, and you don’t get along with the CJ, do you want to change the system again?
The Minister is being evasive. The system has been utilized by the Executive to appoint the Judges we have. The video, if authentic, reveals how the system has been manipulated. This manipulation, if true, has been permitted through the system simply because it is not transparent nor is anyone directly accountable for the appointments.
The system of appointments and promotions is, as such, open to abuse. This is why the system needs to be improved. An improvement can only be in the interests of the nation as it will directly manifest in the competence, quality and independence of the Judiciary. That is why the Bar has asked for the establishment of an independent commission for the appointment and promotion of judges.
Speaking to the Chief Justice is out of the question. He is implicated. He who is to be judged ought not judge. It is as simple as that. The Government itself is implicated and should not be acting in its own cause.
Q: But if we had a transparent system, perhaps all judicial appointees would be acceptable to the people.
A: But if you have a royal commission for the appointment and promotion of judges, you might not agree with the decision, too, because members of the royal commission are also human beings. Tell me, who appoints the commission? The system is the same. The appointment of the commission will be made by the king, on the advice of the prime minister. The commission would be there, but the Bar Council will not be happy, and then you’ll have another system (change).
The Minister is being evasive. A system can be fashioned to ensure, as best as possible, the right process and, accordingly, the right appointments on the basis of merit, competence and impartiality. The English system, recently introduced, relies on a Judicial Appointments Commission which makes recommendations. Though the Lord Chancellor is entitled to reject the recommendations, he must give his reasons in writing. These reasons can thus be scrutinized.
The members of the Commission could be senior members of the civil society, the civil service and retired judges. They must, of course, be persons of integrity and in whom the rakyat have confidence. This is not an impossible requirement. The Minister should not allow his cynicism to stand in the way of good judgment.
Q: Can the commission be appointed by consensus or stakeholders?
A: Why stakeholders? Stakeholders are people too. Do you want to have an election? You know what will happen — people will campaign to become members of the commission and then they’ll be compromised, because they want to be chosen by the people. And then the judges will have to kow tim (settle) with them again — it’s the same thing.
The Minister appears not even to have considered the many models available, some of which have been found to be satisfactory. There is a wealth of literature on the subject.
Are we to change just because 1,000 lawyers are unhappy? The Constitution must be amended by two-thirds of MPs; and the two-thirds represent the majority of the people. If we MPs are not convinced, how can we amend the Constitution? We can’t listen to the views of just 1,000 lawyers. Since when was the view of 1,000 lawyers more important than that of the 11 million who voted for us?
Lawyers are not the only stakeholders. It is also the people in the streets — they are the ones who go to court.
A former Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin, recognized that public confidence in the Judiciary was at an all time low when he came into office. Nothing has changed since then. Independent international monitors, such as the World Bank, have noted a decline in public confidence. This is not only about 1,000 lawyers. This is about a system that should work the way it should.
And do all the Barisan MPs agree with the Minister?
Q: You have said the government was happy with the current system of appointments. Why?
A: We found that the system works for us. We inherited this system (from the British), and for 50 years it has served us well. Something which has not brought us any problem, why should we change?
The system works for the Government? Perhaps the Minister should explain what he means by this statement. The system should work for all. That is what ‘independence’ means.
The system shifted in practice post 1988. There has been minimal or no consultation with the Bar on appointments and promotions. This had been the practice before 1988. There appears to be no coherent basis for promotions, this has been at the whim of the Chief Justice. The video, if authentic, points to this fact.
If we need to change this system, we would need a clear indication from the judiciary.
Even then, before you change you have to go and see the Malay rulers. Out of courtesy, you have to tell them. Any slight change, we have to see the Malay rulers first. Once they agree, then you’ve got to get the agreement of the judges also, because this involves them.
The question is has the Government seriously appraised the situation? What steps has it taken to do so. Have the Rulers been appraised. All we have heard is dismissive remarks.
I am only interested in no interference by the Executive. When I became minister in charge of the judiciary, I wanted to make sure that what happened 20 years ago should not happen now. So, please do not ask us to interfere with the judiciary.
The Minister is not in charge of the Judiciary. The Chief Justice. The Minister of Law is responsible only for the administrative aspects of the system, not the justice system.
We are interested in there being no interference by the Executive too. The video, if authentic, shows that there was and could still be interference. The letter written by Syed Idid J showed that there was interference. There appears not to have been any meaningful investigation into the allegations in the said letter. If there had been, the rakyat have not been told of the same.
The prime minister is a good man, he respects that, so he doesn’t interfere. That’s why you can see judges now making decisions which may sometimes be negative towards the government. That’s okay.
I am glad the Minister thinks so. I wonder when Hishamudin J and other deserving judges are going to be promoted.
They are free to make their decisions without interference. The same goes for how judges should be appointed. But if the call for change comes from the judges, it’s okay.
Q: Is the tenure of the chief justice going to be extended?
A: I don’t know. I don’t know anything.
If he is the Minister in charge of the Judiciary as he claims, why does he not know?
Q: The video-clip issue will not yet be settled at the time of his retirement (scheduled for Thursday). Don’t you think that it’s rather unfortunate for him to retire before this matter is settled?
A: I don’t know whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate. That is the prerogative of the prime minister.
Q: Has the prime minister indicated anything to you?
