Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi’s appointment as Chief Justice of the Federal Court is the most controversial appointment of the head of the judiciary in the nation’s 51-year history.
Never before in Malaysian judiciary had the possible appointment of the new head of the judiciary been marked by more widespread reservations and public objections than Zaki’s elevation as Chief Justice, because of legitimate concerns about its adverse impact on fumbling efforts so far to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.
This was because of two reasons:
· Firstly, Zaki’s quintuple or five-step jump up the judicial hierarchy in slightly over a year, being appointed straight to the Federal Court without any earlier appointment as High Court Judge and Court of Appeal Judge, then elevation as Court of Appeal President and now Federal Court Chief Justice; and
· Secondly, Zaki’s close and long association with UMNO as UMNO lawyer both for the party and its very intricate and complex corporate network and affairs, as well as head of UMNO disciplinary board.
In the past two decades after the arbitrarily sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in the 1988 “Mother of Judicial Crisis”, the country has had five heads of the judiciary.
Unfortunately, three of the five, Tun Hamid Omar, Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz had mired the judiciary and country even deeper in national shame and international infamy – making efforts to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and return to its previous high international esteem a most Herculean one.
This is why for instance the latest survey among expatriate business executives in Asia by the Hong-Kong based Political and Economic Risks Consultancy (Perc) last month found that Malaysia lagged behind even South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines on which Asian country has the best judicial system. Malaysia was ranked seventh while the first three places went to Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan.
Yesterday, a local survey of lawyers’ perception of the judiciary conducted by Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) gave a grim picture of the state of public confidence in the judiciary.
According to findings of a survey of 339 lawyers conducted in March and April, the judicial process and judicial appointments are greatly subject to undue influence and judicial authorities subject to corruption and bribery.
From the survey, 91% felt that the judicial process in the superior courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court) was subject to various levels of undue influence from the Government or others.
As to whether judicial authorities were susceptible to accepting bribes to give favourable judgments, 94% said yes.
However, only 15% thought they always took bribes.
The survey also found that 96% thought judicial appointments were subject to influence.
The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had promised judicial reform to top his final short-list of three reforms, but it is like shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted to now talk about a Judicial Appointment Commission when Zaki’s appointment as Chief Justice had been made without any nod or concession to the spirit of judicial reform.
With the most controversial appointment as head of judiciary in nation’s 51-year history now a fait accompli – the question is whether Zaki will vindicate all doubters with the worst-scene judicial scenario or he would prove them wrong by providing bold and visionary leadership for judicial reform in the next five years.
Objectors to Zaki’s fast-track appointment as Chief Justice have two options: firstly to invoke Article 127 of the Constitution to move a substantive motion in Parliament with the support of at least one-quarter of Members of Parliament, i.e. 55 MPs to discuss Zaki’s appointment; or two, to give Zaki the opportunity to acquit himself and prove that he is capable of taking full account of the widespread reservations about his appointment to the process to restore public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary after two decades of judicial darkness.
I am inclined to the latter but a public debate on the best option before the country in the challenge to restore national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary would be useful, pertinent and timely.
umno already controls the executive and legislature, all it needs is to grasp the judiciary and it will be able to cling to power for another 50 years
I am in favour of second option of giving Zaki the opportunity to acquit himself. Not that we can do anything about it even if we object. For his appointment is constitutionally the Prime Minister’s prerogative.
People are supposed to differentiate and know what “hat” they are wearing on accepting important appointments such as this.
One hat is the lawyer’s – Zaki had “close and long association with UMNO as UMNO lawyer both for the party and its very intricate and complex corporate network and affairs, as well as head of UMNO disciplinary board”. The other hat is now – as Chief Justice one of the prerequisites is independence from the Executive.
The main objection is our perception of human nature, that it is such that after the government has been patron, and Zaki beneficiary, how could he not be beholdened and side the government? Can he differentiate the two hats?
Probably he could not; may be he could. The question is whether against the odds we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I would give two basic reasons why we should.
