The need for an independent judiciary and an adherence to the doctrine of separation of powers have recently come into public focus again. Whilst it is refreshing to see BN member of parliament for Kota Bahru, Zaid Ibrahim , call for a restoration of the power of the judiciary, it is, of course, no cause for celebration that such reservations about our judicial independence have now reached a level so as to cut across party lines.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Nazri Aziz, however, was reported to have said that the concept of separation of powers was too idealistic to be implemented in this country, and justified his stand purportedly in the interest of the people and the country, and on the difficulties faced by other countries in adhering to the doctrine.

To an extent, Nazri was correct in that no country enjoys true separation of powers; however, this should not detract from the importance of having a truly independent judiciary. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor, is a member of the cabinet (executive) as well as the House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament). Yet, it has never seriously been suggested that the British judiciary lacks independence.

Similarly, our constitution provides for judges to be appointed on the recommendation of the prime minister. It is thus not unreasonable to question whether there is genuine separation of powers between the executive headed by the prime minister and the judiciary.

The constitution further provides for the prime minister to be a member of the House of Representatives and for other ministers to be members of either House. This, coupled with the prime minister's power of patronage and the whip system, ensures that the legislature is never truly independent of the executive.

The legal and practical impediments to the doctrine of separation of powers should not however, be used to justify the apparent lack of judicial independence. The latter is achievable and thrived prior to 1988.

Why has it now become mere idealism? It is perhaps not so much our inability to achieve true separation of powers that has resulted in the decline in the standing of the judiciary but, as Zaid correctly pointed out, the perception that 'judges are government staff'.

As His Royal Highness Sultan Azlan Shah has stated , justice must be administered by judges who were qualified, independent and of high integrity. Nazri would do well in moving to establish procedures that ensure only such people are appointed to the bench rather than finding excuses on why judicial independence cannot be achieved.