Share This

Showing posts with label Malaysia's laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malaysia's laws. Show all posts

Sunday, 8 January 2012

Malaysia's Anwar's Sodomy Verdict D-Day 901; So near, yet so far?


Anwar Ibrahim has been critical of the New Eco...
Sodomy verdict time, again

By LISA GOH lisagoh@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: More than a decade after he was first convicted of sodomy, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will know tomorrow whether he is found guilty of a similar offence.

The decision in the Kuala Lumpur High Court comes at the end of a trial lasting nearly two years.

Anwar, 64, who has been charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, his 27-year-old former personal aide, faces up to 20 years in jail and whipping, if convicted.

In 2000, he was charged with sodomising driver Azizan Abu Bakar, convicted by the High Court and jailed.

His conviction was overturned in 2004 by the Federal Court in a 2:1 majority ruling and he was released.

He was charged on Aug 8, 2008 with sodomising Mohd Saiful at the Desa Damansara Condominium in Bukit Damansara in Kuala Lumpur on June 26, 2008.

He has adamantly maintained his innocence throughout the trial which saw 27 prosecution and seven defence witnesses (including Anwar himself, who gave a statement from the dock) called.

Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden led the prosecution while veteran criminal lawyer Karpal Singh and S.N. Nair represented Anwar.

Highlights of the trial included the testimony of Mohd Saiful who told the court that Anwar asked him: “Can I f--- you today?” Mohd Saiful said he brought KY Jelly lubricant to the apartment where the alleged sodomy took place.

Other highlights included evidence that there were up to five unidentified male DNA profiles found around Mohd Saiful’s anal region.

The identifying of Anwar as ‘Male Y’, whose semen was found in the complainant’s anus, was another dramatic turn in the trial.

His DNA, taken from a towel, a toothbrush and a water bottle, all of which were acquired from his cell at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters in July 2008, had matched the DNA profile of an unidentified person labelled ‘Male Y’.

Anwar tried several times to have the sitting judge recuse himself – once over an allegation that Mohd Saiful, who was the key prosecution witness, had an affair with a prosecutor involved in the case.

All his applications to disqualify Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah failed.

Should Anwar be convicted, he would have two chances – at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court – to overturn the ruling.

If acquitted, he walks out of the High Court a free man.


So near, yet so far

Insight By Joceline Tan

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s track record since his 2008 political comeback has been marked by missed opportunities. He is once again at a critical crossroads while his Pakatan Rakyat coalition struggles to find an alternative candidate for prime minister. 

DATUK Seri Anwar Ibrahim looked a little tense during a packed press conference on Tuesday. He had a big week stretched ahead before his D-Day in court and he obviously had lots of things on his mind.

He kept his answers short and simple but managed to raise some eyebrows among reporters when he said that, “if I am jailed, involved in an accident or shot, we are prepared ....”.

What was he trying to say, some had asked. Who on earth would want to see him in an accident at this point in time? Surely not his supporters and the last thing his adversaries would want was to see him turned into a martyr.

Momentum to D-Day: Anwar, seen here with his daughter Nurul Izzah, has been on a nationwide roadshow to whip up sentiment over the court decision on his sodomy trial.>>

The press conference ended quickly and he flashed a dazzling smile as he left the room. He was in a hurry to go home to change and leave for a ceramah in Muar, Johor, later that evening. The Muar event was the first of a string of ceramah to whip up sentiment over tomorrow’s court judgment and Anwar has since blazed through eight states in six days.

The ceramah have attracted sizeable crowds but the sodomy trial has been a long and winding process, stretched over three years and fraught with so many delays that ordinary folk have been lost in the legal maze.

But the temperature has gone up again with the impending court decision and Pakatan Rakyat’s threat of bringing 100,000 protesters into Kuala Lumpur.

PKR, especially, is hoping to repeat the street protests that followed Anwar’s sacking in 1998, to create a wave of sympathy for Anwar and a momentum against the Government.

The Pakatan coalition has been talking about an Arab Spring in Malaysia and tomorrow’s demonstration is seen as another step in that direction.

Saiful: The victim in the sodomy trial eclipsed by the politics around Anwar. 
SMS orders have been flying from the PKR headquarters to its local leaders to produce the numbers tomorrow. Every PKR division has been ordered to gather 500 members and they have been told to wear black or white, the colours of mourning.

The Internet has been afire with conversation about the event, with the pro-Barisan Nasional side condemning the event as an attempt to subvert the judiciary and the pro-Pakatan side condemning those condemning the event.