The first is to date, and in short stint as Federal Court judge, Zaki’s conduct on the bench has been beyond reproach. We have not heard from lawyers whose job is to ply the courts complaining about his judicial bearing, conduct and handling of judicial matters or that political affiliation or business interest has in anyway influenced his judgment. So he is wearing the second hat in quite a fit manner – so far. One may protest – he can change. Yes, any one can, even those without political affiliation in the beginning! Preceding Chief Justices mired in controversy – Tun Hamid Omar, Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz – were not affiliated with UMNO before they were appointed Chief Justice. So I say we let the man wear his second hat first and see if he fits that hat rather than preempt and say ahead of time it will not fit because his head is already too big after wearing the first hat!
The second reason is the objection that ideally the doctrine of separation of powers would require that Judiciary be independent of the Government and be “seen” so, and therefore Zaki’s appointment should be challenged as tainted by patronage politics at inception.
The trouble is we do not live in ideal world. Even so, we must compare with other nations better than us in terms of judicial independence and see how they tackle problems of such nature.
However when we start comparing we get shocked because just about every appointment of high judicial office throughout the Common Wealth and the developed world in which the Rule of Law is supposed to rein and doctrine of separation of powers held dear is a political and patronage appointment. Historically majority of high judicial appointments are patronage rewards for political service….
Can we therefore expect Malaysia, already with a Judiciary mired in controversy by executive interference during TDM’s administration, now demand and expect a higher standard of top judge’s appointment based solely on considerations of merit than political than the rest of the developed world which has not yet been able to do so? Is it realistic to so expect?
It is probably fairer to let Zaki do his job. He will be mindful of people’s distrust owing to his past political affiliation with UMNO. Hopefully he goes out of the way to prove the expectations wrong.
Every government will try to influence Judiciary to its side : after all Judiciary is third branch of government, the Legislative being second and Executive the first.
It behooves us as ordinary citizens to be vigilant of our rights and keep the government in check and make sure it does not try to interfere with the judiciary. If it does, then more votes against it in the next general election. That is about all we could do for the time being.
Better the devil u know than the devil u don’t.
Of course you could invoke Article 127 of the Constitution to move a substantive motion in Parliament to discuss Zaki’s appointment. PR has the numbers – 55 MPs.
There are however things to consider.
1. Will our Speaker allow motion to discuss? Likely no.
2. What’s the point of discussing in Parliament then? Can PR veto the appointment or change the government’s choice? Also no.
3. If PR can’t, then the only good (if such motion allowed) is to bring and discuss openly all the demerits of his appointment. If you bring out his UMNO affiliation, it is a waste of time. They are appointing him precisely because of that affililiation.
4. So the only other thing is to bring out all dirty linen about him in the past tearing marriage certificate, has marital controversies etc. What is good in all these?
The government is going appoint him CJ anyway. There’s nothing that will be brought up that those who favour his appointment do not already know.
So the outcome will be we’re going to have a new CJ who comes with a record of his personal conduct and personal private life being brought out, laid bare, criticised and condemned before his first day in office as CJ.
Does this serve national interest? Or help the Cause of making Judiciary more independent? Or give it more respectability?
Likely the repute of our institution of Judiciary – already mired in controversy – will be tarnished further by parliamentary debate on the personal life and marital sheninegans of the top judge.
A new caste system has been introduced in Malaysia. The prime minister’s son will be prime minister. The CJ’s son has become CJ.
It would be good if training at home prepares the children to continue the profession of the parents. The CJ families have not been known to have amassed wealth larger than raja Jakaria of Kelang, but the children of a certain prime minister are said to be directors of hundreds of companies.
We cannot be sure whether future PMs would be better than their fathers in removing racist policies that their fathers had contributed enormously in their creation, and over the past half a century they have brought Malaysia’s standard of living lagging behind those who were way behind us just three decades ago.
Abdullah is a “dis-reformer” unwinding reforms which were done earlier.
“Give Zaki the benefit of doubt until proven guilty!”
It is not my preference that he is chosen. Matter of fact, he is the one that should come out and make a statement that he will disengaged from UMNO completely, give up his membership…if he has any principle.
