Dubbing himself the new 'supervisor' of players in the judicial system, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz relates his priorities to malaysiakini in matters of law over which he now has oversight.

Malaysiakini: Was your 'promotion' - by receiving an additional portfolio during the cabinet reshuffle - a surprise, given that you had previously said this could be your last term in the party (Umno) and the government

Nazri: Yes, I am surprised because the trend has been one where the prime minister's (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) idea of a cabinet is a cabinet that works hard. A cabinet position is not a reward but a responsibility, so he wants his ministers to really work hard and be focused on their job...

During the cabinet reshuffle, I thought that the ministers in the PM's Department (would remain at) one for law and one for Parliament. I am surprised that somebody else was not appointed to take charge of Parliament, and (that) he has given me (the law portfolio).... I am honoured and will do my best.

What was the reason for removing one minister's post in the PM's Department in this case?

(Laughs) I don't know.

Will the task be heavier for you, since the law portfolio is an important one?

Yes. Although it is going to be heavy for me, I do see the rationale of having one minister for both portfolios because law is closely affiliated with Parliament. I think we can get things done faster and easier if we have one minister in charge of both.

What is your background in law?

I was called to the English Bar in 1977, graduated from Lincoln's Inn in London. I practised from 1978 to 1995. My firm was Nazri Aziz & Wong but in 1995 I had to give up (the stake in the firm). I have always been a politician, and have not practised in a real sense...I just have a practising certificate.

What are your priorities in assuming the new duties?

The first thing I want to do is to engage all the players in the judiciary system - the bench, prosecution and defence (lawyers). On Monday I met with the CJ (Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim), I had a chat with him and he briefly told me the set-up of the judiciary system and a few things on which we can work together to further enhance the judiciary. I am waiting to meet with the AG (Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail) on Feb 27.

(Next) will be the Bar Council, I regard them as a very important part of our legal system. I'm going to meet them tomorrow (Feb 22), not just the committee members but all of them. It's important that I engage them because they play a role in the judiciary. I want to create an atmosphere where we can work together. As minister in charge of law, I regard myself as supervisor... to co-ordinate the judiciary, judges, prosecution and the Malaysian Bar members, I must play that role, If we have good relations, then we will create a good climate for trade investment in the country because it gives people confidence.

I also want the Bar Council to be in a good position with regard to their profession by looking at their concerns and welfare. They are many things happening in the Bar Council now which I can help to resolve. For example, recently there was a big quarrel over the (Bar's AGM) quorum, (the dispute) even went to court. I received a memorandum from the Bar Council requesting the minister in charge of law to look into the possibility of reducing the quorum. It is now one-fifth (of the Bar's members and therefore more than) 2,000, which is ridiculous. They have requested the quorum to be legislated to 350, which is more reasonable. I tend to agree with them and I will surely take this matter to the AG, so we can make amendment to the LPA (Legal Profession Act) in regards to the quorum.

The memorandum was submitted in last May, close to a year ago...

Yes, but we had to co-ordinate between the minister in charge of law and minister in charge of Parliament. Now that I am holding both (portfolios) which is so much easier, I will discuss this further, and hopefully it can be done as soon as possible.

Have you set a time frame for yourself on this?

I have to meet with the AG first, only after that I will know what kind of time frame.

Another issue is Section 46A of the LPA which bars politicians and lawyers with less than seven years' experience from standing for the council's elections.

(The Bar Council) has also requested to repeal the section. In my opinion, I agree (with the repeal) because that section - in regards to the seven-year experience - is the root cause of disunity among members of the Bar. Nothing will be united when you already have a dichotomy between old lawyers and new lawyers; we are actually encouraging discrimination. The loser is the Bar Council because, by having this dichotomy, you are barring young and active members from the Bar from participating actively. You know young people, they are very enthusiastic and if you say 'No' to them kita rugi lah (we will lose out). The moment you're called to the Bar, you should be allowed to stand (for the council's election), this is democracy.

So you and the Bar Council are both agreed on the amendment. The question now is how you intend to make this reality.

Now it is up to me. Last time I was only in charge of Parliament not the law, so I could not interfere. I could only wait for the (amendment) Bill to come to Parliament and then push it. Now I'm in a position to hasten the procedure. I will be monitoring and keeping tabs on the progress of the amendment.

