All The King's Men...
I wonder what it means for the future of this country that Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, a current UMNO favourite son and most certainly one whom the dizzying heights beckons, has taken the view that matters pertaining to the reform of the Judiciary are not a priority. As was reported in an article in The Sunday Star, the Honourable Member of Parliament for Jerlun questioned the need for judicial reform. He claimed that Malaysia would not crumble without these reforms and, in any event, they did not benefit the Malays or UMNO.
I would have thought that the question of whether the Judiciary and the wider system of justice are in need of reform is moot. Even without the acknowledgment by the Government earlier this year that steps had to be taken to restore confidence in the Judiciary, it is glaringly apparent that all is not as it should be. Standards of judicial competence are worryingly low as is public certainty of the integrity of the judicial process. This latter aspect is no longer a matter of speculation, delusion or political spin; the conclusions and recommendations of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the VK Lingam video made things explicitly clear: things need to be sorted out.
Matters of judicial competence and integrity impact across the board; they are neither race nor political-party specific. Bad or skewed decisions hurt the wider legal profession and the nation as a whole as much as the litigants involved. One of the biggest difficulties practicing law at the present is the lack of certainty in the law, in part for there being a slew of decisions that have been adjudged without due regard to principle or precedent. In becoming precedents themselves, these decisions have undermined the foundations of not only the legal system but also the system of commerce that it supports. Commerce being wholly dependent on the certainty that only an effectively functioning legal system can provide, the current state of affairs is anathema.
It is for this reason that when entering contracts pertaining to Malaysia, many a commercial party now take pains to stipulate that the law of the contract is not Malaysian law and that dispute resolution is to take place outside the country. That is a cause for great concern, one that we have ignored for far too long to our own detriment. A weak system of justice does no favours for the country in which it exists; it is a sure path to failure for driving investment away, much as we are currently experiencing.
Is this not a matter that affects the Malays and UMNO as much as the rest of us?
This is not just a matter of our all being Malaysians and having a common future. Malays are as much litigants before the courts as any other Malaysian. They are as involved in business and corporate deals as much as the next person is, even more some would say. A cursory perusal of the law journals would show just how far, just as they would the fact that they accuse, or are being accused, of cheating and breaching duties, or murder, rape or theft, just like anyone else. UMNO itself is capable of being dragged into court just like any other society and has in fact been there before.
Surely a stronger, independent and more competent Judiciary would benefit these quarters, as much as they would everyone else? After all, justice is supposed to be blind.
I think Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir has much to offer this nation, in parliament and outside it. His reasoning in this instance is however sorely misconceived. The said article suggests that he has formed the view that the reforms are an expression of anti-Mahathirism, notably that of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. Though I will not speak for the former Minister in charge of legal affairs, he is more than capable of doing that for himself, I will say that the potential UMNO Youth Chief may have mistakenly confused an articulation of the need for reform with a personal attack on Tun Mahathir.
The call for reform started long before Datuk Zaid Ibrahim made headway in UMNO. It was prompted by the serious consequences of the 1988 attack on the Judiciary and the Rule of Law. Many in one form or the other, including the Judiciary itself and great legal luminaries such as His Royal Highness Sultan Azlan Shah, have taken it up. Their message is clear; something needs to be done.
The Malaysian Judiciary was once respected throughout the Commonwealth, it no longer is. Its foundations have suffered a beating from the shockwaves that emanated from the events of 1988. The testimony at the Lingam Commission hearings showed how much they still reverberate and, for that, how precarious the position of the institution is.
Is it in danger of collapsing, taking the nation along with it? Only time will tell. The question for us all, Datuk Mukhriz included, is whether we want to wait to find out.
I would have thought that the question of whether the Judiciary and the wider system of justice are in need of reform is moot. Even without the acknowledgment by the Government earlier this year that steps had to be taken to restore confidence in the Judiciary, it is glaringly apparent that all is not as it should be. Standards of judicial competence are worryingly low as is public certainty of the integrity of the judicial process. This latter aspect is no longer a matter of speculation, delusion or political spin; the conclusions and recommendations of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the VK Lingam video made things explicitly clear: things need to be sorted out.
Matters of judicial competence and integrity impact across the board; they are neither race nor political-party specific. Bad or skewed decisions hurt the wider legal profession and the nation as a whole as much as the litigants involved. One of the biggest difficulties practicing law at the present is the lack of certainty in the law, in part for there being a slew of decisions that have been adjudged without due regard to principle or precedent. In becoming precedents themselves, these decisions have undermined the foundations of not only the legal system but also the system of commerce that it supports. Commerce being wholly dependent on the certainty that only an effectively functioning legal system can provide, the current state of affairs is anathema.
It is for this reason that when entering contracts pertaining to Malaysia, many a commercial party now take pains to stipulate that the law of the contract is not Malaysian law and that dispute resolution is to take place outside the country. That is a cause for great concern, one that we have ignored for far too long to our own detriment. A weak system of justice does no favours for the country in which it exists; it is a sure path to failure for driving investment away, much as we are currently experiencing.