A: No. As I said, I don’t interfere. I only do things which the prime minister asks me to do. I never ask about things that I am not supposed to be making decisions or that I am not supposed to know.
The Minister admits that his views are those of the Prime Minister.
Q: If you just take into account what is printed in the media and what comes out in the blogs, it would appear that there is a crisis in the judiciary.
A: To me, if there were no newspapers, if there were no blogs, then it’s just mere chit-chat in the coffeeshop. That’s all.
And the video is obviously fictional as well. The view in a hole in the sand is not a comprehensive. Acting like an ostrich will definitely make the Government myopic.
Q: Coffeeshop chit-chat is not important?
No. The people are important. This is a government elected by the people, for the people. So, people means the majority. If we didn’t have blogs, if we didn’t have newspapers, who in this world would know about it? But because of technological developments, you are able to chit-chat (about it). It’s just chit-chat.
It is not just chit chat. There is meaningful discussion taking place in society. But then, the Minister has already declared that as the Government has two-thirds of parliament, nothing else really matters.
Q: But the fear that is felt is genuine.
A: So what do you want me to do? Ban all these bloggers? Shut down all the newspapers? I don’t think so. We must live with the fact that this is now a modern world. Technology has enabled us to get to know each other so news gets moved faster.
No, the Minister should address the concerns and fears. He, and the Government, should recognize that they serve the rakyat. The rakyat does not serve them.
Q: So, you don’t think it’s important to try to address the worries of these people?
A: No. It’s not important. Why do you put so much importance on bloggers? You know what rubbish has been written in the blogs?
The Minister has admitted that the he, and by virtue of his acting only on the instruction of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister do not care about the worries of the people.
Whether blogs carry ‘rubbish’ is a matter of opinion. The rakyat are allowed their opinions. Just as the Minister is.
Q: Do you read blogs?
A: I don’t. I don’t waste my time. The few pieces that people print for me are just rubbish. I’d rather spend my time to do things that are constructive; that go down directly to the people who are really in need of the help of the government. Our bloggers are really not up to standard. When they put up something, it’s not something that they want to discuss in a very intellectual way. It’s more because of their anger - the language they use. Why should I read all this rubbish? When the standard of our bloggers is upgraded, then probably I will look at what is written. But anyway, they are a minority. My concern is for the majority.
A Government’s concern should at all times be for all, and never just for the majority. Who is the Minister helping, who are these people who are in need of help? Is the Minister willing to admit that the press is regulated in a manner that has denied Malaysians of crucial information. Blogs have been at the forefront of bringing to interested Malaysians opinions and information essential to their making informed decisions.
Q: Indians in Malaysia are a minority. Does that mean that they don’t count?
A: No, not in that minority sense. I am talking about bloggers. When you talk about minority in the sense of perkauman, they are very important, because they are our rakyat, a rakyat that needs to be helped. Bloggers don’t need to be helped. They are merely throwing rubbish into the blog.
I have no concern for and care about bloggers.
The problems of Indians as a minority is different from the problems of the bloggers. You must appreciate that. I don’t care about the bloggers, but I do care about the minority Indians. In my constituency, I take care of them. You can go to my constituency and see what I have done for the Indian minority. I was the one to open the training in Mara for the Indian youths. These are my concerns.
Good for the Minister. He should perhaps share what constructive measures have been taken by the Government to address the needs of the Indian community, in particular hard core poverty, education and employment needs. It would be interesting to hear how the Government has approached the question of addressing the needs of marginalized communities in a sustainable and coherent manner.
Q: What did you mean when you said that, by walking, the lawyers were behaving like the opposition?
A: Lawyers have got stature in the eyes of the public. And they are apolitical. Also, I have told them that we will work together; never again should the confrontation of 20 years ago be repeated. It doesn’t look good when the government is at odds with either the judiciary or the Bar Council. So, I opened up the doors, I’ve helped them in many ways, to hasten the Legal Profession Act (Amendment) for instance. I did not close my door to them. So, I was surprised when they suddenly decided to walk and demonstrate. I feel sad, because these are lawyers — my profession also — and I would rather see them being accorded the respect that should be given to them.
If the memorandum is from the Bar Council, they would have been given an appointment to see the PM. I would have preferred that the memorandum was brought to the PM’s office. They would sit down with the PM, discuss for one or two hours, and then hand the memorandum over.
But by walking, it is like you are already partisan, you have already made up your mind to oppose the government; that you cannot work with the government, that’s bad.
The Bar is apolitical. It is neutral. Its sole concern is the due administration of justice.
There is no question of opposing the Government. The Government has emphatically declared its position on the question of a Royal Commission. The Bar has submitted countless memoranda, including one on the establishment of an independent judicial appointments commission. The Minister himself has rejected the need for such a commission on the basis that the Bar does not matter, only the majority does.
The Bar has also correctly taken the position that the question of the video is a serious and urgent one. The Government appears to have taken the contrary position.
Peaceful demonstration is a universally recognize method of expressing a view on a matter of crucial significance. Peaceful demonstrations are not the sole province of the opposition.
Q: Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said the reason they walked was that they felt all their appeals were falling on deaf ears.
A: It will fall on deafer ears, I can tell you.
And the Minister wonders why the Bar marched?