Bar Council president (Yeo Yang Poh) has expressed the hope that the proposed amendments can be tabled in the March sitting - will that be possible?

I hope so, that's why I said I have to speak to the AG first because they have to do the drafting.

You said you discussed several things with the CJ...

That is private and confidential.

There is a long-standing dispute on the selection and promotion of judges because the process is not transparent.

I think that's up to the judges, they are the third branch of the government and they are independent. It's up to the CJ. I can't interfere, I can only give advice or co-ordinate.

There was a suggestion recently to make the AG a political appointee in view of the Metramac case. Are you in favour of this?

There are pros and cons. If a person is politician then the difficulty is that people will say whatever the AG does is under the instruction of the prime minister (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi). So it's better for him to be a normal appointee, he can act independently without having to think that this is a political appointment and listen to the PM.

But I see no difficulty (in making the AG answerable to Parliament) because we have a minister in charge of law. Whatever questions (concerning the AG) are addressed to Parliament, I will have to answer this and the AG has to provide me with the information. So there is check and balance.

You said the AG shouldn't be seen as acting under the instruction of the PM, but the AG is under the PM's Department at present.

It would not be more not independent if the AG is a politician - right? As it is, you see a practising lawyer being appointed as AG, but because the AG is under the PM's Department then you say there is no independence. Would it be worse if the AG is a politician then?

So you are going to have a dialogue with the Bar members...

Yes and I read in their website they are very wary (of me). Look-lah, if you don't want to talk to me then don't come, I don't come to confront them, I come in peace to talk to them. If they want to treat me like someone who can't be trusted or (because I am) in the government, then don't come-lah. There are issues where (we have opposite views), like the ISA (Internal Security Act). OSA (Official Secrets Act) and probably the others laws. We won't discuss that, because I have a government stance and they have their own stance. What I would like to do is to solve their internal problems.

There's another issue in relation to ex-judges who have retired and return to practice. This is an issue for me. When someone has been a judge for many years and comes back to become a member of the Bar and practises law, it's very difficult sometimes and (puts people) in a compromising situation. For example, an ex-judge of the court of appeal may be defending a case before a judge who was his junior. Should it be allowed? I was made to understand that by convention in the UK, retired judges are not allowed to practise. So I want to speak to the Bar Council (and ask if) they want to allow this. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be allowed. When you have retired, just retire gracefully.

Will you push for this if the Bar Council is supportive of your view?

Yes, but I want to seek their opinion first. Then I can think of the next move, maybe to bar them (ex-judges from practising) although in UK it is by convention, not written law.

You said Bar members are wary - in what sense?

In their website (certain members have written that) I am from the government, thus there is no point discussing (with me) and all that. If they want to come (to the dialogue), then come; otherwise don't come. I am not there to seek their support.

Does that reflect their disappointment because much has been said about the quorum issue, among others, but nothing has been forthcoming?

No, I don't think so. I think some of them have a personal agenda and political agenda. Those who are genuinely interested with the affairs of the Bar, I think they will come.

The last dialogue (in February 2005) between you and the Bar members received poor response...

That one was only for committee members, not all members of the Bar, this time is for all, including the media.

You recently said the civil court should be allowed to hear religious conversion cases. How are you going to pursue this matter within your new portfolio?

I strongly feel that the civil court must have jurisdiction in the case of conversion (to Islam). This matter was (put before) the cabinet (which) asked the AG to look into this. We are still waiting for the AG's advice. Of course I will speak to the AG to see what's the progress.

Are you going to expedite this process?

Yes, but you have to amend the constitution then.

Meaning Article 121?

Article 121 remains....(It) says the civil court has no jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Syariah Court but we can add 'except in cases of conversion from non-Muslim to Muslim'...then it's okay. Let's clarify the issue since people are blaming (civil court) judges as not being brave enough (to hear conversion cases).

A sub-committee set up last June and headed by the AG has been looking into how to implement the proposed Independent Police Complaint and Misconduct Commission. What are you going to do with this?

That one doesn't come under me - the AG will advise the internal security minister (Abdullah).

You recently said the Parliamentary Services Act (PSA) 1963 will not be reinstated. Why is this? Then de facto law minister Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said (last year that) the government had agreed to re-enact the legislation.

