When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi finally bowed down to irresistible pressures in UMNO to scuttle his mid-2010 power transition plan and announced on October 8 that would not defend the post of Umno President, he said he would complete three reforms, including judicial reform, before he steps down as Prime Minister next March.
Is the appointment of Tan Sri Zaki Azmi as the Chief Justice to take over from Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamed, who retires compulsorily tomorrow, the last nail in the coffin of Abdullah’s pledge of judicial reform?
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, who was appointed Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department after the March 8 general election by Abdullah to shepherd the reforms into reality, had implied that the appointment of a new Chief Justice to replace Hamid would be made under the new reform format and regime of a Judicial Appointment Commission.
But this is not to be and Zaid had resigned as the de facto Law Minister last month not only over the undemocratic abuses of power in the arbitrary use of the Internal Security Act to detain a senior woman Parliamentarian Teresa Kok, a senior Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Ching and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin but also at the “resistance” he encountered in Cabinet when trying to translate the promises of judicial reform into legislative reality.
Was Abdullah completely unaware of the Cabinet “resistance” to judicial reforms which dogged Zaid’s efforts, and if not, what did he do to smoothen and facilitate the passage of the necessary legislation for judicial reforms in the six months after the March 8 “political tsunami”?
With Abdullah’s promise that judicial reform would nonetheless be pushed through into fruition as it was his original pledge and not Zaid’s, one would have thought that the appointment of the new Chief Justice would be in the spirit of reformist consultation with the relevant stakeholders under the promised regime of judicial reforms.
This is not only not so, the Prime Minister has shown utter disregard and contempt for the widespread objections of the legal community and civil society to the appointment of the first Umno Chief Justice in the 51-year history of the nation!
In the circumstances, it is most regrettable and deplorable that Abdullah had stuck to his guns that Zaki be appointed the new Chief Justice, despite being forewarned that it would plunge the country into a new judicial crisis of confidence and a new era of judicial darkness.
Is Zaki capable of providing the necessary judicial leadership to ensure that Malaysia can rise above the past two decades of judicial darkness, plunging from one judicial scandal and crisis of confidence to another, and which reduced the Malaysian judiciary from its previous high international standing into a laughing stock for lack of independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary?
Pakatan Rakyat MPs must now decide whether to invoke Article 127 of the Malaysian Constitution which empowers the tabling in Parliament a substantive motion to debate the suitability and the merits/demerits of Zaki as the new Chief Justice provided it has the support of at t least a quarter of the Members of Parliament, i.e. 55 MPs.
If such a substantive motion is presented in Parliament, it would be the first time in Malaysian parliamentary and constitutional history.
Dear YB Lim,
“Pakatan Rakyat MPs must now decide whether to invoke Article 127 of the Malaysian Constitution which empowers the tabling in
::
Parliament a substantive motion to debate the suitability and the merits/demerits of Zaki as the new Chief Justice provided it has the support of at t least a quarter of the Members of Parliament, i.e. 55 MPs.”
Pls do it. Dont wait any longer. UMNO/BN has gone to far destroying Malaysia and Malaysian. Rakyat need MP’s like you sir.
http://kerajaanrakyat.com/
::
Such a debate would be good but can the MPs rise to the high standards we expect of them?
I think one cannot expect too much of the retiring PM – in some ways his influence diminishes by the minute – exponentially!
reformasi ?
pi lah…………
Dear Uncle Lim,
Please get these bunch of morons out of Parliament at soonest.
They are ruining our beloved country for their own good.
Every single government deal have seen fishy deals attached to it.
From choppers, to submarines, vehicles, bridges, roads, uniforms and even screwdrivers…
I doubt that was the last nail in the coffin.
They have corruptly bought a huge coffin large enough to nail in trillions of it.
A brand new Malaysia.
Malaysia is behaving like a communist country. No freedom of speech, no accountability, no transparency, corruption….. Most of the heads of departments are appointed with no attention paid on transparency and meritocracy. Even the next PM is appointed without regard for the people’s feelings.
I don’t think he understands the word “REFORM”.
