The criteria for the appointment of judges should be in writing because the Federal Constitution only stipulates the selection procedures, a senior constitutional lawyer said.

Dominic Puthucheary said part nine of the Constitution touches on the procedures for judicial appointments, including the prerogative of the prime minister to advise the King on the potential candidates.

"No part of the Constitution contains criteria of value or the subjective character of those who run the judicial system.

"Malaysia has become a commercial enterprise where the value systems are more likely to be eroded, causing distortions on all aspects of life," he said at the talk on judicial appointments and judges' conduct organised by the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee last night.

He said this was largely because the constitution, which is derived from the English common law, leaves the subjective criteria to the common law ethos to define.

He believed it was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution to define the subjective criteria because they expected the society's value system to make the choices through a consultation process among the peers.

"But it's possible to ignore this ethos as well as other conventions. Where there are distortions in the judicial system, these values are ignored and we cannot place a finger on it because they are intangible.

"Since the Constitution was framed ambiguously, it is up to the political powers to ensure that the highest standard is observed," he told an audience of about 100 lawyers.

The KL Bar Committee organised the talk following a series of articles published by malaysiakini based on an exclusive interview with former Court of Appeal judge Shaik Daud Ismail.

Crisis of confidence

Shaik Daud revealed the shortcomings and mal administration which pervaded the Malaysian judiciary under its former Eusoff Chin, as well as the crisis of confidence following the judiciary's battered image.

On the judiciary's image, Puthucheary said one of the reasons for the crisis of confidence was the lack of public trust due to the concentration of power on those entrusted to run the system.

"Part nine of the Constitution has to be reviewed but in order to bring about reforms, we need public support. We also need to create a new awareness on the important role of the judiciary.

"If we don't do that, then the reforms will not happen because public opinion in Malaysia is still low," he said.

The other panelist, former High Court judge Syed Ahmad Idid, said the prime minister has a difficult task to select a judge, especially when some of them reject offers for judicial appointments for various reasons, including personal convictions.

"I understand that recently, there was a list of potential candidates but when approached, six of them had said no. Some said they were already earning good money while some don't even want to become a judge."

Seven-point plan

Citing his previous experience as a personnel officer, Syed Ahmad, who quit after 22 years as a judge over being implicated as the author of a poison-pen letter on corrupt practices in the judiciary in 1996, outlined a seven-point plan he had used to select candidates for any job.

He said the seven-points are the candidate's physical condition, attainments, general intelligence, special aptitudes, interests, civil disposition and circumstances.

"Perhaps a requirement for judges to refrain from taking post-retirement corporate positions for at least five years after the end of their tenure should also be included into the code of ethics.

"I believe this is done in India and other countries. In the US, their generals are not allowed to take up such offers," he said, adding that some judges here were already busy, even just two years after their retirement.

Syed Ahmad also expressed optimism about the state of the judiciary during the tenure of Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah's, saying that some of the decisions in the past one year were good for the development of the country's legal system.

During the question-and-answer session, a lawyer suggested that the constitution be amended to define the criteria for judicial appointments but later conceded that it was almost impossible with the present two-third majority held by the ruling Barisan Nasional.