Judicial System
Many Singaporeans may have the perception that Malaysia is not a terribly progressive country. Thus we may be surprised to hear that before its judicial crisis in 1988 it had the best judiciary east of India as the article below claims.
I wonder how our judicial system ranks.
Malaysiakini
Q&A: Disillusioned but not bitter
Aug 22, 06 8:24pm
The following is an abstract of the press conference called by former Lord President Salleh Abas at the National Heart Institute.
Why are you calling this press conference?
On the 17th of this month, the newspapers asked me for comments on the proposal by the Bar Council chairperson (Yeo Yang Poh) to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis that took place in 1988.
At that time, I was absolutely not aware (of it) because I have not read the papers. I can tell you, I haven’t read the papers in a long time - it’s difficult to get papers there (Bukit Payung, Terengganu). I don’t read the Malay papers because I cannot read fast enough so I struggle. It’s not easy to get English papers. I only read them when I get to town.
Anyhow, the newspapers have been pressing for a statement when I wasn’t even aware that such a statement was made by Yeo Yang Poh. Somebody showed me The Sun so I read it, but I still don’t want to make a statement.
So I’m making a statement now to put a rest to it and hoping that no more questions would be asked about my attitude or my comments. It’s all there in this three-page statement. I am prepared to answer questions only on this subject and not on any other subject. Don’t ask me questions beyond this subject.
On judicial review and ministerial power
The court at one time had power which we called judicial review dealing with the complaints by the rakyat against the wrongdoing of the executive. In England, and also in India, this particular provision is very well done, very healthy. More people go to court to contest the validity of government actions but in this country, no, you can’t do it. You can’t do it simply because the government doesn’t want to be tested as to the right and the wrong that the government is doing.
The Courts of Judicature Act was also amended to take away the power of the judiciary to have a judicial review, and also a number of legislations, there is always a provision to the effect that the decision of any minister with certain things shall be final and shall not be questioned in court. Finish. Where are you going to go?
The clear example is, of course, press freedom. If something happens, and the government doesn’t like it, legislation is passed and it’s there. You then want to appeal to the minister but the minister will make a decision which will be covered by that law and cannot be questioned in court.
Even in the Police Act, for example, if the people want to have, or hold, a meeting or a rally ... you have to apply for a permit. If the permit isn’t given - the OCPD would usually keep it to the last minute, or refuse altogether - there is a provision in the Police Act where you can appeal to the chief police officer but the officer can make a decision that it is final and cannot be questioned in court. Where is the freedom of expression?
In this country, we say we rule by law. There are three types of law that I was taught at my university - law of altruism, law of reciprocity and law of power. But today, I think the world is moving towards the law of power. Law of reciprocity - the benefit is mutual, the liability is also mutual. But when it comes to law of power, it is one-sided.
What is the best way to correct the 1988 judicial crisis?
The laws must be amended. We are not talking about how to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis yet. To me, if you really want to make this country to be governed democratically in accordance to the law, the laws must be looked into and be amended. Then we would be in line with all other democratic countries.
Do you have hope that the crisis will be reviewed?
After I got dismissed on August 8, 1988, I became absolutely disillusioned with the law. So much so that I never even encouraged my children or grandchildren to study law. I took my solace in being a simple gardener. But I keep praying to God that a day will arrive that the truth will come.
The truth is that my dismissal, and the suspension of my five colleagues, was a great fraud on the judiciary and you cannot recover the truth to something fraudulent. Somehow, things will emerge when you refer (to what happened) in my time, it will strain the record in the future. It will come out eventually. That is natural.
Would you like the investigation to the judicial crisis to be reopened?
I would like it reopened, of course. The law we had was twisted. This has cost the life of one judge, Eusoffe Abdoolcadeer, who was so disillusioned with the law.
If I’m called to give evidence, I would love to do it. But as it is, it is up to the government. It is a political decision. No matter how much the public wants this matter to be reopened, finally it’s the decision of the government; in what form and what manner.
Today, we still have a number of people involved in this crisis that are still alive ... George Seah who is very sick at the moment, Wan Hamzah (Wan Mohamed Salleh), (Mohamed) Azmi Kamaruddin, Abdul Talib (Othman), (Abdul) Hamid Omar - all these players are still here.
However, there is a statute of limitations (where legal proceedings are barred after a number of years). That if you were to go to court, it is too big for the court to decide. I think it’s two years against the government or public authority.
What was the catalyst of this judicial crisis?
I think it all started because of th two (Asian) Wall Street Journal reporters who made comments on certain things and their visa was withdrawn, or something like that. They took this to court. The late Harun Hashim, (who) was the judge at that time, made a very strong comment on the government on the withdrawal of the visa. From then (on), the government started to see that the judiciary was interfering with the executive.