More than 300 police reports have been lodged against the planned demonstration and the last one week has seen pages in Utusan Malaysia filled with news critical of Anwar and the demonstration.

“The verdict is still out there even though the general impression is that he can’t run. Monday will be a closure to the judicial process of a high-profile trial. With a general election ahead, it will also provide everyone an opportunity for political posturing,” said DAP’s Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi.

The official stand of Pakatan leaders is that the trial is a conspiracy to stop Anwar from becoming prime minister and they will stand by him.

Privately, they have been quite exasperated at the see-sawing political path of Anwar.

He has not shown the leadership they expected. They feel let down, many of them have watched the sex video and come to their own conclusions.

MPs from DAP have been given notice to attend and show moral support but, said Ooi, there is no signal to members to turn up in full force.

Monday will be a closure to the judicial process of a high-profile trial. - JEFF OOI >>

DAP knows that the Tahrir Square type of agitation is not the Chinese cup of tea and their response to the call to protest has been muted. They believe that if a government is to be overthrown, it should be via the ballot box rather than by Tahrir Square tactics and Malaysia is definitely not Egypt or Syria.

Besides, DAP is now the government in several states and it cannot be seen to actively encourage protests against court judgments. They would not want the same disruption repeated in their own backyard.

A leading PAS figure said their leaders would be present in court tomorrow, but PAS is not mobilising their members to make up the numbers.

“If you’re thinking of the Bersih type of crowd, that’s not going to be the case,” said the PAS leader.

Some had expected Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat to come out with a ringing endorsement for Anwar but the Kelantan Mentri Besar was in the news for another reason this week.

He was photographed presenting the keys to the house the state government had given to Kelantan football star Khairul Fahmi Che Mat, also known as Apek. Apek is a fantasy of many Malay girls and Nik Aziz advised him to “cepat kahwin” so as to avoid committing sin.

However, former Umno minister Tan Sri Kadir Sheikh Fadzir caused a stir when he gave an interview praising Anwar as a “great Malaysian leader”.

Ummi Hafilda Ali, the woman who had sparked off the first sodomy trial, called her own interview to renew her attacks on what she labelled the “3 As” – Anwar, his wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and PKR deputy president Azmin Ali who is Ummi’s brother.

Perhaps the most telling part is how Anwar is quite alone this time around as he went on his roadshow.

It was quite a different scenario from 1998 when Abim activists and religious figures from PAS lent their weight to his cause.

The PAS response to tomorrow’s decision has been rather complex.

Top PAS leaders, especially among the ulama group, have never been totally comfortable with the idea of Anwar as prime minister.

They hate the religious pluralism associated with Anwar; it is anathema to their idea of Islam as the one true religion.

Besides, they have everything to gain from a scenario without Anwar.

As the party’s Selangor leader Datuk Dr Hasan Ali put it, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang or Nik Aziz would be PAS’ choice for premiership.

It has been amid such complexity that blogger-in-exile Raja Petra Kamarudin or RPK gave a shattering interview about Anwar in several newspapers.

People are still digesting what he has said about Anwar being a liability to his coalition, the allusions to his sexuality and what appears to be RPK’s opposition to a Tahrir Square phenomenon in Malaysia.

The blogger has gone overnight from hero to zero among the very people who used to hang onto his every word.

This is basically the ABU segment – the cohort that is going to vote for Anything But Umno; they had loved him when he was telling them what they wanted to hear.

But what he is saying now is not what they want to hear, never mind if it is the reality, and they have thrashed him black and blue and accused him of selling out.

Said a pro-Pakatan academic: “My sense is that RPK is speaking his mind. I don’t believe he has been bought. He has seen the opportunities come and go for Anwar and (Anwar) has not withstood the test. I sense he is disappointed with Anwar and his leadership of PKR. I know many people who are pro-Pakatan and who do not disagree with what (RPK) said except they cannot come out and say it.”

While the Umno side recognises the political gains from RPK’s interview, they are not exactly comfortable with him.

RPK’s power of the pen is quite different from any other. He is a maverick and Umno is not sure where or who he will strike next.

Insiders say RPK is still with Pakatan although he burnt his bridges with Anwar more than a year ago.

He has attacked mainly Anwar. He has spared PAS and DAP and he has advocated Anwar’s daughter Nurul Izzah as the post-Anwar alternative.