Imagine I was still hopeful that he may still come out doing a last flip when he said he needs a few months to do some ‘reforms’ and deliver his election promises. Accepted, we all know too well he will not be able to do it. How can he do it – compress everything that he was unable to do in 5 years into 5 months? But for him to get the Sultans to endorse Zaki as the CJ, that was totally unacceptable and difficult to swallow! Yes, he should go NOW, TOMORROW! Why wait a few more months when the damage will be worse!
getting 55 MPs to endorse the new CJ is too easy…. UMNO already have 70++ MPs. It is a waste of time.
should read UMNO has 70++ MPs… sorry typo. Uncle Kit’s blogg should allow posters to edit their post :(
This was a done deal some time back, and Badawi can’t reverse course and be seen as a traitor to UMNO’s cause. We can only progress if UMNO is voted out of power.
What do the other BN lackeys do ? Knowing full well that the future of Bolehland is being compromised, they accept short-term pecuniary gains to remain totally subservient to UMNO.
With the appointment of Zaki as the new CJ, what is there more to say? What is there to reform in the Judiciary now?
Indeed, a dispointment and a sad chapter in the History of this Nation.
To PM Abdullah, I quote a statement by Oliver Cromwell,
“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go”.
The above is equally applicable to Barisan Nasional.
I think we are on a different wave length of “reform”. To us reform means the judiciary system as a whole is independent, upright and free from corruption.
To the BN, reform means dependent and upright to UMNO and free from corruption only as to those who does not rule in favor of UMNO. As usual ACA will only catch those judges who are not pro-UMNO!
Abdullah needs to reform himself before he can even dream to reform the tainted institutions in the country. Lying is a very acceptable behavior of the ruling party, so what is another lie.
It is very naive of the rakyat to expect changes and reforms from this corrupted administration, not now , not ever. It is good to keep a dream alive…if it is going to make one feels better.
No change of govt, no bloody hope!
I reiterate here that Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is treading on very soft ground – whether by (1) constitution, (2) logic or (3) precedence – to attack at this juncture Tan Sri Zaki Azmi’s appointment as the Chief Justice by the PM.
(1) By Article 122B (1) of Constitution : The King has to take PM’s advice, and it is the PM’s prerogative. We can’t question that prerogative.
(2) On Logic : Just because Zaki (as partner of legal firm Shahrizat Rashid & Lee) was once upon a time UMNO’s legal adviser serving on UMNO’s Disciplinary Board Appeal, how does that alone infer he is now not fit for the post either in terms of competence and judicial skills or impartiality as judge? As lawyer then it was his duty and right to avail his professional skills to any client including UMNO.
As I said in earlier thread, past association or non association with a political party is not a reliable criteria to determine whether a person would be fair and independent of the Executive.
I cited as example Zaid Ibrahim. We believe today that he is sincere in judicial reforms. He gave up his ministerial position when he was obstructed. He too was UMNO’s lawyer. He benefited from much of UMNO’s related privatisation contracts during Dr Mahathir’s era.
Anwar Ibrahim was ex UMNO president and Deputy PM. Does his ex association with UMNO disqualify him to lead PR? Not only him, so many other PKR politicians. So how does want rely on past association or relationship with UMNO as a yardstick to disqualify high office? We are not happy with a long line of preceding Chief Justices beginning with Tun Hamid, Tun Eusoffe Chin and then Tun Ahmad Fairuz along with disclosures in the Lingam Video Clip. None of them was an UMNO lawyer before, so how does one draw the conection to impute partiality to Executive? People can change and should be assessed on what they do rather what they had done in past in another capacity on unrelated matters!
Zaki has impeccable pedigree. He brings with him actual legal practice experience. His father Tun Azmi Mohamed was Lord President from 1966 to 1974. Last year Bar Council chairman Ambiga welcomed Zaki’s appointment as Federal Court Judge. No talk of lack of independence.
Since then, lawyers and judges have conceded that Mr Zaki has taken pains to avoid hearing cases linked to the government, and has become known for good judicial temperament.
(3) In terms of precedence regarding whether political appointment of a top judge will compromise judicial independence from executive, no where in countries known for Rule of Law or judicial independence/separation of powers has the appointment of the top judge being free from partisan politics and Executive favour so how can we demand for the same here to prove the point???