A judiciary already mired in controversy needs a CJ who is also mired in controversy.
Only an idiot will believe that the new CJ will not bend backwards in cases involving his former political masters. He has to repay those who has put him. Surely he was promoted over more experienced judges for a purpose.
Are there no qualified judges that he has to be given a 5-step jump?
Looks like in this country Chinese and Indians are not qualified for high judicial office.
Whats the point of debating the appointment of the CJ? We know the thick skinned UMNO warlords don’t give a damn. Debating is not going to change a thing.
I would like to provide some food for thought. Here are some quotes from Sun Tzu:
“Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence”
(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when
not to fight.
(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior
and inferior forces.
…
(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy unprepared.
This is called Winning by Stratagem.
UMNO has won one of the biggest battle by getting C J Zaki up there. The reason is very simple. The mismanagement and corruption during BN’s rule especially in Selangor, Perak and Pinang will continue to surface and be taken to court. So C J Zaki is there to look into the problems for the UMNO BAD GUYS.
Don’t get me wrong : I have no particular reason to particularly or strongly advocate Tun Zaki Azmi’s appointment as Chief Justice or defend reservations against it.
It is just that the government is definitely not appointing the likes of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (perceived pro judicial reforms by public) as Chief Justice.
According to grapevine, the fore runners for the position appeared, as far as government is concerned, to narrow down to betweeen Zaki and two others ie. the Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, the Chief Judge of Malaya and the Federal Court judge Datuk Ariffin Zakaria.
I have no particular reason to think Zaki is either more or less independent of the Executive than the other two.
It is just that I don’t think his past association with UMNO would make him any particularly more beholdened to the Executive as compared to the other two not so associated in the past! And controversies regarding his private marital life are not a disqualifying factor as far as I am concerned. It is a personal view, without expectations that others would agree with me on this point.
However, between the three eligibles, at least Zaki brings with him professional private practice experience. The other were both career officers from the Judicial and Legal Service before their elevation to the bench. Zaki served for a while in the Judicial and Legal Service before going into private practice but after going into successful private practice he ought to know the workings of the corporate and commercial world from that exposure, which to me is plus point but whether he is a also good administrator or even a better legal mind (relevant for the position) than the other two, I personally do not know.
As most of us are laymen, and speaking as someone who does not know Zaki personally, it would be natural for me to give some deference and weight to how the legal experts in the Malaysian Bar/Bar Council view this appointment.
The Bar Council basically endorses Zaki’s appointment but with a qualifier. Whilst congratulating Zaki, the Bar Council said that: “There are the added concerns of his previous business interests and his involvement in Umno. We trust these concerns will be dispelled by a display of integrity and exemplary performance on the bench by Tan Sri Zaki. Society must be left in no doubt that the Judiciary is free from any allegiances or alliances and that it is above reproach in all respects.”
In a way, the Bar Council has reason to favour its own kind since Zaki amongst the other eligibles enjoys the distinction of being the only member of the Bar elevated straight to the Federal Court. The Bar/Bar Council also have no complaint of Zaki’s conduct so far as a judge. There is no complaint of bias, whether actual or perceived.
However, that aside, the Malaysian Bar and Bar Council have, in my assessment, a relatively strong measure of independence based on its/their record of speaking for the Rule of Law and against Executive Abuse of Power and I have no particular reason to question its/their quaslified endorsement of Zaki’s appointment!
On the other hand I have no particular reason to defer to politicians’ opinion on both side of the divide (BN’s politicians will be pro and PR’s probably anti the appointment) over the opinion of the politically independent independent Bar/Bar Council. After all practising lawyers are the people who make a daily liiving going to courts and their opinion is comparatively informed, so to speak.
I am saying this just so that the my position on Zaki’s appointment and the correct nuance of my defence of that appointment so far is not misunderstood by readers and posters here.
Jeffrey said , “..controversies regarding his private marital life are not a disqualifying factor..”
Tearing of the marriage certificate reflects on his character- the inclination to deceive, to cover up. Does this speak of integrity?