All sorts of nasty stuff has been said about RPK sitting out the freezing winter of Manchester in Phuket.

He is not rolling in dough as some imagine; he is there on the goodwill of friends, staying in a US$40 (RM126) per day hotel.

RPK wants to come home, a move he thought would be possible only if Pakatan wins power.

He was banking on Anwar leading Pakatan to take over Putrajaya but he does not see that happening.

Anwar is damaged goods, he has squandered what could have been and RPK is simply saying it out loud.

Anwar’s post-2008 track record has been marked by missed opportunities and a lack of discipline in his personal life.

Even feng shui expert Joey Yap added his two-sen worth about Anwar’s future.

According to Yap, Anwar, who is a metal element, will apparently have to struggle in the Year of the Water Dragon.

Tomorrow’s protest will probably be the most videographed ever. Apart from the media coverage, the police intend to video everything to defend their actions.

The most curious part of the maelstrom is how the person who started the whole thing seems to have been forgotten.

Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the alleged victim in the case, has been eclipsed by all the political activity. The once effeminate-looking Saiful has grown into a rather handsome man.

He is pursuing a distant learning degree from Universiti Utara Malaysia and recently made the Dean’s list.
His life has changed irrevocably since the day he accused Anwar of sodomising him.

Regardless of whether the court agrees or disagrees with him, Saiful will never be able to live a normal life as we understand it.

The Prime Minister’s office has been a case of so near, yet so far where Anwar is concerned but, as the Malays say, if it is meant to be, it will be.

If it is not meant to be, then Pakatan will just have to move on to another prime minister candidate.

Related posts:

901 Malaysian Anwar’s life D-day? Rally allowed – only at car park!

Wednesday, 30 November 2011

Malaysia passes ban on street protests



Activist lawyers decry new law they say imposes tougher restrictions and penalties for demonstrators. 

Malaysia's lower house of parliament has approved a ban a on street protests after opposition legislators boycotted the vote and activists criticised the ban as repressive and a threat to freedom of public assembly.

The law is expected to be enforced after parliament's upper house, also dominated by the ruling National Front coalition, approves it as early as next month.



Najib Razak, the country's prime minister, has framed the bill as part of a campaign he launched in September to replace tough laws on security, speech and assembly in a bid to shore up support ahead of elections he is expected to call for next year.

He defended the act on Monday, saying it guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and said the law prohibits public marches to avoid disruptions to general society.

But it has been assailed by opposition politicians who call Najib's reforms an election ploy, and say the bill validates their fears that tough old laws will merely be replaced by strict new rules.

Malaysian and international rights groups describe it as repressive because it bans street rallies and imposes tough restrictions and penalties for demonstrators.

The law was announced only last week, and some critics say the vote was rushed without proper public consultation.

About 500 lawyers and their supporters marched to parliament hours before the vote, urging lawmakers to reject the bill and chanting "freedom to the people'' before police stopped most of them from entering the complex.

The new law would confine demonstrators mainly to stadiums and public halls. Depending on the venue, organisers may be required to give 10-day advance notification to police, who would determine whether the date and location are suitable.

Children under 15 and non-citizens would be barred from attending rallies, which also cannot be held near schools, hospitals, places of worship, airports or gasoline stations.

Demonstrators who break the law can be fined $6,200.

VK Liew, a deputy Cabinet minister in Najib's office who received a protest note from the lawyers on Tuesday, suggested that critics should not be too quick to criticize the law.

"We should look at it holistically, not piecemeal,'' Liew told reporters.

Opposition reaction

Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader, said he believed the Peaceful Assembly Act would be "more draconian'' than laws in Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

Other opposition activists indicated they might challenge the law in court, insisting it breaches the people's constitutional rights.

Amnesty International, the UK-based rights group, called the Peaceful Assembly Act "a legislative attack on Malaysians' right to peaceful protest,'' while Human Rights Watch said the law is being pushed through parliament with "undue haste".

"The government must reject the bill as it infringes on the rights of the people and violates the constitution," said Wong Chin Huat of Bersih 2.0, which spearheaded a rally for electoral reform in July that was broken up by police.

Lim Chee Wee, president of the Malaysian Bar Council, said the ban was "outrageous".

"Assemblies in motion provide the demonstrators with a wider audience and greater visibility, in order for others to see and hear the cause or grievance giving rise to the gathering," he said.

Critics including the Malaysian Bar Council and Human Rights Watch maintain the act would grant police too much power over the timing, duration, and location of gatherings.

