The Chief Justice, Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah, moves to restore judicial integrity. He moves slowly but confidently. He tells the world he is as different from his predecessor -- whose did so much damage to justice that it should not be mentioned with him -- as chalk and cheese. He certainly would not go on holidays to non-existent zoos in distant lands with lawyers who appear before him. He told judges and judicial officers to adjudicate with their conscience and the public good. He moves swiftly to restore the appalling hate his predecessor had for the Bar. At his first formal sitting as Chief Justice, the goodwill and the hopes of many reflected the speeches given, with no fear of imprisonment for contempt for a mispoken word.

The Prime Minister, in his year-end interview with Bernama, cannot understand why the judiciary, under the just-retired Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, is so severely criticised. "There may be charges (against the judiciary) but they (judges) are not angels. They are not people who are perfect. So, they have their problems," he said. No one said they were angels or perfect. What one expects of a judiciary is fair play, moral and judicial uprighteousness so that those who turn to it come away satisfied, even if they lose, that justice is done. That the Eusoff Chin court could not. Business men, especially those with international reputations of unquestioned repute, subborn the judiciary and have their favourite lawyers go on holidays with the Chief Justice and attorner-general. The government did nothing; indeed, it extended the Tun Eusoff Chin's term by six months when he should have been told to disappear into the woodwork.

The new Chief Justice, Dzaiddin Abdullah, promises an open and accountable judiciary, moves swiftly to restore its tattered image and crediblity, In a stinging rebuke to his predecessor, Eusoff Chin, who retired two days ago under a cloud, he said the Chief Justice would deal only with policy and the chief judges the details. Tun Eusoff ignored policy and dealt with only how the courts could be run, making sure judges he did not approve of -- those who did not form his circle -- remained in the shadows. I know of at least two judges who marked time for a few years, in frustration, before they retired.

But when her first interview with the Press after her appointment is one she should not have, it throws doubts. We have been taken for a ride for too long that she should have ignored the niceties and address the task in hand. If she was not ready for it, she should not have talked to the press. When her remarks are read together with what the new Chief Justice, Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah, said, her remarks are way off. She probably is still reeling from shock at her appointment. She was not the first choice. I know of two prominent Malay lawyers who rejected offers because it meant being subservient to the government in a blatant way. There could well have been others. A high court judge certainly was considered. So, she is chosen in a form of Buggin's turn.

The new attorney-general had to be some one uninvolved in the impasse over the sacked and jailed former deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and Malaysia's legal kerfuffle with the UN and the International Court of Justice. The government is forced to right the wrongs in the judiciary and the legal services. It took on more than it could chew, and had substandard officers to do its bidding, whether it be the former Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, who retires today (20 Dec 00 -- the Prime Minister's birthday) and the retiring attorney-general, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah. The de facto law minister, Dato' Rais Yatim, accepts this. Both the new Chief Justice, Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah, and Datin Ainum are "rule of law" people, implying that their predecssors were not. They are experiences and have integrity, he said, adding: "If their integrity is in question than the whole framework of the justice will look unclear." Yet another kick in the pants at the two retiring men.

That corruption, as boradly defined, exists in the judiciary under the about-to-retire Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, goes without saying. How could it not when he lies about his holiday with his favourite lawyer, Dato' V.K. Lingam, and sits to ensure Dato' Lingam gets the judgement he wants. And after this is public, he writes the unanimous decision in a high profile case involving Dato' Lingam and his high profile client; yet, when he reserved judgement 28 months earlier he promised individual judgements. The fish, as the judiciary, rots first in the head. Once the rot starts in the Chief Justice's chambers, it is a fair bet that rot would extend to the chambers of the other judges. When the anti-corruption agency investigates the Chief Justice, as Tun Eusoff has been, any self-respecting judge, if he values the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, would have resigned forthwith. But not Tun Eusoff. When a litigant totes out a litany of corruption involving Tun Eusoff and requests him to recuse in a federal court appeal, he refuses, and the man refuses to proceed with an appeal before a coram he is uncomfortable with. Tun Eusoff has not rebutted any of the allegations, so it is safe to say that all, if not most, of what was said is true. He singlehanded reduced the judiciary to the appalling levels it is now in.

Mr Mahfuz challenged that, and the courts must now be more circumspect. There is, after all, no more advantage to one's future if one delivers judgements not what one should but what one's leaders expect. Mr Justice Arifin Jaka, having sentenced Dato' Seri Anwar to jail for sodomy, has not written his judgement. Without it, Dato' Seri Anwar cannot appeal. But if he did write it, he could himself be convicted and jailed for abusing his office. He is, in other words, in a dilemma, as the judiciary already is, the new Chief Justice notwithstanding. That he does not ensure Dato' Seri Anwar continues to be denied due process.