Q: But why would you want to cover your ears?
A: They should know — they are lawyers. Their profession is adversarial. When they go in to court, there are two sides — the defendant and the plaintiff. Even the two counsel cannot agree on how the law should be interpreted. So, you need the judge.
So, they fight. But at the end of the day, they respect the decision made by the judge. They go out, shake hands, that’s it.
In giving their views on the judiciary, they must understand that there are two sides to the argument. And theirs may not be the right one. So they must accept the decision. As lawyers, they should. They cannot expect that whatever memorandum they give to us, we must agree.
Why couldn’t they have called to make an appointment? I’m sure the PM would have met them.
Deafened ears do not lend to constructive discussion, Minister.
Q: Maybe walking just says that they are partisan towards justice?
A: I wasn’t complaining about their memorandum. It was the way they did it — demonstrating on the street. The opposition was there. When you go on the street, how are you going to stop the opposition from coming in?
In a meeting with the PM, those who are the opposition — who are not genuine lawyers — cannot go in. You should be apolitical. You are an NGO, you are not an opposition party. You have stature, you’ve got a position in public, people look at you with respect.
But the moment you take to the street, who is going to respect you? They’ll laugh at you. There are people who are laughing at you — but they don’t write in the papers Bodoh punya kerja! (fool’s errand).
The only laughter we hear is that of the Minister. This is a serious issue. His responses clearly reflect a cavalier attitude. If this is the Government’s attitude, we can only infer that the Government is in no rush to get to the truth.
Q: Is there anything wrong in walking for your beliefs?
A: No. But that is the way of the opposition. If you are a political party, we can understand. But if you are a respectable society, that’s not an honourable way to do it — not when the government accords you respect.
How can you bring yourself so low? The moment you do that, we don’t respect you.
If I say to you, “M****r*****r you!", can you say, “Eh, let us sit down, we’ll talk about it.” No! You are lawyers, man! People respect you. So, do it in an honourable way.
When the president of the Bar Council wants an appointment with the PM, she or he gets it. That’s how it is. That’s what I wanted, and I would have accommodated that. But they didn’t contact me. I was waiting. Ambiga knows my doors are open.
But, deafened ears, Minister? And profanity is really unnecessary. But then, the Minister is from the same political party as others who use vulgar language in parliament. One begins to wonder whether this is the UMNO ethos.
Q: If, for instance, the Bar Council wants to take that avenue now, can they still take it?
A: They can. I have already told them, go and engage with the judges. But if they ask me to do what they want me to do towards the judiciary, I won’t do it because I am the Executive.
There is no question of engaging the Judges. The Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary. He is implicated.
Q: The Bar Council claims that they have never been able to get an appointment with the CJ.
A: He’s retiring anyway.
I told them, “Fairuz is also a human being. Kalau you criticise, criticise, criticise dia — dia mana mau layan you.” (If you keep criticising him, he won’t entertain you). I can get a lot of things out of you if I talk to you nicely, but if I start shouting at you, do you think you will accommodate me? No way!
Extremely mature, Minister. Diplomacy is important but should not be the end all and be all for matters of national importance.
Q: But you are more than an ordinary person. You are also the de facto law minister.
A: But you cannot divorce me from the fact that I am also a human being.
The Minister reminds us often enough by his conduct.
Q: That’s very irresponsible.
A: Human beings, there are ways, how you do it. You want something, you talk. You don’t shout, and then expect to get something, no way.
So, pride and ego before justice and the national interest.
Q: Why didn’t the government empower the panel to compel witnesses?
A: Because we have to first determine the authenticity of the video clip, to make it into a formal and genuine complaint.
And how does a powerless panel do this?
Q: What if the video clip is genuine, but the person doesn’t want to come forward?
A: That’s not our problem. We have already set up the panel, it’s for them. As I’ve said, if I was the one who made the complaint, I would be very happy, I’d come (forward) and co-operate. There’s nothing to fear.
(Opposition MP Lim) Kit Siang said to me this morning (Wednesday) the problem is not that they are afraid of the public taking action against them; but they are afraid of the government.
I think that’s no excuse.
Explain to us then the prosecution of Irene Fernandez and Lim Guan Eng, the continued threats of ISA detention and other threats of reprisal. Explain to us how the whistle-blowers are going to be safe and secure, Minister. There is no legal protection for whistle-blowers. The Government is implicated. Where do witnesses turn to for safety.
Q: Why can’t you set up something that can compel a person to come forward?
A: Then you are forcing people. We want it to be voluntary. When you make a complaint to the police, are you being forced to make the complaint, or do you genuinely want to complain? You see, that is the problem (with the current situation). You have to come to us.
Even if you don’t trust us with the tape, then we can always tell that fellow to come, show the tape, then we see, and you can take back the tape. But even then they don’t want to come forward. And their reason is that they are scared of the government. That’s not a reason.
That is the reason. It speaks volumes about the Government and the rakyat’s perception of the Government. We are a long way from "cekap, bersih dan amanah."
Update: It has been brought to my attention that I had not captured the full version. The missing sections and my comments can be viewed here. My apologies for the inconvenience.