Is this not a matter that affects the Malays and UMNO as much as the rest of us?
This is not just a matter of our all being Malaysians and having a common future. Malays are as much litigants before the courts as any other Malaysian. They are as involved in business and corporate deals as much as the next person is, even more some would say. A cursory perusal of the law journals would show just how far, just as they would the fact that they accuse, or are being accused, of cheating and breaching duties, or murder, rape or theft, just like anyone else. UMNO itself is capable of being dragged into court just like any other society and has in fact been there before.
Surely a stronger, independent and more competent Judiciary would benefit these quarters, as much as they would everyone else? After all, justice is supposed to be blind.
I think Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir has much to offer this nation, in parliament and outside it. His reasoning in this instance is however sorely misconceived. The said article suggests that he has formed the view that the reforms are an expression of anti-Mahathirism, notably that of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. Though I will not speak for the former Minister in charge of legal affairs, he is more than capable of doing that for himself, I will say that the potential UMNO Youth Chief may have mistakenly confused an articulation of the need for reform with a personal attack on Tun Mahathir.
The call for reform started long before Datuk Zaid Ibrahim made headway in UMNO. It was prompted by the serious consequences of the 1988 attack on the Judiciary and the Rule of Law. Many in one form or the other, including the Judiciary itself and great legal luminaries such as His Royal Highness Sultan Azlan Shah, have taken it up. Their message is clear; something needs to be done.
The Malaysian Judiciary was once respected throughout the Commonwealth, it no longer is. Its foundations have suffered a beating from the shockwaves that emanated from the events of 1988. The testimony at the Lingam Commission hearings showed how much they still reverberate and, for that, how precarious the position of the institution is.
Is it in danger of collapsing, taking the nation along with it? Only time will tell. The question for us all, Datuk Mukhriz included, is whether we want to wait to find out.
(Malay Mail; 14th October 2008)
MIS
14 comments:
malik,
at times we dotn have to be apologetic to him. what has mukris gotta to offer? his dispositions are no different from the rest of the UMNO aspirants except that he comes from an influential stock.
yes, i see nepotism and unless and until he proves himself to be able to see beyond the narrow rhetoric of Malay and UMNO there is no reason for view otherwise.
A corrupt judiciary is like the proverbial goose. It goes on laying golden eggs for UMNO, so why slaughter it?
Faesop's Able
dear malik,
when a man makes a statement, he makes a stand on issues that relevant to his beliefs. one has to look at statements made to gauge the values held. judicial reforms are necessary in order that we move forward to justice for all and sundry for this is a good thing. when the honourable mp from jerlun rejects such judicial reforms, then what are the reasons for his stand? could it be that such reforms inevitably uncover the powers that were responsible for such transgressions?
our nation continues to be held hostage if there is no will amongst all peoples of our land to stand up against such travesties. the rakyat in the cities and in the 5 states and 1 ft have made a start. we pray that many more of our fellow citizens apart from the 5 states and 1 ft will continue the transformation and rejuvenation of our country, come ge 13.
Saudara DISQUIET.
YOUR STATEMENT: ‘Royal Commission of Enquiry on the VK Lingam video made things explicitly clear: things need to be sorted out’
Saya ada EMPAT soalan;
SATU
Apa sebenarnya keistimewaan Salleh Abbas kalau benar perkara bising kerana kerja membaikpulih istana pun nak dijadikan isu sampai menghantar surat kepada semua raja-raja?
Bukankah ini satu sikap tidak matang serta kebudak-budakan? Atau seseorang perlu berperangai seperti ini untuk menjadi Hakim Yang Bijaksana?
Atau apakah saudara berpendapat Mahathir berbohong?
DUA
Suruhanjaya Diraja yang membicarakan Salleh Abbas diluluskan oleh Agong tapi Suruhanjaya yang baru hanya seperti membicarakan pasal Mahathir.
Soalannya; Apakah Agong tersebut lemah, bodoh dan dipaksa mengikut telunjuk Mahathir? (Hello, you are talking about Tuanku Sultan Johor here!!)
Kenapa tidak disiasat dakwaan Mahathir secara menyeluruh bahawa Agong sebenarnya marah kepada Salleh atas beberapa perkara lain?
Agong tersebut masih hidup, mengapa Tuanku tidak ditanya?
Atau masyarakat undang-undang yang bijaksana sememangnya tidak berminat dengan kebenaran yang sebenarnya?
Atau apakah Suruhanjaya ini yang mengikut telunjuk Zaid dan Bar Council? Apakah Suruhanjaya telah mencapai matlamat dengan jayanya bila ‘mendapati’ Mahathir bersalah? Apakah itu tujuan sebenar?
TIGA
Benarkah Suruhanjaya ini mengatakan, something like this; Jika seseorang itu mempunyai sebab untuk membuat salah, maka dia mesti tentunya telah melakukan kesalahan?
Ini undang-undang hutan mana?
EMPAT
Mengapa sikap Justice Chin tidak dikomen oleh Bar Council, dan malah dikatakan ‘appropriate’ oleh Zaid?