In the United Kingdom the Lord Chancellor is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. He is a member of the Cabinet and, by law, is responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts. The present Lord Chancellor, The Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, is also Secretary of State for Justice. Since Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor is no more sitting as a judge unlike our CJ but like our CJ, the UK’s Lord Chancellor has a role (like our case) in recommending to the PM who to appoint as judges of the courts of England on the advice of a supposedly independent Judicial Appointments Commission He can only choose whether to accept or reject its recommendations.
In our case PM/Nazri say that Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is also on the way. What has JAC whether now existing or later got to do with appointment of top judge? In UK JAC advises the top judge Lord Chancellor, it does not select the Lord Chancellor, it is still the PM’s prerogative to choose and recommend that position as here!
Take the case of the United States, one of the most distinguished Supreme Court Judge later replacing Warren Burger as Chief Justice(1986–2005) – William H. Rehnquist.
Rehnquist began his career participating in the Republican Party. He became a Republican Party official and achieved prominence in the Phoenix area as a strong opponent of liberal initiatives such as school integration. Rehnquist campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater during the 1964 elections. President Reagan selected him as Republican Chief Justice. Rehnquist however won the respect of his colleagues through his efficient management of court affairs. Rehnquist has also revealed a moderation in his views by voting with liberals to protect gay rights and free speech.
So where else can you find in the world a top Judge whose appointmemt is not somehow connected politically? He won’t get a the job otherwise. Surely one cannot (realistically) expect PKR’s lawyer Sivarasa to be nominated by PM for this top job of CJ just to prove (though our AG is)!
As I said before “independence and fairness is in the hearts of judges nurtured from the common tradition and culture of the people : if rakyat are vigilant of their liberties and hold dear the sense of fair play, so will their judges be, a mirror of the norms of the larger society…..Conversely if the culture of larger society is feudal & corrupt and bodek those in power, so will the Judges or even Ministers be the mirror reflection – never mind how they were originally appointed and whether they were associated with partisan politics.
In the US, Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the Executive (President) Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. So where’s the Executive independence so to speak? However, for check and balance, that person nominated by the President must receive the confirmation of the Congress/Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court.
So YB Kit’s suggestion that PR MPs “must now decide whether to invoke Article 127 of the Malaysian Constitution which empowers the tabling in Parliament a substantive motion to debate the suitability and the merits/demerits of Zaki as the new Chief Justice” is a parallel move towards greater check and balance, which is good – I endorse it – provided when it come to merits and demerits, I hope PR’s MPs won’t be foolish enough to raise Zaki’s past professional work with UMNO or his personal if controversial marital problems as a demerit and disqualifying factor.
I however agree that his lack of professionalism, unethical or sharp practices (if any) whilst doing his job as a lawyer would be fair game to disqualify him.
I end by reiterating that there is no perfect guy around, no certainty that even if such a man be found, he won’t turn bad when sitting in that exalted position.
There is much to be said that we should consider giving the man – or any man – a chance and judge him for what he does or performs on record than just repute or past association with political party per se.
In Abdullah’s mind, whoever becomes the Chief Justice is immaterial, since he (Abdullah) is not going to embark on any reform. Look, what reform has Abdullah accomplished since he set the transition deadline on 2010 and then March 2009 – practically nil.
Najib has his hands on enough balls and are squeezing them so hard that makes appointing Zaki as the next CJ as easy as one, two three – even if that comes after a triple jump!
Jeffrey:
Whilst it is true that there is “no perfect guy” around for a particular post, how sure are we that Zaki is the most appropriate person for the post of top judge ? Was there a confirmation process that we see in the US context ? Has anyone see and analysed written judgements from this person ?
I also subscribe to the principle that a person’s past association should have little or no bearing on his qualification for a post, but this is not ANY post. This post has enormous bearing on issues like whether foreign investors trust the independence of our judiciary, whether the laws will be upheld for those wronged by UMNO, whether contracts with politically connected parties could be legal and binding come hell or high water.
The act of putting Zaki in the top judicial post started a couple of years back by UMNO, and it runs counter to the promises of transparency, accountability and meritocracy. We are on a really slippery slope on this one.
