So, it did not surprise when he called on the Royal Commission on the Police Force to start putting its "ideas" into action immediately. Good suggestions should be accepted, and implemented, if they can be without amending laws. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lim Kit Siang, accepts it with alacrity. How did this come about? The Royal Commission chairman, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, suggested it when he met the IGP, Dato' Seri Mohamed Bakri Omar, and other senior police officers, and relayed what they had received. This seems to be out of line. The Royal Commission is not at liberty to talk about its hearings before it presents its report to the Yang Dipertuan Agung. Pak Lah, by suggesting it, is out of line. Whatever comes out should be in the report when it is submitted and published. The conditions of the Commission would have been clearly spelt out; there is no provision for its findings to be enforced in stages. Besides, must the Royal Commission share its preliminary findings with the police in the course of its investigations? What the Commission unearths is nothing new. The police know of it. Why cannot it do so on its own bat, and no demean the Royal Commission needlessly.

Tun Abdul Hamid Omar, who succeeded Tun Salleh, started the rot. His successor, Tun Eusoff Chin, continued it. He scandalised an already scandal-proof court when photographs of him on holiday with his favourite lawyer, Dato' V.K. Lingam, in New Zealand appeared on the Internet. He and his client, Tan Sri Vincent Tan (he of the Bukit Tinggi casino fame) were also photographed with the then Attorney-General (later Federal Court judge and now comatose), Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, and their wives, on holiday in Italy. What added fuel to fire was Dato' Lingam's arrogance and Tun Eusoff's subservience ensured anyone before him with the other side represented by Dato' Lingam found the judicial cards stacked against him. Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, who succeeded him with a new broom and an unsullied reputation, could not, no matter how, turn the judiciary around. What destroyed a judicial tradition of two centuries cannot be reversed in decades, let alone in two or three years.

There is reason to believe this. The director of Sungei Buloh prison went out of his way to issue Dato' Seri Anwar's release on 14 April 2003 two months earlier. This shook the government no end. On 17 February, two meetings were held in Putra Jaya: the first that justice minister, Dato' Seri Rais Yatim, called had the two high court judges in the Anwar trial, the retiring chief justice, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, two federal court judges, the Inspector-General of Police, and others, and met for two hours "until 4.32 pm". They adjourned immediately to the office of the acting prime minister, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. With him were the Attorney-General, Dato' Ghani Patail, and others. That meeting continued until dinner. The import of the two meetings was clear: make sure Dato' Seri Anwar is not let out, find ways to ensure he remains in jail, with his nine-year sentence starting immediately.

If he only plans to do something about it, he cannot achieve it. He cannot sack corrupt judges. The chief justice does not have that power. He cannot even appoint judges. There is a constitutional procedure for appointing and dismissing judges. Despite that, he says he can. If he can stumble on that elementary rule, how much faith can we have of him as chief justice? One can dismiss all he wants to accomplish, for he cannot; indeed he would not be allowed to. The political pressure on the judiciary slowly but surely strangles it. Much was expected of his predecessor, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah. His appointment was without the Prime Minister's consent. Much was expected of him but in the end he was an apparachik, sitting in on a secret meeting weeks before his retirement to ensure that one man remain in jail. When he retired, he had expressed his hope for a particular sinecure: a few weeks earlier, another was appointed.

Tan Sri Mohtar was attorney-general and the government's point man to ensure Dato' Seri Anwar remained in jail. He did not present himself as a neutral prosecutor but appeared, during the trial and after, of a man beholden to the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed's thesis that this man must be destroyed. He was later promoted to the Federal Court and, if the Gods had smiled his way, would have been chief justice in due course. He turned out a far better judge than many expected, but the niggling suspicion remained he was where he was for a larger agenda in which politics, not justice, mattered. When the chief justice, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, dismissed Dato' Seri Anwar's appeal against conviction and sentence in, to a layman, a highly flawed trial, the emotions rose again. But too much was expected of him. As one senior lawyer said: "We expect our judges to be legal eagles soaring away into the sky to cut new paths; but all we have are legal ducks wallowing in a dirty pond afraid to venture out for fear of pelting by the pond owner."