Put it this way. An irresponsible husband, father, wife, mother will not make a responsible judge, leader, etc
Malaysia’s judiciary in under the control of the executive and used by the executive to propagate their agenda, comparable to countries like Zimbawe, Sudan, Ethiopia…
It was all started during the last administration under Mahathir. Judiciary was never the same any more.
So long the administration remains the same under the same party and same paradigm, there will not any light at the end of the tunnel for reform and independence of Judiaciary in Malaysia. There is no political will to do it.
Judges wanting the top job must come squeaky clean both in their public lives and private lives. Zaki certainly falls short.
The bar is set too low. It is time to raise the bar.
Drawing an adverse inference of a person’s fitness and capability to discharge public office duties from his private relations (ie succesor or failure as husband or father etc) is at best precarious.
It could be easily rebutted by examples of many outstanding judges with fractured marital life and rumours or facts of marital infidelity as those whose marital lives have been ordered, structured and, by repute, “good” by society’s norms.
Some may even have wives who are such shrews that they could drive an otherwise perfectly normal husband to do desperate things far worse than just tearing marriage certificate or leaving the marital home…
When it comes to private relations at close quarters like marital relations, it is difficult to generalise unless you know the inside facts in totality.
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. …” so said the famous and outstanding American Judge Learned Hand, whose own personal marital life had not been free of controversy. :)
The independence, impartiality & integrity of the judiciary is suspect
Which prompts our PM to make reforms to restore public respect
Will the appointment of CJ Zaki show a brighter prospect
Or will it be business as usual as of the past aspect
Does CJ mean “Court Jester” in this case?
It is noteworthy that YB Kit Siang’s expression of what constitutes “legitimate concerns, widespread reservations and public objections” to Zaki’s elevation as Chief Justice is judiciously confined to two areas: (1) “Zaki’s quintuple or five-step jump up the judicial hierarchy in slightly over a year” and (2) “Zaki’s close and long association with UMNO as UMNO lawyer” to the total exclusion of matters pertaining to his private marital controversies or the alleged tearing of marriage certificate (issued by Thai authorities) incident.
YB Kit said: “The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had promised judicial reform to top his final short-list of three reforms …”
Yes I can now see the reform. In fact I already saw it coming sometime ago. Can you guys?
See YB Kit mentioned “Zaki’s quintuple or five-step jump up the judicial hierarchy in slightly over a year, being appointed straight to the Federal Court without any earlier appointment as High Court Judge and Court of Appeal Judge, then elevation as Court of Appeal President and now Federal Court Chief Justice …”
There you are. That’s the reform badawi was talking about.
Never before in the history of malaysian judiciary appointment has such a thing happen. Even mahathir in his 20+ yrs did not come up with something close this wonderful reform. He only managed to dismiss some FCJs and lecture some HCJs.
Badawi can equally argue since there are widespread reservations that existing members of the Judiciary might be influenced by culture of executive interference during the Mahathir years – and the existing judges at the higher heirarchy promoted by earlier CJs (in Kit’s words) “mired in controversy”, would it not be better to parachute someone from outside (from the profession) rather than those from Judicial and Legal Service with pro govt mindset to undertake reforms? He would not – like the rest from the same flock of same origin – carry historical baggage of having forged alliances with judicial brethens, condoned one another’s bad practices, to hamper his attempts at reform. At least those whom he seeks to discipline could not turn around to the boss Zaki to say, “hey I have seen you done this and this before that you didn’t complain then but would want to change now!”
# undergrad2 Says:
Today at 09: 41.53 (3 hours ago)
Judges wanting the top job must come squeaky clean both in their public lives and private lives. Zaki certainly falls short.
Well said!
This goes for ALL senior government officials, including ministers because they have the destiny of all of us in their hands. So, shouldn’t we want only the best of the best for these posts? Or is our destiny not worth anything?
Many Malaysians, after being short changed by the government for decades, are short changing themselves without any prompting from the government!
They are like robots.