I think when you talk about the PSA, the decision must be made by the (BN) Chief Whip, Najib (Deputy Premier Najib Abdul Razak). He met with committee members of the BN Backbenchers Club (BBC) and told them that, if there is compelling reason, then we will reinstate the PSA, otherwise no. So far we have not seen any compelling reason.

When Radzi made that statement, he said the government had made a decision.

I have not read that statement. You have to go through the proper procedure, the proper procedure is for the Whip to decide.

But you've previously said it's up to the House Committees to decide....

No, it's the Chief Whip.

So, the situation now is the government made a decision, but it has been over-ridden by the Whip...

No, we didn't make any decision. It isn't for the government to make a decision because that would be interference by the Executive. That's why I don't say (Najib's post as) deputy premier. I say Chief Whip, meaning we are talking about the Parliament. Chief Whip is the man responsible for any decision made on behalf of BN.

That's right, he only represents BN, not all MPs.

Yes, that's why it's important - because the Chief Whip decides for the BN, because BN is the majority (with) 200 seats in the current Parliament. Even if the opposition doesn't agree, they can't go against the decision, because there are only 19 of them.

(Shown a copy of a newspaper report quoting Radzi as saying the government had agreed to re-enact the PSA, he responded:)

No, the government can't agree, because if the Executive agrees on something about the Legislature, it will be seen as interference. The government can't decide, it must be the Chief Whip. You understand or not?

The Dewan Negara House Committee had adopted the position that it wants the PSA to be reinstated.

No, that was made by Shahrir (Samad, BBC chief), he wasn't representing the House Committee.

(Shown a copy of the relevant news clipping, he responded:)

The Senate (House) Committee has got no say, it is the Lower House...the Lower House is more powerful, because the (members) are elected.

You said both House Committees must agree.

But only half now, the Senate's half only (grins).

The PSA issue was first brought up in the Dewan Negara in May before it became a controversy in October - and in May you had said you agreed to reinstate the PSA.

Yes, I agreed as a minister, a member of the Executive. When I discussed with the Chief Whip (later), the Chief Whip's decision is final. I can say I agree in Parliament but if the Chief Whip said no, then it is no - that's our system and the Senate House Committee is only half, half of the Parliament. The other half has not made (a decision). Even for the other half, if the (Dewan Rakyat) House Committee (wants) to meet, they have to get an instruction from the Whip.

When the Act was repealed, it was the Executive that tabled the Bill.

No, it came from the Parliament itself. Ten years ago, the Speaker decided that the PSA should be repealed after having called all the meetings. (Since the Speaker can't table Bills), he asked the government to do so and we tabled it.

You just said the legislature should be the one to decide and that the Lower House is more powerful. You personally have seen all the MPs in the Lower House stand up (last October) in a show of unity to demand that the PSA be re-enacted.

That is nothing. The Parliament is not a kongsi gelap (triad). Shahrir was procedurally wrong. You stand up during the Question session and in a supplementary question, you ask who wants to show their support; that's not the way to do it, he (Shahrir) was wrong, I am saying he was very wrong, he can't take shortcuts because there are rules and regulations in the Parliament - it was not a gangsters' meeting.

How has Shahrir responded to the Whip's decision not to reinstate the PSA?

It doesn't matter how he responded because he is not important. What is important is the Chief Whip's decision because the Chief Whip is a position recognised by Parliament. The chairman of the BBC is not a recognised post in the Parliament, it is just a post created by the MPs, that's all. The posts recognised by the Parliament are that of Opposition Leader, Chief Whip, leader of the House and the Speaker.

You have spoken in defence of the ISA as we know. However in December 2003, de facto law minister Dr Rais Yatim had said the ISA would be amended to make the law more 'humane'. As you are now in charge, when will you make the amendment?

Whatever it is, my stance on the ISA is the same. It is necessary but if there is any change or amendment to make it more humane, as said by Dr Rais previously, then I'll just wait for the instruction from the PM or the cabinet.

But this would be seen as a lack of continuity in administration...

To me, because I favour the ISA, I will not initiate anything unless there is a movement somewhere which finally results in the cabinet making a decision to amend it. But so far there is nothing.

You are heading the Parliamentary Human Rights Caucus and you're a member of the Parliamentary Caucus on Southern Thailand. Will you give up these posts now?

No, unless the PM feels that my presence in any caucus will not be good for me. But as long as I am not asked to leave, I will remain (in the post). My new post will further help me (in working with the two groups).