I am at a loss as to how to summarise the points he makes without doing him too much justice, so I have set out the interview below. It is a chilling indication of how far removed the Government is from the needs and aspirations of the people, of how drunk with power those who lead us are. It dramatically underscores the need for us to start thinking about what we need to do to improve the system around us. Judging by Nazri's comments, the Government is in no hurry as its interests, and by that I take it those of the individuals who form the government, are served.
My comments have been inserted (bold, italics) where necessary. The version set out is from the on-line edition of the NST. I have not edited text, but have compressed sentences for ease of reference.
MIS
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, who is the de-facto law minister, talks to ANIZA DAMIS about the controversial video clip, the judiciary, the Bar Council and bloggers
Q: Is there a crisis in the judiciary? Why is there a perception of there being one?
A: There isn’t a crisis. It’s a false allegation. The perception has been created by some people. When I go back to my constituency, nobody talks about it. When people do not go to the courts to settle their disputes, that’s when there’s a crisis. But I don’t see that. The few people who are unhappy, make a lot of noise. It is reported, people read, and think there is a crisis.
Crisis means it involves the whole country but nobody talks about it. I even asked my fellow members of parliament (MP) but nobody talks about it. So, what crisis are we talking about? The crisis is in the minds of those who created it.
This is hardly a surprising answer from this Minister. Is there a crisis? The answer is obvious. If true, the video shows that appointments and promotions were not made on merit but rather allegiance. It shows that corporate and political interests were factors, as well as patronage. It shows that at least one senior member of the Judiciary (if the conversation was in fact with a senior member of the Judiciary), responsible for appointments and administrative decisions, was beholden to external parties and was prepared to exercise discretion and make decisions by reference to external considerations. If true, the rot has gone deep. This is a crisis.
If it was not a crisis, why did the Government set up the Investigative Panel.
And, as for talking to his fellow MPs, the Minister is obviously not talking to the right MPs. The Opposition has been screaming for a Royal Commission.
Q: Some 1,000-2,000 lawyers were involved in the Bar Council walk. Are you saying that that many lawyers have been misled?
A: Only 1,000 went to the ground. There are 13,000 registered members of the Bar.
Q: You don’t think 1,000 is enough?
A: 1,000 of 13,000 — is that a majority? What’s the big deal?
In a democracy, the minority cannot control the majority. The minority does not speak for the majority.
The Bar marched. The Bar is charged with upholding, without fear or favour, the due administration of justice by the Legal Profession Act. The Bar and the Judiciary are the twin pillar of the justice system. It was and is a big deal.
Democracy is not about majoritarianism. It is about exercise of rights by the majority having regard to the rule of law and the Constitution, and with regard to the equal rights of all. If it was a question of simple majority, the law would be as dictated by the majority. Though the Minister appears to think that this is the case, this is not the correct position in law. The Constitution does not appear to figure in the Minister’s analysis. This is surprising considering the oath he took to uphold the Constitution when being sworn in as a Minister and a Member of Parliament.
Q: Aren’t the views of the minority also important?
A: But (they are) not (the) majority. If there are any decisions to be made, it has got to be the majority.
The views of all minorities are important. It is the Rule of Law, not Rule By Law. It is might for right, and NOT might is right.
Q: So, if you wanted to be convinced (that there is a crisis), you would need 7,000 lawyers to walk?
A: Even then, it’s still not important to us, because the lawyers are not the only people who use the courts. The ordinary people use the court in their disputes.
It must be a majority of the population who feel that there is a crisis. Otherwise, there is nothing.
The population, reflected by civil society, has turned to the Bar for leadership on this issue in light of its pivotal role in the justice system. Civil society itself has reacted. Civil society is made up of a range of interest groups, of diverse backgrounds.
If it did not matter, why was there a tremendous police presence during the march.
Q: Do you really want that many people marching in the streets?
A: No. You don’t have to have millions of people marching in the streets. Let the people decide, whether there is a crisis or not, through the legal means of sharing your dissent or anger — through the ballot box.
The events of Pantai Batu Buruk and all the other demonstrations held recently show how the Government would react to a gathering of the rakyat. Nazri himself has declared that the Election Commission is not independent.
A: Then you can say, “Let’s have elections once every three years then.” We have to work within the system that we have.
Q: So, what you are suggesting is, if people are unhappy with the judiciary, they should vote BN out?
A: Ya.
I disagree. The Government is not the Judiciary. The Judiciary is not the Government. I do agree that amongst other things, the rakyat should treat this as an election issue.
Q: But what if people want a BN government, but they also want you to ensure a clean judiciary?
A: So then go talk to the judges — why talk to us? I’m the Executive. How can they ask me to sack the chief justice (CJ)?
No one is asking the Minister to sack the Chief Justice. The rakyat are asking for a Royal Commission of Enquiry. The Minister is being disingenuous. The power to suspend and enquire is with the Agong acting on advice. The power to establish a Royal Commission is with the Agong. Petitions have been submitted to the Agong asking for a Royal Commission.
There is no question of speaking to the judges. The Head of the Judiciary is the Chief Justice. He is implicated.
Q: You’re the de-facto Law Minister. And they are not asking for a sacking — they are asking for a more transparent appointment system.
A: We’re talking about the independence of the judiciary. I don’t speak for the judges. You want to clean up the judiciary, go and speak to the judge.Then, once the judges decide, we will accommodate the procedures. Lawyers can criticise the judges or judiciary if they want to. But if I, as an MP, criticise, then I am interfering. So, the best thing the lawyers can do is speak to the judges — tell them how important it is to clean up the judiciary.
