The Long Awaited Judicial Reform
After wading through an hour-long traffic through the streets of Jalan Parliament, Jalan Tun Perak, Jalan Raja Chulan then finally up to Jalan Bukit Bintang before finally reaching JW Marriot Hotel, I couldn’t wait to get into the Ballroom to get sitted to listen to the much awaited Judicial Reform that my legal fraternity friends say may be the highlight of the 17 April Bar Council Dinner at the JW Marriot Hotel.
After 2 helpings of cocktail punch, I manage to slip myself into the Level B3 Ballroom (legally and morally, that is) and quickly sitted myself at Table 22. Before long, the Honourable Prime Minister arrived with his wife and was franked by top guns from the Bar Council, the de-facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim plus other VIPs, too numerous to mentioned.
Then as if time was ‘of the essence’, the Masteress of Ceremony quickly took the podium and gave her welcoming remarks, then hinted how Ambiga Sreenevasan, the Chairperson of the Bar Council, who in the presence of the Prime Minister might be as nervous as a new bride on her wedding night, swiftly invited her to take the stage and to deliver her speech.
Ambiga spoke of many things, but central to which is her appeal to have the Government set up the Juducial Appointment Commission as a first step towards the much awaited and much needed Judicial Reform. She carried on to say that hopefully, the appointments should also be in consultation with the Bar Council. She also spoke of the need to restore Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution to its original wording and lastly her appeal to revisit cases of ISA detainees.
Then came our de-facto Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim. After the pleasantries, he did relay a passage found in the movie ‘The Love Story’ and then quip by saying, ‘Love is not having to say sorry’. I take it that the Government is not going to say sorry to the unceremonious sacking of the 6 judges during the 1988 Juducial Crisis, is that right? Mr Law Minister.
Next came the Prime Minister. As usual, he would start his pleasantries by addressing those who were present in his trademarked slow and steady way! While I waited on the verge of my seat waiting for the meat of his speech. He did touched on the delays on the court administration process as well as the need to remove the ‘perceived’ corrupt and ‘perceived’ decline in quality of the Judiciary. And he also caution that the judiciary does not only need to deliver justice but also seen to be delivering it.
He also states that he believes in the doctrine of the ’seperation of powers’ and hence the Juduciary must be independent bercause they are the Guardian of the Federal Constitution and also the people’s rights. And therefore we cannot allow the absence of a system that will help to identify Judges.
Then the Prime Minister delivered his punch line – “The Government proposes the setting up of a Judicial Appointment Commission” – to which he was greeted with a standing ovation. I think they must have clapped for at least 2 minutes … to which I thought, both the intelligent ones as well as the not-so- intelligent ones were also clapping, but do they know what they are clapping for? I also asked myself, how come the Prime Minister used the same exact reference in the use of the term ‘Judicial Appointment Commission’, I wonder if the PM’s speech was written by somebody from the legal fraternity, perhaps with some help from the Bar Council.
The PM also noted some minor points like the need to review the terms of service and remuneration of Judges and also the need to revise salaries to the ‘right’ level. The Government also recognises the contribution of the 6 Judges who had endured the 1988 Judicial Crisis. At least the PM was much more ‘tactful’ enough to put it in a round about way that the Government would not ‘apologise’ to the 6 Judges
for their unceremonious dismissal as compared to Zaid Ibrahim … with his ‘The Love Story’!
And to top the icing on the cake, the PM proposes an ex-gratia payment to the 6 Judges to be paid, I wonder how much is enough to pay back the anger, humiliation and frustration suffered by the 6 esteemed Judges.
After hearing all that, I noted down some of my thoughts. I wonder:
1) Who will sit in the newly proposed ‘Judicial Appointment Commission’? God forbids if it is some politician again from any of the coalition government, from either side, that is. I believe at least one must be from the Bar Council. But no retired Judges please, I hate favouritism, and in politics that involved ‘family’, they call it nepotism.
2) What are the criteria for appointment? Is there a code of ethics that those who are to be appointed must have adhered to at least for the last ten years or perhaps more? For example, not to be seen travelling overseas or even be in the proximity with any ‘high powered’ lawyers within the last ten years.
3) Is the Juducial Appointment Commission a good check-and-balance ‘mechanism’ as per the doctrine of Seperation of Powers … as compared to the previous ‘out-right’ appointment of Judges under the PM?
4) What about dismissal, will it be the sole prerogative of the PM as in the case of 1988? If it is, then having the Juducial Appointment Commission would be ineffective as only one side of the tunnel is transparent, the other side is not?
5) What about women Judges, no mention of it? Will there be more? I hope so.
And lastly, even though I was still sitting on the verge of my seat, there is still no mentioned of the re-instatement of the original Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution at the end of the PM’s speech, will it be done, only time can tell.
RCI into JAC | limsipin.com
May 18th, 2008 at 4:36 am
[...] includes a section on the need to set up immediately the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC). I wrote about this earlier on and would like to add some additional ideas [...]