Where Dato' Nathan went awry was to direct his anger in open court. The Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, is embarrassed. He calls both in for an explanation. Dato' Nathan should at least have warned his office of his remarks. If there is any intention to raise him to the Court of Appeal, his outburst put paid to it. But far more worrying is what it does to the judiciary. In times past, when the judiciary was held in high esteem, the matter would be settled by the Chief Justice and hostilities reduced to a minimum. The late Tun Suffian said he had had to deal with judges with huge egos, how he kept them apart, and reduced friction where possible to a minimum. That Dato' Nathan did not take the Chief Justice into his confidence is yet another telling sign that the judiciary is as skewed as since the then Lord President, Tun Saleh Abas, was drummed out of his own court 14 years ago.

The Federal Court did what it had to do. It could do no other. The law is not administered in a vaccuum. In the Anwar Ibrahim appeal, the law it was that mattered, not justice. So, it dismissed his appeal, affirmed the six year sentence on corruption and misuse of office. He stoically did what he had to do. He could no other. He came to the Federal Court for justice. He could not get it. He knew that all along. And reacted the only way he could: portray it as a polemical contest between good and evil, a victim of a political conspiracy that includes the courts which convicted him, braided the chief justice, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, for what he did and represented, accused his nemesis, the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, of cowardice, political and personal, in not daring to meet him face-to-face.

The Judiciary is so compromised that even a determined Chief Justice as we have now, Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, cannot return to its pristine role of only 15 years ago. The time-honoured rules of the past is thrown to the winds, and with every move that is welcomed, another casts doubt. So, the former Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, is appointed to the Federal Court and on track to be chief justice, the in seniority in the legal service, the solicitor-general, who should reasonably be appointed to the Court of Appeal, is a High Court judge instead.

Mr Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang, in declaring the Likas state assembly seat in Sabah vacant, said he ignored an order from his superior to strike out the election petition. He would not say who it was, though in a subsequent press conference he ruled out politicians (and therefore the Prime Minister and deputy prime minister), the present chief justice, Tan Sri Dzaiddin Mohamed; the president of the Court of Appeal, Tan Sri Lamin Yunus, said he did not; the then chief judge Tan Sri Chong Siew Feh too principled a man to indulge in such actions. That left just one man who could possibly have done so: the former chief justice, Tun Eusoff Chin. And this instruction came in 1999, shortly after the Sabah elections petitions had been filed.

5:15pm, Fri: Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah, as Chief Justice, breathes fresh air into a judiciary gasping for oxygen for a decade and more. Age prevents him doing more. But within six months in office, he returns the judges to their traditional role, and relaxes and removes the bars which his predecessors had imposed.

He is the second judge, who having lost their heads under the now mercifully retired chief justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, now come back to sanity. He was on the point of resigning when it was rumoured that under the present chief justice, Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah, he would have been better off in Tawau, the favourite corner to which Tun Eusoff consigned judges he did not like. But Tan Sri Dzaiddin is not Tun Eusoff. He does not operate in vengeance. Indeed if he had, he would have been no better than his predecessor.

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 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.

So, when Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah succeeds Tun Eusoff on 20 December 00, he inherits a judiciary fallen on bad times by its own efforts. Justice is for sale. Business men get the decisions they want by the right choice of lawyers, those like Dato' Lingam, whose friendship with Tun Eusoff is a high blown scandal. The Vincent Tan case is but one example. But could Tan Sri Dzaiddin clear the judicial Augean stables? No. It is beyond him in the less than two years he would be in office. All he can hope to do, and if he succeeds he would have the eternal gratitude of all who seeks justice in the Malaysian courts, is to begin to set matters right. For Tun Eusoff gathered around him judges not for their erudition, judicial temperament or knowledge of the law but for their personal loyalty to him. One is appointed a judge because he was master to one V.K. Lingam, when he was chambering. It is fair to say that several believed they could get merit by wallowing in the corruption the chief did. So, the High Court judge, Dato' Mokhtar Sidin, allows a lawyer to write the judgement to favour his client, is immediately promoted to the court of appeal and, but for the principled refusal of the conference of rulers, would be in the federal court and, possibly, chief justice now.

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.

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)