I’m sure the judges are also concerned about their image. And if they so decide, and say, “Look, it is time that we change", then we will accommodate them — amend the Constitution, or whatever. It has to come through the judiciary — not from me. When they (the lawyers) went to the prime minister they are asking him to interfere. Tak boleh (Cannot).
Twenty years ago, they were very angry with us. The prime minister used the procedure to sack the CJ. Now you are asking us to use the procedure to do the same thing? Why is it that 20 years ago we cannot do that, but now we can? Is this at the whims and fancy of the Bar Council members?
I feel their problem is with the individual; not with the system.
There is a Malay saying: Marah nyamuk jangan bakar kelambu. You are upset with one individual, you want to throw away the entire system. Later, if you have another system, and you don’t get along with the CJ, do you want to change the system again?
The Minister is being evasive. The system has been utilized by the Executive to appoint the Judges we have. The video, if authentic, reveals how the system has been manipulated. This manipulation, if true, has been permitted through the system simply because it is not transparent nor is anyone directly accountable for the appointments.
The system of appointments and promotions is, as such, open to abuse. This is why the system needs to be improved. An improvement can only be in the interests of the nation as it will directly manifest in the competence, quality and independence of the Judiciary. That is why the Bar has asked for the establishment of an independent commission for the appointment and promotion of judges.
Speaking to the Chief Justice is out of the question. He is implicated. He who is to be judged ought not judge. It is as simple as that. The Government itself is implicated and should not be acting in its own cause.
Q: But if we had a transparent system, perhaps all judicial appointees would be acceptable to the people.
A: But if you have a royal commission for the appointment and promotion of judges, you might not agree with the decision, too, because members of the royal commission are also human beings. Tell me, who appoints the commission? The system is the same. The appointment of the commission will be made by the king, on the advice of the prime minister. The commission would be there, but the Bar Council will not be happy, and then you’ll have another system (change).
The Minister is being evasive. A system can be fashioned to ensure, as best as possible, the right process and, accordingly, the right appointments on the basis of merit, competence and impartiality. The English system, recently introduced, relies on a Judicial Appointments Commission which makes recommendations. Though the Lord Chancellor is entitled to reject the recommendations, he must give his reasons in writing. These reasons can thus be scrutinized.
The members of the Commission could be senior members of the civil society, the civil service and retired judges. They must, of course, be persons of integrity and in whom the rakyat have confidence. This is not an impossible requirement. The Minister should not allow his cynicism to stand in the way of good judgment.
Q: Can the commission be appointed by consensus or stakeholders?
A: Why stakeholders? Stakeholders are people too. Do you want to have an election? You know what will happen — people will campaign to become members of the commission and then they’ll be compromised, because they want to be chosen by the people. And then the judges will have to kow tim (settle) with them again — it’s the same thing.
The Minister appears not even to have considered the many models available, some of which have been found to be satisfactory. There is a wealth of literature on the subject.
Are we to change just because 1,000 lawyers are unhappy? The Constitution must be amended by two-thirds of MPs; and the two-thirds represent the majority of the people. If we MPs are not convinced, how can we amend the Constitution? We can’t listen to the views of just 1,000 lawyers. Since when was the view of 1,000 lawyers more important than that of the 11 million who voted for us?
Lawyers are not the only stakeholders. It is also the people in the streets — they are the ones who go to court.
A former Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin, recognized that public confidence in the Judiciary was at an all time low when he came into office. Nothing has changed since then. Independent international monitors, such as the World Bank, have noted a decline in public confidence. This is not only about 1,000 lawyers. This is about a system that should work the way it should.
And do all the Barisan MPs agree with the Minister?
Q: You have said the government was happy with the current system of appointments. Why?
A: We found that the system works for us. We inherited this system (from the British), and for 50 years it has served us well. Something which has not brought us any problem, why should we change?
The system works for the Government? Perhaps the Minister should explain what he means by this statement. The system should work for all. That is what ‘independence’ means.
The system shifted in practice post 1988. There has been minimal or no consultation with the Bar on appointments and promotions. This had been the practice before 1988. There appears to be no coherent basis for promotions, this has been at the whim of the Chief Justice. The video, if authentic, points to this fact.
If we need to change this system, we would need a clear indication from the judiciary.
Even then, before you change you have to go and see the Malay rulers. Out of courtesy, you have to tell them. Any slight change, we have to see the Malay rulers first. Once they agree, then you’ve got to get the agreement of the judges also, because this involves them.
The question is has the Government seriously appraised the situation? What steps has it taken to do so. Have the Rulers been appraised. All we have heard is dismissive remarks.
I am only interested in no interference by the Executive. When I became minister in charge of the judiciary, I wanted to make sure that what happened 20 years ago should not happen now. So, please do not ask us to interfere with the judiciary.
The Minister is not in charge of the Judiciary. The Chief Justice. The Minister of Law is responsible only for the administrative aspects of the system, not the justice system.
We are interested in there being no interference by the Executive too. The video, if authentic, shows that there was and could still be interference. The letter written by Syed Idid J showed that there was interference. There appears not to have been any meaningful investigation into the allegations in the said letter. If there had been, the rakyat have not been told of the same.