So where is the judiacial reform? and the judicial appointment commission so grandly proposed by the government and the Abdullah himself? One last fling before he leaves the scene?
Undergrad2:
Najis has his hands on enough balls ? I thought his were being squeezed so hard by unseen hands.
“I end by reiterating that there is no perfect guy around, no certainty that even if such a man be found, he won’t turn bad …” Jeffrey
We are not looking for that “perfect guy” but merely someone with excellent academic qualifications and with high moral grounds, untainted by controversy of any kind and whose judicial philosophy meets the need of the times.
Zaki fails miserably in three out of four.
Godfather,
Najib’s balls are made of French steel.
“….that person nominated by the (U.S.) President must receive the confirmation of the Congress/Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate…” Jeffrey
That’s right. The U.S. President merely nominates his candidate i.e. his choice of someone who meets the judicial philosophy needed to carry forward his Party’s political agenda – but that is only the beginning. The U.S. Senate Judicial Services Committee requires that the President’s nominee go through a vetting process which examines not only his official and professional background but also his personal. Nothing is out of bounds. The President’s nominee for the job is put under a microscope and the slightest hint of any controversy in his official and personal life would disqualify the President’s nominee. The process would then start all over again.
The entire process is transparent.
Well, what choice do we have?
The PM has spoken!
As one erstwhile PM was wont to ask, “If you don’t like me why vote for me?”.
Right! Stark, direct logic!!!
maybe there’s nothing to squeeze????
Instead of saying Zaki is so good in this and that why don’t we just compare how many better candidates are in the list if the list be known and if the appointment is indeed by merit or political – this should cut down all the rhetorics
undergrad2 Good to have you back, you went missing a while?
Here we go again. The sleepy flipflop lame duck guy has flip flop again. He promised to revamp the judiciary etc….. But with the appointment of that Zaki guy he flip flop on his promise again.
With Zaki as CJ, the rakyat will surely mati la.
Looks like its all talk only. Guarantee no actions by him.
Let him just doze for the next few months.
Give up.
Zaki is definitely not the “perfect guy” and it does not seems right for him to take the highest and most powerful job of the Judiciary after having held high profile posts in UMNO the ruling political party of the land. Can he be impatial, unbias and fair when there will always be conflict of interests?
The PM in waiting is tainted, the IGP is tainted, the AG is tainted. So it is obvious the CJ should also be tainted. How else can UMNO take control of the Judiciary if it does not place one of its trusted man there?
Now the rot is complete. Don’t expect the opposition to win any civil case against an UMNO man or newspaper. They can even get away with murder.
we all should stop paying taxes… pay their salary and yet can’t say anything.. worst case, money being spent like their grandfathers’… everyone in the govt and royals seem to forget where they get their salary… if we can’t sack them.. let the company go bankrup.. no point we work like shit and they get to enjoy all the fruits..
I told you so, I told you so, I told you so!!!!
What can you expect from the mouth of a perpetual, incorrigible LIAR! He has lied about so many things and we still want to believe him on his promises of reforming the judiciary, police and ACA during the terminal stage of his prime ministership. We might as well believe “a camel can pass through a needle’s eye”!
REFORMS?Kaa kaa kaa.It is a big joke.We have been hearing that word since 2004 when we gave him the biggest mandate in history-over 90%.With much regrets,we,the gullible ppl,have been conned.
Indeed the saying is oh so true ‘the leopard can never change its spots’.
All mere rhetoric,NATO.
Its time to wake up poeple and sent them asses to 1 place – eternal flame.
Abdullah is nothing more than a lame figurehead. This appointment was probably decided upon by the real powerbrokers in UMNO – namely Najib and Muhyiddin.
” I hope PR’s MPs won’t be foolish enough to raise Zaki’s past professional work with UMNO or his personal if controversial marital problems as a demerit and disqualifying factors.” Jeffrey.
Prior to his appointment as a Federal Court judge, Zaki was UMNO’s Chairman for its Election Committee and its Technical Committee and was also its Deputy Chairman for its Disciplinary Committee. Can this be considered as “professional work”? Surely these were hard-core political works performed by hot-blooded politician and in no way “professional work” done by non-politician!