The statement made by the former prime minister (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) against the judiciary all started from there. Some judges felt very unhappy about it. I don’t think I can go further than this because if I were to tell the story, it would take months and years to finish it. I even wrote a book on it, May Day for Justice.
Why have you not said anything before this?
Why should I say anything? Whatever I say, it would not be reported, I know that. That is why I think The Sun described me as media shy. Not without any reason.
I learned a great experience during my suspension that when I make statement, that statement got twisted and truncated that so much so an entirely different version came out. Because of that, I’m ‘very shy’. I have to be very careful. The reporters are very good but the decision-making is with the editors and the editors would cut and put their own version.
But now I think the press seems to be a little bit better. And even then I am very cautious. That’s why I did this statement. I don’t want to talk to the crowd because I know I cannot remember what I say and they would be quarreling (over) what I say or what you say is wrong. But now you cannot quarrel because this is all black and white here.
Do you see any positive changes from the present government compared to Mahathir’s government?
There is a certain amount of liberality in the present government. I think the press is a bit better and liberal now. We can see also there are few articles and incidents where the reports made are adverse to the government. In those days, this was not possible.
What do you think about the judicial system?
The judicial system is there. But they are limited and shackled. We still have the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and magistrates but their powers are limited.
Do you feel bitter about the whole episode?
I am not bitter. The first few months maybe a little disillusioned and unhappy, and then I got over it. After that I went to Australia to become a visiting professor of Monash and Melbourne universities. There, I taught Malaysian constitution and Malaysian law. They wanted me to continue with my work over there but you see, my roots are very strong in Malaysia ... I have children and grandchildren so I didn’t stay long.
How do you describe Tun Mahathir?
I have no comment. You know your own answer, don’t ask me.
How would you describe the judiciary now?
That I have no comment. I think you all know that one.
So Tun, can you tell us what your life is like now?
I go to the kebun (orchard) once a week. I live in Bukit Payung. It is 11 kilometres from the town centre in Kuala Terengganu. I live on a farm about three quarters of an acre where I built my house. Then I plant fruit trees and they are all fruiting now. I also build two cemented pools to rear fish. But I have never eaten the fish. I have plenty of them and I like to feed them. It’s a very soothing experience.
Do you agree with public perception the people have no recourse?
There are some recourse but not full recourse as there ought to be. Before the judicial crisis, we were the best judiciary east of India. India was very good. We were even better than Hong Kong. That’s why I describe that era really as a golden era for the judiciary. (This is) because of its integrity, competency and enjoyment of public confidence. The judges then were very highly respected.
I wonder how our judicial system ranks.
Malaysiakini
Q&A: Disillusioned but not bitter
Aug 22, 06 8:24pm
The following is an abstract of the press conference called by former Lord President Salleh Abas at the National Heart Institute.
Why are you calling this press conference?
On the 17th of this month, the newspapers asked me for comments on the proposal by the Bar Council chairperson (Yeo Yang Poh) to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis that took place in 1988.
At that time, I was absolutely not aware (of it) because I have not read the papers. I can tell you, I haven’t read the papers in a long time - it’s difficult to get papers there (Bukit Payung, Terengganu). I don’t read the Malay papers because I cannot read fast enough so I struggle. It’s not easy to get English papers. I only read them when I get to town.
Anyhow, the newspapers have been pressing for a statement when I wasn’t even aware that such a statement was made by Yeo Yang Poh. Somebody showed me The Sun so I read it, but I still don’t want to make a statement.
So I’m making a statement now to put a rest to it and hoping that no more questions would be asked about my attitude or my comments. It’s all there in this three-page statement. I am prepared to answer questions only on this subject and not on any other subject. Don’t ask me questions beyond this subject.
On judicial review and ministerial power
The court at one time had power which we called judicial review dealing with the complaints by the rakyat against the wrongdoing of the executive. In England, and also in India, this particular provision is very well done, very healthy. More people go to court to contest the validity of government actions but in this country, no, you can’t do it. You can’t do it simply because the government doesn’t want to be tested as to the right and the wrong that the government is doing.
The Courts of Judicature Act was also amended to take away the power of the judiciary to have a judicial review, and also a number of legislations, there is always a provision to the effect that the decision of any minister with certain things shall be final and shall not be questioned in court. Finish. Where are you going to go?
The clear example is, of course, press freedom. If something happens, and the government doesn’t like it, legislation is passed and it’s there. You then want to appeal to the minister but the minister will make a decision which will be covered by that law and cannot be questioned in court.
Even in the Police Act, for example, if the people want to have, or hold, a meeting or a rally ... you have to apply for a permit. If the permit isn’t given - the OCPD would usually keep it to the last minute, or refuse altogether - there is a provision in the Police Act where you can appeal to the chief police officer but the officer can make a decision that it is final and cannot be questioned in court. Where is the freedom of expression?