"This bill is a legislative attack on Malaysians' right to peaceful protest," Sam Zarifi, Amnesty's Asia-Pacific director, said in a statement.

The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition has been accused of routinely using tough laws to block challenges to its five decades in power.

Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related post:

Malaysia's 'Peaceful' Bill off to a rocky start, at odds with ... 

Friday, 25 November 2011

Malaysia's ‘Peaceful’ Bill off to a rocky start, at odds with PM’s speech



‘Peaceful’ Bill off to a rocky start

Analysis By Baradan Kuppusamy

The Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 seeks to regularise public protests. The Opposition, however, claims the conditions are so strict it makes demonstrating even more difficult.

THE Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 ran into heavy flak from the Opposition the moment it was introduced for first reading in Parliament on Monday by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak (c) during a televised statement on security laws 



   
 Prime Minister Najib Razak’s move comes ahead of a general election expected early next year

They want the law, which provides for public protest without the need for a police permit, withdrawn.

They say conditions attached to public protest are stiff and numerous; police are still the arbitrators and that the notion of allowing public assemblies is defeated by the new Bill. 

 At the same time the  Bill was tabled, Nazri also tabled the amendment Bills repealing Section 27 of the Police Act that requires an organiser to get a police permit for any gathering of more than five persons.

In a nutshell, the need for a permit - one of the things the Opposition and civil rights groups have been campaigning for - has been removed.

They should be rejoicing but they are not.

Opposition MPs and civil society advocates say that although the provision for a permit has been repealed, the Peaceful Assembly Bill stipulates numerous conditions that hamper the people’s constitutional right to peaceful assembly and exercise their right to protest.

What the Government has done is to introduce a Bill that says you can protest and the need for a permit is repealed but only within the accepted parameters and without impinging on the rights of others who are not a party to the protest.

The Opposition and civil society’s immediate reaction is that the attached conditions are strict and makes public protest more difficult than under the Police Act.

Under Section 27 of Police Act you just organise a protest – with or without a permit - and subsequently face the consequences.

This is the preferred method of the Opposition and that’s why illegal assembly cases still continue in the courts for participation or organisation of the first Bersih protest in 2007.

Those involved were activists and rabble rousers but have since been elected MPs and will be voting to oppose the Peaceful Assembly Bill in Parliament!

Under the new Bill, public protest is regularised – while the right to protest over a certain cause is given, the right to not protest or to oppose is also given.

That’s why there are stringent conditions, sometimes impossible conditions, attached to the right to protest which includes that the OCPD should be notified within 30 days. He would respond within 12 days and children 15 years and below are barred from participating.

And then there are increased penalties for those who break the rules like up to RM20,000 for bringing an underage person to an assembly.

The OCPD can impose restrictions which, if not followed, would lead to fines of up to RM10,000.

There is an appeal clause to the minister on the restrictions within four days and the minister has to respond within six days.

Lastly some areas are off-limits for any protest – like places of worship, schools and hospitals.

On the face of it, the restrictions are stringent and probably unworkable especially the one requiring protestors to give 30 days’ notice but as Lord Denning said: “Your rights end where the rights of others begin”.

That’s exactly what the formulators of the law have in mind by imposing conditions that are deemed necessary to allow protest without needing to get police permits.

Unfortunately, one has to sacrifice something to gain something.

Even in some advanced countries like the United States and Britain, protests are only allowed at designated areas.

In New York, for instance, you can protest in front of the United Nations but some distance away.

In other places, too, police broke up the Occupy Brooklyn Bridge protest and Occupy St Paul’s Cathedral in London. In Hong Kong, police prefer night protests conducted away from the all-important business district.

Each country has its “soft underbelly” that it wants to protect and maintain without disruption and Malaysia has said places of worships and schools are off limits.

While the giving of notices and the waiting for responses take out the spontaneity of public protests, the gain is that you don’t need a police permit for any protest of five or more people.

But the people have been asked to pay a heavy price for it in the form of numerous restrictions.

As PAS leaders said, if Israel were to attack Saudi Arabia, Malaysians would have to wait 30 days before protesting.

Perhaps, as the Bar Council suggests, a standing committee could be formed to rectify the weakness at the committee stage of the Bill’s passage – especially the provision to give 30 days’ notice.

This would allow Members of Parliament to study the Bill and its provisions in greater depth and lessen the restrictions to allow the public to exercise their democratic right to protest.