The prime minister is a good man, he respects that, so he doesn’t interfere. That’s why you can see judges now making decisions which may sometimes be negative towards the government. That’s okay.
I am glad the Minister thinks so. I wonder when Hishamudin J and other deserving judges are going to be promoted.
They are free to make their decisions without interference. The same goes for how judges should be appointed. But if the call for change comes from the judges, it’s okay.
Q: Is the tenure of the chief justice going to be extended?
A: I don’t know. I don’t know anything.
If he is the Minister in charge of the Judiciary as he claims, why does he not know?
Q: The video-clip issue will not yet be settled at the time of his retirement (scheduled for Thursday). Don’t you think that it’s rather unfortunate for him to retire before this matter is settled?
A: I don’t know whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate. That is the prerogative of the prime minister.
Q: Has the prime minister indicated anything to you?
A: No. As I said, I don’t interfere. I only do things which the prime minister asks me to do. I never ask about things that I am not supposed to be making decisions or that I am not supposed to know.
The Minister admits that his views are those of the Prime Minister.
Q: If you just take into account what is printed in the media and what comes out in the blogs, it would appear that there is a crisis in the judiciary.
A: To me, if there were no newspapers, if there were no blogs, then it’s just mere chit-chat in the coffeeshop. That’s all.
And the video is obviously fictional as well. The view in a hole in the sand is not a comprehensive. Acting like an ostrich will definitely make the Government myopic.
Q: Coffeeshop chit-chat is not important?
No. The people are important. This is a government elected by the people, for the people. So, people means the majority. If we didn’t have blogs, if we didn’t have newspapers, who in this world would know about it? But because of technological developments, you are able to chit-chat (about it). It’s just chit-chat.
It is not just chit chat. There is meaningful discussion taking place in society. But then, the Minister has already declared that as the Government has two-thirds of parliament, nothing else really matters.
Q: But the fear that is felt is genuine.
A: So what do you want me to do? Ban all these bloggers? Shut down all the newspapers? I don’t think so. We must live with the fact that this is now a modern world. Technology has enabled us to get to know each other so news gets moved faster.
No, the Minister should address the concerns and fears. He, and the Government, should recognize that they serve the rakyat. The rakyat does not serve them.
Q: So, you don’t think it’s important to try to address the worries of these people?
A: No. It’s not important. Why do you put so much importance on bloggers? You know what rubbish has been written in the blogs?
The Minister has admitted that the he, and by virtue of his acting only on the instruction of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister do not care about the worries of the people.
Whether blogs carry ‘rubbish’ is a matter of opinion. The rakyat are allowed their opinions. Just as the Minister is.
Q: Do you read blogs?
A: I don’t. I don’t waste my time. The few pieces that people print for me are just rubbish. I’d rather spend my time to do things that are constructive; that go down directly to the people who are really in need of the help of the government. Our bloggers are really not up to standard. When they put up something, it’s not something that they want to discuss in a very intellectual way. It’s more because of their anger - the language they use. Why should I read all this rubbish? When the standard of our bloggers is upgraded, then probably I will look at what is written. But anyway, they are a minority. My concern is for the majority.
A Government’s concern should at all times be for all, and never just for the majority. Who is the Minister helping, who are these people who are in need of help? Is the Minister willing to admit that the press is regulated in a manner that has denied Malaysians of crucial information. Blogs have been at the forefront of bringing to interested Malaysians opinions and information essential to their making informed decisions.
Q: Indians in Malaysia are a minority. Does that mean that they don’t count?
A: No, not in that minority sense. I am talking about bloggers. When you talk about minority in the sense of perkauman, they are very important, because they are our rakyat, a rakyat that needs to be helped. Bloggers don’t need to be helped. They are merely throwing rubbish into the blog.
I have no concern for and care about bloggers.
The problems of Indians as a minority is different from the problems of the bloggers. You must appreciate that. I don’t care about the bloggers, but I do care about the minority Indians. In my constituency, I take care of them. You can go to my constituency and see what I have done for the Indian minority. I was the one to open the training in Mara for the Indian youths. These are my concerns.
Good for the Minister. He should perhaps share what constructive measures have been taken by the Government to address the needs of the Indian community, in particular hard core poverty, education and employment needs. It would be interesting to hear how the Government has approached the question of addressing the needs of marginalized communities in a sustainable and coherent manner.
Q: What did you mean when you said that, by walking, the lawyers were behaving like the opposition?
A: Lawyers have got stature in the eyes of the public. And they are apolitical. Also, I have told them that we will work together; never again should the confrontation of 20 years ago be repeated. It doesn’t look good when the government is at odds with either the judiciary or the Bar Council. So, I opened up the doors, I’ve helped them in many ways, to hasten the Legal Profession Act (Amendment) for instance. I did not close my door to them. So, I was surprised when they suddenly decided to walk and demonstrate. I feel sad, because these are lawyers — my profession also — and I would rather see them being accorded the respect that should be given to them.
If the memorandum is from the Bar Council, they would have been given an appointment to see the PM. I would have preferred that the memorandum was brought to the PM’s office. They would sit down with the PM, discuss for one or two hours, and then hand the memorandum over.