In this country, we say we rule by law. There are three types of law that I was taught at my university - law of altruism, law of reciprocity and law of power. But today, I think the world is moving towards the law of power. Law of reciprocity - the benefit is mutual, the liability is also mutual. But when it comes to law of power, it is one-sided.
What is the best way to correct the 1988 judicial crisis?
The laws must be amended. We are not talking about how to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis yet. To me, if you really want to make this country to be governed democratically in accordance to the law, the laws must be looked into and be amended. Then we would be in line with all other democratic countries.
Do you have hope that the crisis will be reviewed?
After I got dismissed on August 8, 1988, I became absolutely disillusioned with the law. So much so that I never even encouraged my children or grandchildren to study law. I took my solace in being a simple gardener. But I keep praying to God that a day will arrive that the truth will come.
The truth is that my dismissal, and the suspension of my five colleagues, was a great fraud on the judiciary and you cannot recover the truth to something fraudulent. Somehow, things will emerge when you refer (to what happened) in my time, it will strain the record in the future. It will come out eventually. That is natural.
Would you like the investigation to the judicial crisis to be reopened?
I would like it reopened, of course. The law we had was twisted. This has cost the life of one judge, Eusoffe Abdoolcadeer, who was so disillusioned with the law.
If I’m called to give evidence, I would love to do it. But as it is, it is up to the government. It is a political decision. No matter how much the public wants this matter to be reopened, finally it’s the decision of the government; in what form and what manner.
Today, we still have a number of people involved in this crisis that are still alive ... George Seah who is very sick at the moment, Wan Hamzah (Wan Mohamed Salleh), (Mohamed) Azmi Kamaruddin, Abdul Talib (Othman), (Abdul) Hamid Omar - all these players are still here.
However, there is a statute of limitations (where legal proceedings are barred after a number of years). That if you were to go to court, it is too big for the court to decide. I think it’s two years against the government or public authority.
What was the catalyst of this judicial crisis?
I think it all started because of th two (Asian) Wall Street Journal reporters who made comments on certain things and their visa was withdrawn, or something like that. They took this to court. The late Harun Hashim, (who) was the judge at that time, made a very strong comment on the government on the withdrawal of the visa. From then (on), the government started to see that the judiciary was interfering with the executive.
The statement made by the former prime minister (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) against the judiciary all started from there. Some judges felt very unhappy about it. I don’t think I can go further than this because if I were to tell the story, it would take months and years to finish it. I even wrote a book on it, May Day for Justice.
Why have you not said anything before this?
Why should I say anything? Whatever I say, it would not be reported, I know that. That is why I think The Sun described me as media shy. Not without any reason.
I learned a great experience during my suspension that when I make statement, that statement got twisted and truncated that so much so an entirely different version came out. Because of that, I’m ‘very shy’. I have to be very careful. The reporters are very good but the decision-making is with the editors and the editors would cut and put their own version.
But now I think the press seems to be a little bit better. And even then I am very cautious. That’s why I did this statement. I don’t want to talk to the crowd because I know I cannot remember what I say and they would be quarreling (over) what I say or what you say is wrong. But now you cannot quarrel because this is all black and white here.
Do you see any positive changes from the present government compared to Mahathir’s government?
There is a certain amount of liberality in the present government. I think the press is a bit better and liberal now. We can see also there are few articles and incidents where the reports made are adverse to the government. In those days, this was not possible.
What do you think about the judicial system?
The judicial system is there. But they are limited and shackled. We still have the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and magistrates but their powers are limited.
Do you feel bitter about the whole episode?
I am not bitter. The first few months maybe a little disillusioned and unhappy, and then I got over it. After that I went to Australia to become a visiting professor of Monash and Melbourne universities. There, I taught Malaysian constitution and Malaysian law. They wanted me to continue with my work over there but you see, my roots are very strong in Malaysia ... I have children and grandchildren so I didn’t stay long.
How do you describe Tun Mahathir?
I have no comment. You know your own answer, don’t ask me.
How would you describe the judiciary now?
That I have no comment. I think you all know that one.
So Tun, can you tell us what your life is like now?
I go to the kebun (orchard) once a week. I live in Bukit Payung. It is 11 kilometres from the town centre in Kuala Terengganu. I live on a farm about three quarters of an acre where I built my house. Then I plant fruit trees and they are all fruiting now. I also build two cemented pools to rear fish. But I have never eaten the fish. I have plenty of them and I like to feed them. It’s a very soothing experience.
Do you agree with public perception the people have no recourse?
There are some recourse but not full recourse as there ought to be. Before the judicial crisis, we were the best judiciary east of India. India was very good. We were even better than Hong Kong. That’s why I describe that era really as a golden era for the judiciary. (This is) because of its integrity, competency and enjoyment of public confidence. The judges then were very highly respected.
posted by locky2ky at 4:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home