Apakah itu tatalaku Kehakiman Standard Piawaian Bar Council? Mengapa masyarakat undang-undang senyap membisu?
Saudara, saya bersetuju bahawa kita perlu membuat perubahan jika kita ikhlas dengan situasi yang sebenar.
Tetapi jika kita hanya DISQUIET secara berpilih serta menidakkkan hak orang yang kita kata jahat; maka mana perginya nilai profesionalisme dan maruah kita?
Kita jangan berselindung disebalik Jubah dan Badan Professional kita.
Jangan kita hanya tahu melaungkan Keadilan tapi lupa MENGAMALkannya.
HAK DAN KEADILAN UNTUK SEMUA
A filial son carrying on the father's legacy, that's all I can conclude. Seems like no one is going to get the reforms ahead. It's all up to us people to decide in the next GE.
"His reasoning in this instance is however sorely misconceived." Surely a grown man - much less a politician - can say something about the objective merits of reform, quite apart from the related slurs against his father. To expect any less of the MP e.g. calling it a 'misconception' is uncharacteristic of you. Why?
REJECT RACIST POLITICIANS, REJECT THE RETURN OF MAHATHIRISM, REJECT ISA — RETURN INDEPENDENCE TO OUR EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATURE, JUDICIARY & MEDIA.
Malik, my concern is that since Mahathir became PM until today, the separation of powers needed for a true democracy in Malaysia has been compromised. Our executive, legislature, judiciary and media are supposed to be independent but thanks to Mahathir, all kena meliwat and now UMNO has one ring to rule them all. Today, there are very few checks and balances, hence all the corruption and scandals.
I think the bigger threat the Rakyat needs to be aware of is the real possibility of Mahathir coming back and ruling by proxy via Najib. Then all bloggers will be in Kamunting, no joke. Pls warn the Rakyat.
Longer term, the Rakyat will only benefit if there is a return of independence to our executive, legislature, judiciary and media. The best scenario is to have a two party system based on issues, not race, that has equal power in parliament. Only then will there be checks and balances, and good governance.
If Pakatan Rakyat comes to power and there are no checks and balances in place, we can expect another BN-like rule, because history shows that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Humans will be humans. Therefore, the Rakyat needs to become more proactive and always keep pressure on their MPs to be accountable, honest and proactive in protecting the rights of the people.
The first step for the Rakyat is to FREE RPK & ALL THE ISA DETAINEES. JR
Dear MIS,
Another great piece, as always.
I can't see why those in power would want a strong and independent judiciary. After all, it serves their purposes best when law and justice continue to be applied in a rather flexible manner.
Best regards,
CPK
I am afraid, very very afraid, that Tun M will use his son as a mouth piece if he fails to get a position (a powerful one of course) when he rejoins UMNO....
Ya, most appropriate title. Maybe it is a good idea that KJ wins the contest.
Is UMNO taking the old man back? After what he has done during the election, calling for people to vote opposition, they should shut him out if they have any inkling what having principles is all about.
Response to Shah9/ Imran (I made this comment on Imran's blog):
Encik Imran,
thank you for having taken the time and effort to write this piece. I was hoping you would be able to contribute a piece to Project Malaysia (www.projectmalaysia.org) which is currently looking at the administration of justice. Your insights into whether reform are needed and, if so, how this reform is to be achieved would help us all better understand the matter. That is the aim of the initiative after all.
By way of clarification, I have nothing personal against Datuk Mukhriz. I have had the pleasure of dealing with him professionally and meeting him socially and, as I said in my article, I think he has much to offer this nation. I had not intention of personally attacking Datuk Mukhriz.
As for bias, I may not have been clear. My views are not based on what it is the Royal Commission concluded only or on Zaid Ibrahim's position. There is a wealth of opinion which points to the need for reform.
I am further not involved with the Bar Council or any of its sub-committees and have not been for some time. I too have my doubts about making the heads of the bar associations members of the proposed commission. In my view, the commission should be independent in the truest sense. I think the UK model is a good one.
I agree with Dharan Sea that we should be looking forward and looking to strengthening the rights of ordinary citizens. My view is that strengthening the judiciary would allow for this, but this is said on the basis that there is a need for such strengthening in the first place. I have publicly stated this to be my position at various forums in which I said we should look to the future. Though I do believe that some measure of reconciliation was needed for us to look to the future, the events of 1988 are relevant for appreciating context.
I hope you will are able to contribute a piece to Project Malaysia. A different viewpoint is always welcome.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
Malik,
the plain simple truth is that this upstart wannabe is trying to divert attention to judicial reforms for his father. That grand old man is really afraid that his days will be numbered once reforms starts.He has alot to answer to the people.
bapak borek anak rintik :-)
to Ketuanan Rakyat!
D.Mukhriz is his father's boy and he is in politics to defend his father's legacy it seems from how he goes about it. The man should know that a good clean judiciary is good for all regardless if they are Malay, Chinese or Indian.What does he mean is not good for Malay and UMNO.Why bring race into this? what does Islam say about justice?
Post a Comment