Bombarding 100 sms daily, married at a textile shop at the bordertown
and forced the girl to destroy their marriage certificate, is surely not that simple to be dismissed outright. In fact Zaid, the ex-Minister of Law, didn’t think so and told Zaki that Zaki was unfit morally to judge him(Zaid). If Zaki was unfit to judge Zaid, is Zaki fit to hold the highest judicial post in Malaysia? In fact Zaki subsequently resigned his Deputy Chairman post in UMNO’s Disciplinary Committee after this incident.
Eusoffe Chin,ex-Chief Justice, and a close associate of Vincent Tan awarded the latter RM 10 million in defamation claim, the highest ever. Zaki had held directorships in Vincent Tan’s companies.
So are PR’s MPs so foolish? Or who is so foolish?
Jeffrey: “undergrad2 Good to have you back, you went missing a while?”
Been busy on the campaign trail in support of the country’s first African-American.
Racism is still alive and strong – even in the beacon of democracy for the free world. The present economic mess is an indictment of the free marketeers of the world, believers in the free market, of capitalism. Malaysia with its social engineering and believers in the economics of redistribution is at the other extreme.
I wasn’t 100% sure all this while about Pak Lah’s reform agenda. But after watching his press statement today I don’t want to believe him even for second anymore. Having only 5 months to his side, he should be doing his reforms at super speed especially abolishing ISA. No, he did not. He reconfirmed that he would not review ISA. What else can we expect of him? Pak Lah for reforms? my foot!
Fighter asked,”Zaki was UMNO’s Chairman for its Election Committee and its Technical Committee and was also its Deputy Chairman for its Disciplinary Committee. Can this be considered as “professional work”?”
It may not be considered professional work but could be a result of the professional relationship. It could suggest convincingly he was affiliated with the patrty ideology. As I said earlier even in ‘beacon of democracy’ (to use Undergrad2’s expression) Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views, eg the renowned American judge, William H. Rehnquist (1986–2005).If Pakatan Rakyat comes to power and nominates Sivarasa or any of the many lawyers sympathetic to PR’s Cause as Chief Judge, would you object based on ideological or party affiliation alone???
Zaki’s holding directorships in Vincent Tan’s companies was an association that by itself ought not to be relevant, at least in my view.
I agree that there is something about what you said in respect of “bomabarding 100 sms daily, married at a textile shop at the bordertown and forced the girl to destroy their marriage certificate”, probably a Testosterone driven act, which some would not dismiss lightly.
However I wish people would not use a person’s private (sexual) morality/indiscretion as sole overriding factor to disqualify him for public office if he were otherwise competent. I am heartened that Dr Chua Soi Lek made a clean breast of it in interest of accountability, resigned, and in spite of being what some would call an unwitting pornographic actor has now got the support to contest and win (albeit by narrow margin) the MCA Deputy Presidential Post!
Even then I would agre, as what Godfather earlier said, that the top judge’s post is not any post and some may argue that it is more or ought to be more hallowed than a Minister’s post. That’s a matter of opinion, I am just loking at public office generally in relation to blemished private conduct.
Those whoknew Zaki at close quarters might be sure that he is incompetent even as a lawyer much more as a top judge, something that I personally don’t know, so I am wiling to cut him some slack and see how he performs.
It is of course not an ideal appointment but realistically what can we expect from the govt? The field of elegibility for appointment that meets its boundary conditions is narrow and the pickings a re few.
Of course we can question its boundary conditions and talk of Merits being only criteria but since when Merits has been the major consideration whether picking top judge, top director general or any departments, minister oir any position a s far as the feudal culture of UMNO goes?
Realistically, knowing the govt, we have to revise expectations down and instead of expecting them to select the best, hope they won’t select the worst. :)
,
I am rather surprised of the comments made by Jeffrey to my earlier observations.