Bill at odds with PM’s speech

ROAMING BEYOND THE FENCE By TUNKU 'ABIDIN MUHRIZ

The drafters of the Peaceful Assembly Bill now before Parliament must have missed what was undoubtedly the Prime Minister’s finest speech of his administration so far, delivered on the eve of Malaysia Day.

I was looking forward to reading the Peaceful Assembly Bill tabled this week. I was expecting a document that would re-affirm and strengthen the freedom and liberties mentioned by our Constitution.

I was hoping furthermore that perhaps, finally, Malaysians would have a government that would once again speak fondly about freedom and liberty in the same way that our first Prime Minister did about those principles: whether in speeches at home or abroad (such as in his now-forgotten condemnations of apartheid in South Africa), or whether in print to other world leaders or through his columns in this newspaper.

These hopes were dashed. Lawyer-commentators are still picking through details as I write this, but it seems apparent that it might result in an even more suffocating environment for freedom of expression than what exists now.

The ban on “street protests”, defined by the Bill, is outright.

The powers conferred upon the police are enormous, not only in weighing the rights of “other persons” who (they may claim) are affected by assemblies, but also in demanding 30 days’ notice, thus preventing spontaneous gatherings of the sort that we have seen throughout the Arab Spring, or 65 years ago during the opposition to the Malayan Union (that partially resulted in the parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy and federal system that we all enjoy today).

Perhaps the legislation will be amended for the better if and when it passes through the various readings in both Houses of Parlia­ment.

For now, though, the Bill seems disgracefully at odds with what was undoubtedly our current Prime Minister’s finest speech of his administration, delivered on the eve of Malaysia Day this year. I wonder if those drafting the Bill missed it.

Still, we Malaysians are connoisseurs of witnessing disgraceful behaviour from the political class.
My fellow columnist Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir provided some wonderful examples in her article on Wednesday.

Sometimes, however, a decent member of the political class is in fact a victim of the disgraceful behaviour of someone else. (This is why the efforts of CPPS and UndiMalaysia to get us to assess our YBs are very important – we all benefit from further granularity in our opinions of individual politicians.)

One example of this has just surfaced. It concerns the Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, who I have praised before and will continue commending if he continues with his progressive, common-sense statements.

He was invited to speak about his latest book Kalau Saya Mahasiswa (downloadable at saifuddinabdullah.com.my) by the Law Students Association of the International Islamic University on Monday, but at the last moment, the programme was cancelled and ostensibly postponed.

This was apparently after orders by the university’s Rector herself.

Regular readers will no doubt recall that I described the earlier suspension of Professor Abdul Aziz Bari as “thoroughly idiotic”, but – I may now be banned by the university myself for saying this – I can think of no better way than to describe the cancellation of an appearance by a Government deputy minister as utter genius.

I am sure that these actions will really get the university up there in the league tables.

My apologies – sometimes bone-headedness can only suitably be countered by the lowest form of wit.

Thankfully, there are still many inspiring distractions that punctuate these crazy weeks as everyone clears their to-do lists for 2011.

On Saturday I attended the Royal Gala Concert of the first International Festival of Classical Music organised by the Chopin Society of Malaysia.

The event truly was international (despite some scepticism before the show), with players hailing from 14 countries.

The repertoire consisted of pieces designed mostly to showcase technical skill, and virtuosity was certainly in ample supply that evening.

One piece that was both technically demanding and gorgeously tuneful was Chopin’s Fantaisie-Impromptu, which brought back some memories as it was my A-Level performance piece back in 1999.

That evening it was played by an 11-year- old Malaysian, Brian Ting Yit Zheng, and many were amazed by the emotion he managed to transmit during the lyrical middle section.

Then again, young people who are musical are often so much more mature than their peers.

The concert ended with the world premiere of …Shadow… (scored for piano, gamelan and Malay percussion with shadow puppet accompaniment) by Seremban boy Ng Chong Lim, STM (Setiawan Tuanku Muhriz).

He was one of four musicians awarded during the Birthday Honours of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negri Sembilan in January – the others being pianist Foo Mei-Yi, STM; harpist Katryna Tan, STM; and pianist-composer Chong Yew Boon, DTM (Darjah Tuanku Muhriz); whose work on Berkatlah Yang di-Pertuan Besar continues to arouse patriotism during many a peaceful assembly throughout the state.