A month after the Conference of Rulers announced the new Chief Justice, Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah, the Prime Minister says he knows nothing about it. But he was present at the Conference, meets the Yang Dipertuan Agung every week, did not object when the Keeper of the Ruler's Seal announced it to the world. Even if he was absent, the deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, would have, and told him what transpired. At least, he should. Besides, the Conference issued a press statement about its appointment, one his office would surely have known about. More than that, the de facto law minister, Rais Yatim, was enthusiastic at it. Yet, he tells reporters, he is not informed. So, why is he now denying what he cannot deny? Is he now telling the world that he since he does not know about it, Tan Sri Dzaiddin will hold office without his knowing of the appointment and therefore would be impartial or independent? Or does he sulk that the Conference did not appoint whom he would have preferred instead: the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah?

When the Conference of Rulers decided upon Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah as Malaysia's new Chief Justice, one man who should have known did not in a none-too-subtle way to tell him enough is enough, and he would know of the appointment when everyone else is. Tun Eusoff Chin, on leave before he descends into judicial infamy on 20 December 00, heard of the appointment on Thursday morning when the Conference of Rulers met, but could not get confirmation. The Keeper of the Ruler's Seal, who should know, said a decision was awaited. The Prime Minister's Office where sits, in Tun Eusoff's considered judgement, such as it is, the Law minister in charge of tables and chairs, would not tell him either. He tried to see the Prime Minister, but the secretaries shielded him from whom he did not want to see. He could only confirm it just before the official announcement. He is furious, to say the least, and insists Tan Sri Dzaiddin's appointment is unconstitutional. Even the Devil quotes the Scriptures when it suits him. A High Court cannot sit on the Federal Court, but he had Mr Justice P.S. Gill to sit in an emergency sitting of the Federal Court in the Ayer Molek case. He knew, and I am charitable here, or should have known, he could not. He knew he should not have gone on holiday with his favourite lawyer. He knew he should not have lied when confronted about it. But then he decided justice in Malaysia is what he decides it is. So, if he breaks convention and breaches the constitution, it is in the larger interests of justice.

More than that, the government would not rush to charge MPs and others for sundry offences not to ensure justice but to harass, threaten and inconvenience. The magistrate who sentenced him did not expect it. After all, who wants to go to jail? She has not come across anyone with principle who would. She imposed the sentence knowing full well, or so she thought, Mr Mahfuz and his joint accused would appeal to avoid jail. They chose not to. Suddenly, she takes responsibility for what she did, which a Higher Court cannot now interfere. This sends a chill down her spine, and her colleagues in the judicial and legal service would be more circumspect in future when similar cases appear before them. The judicial crisis has lasted as long because lawyers sentenced to jail for contempt of court chose to appeal. If only one had belled the judicial cat, the crisis would not have lasted as long as it has. That had to await a non-lawyer who dispensed with his battery of lawyers to call a spade a spade and accused the outgoing Chief Justice of corruption and worse and therefore considered him unfit to preside over his appeal. That man is, of course, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and it infused a dose of reality in the woolly-minded judges who thought justice is best administered when it second guesses those in power.

The Federal Court has four vacancies. The Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, wants to pack it with his cronies. But the Conference of Rulers would have none of it. So it shot down Judges Gopal Sri Ram and Mokhtar Sidin of the Court of Appeal; and later Judge R.K. Nathan of the High Court. The Conference made it known it would not consider nominations from Tun Eusoff for judicial preferment. Tun Eusoff could have had his way if he had not picked a fight with the de facto law minister, Dato' Rais Yatim, dismissing him as law minister in charge of tables and chairs. For whatever his faults, he is still, after all, Chief Justice, and his nominations, however flawed self-serving and peurile, carries weight. He thought he could ram the nominations down the collective throats of the Conference. He could not. But hope springs eternal in the human breast.

The Bolehland Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, wants women lawyers to dress conservatively; they should not wear tight slacks, figure-hugging dresses or low-cut blouses which show off cleavage. Why? "Judges, both men and women, being seated on a higher platform than the rest of the court, could easily be distracted by the overt display of the body by lawyers wearing low-cut clothes," he tells reporters in Seremban (NST, 01 November 00, p4). Malaysian judges, both men and women are so randy, he infers, that the court must act to dampen their desires! Why did he have to say this? If court decorum requires it, then why explain? Does it require a court circular? Why could not some court clerk call the offending lawyer quietly aside and whisper into her ear? But the Chief Justice wants to codify conduct in court, and issues a dress code, which has been changed so often that it threatens to be like the federal constitution.

The Free Anwar campaign goes overseas precisely because it has no local avenue to highlight his case. It hires an American public relations firm, with much success. There is nothing unusual about this: the Malaysian government once hired a spin doctor to make Dr Mahathir look good overseas, hired Smith, Salomon & Barney, a financial spin doctor, to make its fiscal and economic policies look good (this for US$250 million, I hear), without much success. No Malaysian government minister would dare venture overseas to talk of Malaysian politics without a guaranteed hostile audience, one which normal political give-and-take should have conditioned them for. But in Malaysia, they do not descend to the norms of political campaign. Here they pontificate, before friendly audiences, on the state of the world, with no questioning, except from friends at court and friendly reporters from the "press here and everything". The government effectively silenced any who thought Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim is unfairly silenced. The law is the law, says the de facto law minister, Dato' Rais Yatim, even if the Chief Justice is roundly accused, and which he did not rebut, of being corrupt and worse, to have him recuse. Dato' Rais now says hiring the US firm to advise the Free Anwar campaign will not help. If it would not, why is he, and the government worried about this development? Why does not the "press here and everything" report this when it occurred and not incidentally as a ministerial reaction to it?

The Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, like hundreds of thousands of Malaysians, visited Hindu friends to celebrate Deepavali, to mark Lord Krishna's victory over the demon Naragasura, of good over evil, light over darkness. And where does His Lordship makes his most public appearance? Where does the sun rise in the morning? Of course, you dolt, to his holiday companion to New Zealand, the one-and-only brilliantly eminent lawyer, Dato' V.K. Lingam whose frightening reputation is such he has never lost a case, especially in the court of Tun Eusoff Chin. He arrived in his official car, spent three hours in this worthy's house, surrounded by lawyers and others in the legal fraternity. So, the man he met accidently on holiday and which decorum made it churlish to recognise, as Tun Eusoff, in the face of overwhelming evidence, insists, has become such a close friend since that he spends three hours in his house. Did he spend three hours too at each Indian judge in his court? At the Law Minister's house? At the Bar Council chairman's house? Unlikely. The irony is missed: the two men does not represent, to not put a fine point to it, the light one expects of the Malaysian judiciary.

This judicial arrogance is typical. Litigants galore can attest to it. When judges break the rules, it is in the interests of justice. When ordinary mortals do so, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. If he wanted to say what he said, why did he not call the parties into his chambers and said his piece there. But he coccoons himself in his typical arrogance to believe nothing would happen however wrong his actions. We have a judge who would not recognise a lawyer in his court because the lawyer did not acknowledge him in a supermarket. The Chief Justice goes on holidays with a crony lawyer, who also helps write the judgement in a case in which is an interested party. The Conference of Rulers so ignores the Chief Justice that his nominations to fill vacancies in the courts are studiously ignored. Rumour suggests it would not any nomination from him. His retirement in December is eagerly awaited by the Bar, most of the judges, the government. The judicial rot is so ingrained into the system that only massive surgery could reverse it. Until then, we have to bear the antics of such judges as His Lordship.

Would he have recused if the litigants had requested for it without photographic evidence? Would he have without a request? The much lamented Tun Suffian, when Lord President, recused himself because the gossip he heard at a cocktail party about an appellant before him could cloud his judgement. How does Judge Nathan square his recusal with his refusal, in another case, to recuse because to do so would put him on collision course with the Chief Justice who assigned him the case? Should not that rule apply here too? He was, in practice, briefly legal adviser to the MIC president. Few believe the defendants could expect justice in this case. It does not matter if the judge is Solomon himself if public perception decides he cannot be. He should not have been judge in this case; nor agreed to present himself at the MIC president's grandaughter's birthday party.

The prominent Malaysian crony business man, Tan Sri Vincent Tan, does not do anything in half measures. He sues any who disagrees with his crony lawyer's assessment of him as an "internationally known business man of unquestioned repute". He makes sure his lawyer, by hook or by crook, wins. So, his lawyer, besides going on holidays with the Chief Justice in New Zealand, writes, according to a still-unchallenged deposition in a libel action, the judgement which awarded him defamation damages for RM10 million, without witnesses or proof, goes on holidays with the lawyer and the attorney-general, helps to turn upside down the law in Malaysia relating to defamation. But the trail he leaves behind has Malaysian justice on trial in Australia and the United Kingdom. He send a stirring message to the world that justice is for those who can subborn the judiciary. As a prime ministerial crony, and of sundry others, he must take much credit for Malaysia's judicial decline. It is a fact of life that when he comes to court, with his crony lawyer in tow, he cannot lose. He has not. Nor has his lawyer.

Pak Lah (1364)   United States (636)   Straits Times (412)   Samy Vellu (224)   Putra Jaya (200)   Chief Justice (200)   Saddam Hussein (188)   Vincent Tan (164)   Civil Service (154)   Parti KeADILan (148)   Islamic State (118)   Johore Bahru (100)   Sungei Buloh (94)   Bukit Tinggi (88)   Abdul Razak (80)   Pengkalen Pasir (68)   Ting Pek (64)   Armed Forces (59)   Soviet Union (58)

Malay Dominance (58)   Yong Teck (56)   Hong Kong (56)   Human Rights (56)   Syed Hamid (54)   Puteri UMNO (52)   Islam Hadhari (52)   Royal Commission (51)   Hussein Onn (51)   Rafidah Aziz (48)   Indian Congress (48)   Open House (44)   Vision Schools (44)   Shah Alam (44)   Malay Unity (42)   Chua Jui (42)   Abdul Taib (42)   Ampang Jaya (36)   Ras Adiba (36)

Osama Bin Laden (36)   Nik Aziz Nik (20)   Ling Liong Sik (18)   Lee Kuan Yew (18)

High Court Judge (14)   Wan Azizah Wan (9)   Lim Kit Siang (9)   Megat Junid Megat (8)

Mahathir (2960)

Anwar (2399)