YOURSAY ‘Judicial independence is the last baton of a free and democratic society.’
Action awaits those who tarnish judiciary
Kim Quek: I agreed with the chief justice (CJ) that the public should not make “unfounded criticism” of the judiciary, and further agreed that “the independence of the judiciary is paramount to the country’s administration”.
But can the CJ in true conscience declare that the judiciary has been acting with full independence in cases where Umno’s vital interests are at stake?
Is it not true that, as exemplified by the series of judgments in the Perak constitutional crisis, judges have ruled with manifest disregard for the constitution in order to protect the ruling coalition BN’s political interests?
As for the current conviction of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, is it not true that it has been unanimously criticised as a travesty of justice and a political-motivated prosecution by world leaders, jurist bodies, human rights organisations around the world, with not a single voice indicating even the faintest hint of approval to such unjust persecution of Anwar through the country’s legal process?
However, there is still saving grace for the Malaysian judiciary if the Federal Court would give a fair hearing to Anwar’s anticipated application to review the verdict.
But is the CJ up to the measure to deliver justice to Anwar this time - in accordance with the constitution and law - so as to restore some degree of public confidence to the judiciary?
Anonymous #19098644: It is when those who took oaths to protect and uphold the constitution and the integrity of the court and fail to do so that the reputation and integrity of the judiciary is tarnished and the administration of justice is undermined.
Not one foreign country, not one human rights organisation, and not one international observer, supported the verdict of the court.
The conclusion was unanimous that the verdict was a travesty of justice. Indeed, the people of this country have passed judgment on you and your brethren and found you wanting.
Pemerhati: Correct, correct, correct. This does not mean what the CJ says is correct, but a reference to the commission of inquiry where these words were used by a lawyer and where we learnt how judges get appointed to the top positions in the judiciary.
These judges then create havoc by giving wrong judgments to please those people who put them in the top positions and in the further hope of getting more rewards.
All this began after Dr Mahathir Mohamad unfairly sacked Salleh Abas, the principled chief judge who rightly refused to take orders from Mahathir regarding the number of judges that ought to be appointed for an important case in which Mahathir had an interest.
After that Mahathir and subsequent PMs continued to appoint kangaroos in the top positions of the judiciary as this would ensure that no action would be taken against the corrupt and criminal activities of the BN leaders.
Moreover these judges would help to get rid of the opposition leaders by jailing them on trumped-up charges.
Gordon Gecko: Learn a word a day. Today's word: Kangaroo + Court = Kangaroo court. A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognised standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.
Merriam-Webster defines it as "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted". The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.
A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. Source: Wikipedia.
MinahBulat: Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria, can I suggest that you do this, Switzerland has taken the move to bring your decision to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Could you perhaps ask Wisma Putra to chastise Switzerland for their act is undermining the judiciary that you are supposed to uphold.
Perhaps as head of the judiciary, you may represent Malaysia at the human rights council. Better still you and the other four judges should defend Malaysia. If required, bring along your sidekick - the prosecutor of Anwar - as your gunslinger.
Senior: I have ever since as a law student been reading, analysing and commenting (both critical and praising) judgments - is that no longer allowed?
Pray tell, what is "unfounded criticism"? If I think the judgment is flawed, can I not say so? If the court did not consider a point, can I not say it must be blind? Can I not be critical of the court without attacking the judges?
LEF: Dear Arifin, it is not your place to lecture me on what I should think of you. The most you can do, is to listen and think whether the criticisms against your entire bench that sat on the Anwar trial is warranted.
I am happy to tell you that many of us don't. And on integrity and dignity, you need to wake up that we don't think the judiciary, and the highest court of the land, has much of any at this point of time.
Oh Ya?: Judicial independence is the last baton of a free and democratic society. Its every action is therefore subject to close scrutiny and critique. The CJ should know better than this.
If the criticism has gone overboard, the CJ could easily hail the persons concerned for contempt. The veiled threat is reminiscent of the ruling elite's modus operandi of suppressing its opposition and dissidents.
That wouldn't earn the CJ the credibility he thinks he deserves.
Haveagreatday: A Queen’s Counsel and other independent jurists have ripped apart the latest verdict in the political persecution of Anwar. Are those unwarranted criticisms?
It appears the written judgment on the case has done nothing to assuage the misgivings of the critics of that verdict.
Yes, the independence of the judiciary is indeed paramount but sadly, it has been proven time and again, the judiciary never recovered from that ex-dictator's attack on its independence and neutrality in 1988.
Unspin: The adage that “not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done” is magnified a million folds in the era of social media.
Surely, the Federal Court bench had taken that into account when they wrote the infamous judgment?
CJ, explain appeal court’s speed in sodomy verdict
Surely the whole world can’t be wrong on Anwar
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