But by walking, it is like you are already partisan, you have already made up your mind to oppose the government; that you cannot work with the government, that’s bad.
The Bar is apolitical. It is neutral. Its sole concern is the due administration of justice.
There is no question of opposing the Government. The Government has emphatically declared its position on the question of a Royal Commission. The Bar has submitted countless memoranda, including one on the establishment of an independent judicial appointments commission. The Minister himself has rejected the need for such a commission on the basis that the Bar does not matter, only the majority does.
The Bar has also correctly taken the position that the question of the video is a serious and urgent one. The Government appears to have taken the contrary position.
Peaceful demonstration is a universally recognize method of expressing a view on a matter of crucial significance. Peaceful demonstrations are not the sole province of the opposition.
Q: Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said the reason they walked was that they felt all their appeals were falling on deaf ears.
A: It will fall on deafer ears, I can tell you.
And the Minister wonders why the Bar marched?
Q: But why would you want to cover your ears?
A: They should know — they are lawyers. Their profession is adversarial. When they go in to court, there are two sides — the defendant and the plaintiff. Even the two counsel cannot agree on how the law should be interpreted. So, you need the judge.
So, they fight. But at the end of the day, they respect the decision made by the judge. They go out, shake hands, that’s it.
In giving their views on the judiciary, they must understand that there are two sides to the argument. And theirs may not be the right one. So they must accept the decision. As lawyers, they should. They cannot expect that whatever memorandum they give to us, we must agree.
Why couldn’t they have called to make an appointment? I’m sure the PM would have met them.
Deafened ears do not lend to constructive discussion, Minister.
Q: Maybe walking just says that they are partisan towards justice?
A: I wasn’t complaining about their memorandum. It was the way they did it — demonstrating on the street. The opposition was there. When you go on the street, how are you going to stop the opposition from coming in?
In a meeting with the PM, those who are the opposition — who are not genuine lawyers — cannot go in. You should be apolitical. You are an NGO, you are not an opposition party. You have stature, you’ve got a position in public, people look at you with respect.
But the moment you take to the street, who is going to respect you? They’ll laugh at you. There are people who are laughing at you — but they don’t write in the papers Bodoh punya kerja! (fool’s errand).
The only laughter we hear is that of the Minister. This is a serious issue. His responses clearly reflect a cavalier attitude. If this is the Government’s attitude, we can only infer that the Government is in no rush to get to the truth.
Q: Is there anything wrong in walking for your beliefs?
A: No. But that is the way of the opposition. If you are a political party, we can understand. But if you are a respectable society, that’s not an honourable way to do it — not when the government accords you respect.
How can you bring yourself so low? The moment you do that, we don’t respect you.
If I say to you, “M****r*****r you!", can you say, “Eh, let us sit down, we’ll talk about it.” No! You are lawyers, man! People respect you. So, do it in an honourable way.
When the president of the Bar Council wants an appointment with the PM, she or he gets it. That’s how it is. That’s what I wanted, and I would have accommodated that. But they didn’t contact me. I was waiting. Ambiga knows my doors are open.
But, deafened ears, Minister? And profanity is really unnecessary. But then, the Minister is from the same political party as others who use vulgar language in parliament. One begins to wonder whether this is the UMNO ethos.
Q: If, for instance, the Bar Council wants to take that avenue now, can they still take it?
A: They can. I have already told them, go and engage with the judges. But if they ask me to do what they want me to do towards the judiciary, I won’t do it because I am the Executive.
There is no question of engaging the Judges. The Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary. He is implicated.
Q: The Bar Council claims that they have never been able to get an appointment with the CJ.
A: He’s retiring anyway.
I told them, “Fairuz is also a human being. Kalau you criticise, criticise, criticise dia — dia mana mau layan you.” (If you keep criticising him, he won’t entertain you). I can get a lot of things out of you if I talk to you nicely, but if I start shouting at you, do you think you will accommodate me? No way!
Extremely mature, Minister. Diplomacy is important but should not be the end all and be all for matters of national importance.
Q: But you are more than an ordinary person. You are also the de facto law minister.
A: But you cannot divorce me from the fact that I am also a human being.
The Minister reminds us often enough by his conduct.
Q: That’s very irresponsible.
A: Human beings, there are ways, how you do it. You want something, you talk. You don’t shout, and then expect to get something, no way.
So, pride and ego before justice and the national interest.
Q: Why didn’t the government empower the panel to compel witnesses?
A: Because we have to first determine the authenticity of the video clip, to make it into a formal and genuine complaint.
And how does a powerless panel do this?
Q: What if the video clip is genuine, but the person doesn’t want to come forward?
A: That’s not our problem. We have already set up the panel, it’s for them. As I’ve said, if I was the one who made the complaint, I would be very happy, I’d come (forward) and co-operate. There’s nothing to fear.
(Opposition MP Lim) Kit Siang said to me this morning (Wednesday) the problem is not that they are afraid of the public taking action against them; but they are afraid of the government.
I think that’s no excuse.
Explain to us then the prosecution of Irene Fernandez and Lim Guan Eng, the continued threats of ISA detention and other threats of reprisal. Explain to us how the whistle-blowers are going to be safe and secure, Minister. There is no legal protection for whistle-blowers. The Government is implicated. Where do witnesses turn to for safety.