///Badawi can equally argue since there are widespread reservations that existing members of the Judiciary might be influenced by culture of executive interference during the Mahathir years – and the existing judges at the higher heirarchy promoted by earlier CJs (in Kit’s words) “mired in controversy”, would it not be better to parachute someone from outside ///–Jeffrey
Interesting observation. We can even say that others who should have been in the line-up are not there anyway. Also, instead of allowing persons favoured by TDM to reach the top, a change is in order. Since the judiciary has been so screwed up, there is no easy solution to rectify the situation. A change of governemnt now might not even do it.
Jeffrey:
Since you are so much in favour of giving Zaki a chance, can you tell us if you have read any of his judgments during his stint as President of the Court of Appeals ?
I find your defence of a person of loose morals rather distressing, especially if it is for high office – like Zaki and Chua Soi Lek.
Zaki’s elevation to the post of CJ wasn’t due to Badawi’s foresight at all. He was the choice of the UMNO Supreme Council, and the manner in which they imposed this candidate on us over a period of 2 years was disgusting.
Jeffrey’s statement that “At least those whom he seeks to discipline could not turn around to the boss Zaki to say, “hey I have seen you done this and this before that you didn’t complain then but would want to change now!”” cuts both ways. With UMNO, it will be more of a “nod” and a “wink” to Zaki to say “hey, you know the rules and you know what UMNO wants”.
In response to Godfather’s posting 21: 46.21, No, I have not read any of Zaki’s judgment.
In the first place I don’t think he has stayed long enough on the bench to render many significant landmark decisions that people like you and I would be acquainted with.
I have also in earlier posting Today at 06: 34.07 explained the basis of my comments and brilliance of judgment was not one of the basis.
Besides I wonder who amongst those those who have been negative towards his appointment had read any of his judgment to form a negative opinion. Have you?
It is a mistake to think that the role of a Chief Justice is mainly to sit as judge and hence render good judgment.
This is not so. Hearing cases – a purely judicial duty – takes up but a small part of his overall responsibilities because very few appeals reach his level. The high court judges below hear more cases.
Other broader and wide ranging duties and responsibilities besides judicial are:
1. administrative duties : he runs the court system, assign cases and divide responsibilities to hear cases between judges; assume oversight over registrar, clerks, finances, payroll, promotion, discipline etc;
2. Liaison duties to liaise with Executive or Legislative and articulate the concerns of judiciary to these other branches of government and smoothen the rucks if any in these relationships between the Courts and Legislative or Executive;
3. Public Relations duties : inform the Bar Association the latest procedures in the Courts, attend seminars, conferences, talks organised by other professional bodies or universities;
4. Help develop the law by highlighting to government/AG Chambers what are the problems related to the law or loopholes in legislations that need correction and this would include suggestions for judicial reforms as well.
I also think it is very judgmental to describe him a “person of loose morals”, a very unfortunate choice of word and description, assuming the word and description correspond to the thinking process.
It is beyond the purview of this thread otherwise I would like to go further to ask what exactly are morals considered loose and the basis by which you come to such a conclusion.
Jeffrey:
Yes, we should perhaps discuss loose morals since you don’t appear to understand what they are.
1. Chasing skirts in the office, and making sexist, suggestive comments to women half your age is inappropriate. Since you are fond of quoting UK and US examples of the CJ or the Lord Chancellor, this act alone would disqualify Zaki.
2. Getting married at the border to circumvent what was at the time local syariah laws is inappropriate. Worse, changing your mind when caught and leaving the new “spouse” high and dry is not the act of a honourable man.
3. Cheating on the wife and family is defined as loose morals.
Zaki could have “recused” himself from the post, just like judges do from time to time when there is a conflict of interest, but he did not. He was planted there by UMNO years ago – hence the stellar rise of the man in multiple “jumps” to the top post. Does this smell OK to you, Jeffrey ?
Another thing, Jeffrey. If all those examples of loose morals I described above were to happen during the confirmation hearings of any US Supreme Court justice, do you seriously think that the candidate would be confirmed ? If the Lord Chancellor in the UK as so appointed would survive the exposure of such loose morals ?
UMNO is upholding…the legacy of Mathathir.
Be prepared for another dictatorship government…to shut Malaysians mouth…under UMNO.
