Of late, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Dr Rais Yatim certainly gets a high-profile media coverage of his frequent comments on the law.

Being in specific charge of the portfolio of law and justice, it may well be his job to elucidate and comment in these respects. And since most affairs of the state and society have something to do with the following or breaking of the laws of the land, there will be plenty of recurrent opportunities for him to comment and enjoy media attention.

He has also the requisite credentials to comment being once a practising lawyer and now an academic one with a doctorate in law and authorship of several books/journals to his credit.

Thus far the record shows that he has argued in favour of the government in following instances:

  • Suhakam's role was advisory of human rights and did not extend to questioning the Executive decisions in ISA detentions;

  • it was improper judicial etiquette for Justice Shaik Daud Mohd Ismail to complain of abuse of power in the courts after he had retired when he should have lodged a police report when he was judge; and in the case of Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang, for him to introduce extraneous personal comments in his written judgment; and

  • the Terengganu state government was not sanctioned by the Federal Constitution to legislate on criminal laws ( Hudud ).

    • However, he has also, to balance the record, argued for the rakyat in other instances, for examples:

  • Ops Warta II proceeded on a wrong legal premise that police need not serve traffic notices and summons as it was the motorists' duty to investigate them; and

  • law enforcement authorities would lose their credibility if publicity-hyped investigations did not culminate in prosecutions of white-collar crimes or if those apprehended for these crimes were being accorded VIP treatment.

    • Against the backdrop that one of the most recurrent and contemporary themes of political discourse in this country are presently how to stem abuse of power, restore independence of judiciary, uphold human rights and freedom of the press and counteract the decline of rule of law, it may be wondered whether Dr Rais Yatim is trying to tell us something by his frequent commentaries on the law?

    For this, let's look and go back a little — to 1995.

    The events leading to the topicality of these themes are best explained in the words of Rais himself in excerpts of his 1995 book Freedom under executive power in Malaysia — A study of executive supremacy as cited by DAP chief Lim Kit Siang in his media statement (April 9, 2000).

    "The period 1986-1989 could perhaps be summarised to be the finest hour of the Malaysian Judiciary for it was during this short period that it handed down those few judgments that gave freedom a boost. These judgments did not go down well with the Prime Minister. His dissatisfaction with the judiciary came into sharp focus when he was clearly stung by the various decisions of the court." (p 313-7.2)

    From a 1995 perspective, and in respect of the first judicial crisis a decade ago, Rais was quoted to have written: "men who were known to be upholders of the rule of law and in particular who committed themselves to the independence of the judiciary were eliminated from the system" and that "the judiciary is now more timid in asserting its judicial independence".

    Another pertinent observation: "Since merdeka, the judiciary had by and large enjoyed its share of independence and none of the previous three Prime Ministers, who had incidentally received their legal training in England, as much as nudged the judiciary let alone 'assaulted'it in Parliament as did Dr Mahathir." (p 302-7.2)

    It has to be clarified that the above are quoted not with an intention to disparage the leadership qualities of our premier. (He is probably the last one of a kind whose other strong leadership qualities far compensate the lack of legal training though the same may not however equally apply to his successor, not so legally trained).

    So the inevitable question arises whether his successor should be a person of legal training like the previous three prime ministers.

    When a country develops, there will be more and more laws, whether as regards the Constitution and the laws having been adhered or contravened, human rights having been violated or upheld, electoral or parliamentary procedures having been fairly conducted or otherwise, etc.

    Although a leader, who is not a lawyer, can always have recourse to government lawyers for advice, it is still not the same as ones who, like Rais, Najib Abdul Razak, Hishamuddin Hussein and Nazri Aziz, have had received early training in English law. When they eventually reach the top, they are expected to be more appreciative of and less ready to subordinate the Rule of Law to Executive Expedience.