Q: Why can’t you set up something that can compel a person to come forward?
A: Then you are forcing people. We want it to be voluntary. When you make a complaint to the police, are you being forced to make the complaint, or do you genuinely want to complain? You see, that is the problem (with the current situation). You have to come to us.
Even if you don’t trust us with the tape, then we can always tell that fellow to come, show the tape, then we see, and you can take back the tape. But even then they don’t want to come forward. And their reason is that they are scared of the government. That’s not a reason.
That is the reason. It speaks volumes about the Government and the rakyat’s perception of the Government. We are a long way from "cekap, bersih dan amanah."
Update: It has been brought to my attention that I had not captured the full version. The missing sections and my comments can be viewed here. My apologies for the inconvenience.
19 comments:
the slogan's "bersih, cekap dan amanah" but i'm amazed you still remember it. almost the entire government has switched to "cemerlang, gemilang and tembirang", as i see it.
the article makes nazri look real insensitive, defensive, and abusive. i hope the minister does not run crying to kali or accuse the the newspaper (or reporter) for making him look like an ass. aniza did what good reporters do -- ask questions and push for answers.
nazri did the rest, without anyone's help.
mr incredible? i havent seen a more arrogant person who thinks might is everything. he thinks the majority is everything even to the extent of total disregard of the rule of law.
millions protesting? goosh, your cabinet will have the police and army out in the street intimidating all and sundry that are in disagreement with your arrogance. and to the extent shooting unarm civilians as in terengganu recently.
go on, you dont have to read blogs but spend more time with your constituency. you are absoluetly right coz your constituency is ignorant about whats going on and probably $200 will buy their votes just as in Kubang Pasu. if your kind of supporters can do that to the ex-PM, nothing surprise me anymore. if you have the guts, then come to urban areas and stand for the next election. dont hide behind the ignoramus.
Imtiaz, the print version is much longer by nearly double I think. I wonder why the online version is so short?
Full version on the Bar website.
Malaysian Ministers should be barred from speaking to International news agencies.
Better to remain quiet and let people think you are a fool then to open ur mouth and remove all doubt.
nazri is the sort of minister any decent government would have unashamedly thrown out.
But, he's there and speaking on behalf of the government, on behalf of the PM.
If I did not know Nazri (from his previous published remarks), I'd have thought this guy is an asinine brainless twit.
hey..what am i talking about?
he is all that and more!
GOD save Malaysia!
sometimes I feel God needs a lot of help from us!
Thank you brother, for posting and remarking on that wonderful interview by NST with the minister. I am looking forward to more of your insights on the Judiciary and the Video Tape Scandal and I hope it will be O.K. with you if I do a link to your wonderful contributions to the state of this profession today.
Anonymous,
thank you for pointing out that the interview was not complete. I have added a further section to include the parts I left out.
MIS
Go for it, My Journal
For goodness sake! Can't Malaysians take a break from stupid, egoistic, ignorant, abrasive members of the government!!?!
not that long ago we have syed hamid, now we have nazri. What?! Are they all that dumb? is the cabinet manned by fools!?
"A: Human beings, there are ways, how you do it. You want something, you talk. You don’t shout, and then expect to get something, no way."
Hello!!!! who shouted in parliament out of all places??? Nazri..in his words ..“M****r*****r you!"
freaking double standards. Only he can shout and yell and others can't. Piiilah!!!
False allegation? Have you proved it to be false? If not why say it is false? You as a lawyer should know better to claim it to be false without any proof. Investigate first before you claim it is false or genuine.
Talk to th CJ he tells the lawyer. Should have said the same thing to the CJ when he wanted to address the issue on CJ's speech on common law and on this tape controvesy...CJ should speak to the rakyat,lawyers and the rulers and not thru Nazri.
Nazri talk C@*k!!!
Well, the previous PM contributed greatly to this by discouraging all dissent.
Look at what is now left.
All that needs to be done is to bait the hooks and reel in the intellignet comments.
I feel INCREDIBLY ashamed to have this kind of government.
I feel INCREDIBLY ashamed to be a Malaysian now.
What kind of talk c*ck Minister is this? He is useless.
The government has turned a deaf ear to our plight! Woe be on us!
dont let this issue die off so easily!!!! keep this SCANDAL alive and talked in parliment...blog...media...coffeeshop...or watever means!!! spark and enlighten the rakyat so they will OPEN their eyes WIDE to see all the corruption in the government!! bring back justice to the rakyat!!!
MERDEKA! MALAYSIA BOLEH!
Man... Nazri is an embarrassment. How could such an idiot becoming a minister. And I really wondered why Barisan National still keeping him. A total waste.
Give us a break, man!
http://malaysiancartoons.blogspot.com/2007/11/give-us-break-man.html
Yes,Nazri is a huge embarrassment...
Can you tell if there are other ways for one to become a lawyer besides reading law?
Nazri probably used the other option I suppose?
De facto law Minister?
To Anonymous,
Pak Lah chose Nazry not because of intelligence. It's for another reason if we could look at the present cabinet ministers. His job is to guard the PM's office. He will bark at anyone and everyone other than his master.
Want proof? Just recall back how he reacted to those UMNO leaders who asked Pak Lah to step down.
What can we expect of him?
Post a Comment