“Getting married at the border to circumvent what was at the time local syariah laws” is immoral? If so, falling in love for the second time (after one is married) with another woman is immoral. I know some otherwise responsible people who in matters of the heart like this crossed the border because by local syariah law here, they are not permitted by sharia to get married the second time because the wife here would not give consent under any circumstances or unless with a huge financial settlement…..
Burning that Perlis marriage certificate to hide the marriage from his first wife was an act that both he and Nor Hayati Yahaya, 32, agreed to. This is because the first wife would not permit it and the law favoured her, not that it was anything wrong about the law or the first wife per se at that.
However getting married in a textile shop in Perlis presided by a kadi from Thailand when the second (Nor Hayati) was pregnant (if her sworn statement may be believed) was an act attempting to give a measure of decent legitimacy to the innocent “to be borned” child.
Deceiving a first wife? Yes it was. Even if a person wants to be honest in emotions, the law that favours the first wife intervenes to prohibit or put obstacle to the change in heart.
As Justice Learned Hand said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it” but yet the law seeks to restrain it!
If this act, like adultery and having clandestine relations with another woman hidden from the wife and deceiving her is “loose morals” then a lot of men in this world have “loose morals” (which you don’t know about) because it was not made public.
In affairs of such nature backed by “100 SMS messages” it is, as always, a triumph of emotions over logic, a “foolish” condition that has afflicted men of greater public achievement and higher office than the person under discussion.
The fact that a man holds certain position and has certain financial means therefor attractive to many of the opposite sex who throw temptations along the way does not help in discipline of emotions.
The fact that you or I were not so foolishly afflicted is not a license to judge adversely others so afflicted. We are also not in the same situation as them.
Why does a man do all this? He falls in love that he cannot help it. One can say its sublimal lust, an act of testosterone, raging unrestrained libido and if this were the case, then maybe you who has tighter morals in this respect are not so well endowed or cursed by Nature by this natural biological imperative to ride that moral high horse!
Looking at bigger picture it may well be a foolish act and some like Undergrad2 who demands a person holding high public office is ‘squeaky’ clean in the sense of ‘free from controversy’ (to put up with our collective hypocrisy of “good morality”) is entitled to the opinion – but to readily say a person is by such circumstances of “loose morals” is being lose and fast with words and when applied to a person of standing, especially a sitting judge to be CJ based on mere unproven allegations of the second wife is skating on the thin edge of contempt of court and exposes this blog to risks of a defamation/libel suit.
“However getting married in a textile shop in Perlis presided by a kadi from Thailand when the second (Nor Hayati) was pregnant (if her sworn statement may be believed) was an act attempting to give a measure of decent legitimacy to the innocent “to be borned” child.”
Decent legitimacy ? What about khalwat ?
“If this act, like adultery and having clandestine relations with another woman hidden from the wife and deceiving her is “loose morals” then a lot of men in this world have “loose morals” (which you don’t know about) because it was not made public.”
Not a lot of men want to be CJ of a democratic country. Not a lot of men want to claim leadership of a community or country. Not a lot of men have to set good examples to the community.
“Burning that Perlis marriage certificate to hide the marriage from his first wife was an act that both he and Nor Hayati Yahaya, 32, agreed to. This is because the first wife would not permit it and the law favoured her, not that it was anything wrong about the law or the first wife per se at that. ”
I don’t know the part about it not being anything wrong. My understanding was that it violated syariah decrees in that the consent of the first wife was needed for the second marriage to be valid. This was done knowingly.
Out of love or out of lust, this man’s actions should have precluded him from holding such a high office.
Today the kind of “loose morality” in respect of public officials that I am more worried about than their private sexual peccadilos and sheninegans are, to cite a few examples:-
· Persons who when caught on video evince no accountability and admission of guilt but who say “looks like me, sounds like me but……”
· Persons who privatise and piratise public funds meant for public good as if they were his own resources;
· Persons who incite racial and religious hatred and ill-will to whet the appetites for political ambitions;
· Persons who twist and turn and sign off papers incarcerating others without trial just to appease Power;
· People who bury their own mistakes of consorting with underaged girls by invoking power to send the whistle blower to jail;
· People who are authoritarian who wield power to amend our constitution abrogating our rights so that he could rein supreme;
I can go on and on.with list but you get the drift….
