For the first thirty years of independence, our judiciary was the watchdog of the constitution and it was respected in the Commonwealth for maintaining high standard of justice as envisaged by our founding fathers. Then, the courts and all the judges existed for the sake of justice, an important pillar of our constitution.

Without any disrespect to anyone, our judges then were men of outstanding talent and probity and with the moral and spiritual depth to stand up against the executive government and whomever may come in their way. Without doubt, they were the indispensable servants of society who maintained its fundamental equilibrium.

To them judgeship was a call for the acceptance of responsibility and not an opportunity for golfing and dining with clients and receiving expensive complementaries and/or holidaying and fishing with selected members of the Bar. Regrettably, such standards are no longer in vogue.

Today, we are at the nadir of moral values. Commencing March 1988, the judiciary ceased to be an important and independent institution of the government. The amendment to Article 121 of the constitution restricted the power of the courts as an element in the separation of powers.

That amendment altered the basic character of the constitution and made the judiciary a poodle of the executive. Our elected lawmakers with economy of merit knew on which side the bread was buttered and shamelessly rubber-stamped the amendment without understanding the far reaching adverse impact of their action. They betrayed the peoples’ two-thirds mandate to safeguard their personal prospects and add more years to their political life. That was a culpable wrong.

The process to constitute the tribunals to investigate the alleged ‘gross misconduct’ of the then Lord President Salleh Abas and five senior judges of talent and probity, respectively, only satisfied the cold words in the constitution and not the spirit of the constitution.

The question in the minds of right-thinking millions around the world was, and is, were the principles of natural justice seen to be observed? Is lawfulness synonymous with rightfulness and justice? What wrong did they do to warrant a charge sheet of such a grave nature?

Hence, our lawmakers’ ‘tidak apa" attitude in March 1988 poisoned the well-spring of justice and the ensuing collective and cumulative damaged caused and the injustice inflicted on the people during the past twenty years was vividly captured in the Lingam Tape scandal.

The government desired for a judiciary made to measure, ie, pliant judges and the rich and the well-connected then had the privilege of ‘judge shopping’.

The judiciary is no longer the temple/palace of justice. Instead, it is a casino where justice is priced and the poor are unable to seek protection against the excesses of the very representatives who they put in power. The legal system has made it easier for criminals to live and difficult for the honest to exist.

As the issue affects the entire nation, all citizens are vitally interested in an unpolluted stream of justice. Hence, the government must act without delay and implement all the recommendations of the royal commission on the Lingam Tape, without any dilution.

Ordinary citizens are not looking for well-paneled courtrooms with marble floorings, black-robed judges and well-dressed lawyers as the setting to resolve their disputes. Instead, people with legal problem, like people with pain, look for relief as quickly as possible and inexpensively as possible and a fair hearing.

Hence, to restore confidence in the office of a justice, only Malaysians with the aristocracy of knowledge, talent and probity should be appointed as judges or promoted to the appellate court or the apex court so that the aggrieved seeking relief are assured that the sword of Mother Justice, who is blind, will fall on all offenders with equal certainty and with impartial strength.

If the people lose faith in the politicians, they can change them; if they lose faith in the judges, they may have to live with them.

And, finally, to restore the dignity and integrity of the office of the peoples’ elected representative, the Election Commission must prescribe some minimum qualification for candidates vying for a seat in parliament or the state assemblies.