He justified his arguments by saying “..would you object based on ideological or party affiliation alone?” Here we have the Chief Justice who held very senior positions in UMNO for many years by virtue of being Chairman of many Committees and not merely having ideological or party affiliation. Chairmanship involved heavy commitments and dedications to the cause of the party. Your soul is with the party otherwise you won’t want to hold the heavy burden of a Chairman of more than one Committees. And once you have put all your efforts and soul into the party by being Chairman, it is no longer “ideological or party affiliation” , it is commitment. Do you think Zaki or for that matter anybody, can simply not get attached to that party anymore nor take any action which would affect the interest of that party. I think majority will object strongly for anyone, whether Sivarasa or Zaki, to hold the post of Chief Justice when that someone had held senior positions of any political party. Chairmanship is not the same as ideological interest or party affiliation as the former involved heavy commitment whereas the latter is simply common interest.
Jeffrey dismissed the alleged misconduct as “testosterone driven act” and compared it to Dr Chua’s election. I am amazed to say the least! Here we have a man who knew very well that it was illegal to marry at a textile shop and also at the bordertown! What was worse when found out by the 1st wife pressured the poor girl,half his age, to destroy the marriage certificate! Is this merely “testosterone” matter? Did Dr Chua committed such act? No! How can anyone condone such illegal acts all the more for the post of the Chief Justice!
I am also amazed when Jeffrey said ‘since when Merit has been the major consideration.” Here we are not talking of MERIT.Here we are talking of the BASIC requirements and Fitness for a person who is the Chief Justice. Is a person who held very senior posts ln political party for many years, not merely having ideological interest, and allegedly committed criminal acts, a FIT person to be Chief Justice?
Are the 25000 bloggers, who were brave enough to expose their identities in signing the petition, were foolish enough to petition the King to not appoint Zaki as a Chief Justice?
Fighter, I do acknowledge the good points raised by you in rebuttal.
But just to round it up:
On your point about “majority will object strongly for anyone, whether Sivarasa or Zaki, to hold the post of Chief Justice”, it is based on the ideal “justice must not only be done but seen done”. However I wonder where that ideal is really practised. As I said in earlier posting, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (1986–2005) was a Republican Party official and campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater during the 1964 elections.
It was in his case not ideological or party affiliation alone but also heavy commitments and dedications. I also said that in the UK the Lord Chancellor (equivalent to our CJ position in that it entails appointment of judges) is also member of the Cabinet contrary to separation of powers.
Your other point is more forceful about “when found out by the 1st wife pressured the poor girl, half his age, to destroy the marriage certificate!” Some would say it is illegal.
I know quite a few Datos & big wigs who, when facing difficulties over here, crossed the border to Hatyai to marry 2nd or 3rd though in their cases, not implicating destruction of marriage certificate (obtained in Thailand).
To me ultimately these misfeasances arise from trying to maintain damage control back home resulting from first cause of a certain lack of discipline/restrain of libido/testosterone.
I guess our main difference in position is that I have since revised my expectations several notches down.
The post of chief justice requires a person of legal scholarship, judicial temperament and administrative talent to run an efficient functioning and independence of the courts.
In a less than ideal situation where you and I can do nothing (besides criticisms) about how the PM chooses, it might be unuseful to speculate or argue with certainty and finality that Zaki’s earlier UMNO commitment or destroying the marriage certificate are definitely = he’ll be a hopeless and bias CJ and that he won’t reform Judiciary.
So far I have not heard from lawyers friends who ply the courts saying negative things about Zaki having bad judicial temperament.
Strangely neither the Malaysian Bar of 13000+ lawyers or their Bar Council have objected or iniotiated resolutions against Zaki’s appointment whether as Federal Court Judge or now Chief Justice along lines of objections raised by you and other commentators here. I wonder why.
Though person sitting on that CJ chair is important, there are two other factors more important and decisive on the state of our Judiciary than just merits/demeits of initial appointment.
One is we must have institutional check and balance like an independent Judicial Appointments Commission and also a vigilant and enlightened public opinion to keep judicial misfeasance in check.
Two, is the Executive’s attitude : they should change and stop interfering with judiciary, and we should pressure them to hands off. In 1988, the 5 relatively independent judges didn’t help against against an overbearing Executive. They got sacked or suspended.
Anyway, thanks for the debate.