■ Tunku ’Abidin Muhriz is president of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

Friday, 28 October 2011

The Malaysia's court and the PM’s Department



The court and the PM’s Department

PUTIK LADA By ANDREW YONG

The separation of powers is a central principle woven into the fabric of our Constitution. And it is essential that the judiciary is not only independent, but also seen to be independent of the other branches of Government.

“MAHKAMAH Jabatan Perdana Menteri”. I have to admit to have been slightly taken aback, to say the least, when I saw these words the other day, embroidered in gold on the black cotton jacket of a member of the court staff at the High Court in Penang. I blinked.

Was I at the wrong court? Had the High Court suddenly been subsumed into the Prime Minister’s Depart­ment? Or was it that the Prime Minister’s Department was now a department of the High Court?

Perhaps I should have understood that cashiers, clerks and other administrative staff at the High Court were civil servants appointed by the executive and assigned to the courts to support the administration of justice.

Perhaps I should have appreciated that in the absence of a dedicated Justice Ministry (which was abolished in 1970), it was only natural that such staff members would come under the Prime Minister’s Depart­ment.

And yet, in spite of every rationalisation that I could think of, I knew, deep down, that the words in gold thread looked wrong, and were plainly inappropriate.

They could not possibly be read by a litigant appearing before the courts without giving him the wrong impression about the relationship between the courts and the head of the executive. And yet some staff manager had ordered those jackets.

Some court staff members were plainly wearing them. And there must have been some judges and registrars who saw them being worn on a day-to-day basis without raising any objection.

The separation of powers is a central principle that was woven into the fabric of our Constitution.

The Alliance submission to the Reid Commission, reflecting the unanimous view of all parties in Malaya, stated that “The Judiciary should be completely independent both of the Executive and the Legislature”.

And for the public to have confidence in the judiciary, it is essential that the judiciary is not only independent, but also seen to be independent of the other branches of government.

Our Merdeka Constitution originally contained admirable safeguards of judicial independence.

Until 1960, Supreme Court judges were appointed by the King upon the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, after consulting the Conference of Rulers, with no input from the executive. Only in the appointment of the Chief Justice was the Prime Minister consulted.

The Merdeka Constitution likewise gave the executive no power to suspend or to constitute tribunals for the removal of judges, such powers being vested in the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, which was chaired by the Chief Justice and consisted mainly of judges or retired judges.



History sadly shows that the amendments of 1960, which vested in the executive the right to select, suspend and to commence removal proceedings against judges, ultimately paved the way for the 1988 constitutional crisis, the darkest days of the Malaysian judiciary, during which Lord President Salleh Abas and two other Supreme Court judges were dismissed by the executive.

Yet, even the Merdeka Constitution did not provide for a perfect separation between the executive and the judiciary.

This shortcoming can best be seen in the Judicial and Legal Service (JLS), which supplies magistrates and subordinate court judges as well as government legal officers.

Unlike in India, where the leaders of independence comprised many people imprisoned by the colonial justice system, and where the independence movement therefore campaigned for a strict separation of the judiciary and the prosecution services, in Malaya there has never been any pressure for such a separation.

To this day, it is normal for a JLS officer to alternate between the subordinate judiciary and the government legal services, and for magistrates and Sessions court judges to be junior in the JLS to Senior Federal Counsel who appear before them.

Lawyers will even tell tales of Sessions court judges standing up and addressing senior government lawyers as “Tuan” when the latter enters the judge’s chambers! This state of affairs is plainly unsatisfactory.

Once a judge is appointed to the High Court, he enjoys security of tenure and cannot be removed except for misbehaviour or disability. Nor can the terms of his employment be altered to his disadvantage.

However, that does not prevent him from being given additional benefits by the executive. The most obvious discretionary benefit today is in the conferment of titles.

In England, every High Court judge is knighted, every Court of Appeal judge is made “The Right Honourable” and every Supreme Court judge without exception gets the title of “Lord” or “Lady”.

But in Malaysia, there is no standard system of titles for judges. A judge who is showered with federal titles will naturally be regarded as being a favourite of the executive, whereas if a senior judge retires without any federal title, it will generally be assumed that he has displeased the executive.

The inconsistent awarding of titles within the gift of the executive is detrimental to public confidence in the independence of the judiciary, and has even led to public scandal.

It is high time that the judiciary, the executive and the legislature take concrete action to improve public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

The setting up of the Judicial Appointments Commission has been one positive step in recent years. It should be followed by further confidence-building reforms.

> The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.