I refer to the malaysiakini report Kit Siang: CJ's 'nude' views ill-advised . It is truly ill-advised for Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim to publicly comment, in relation to the proposed independent judicial commission (IJC), that transparency did not tantamount to nudity.

Especially so when, according to a press report on Feb 24, the CJ had admitted '... he had yet to see the proposal in writing and only knew about it from newspaper reports'. If the proposal has not yet been seriously thought through, then it should not be commented upon publicly, much less compared to 'nudity' - a pejorative comparison - that would only unnecessarily draw inference that the CJ might have preconceived negative thoughts about reform even before considering whether it was good.

Ironically, the use of the word 'nudity' advances the argument why the IJC is needed. For the only reason why we embrace transparency and eschew nudity is because the latter exposes private parts of the anatomy that are shameful for us to display.

If there were nothing shameful about present system of judicial appointments, then having the IJC will do no harm and would only underscore the fact that judicial appointments must not only be transparent but also be 'seen as transparent' in the same manner as justice should not only be done but also seen to be done.

On the other hand, if the present system of judicial appointments has something that we may be shameful about, then this will yet be the stronger argument why there should be an IJC to rectify its 'shameful' flaws.

This being the case, it is also ill-advised for the CJ to question 'the motives of those who had made the proposal, such as the Bar Council and several prominent lawyers' and instead ask, 'Are we to allow whoever has cases in court and who has lost to decide on the fate of judges?'

Let it be clarified at the outset that it is not only the 'Bar Council and several prominent lawyers' that are lobbying for the IJC. Certainly, it has nothing to do with disgruntled lawyers having lost cases. I understand that retired judge George Seah first suggested it. He went as far as to suggest that neither the prime minister nor his appointee should serve on such an institution and that 'the chairman of such an independent and impartial body should be the leader of the opposition in Parliament, with the chairman of the Bar Council of Malaysia, as his deputy ...'

Such a suggestion was also recently seconded by KC Vohrah, a retired judge, and one of the most respected judges Malaysia has ever had. Suhakam's 60 recommendations also include the setting up of such a judicial commission. 'We need a new system so that appointments are based on one's integrity, expertise, competence and productivity. Appointments should not be based on subjective, vacillating views,' said Vohrah.

The Malaysian Bar also agrees with the suggestion saying that this is the general opinion of retired judges and the legal fraternity. It is quite clear that far from being mooted by a few disgruntled lawyers having lost their cases in court and now (according to the CJ) desirous to 'decide on the fate of judges', this proposal for IJC is actually broad-based and supported by the Bar Council, Suhakam, retired judges and the legal fraternity.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz Nazri had come out to say, '... there was 'nothing wrong' with the current procedure for appointing judges. The idea would be considered if the proposal came from serving judges,' he said, adding that Vohrah should have proposed such a commission when he was still on the bench.

However, if there were indeed nothing wrong in the current procedure for appointing judges that has been subsisting for more than 20 years, how does one explain:

why the judicial crisis of 1988 occurred with the country's top judge, Lord President Salleh Abas, and five other senior judges being variously sacked and suspended after a series of politically sensitive cases which went against the government with the second in hierarchy (Tun Hamid Omar) taking over the post of top judge?

why former judge Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah in 1996 wrote an anonymous letter alleging serious corruption in the judiciary and later claimed that he was forced to resign as a High Court judge?

why former chief justice Eusoff Chin was embroiled in a controversial New Zealand holiday with a prominent lawyer six years ago?

On Nazri's point that retired judges like Vohrah (and Seah) should make the proposal of judicial reform when they were serving and not retired, such a suggestion ignores the facts that:

as retired judges, they have a wealth and depth of judicial experience and can share their perspectives from a vantage point of being free from the pressures of office and political interference and have personally having no axe to grind, so to speak, except the vindication of the institution of judiciary and their role in it for the nation's good; and

had they otherwise championed judicial reform when they were still serving judges, they might immediately be embroiled in public controversy if the then prime minister, chief justice and other powerful politicians were to be publicly against it.

In the interest of the integrity and respectability of judicial positions then, serving judges cannot afford to get embroiled in public controversy especially with opposition political veterans like Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang - something which our CJ seems to have unwittingly got himself into for his not so appropriate choice of the word 'nudity'.

It is continuance of engagement in public controversy that strips nude the respectability of judicial office - not the IJC!

Perhaps, it is best to end this letter with a timely reminder to all parties from the great English Judge Lord (Alfred) Denning who said: 'All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication'.