And many of such persons may even have “squeaky” ordered and structured family life. No extramarital affairs. No betrayal of their wives and children. Instead, an extreme doting and love for their wives and children, housing them in palatial luxurious mansions sending their wives on expensive overseas shopping trips, their children to expensive boarding schools and universities abroad…..
These are the persons who need to stay in political power at all cost to make the money to finance the life styles and prospects of their beloved wives and children and people will do anything even unconscienable things to preserve that political power at others expense and liberty.
These are the “loose morals” in so far as they relate to the public realm and public officials that I am terribly afraid of.
To take it a step further, Jeffrey, what you are afraid of will always be perpetuated if the laws were “favourably” interpreted by a compliant judiciary.
We won’t have long to find out as there are several habeas corpus applications outstanding (in respect of detention without trial), and several defamation suits outstanding against politically connected individuals and government-controlled media.
“Check and balance” does not refer to bank accounts.
The reason why UMNO has gone to such lengths to quickly promote their candidate for CJ in such an opaque manner speaks volumes for their desire to protect the sort of “loose morals” that Jeffrey described above.
The problem when discussing morals and ethics is that it gets complicated. For example the law that preserves sanctity of first marriage and condemns the second liaison due to change of human emotions to illegality without first wife’s consent.
In the second case the innocent offspring is illegitimate having no recourse in law to property and money of the father who is otherwise morally responsible for the offspring because that law says no way they can be made legitimate.
In such a case the existing law prohibits the man from doing the ethical act of vesting some rights in offspring he is responsible for.
So this guy seeks ways and means to break or circumvent the law (if he could) to do the “right” and ethical thing to the offspring of second liaison.
We say his attempt to circumvent the law and to deceive first wife protected by it is unethical.
However he tries to do the ethical thing by his offspring – to legitimise him/her – from second liaison which the law is now putting obstacles in his way. What should he do (ethically) given a bad situation of hard choices like this?
Which is more ethical, follow the first law and condemn the offspring from second liaison to perpetual illegitimacy and non recourse to his abundant property and financial resources or try circumvent the law?
By what philosophical benchmarks and rationale you would determine what is ethical to resolve such dilemmas of what is right thing to do?
hi guy
are talking about UMNO related or Malay?
To draw the inference that “UMNO has gone to such lengths to quickly promote their candidate for CJ” you have to show that the candidate in the past has a record that conduces to the kind and context of “loose morals” I am talking about.
You don’t cite examples to support your argument like “getting married in a textile shop in Perlis presided by a kadi from Thailand” and subsequenly destroying by mutual consent that certificate to deceive first wife” because these are isolated acts arising from extremely difficult personal circumstances of conflicting ethical dilemmas which are extraneous and irrelevant having no empirically verifiable nexus and logical connection to the kind of misfeasances and loose morals I was talking about in my posting at 07: 44.06 (25 minutes ago).
This is precisely the point!
And you will note that that is precisely the point why Kit Siang has the good sense and fairness not to cite the kind of “private” loose morals you are taking about when he talks of what constitutes “legitimate concerns, widespread reservations and public objections” to Zaki’s elevation as Chief Justice in this blog thread – my posting yesterday at 13: 03.29
refers.
Its has been too late for sometime already to talk about zaki’s appointment as cj. And now that he is officially the GUY, there is nothing very much we could do. Remember, it takes a mahathir to remove a fcj and a cj at that. And there is only one such mahathir around. Thank God for that and hopefully, mahathirism will never ever re-surface.
So zaki has to prove his independence and impartiality, some said. What has he to prove and how? By passing impartial judgments? But the law on this particular issue is not about passing impartial judgments and results merely. The law actually uses a different yardstick to measure impartiality. The law talks about appearance of impartiality. Not only must a judge be impartial in fact, he must also be impartial in appearance.
