The concern expressed by several quarters of the appointment of the former Attorney-General to the Federal Court is well-founded. Yes, there is an accepted tradition of having appointments from the legal service (including Subordinate Court judges and officers from the Attorney-General's Chambers). However, Mohtar Abdullah should be the exception to this general rule.

One other danger of having too many appointments from legal service to the superior courts stems from the fact that legal service officers are subordinate to the Executive arm of government.

The Legal Service Commission is not a part of the judiciary. When we talk about "independence" of the judiciary, this is related to the superior courts of the land, meaning the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

Thus there is always the danger that the judges coming from the service terbawak bawak or get overly swayed by their former chiefs, namely the Attorney-General's Chambers or the Executive. That is why it is always useful to have a selection of judges from lawyers in private practice as well.

The proposed College of Judges should perhaps consider coming together to review the criteria of selection to the appointments to the bench in view of the "upheavals" in the last decade or so.

In India a group of retired judges came together to form the South Asian Commission of Independent Judges for the region, to monitor important developments, organise interventions and hold public meetings pertaining to the independence of judges and the judiciary. This is a privately organised group. It is like an NGO of judges.

As for the rakyat , we are also in a position to give our views on the selection processes which includes transparency and "investigation" of the political and business connections of the appointments. We could put forward our views to Suhakam, who has the power to advise the government on reform.