So if the current RPK vs Home Minister case went to the FC on appeal, for appearance of impartiality sake zaki should never sit and hear it. He must get some else to do it. Even then, in the minds of the public there is still this doubt which will dent that important appearance of impartiality – that zaki being the head of judiciary would wield an influence over other judges, somehow. In which event, the public would not be disposed to accept anything less than a judgment in RPK’s favour as the true equivalent of zaki’s independence and impartiality. Any other way the decision went would be interpreted as unfair and biased.
Umno obviously thought that it was a great idea to make zaki cj. It is not. In fact it is obvious to all that this same appointment would lend them in trouble big time. But how can we tell them? It would have been easier if they are products of a system where meritocracy is supreme.
“It is a mistake to think that the role of a Chief Justice is mainly to sit as judge and hence render good judgment.
This is not so. Hearing cases – a purely judicial duty – takes up but a small part of his overall responsibilities because very few appeals reach his level. The high court judges below hear more cases.
Other broader and wide ranging duties and responsibilities besides judicial are:
1. administrative duties : he runs the court system, assign cases and divide responsibilities to hear cases between judges; assume oversight over registrar, clerks, finances, payroll, promotion, discipline etc;
2. Liaison duties to liaise with Executive or Legislative and articulate the concerns of judiciary to these other branches of government and smoothen the rucks if any in these relationships between the Courts and Legislative or Executive;
3. Public Relations duties : inform the Bar Association the latest procedures in the Courts, attend seminars, conferences, talks organised by other professional bodies or universities;
4. Help develop the law by highlighting to government/AG Chambers what are the problems related to the law or loopholes in legislations that need correction and this would include suggestions for judicial reforms as well.” – Jeffrey
In spite of what you said above, as a Chief Justice, isn’t it possible for him to “lean” on his subordinates?
Just a little? When the need arises?
“Which is more ethical, follow the first law and condemn the offspring from second liaison to perpetual illegitimacy and non recourse to his abundant property and financial resources or try circumvent the law?”
Let’s take this line of argument i.e. it is morally wrong to have illicit sex, and make an unmarried woman pregnant, and it is also morally wrong to deny that the child is yours, so with this dilemma, what is one to do ?
First, the person has committed khalwat and zina, and subsequently marrying the woman doesn’t absolve him of those crimes under syariah law. If I am not mistaken, there is no statute of limitations under syariah law, so what if there is a videotape of the CJ’s indiscretions ? Even without a videotape, one could infer from the timing that the child was conceived out of wedlock.
Again, if Marilyn Monroe were made pregnant by JFK or if Monica Lewinsky were made pregnant by Clinton, what would these guys have done ?
If we are going down the path of determining “acceptable” indiscretions as they apply to high office, then there could be only one definition – any indiscretion that could potentially be the subject of blackmail or ridicule is not an acceptable indiscretion.
Jeffrey talks about the fear of having people in high office who steal and who abuse their power. I submit that the greater fear is that these people surround themselves with enough “protection” through cronies and relatives (in the prosecutorial organs and the judiciary) that make their crimes impossible to unravel.
Another greater fear is that investors see this as another black eye in the promise of accountability, transparency and impartiality. Most businesses now require a minimum 30 pct bumiputra participation, and we know that the beneficiaries of such participation are determined by politicians in power. Can the interpretation of the law be fair and transparent ? Could the Stamford land case in Johor be repeated ?
Lastly, Jeffrey warns that there might be legal implications for this blog if the CJ’s past indiscretions were somehow defined here as “loose morals”. I think this is paranoid thinking. It is clearly my definition, and not LKS’s.
To Damocles : the answer is yes. it happens. Has/had happened.
The manner in which Jeffrey was defending Zaki made me think that he (Jeffrey) was Ling Sr in defending indiscretions for high officials. Blame it all on raging male hormones, and everything will be alright.
For benefit of readers here, the cause of action for libel/defamation lies on publication of statements affecting a person’s repute and standing for which no justification of truth could be proven as a defence to it. Since it is based on publication per se it matters not whether the libellous statement is published as Kit Siang’s statement or the statement of any commentator here.
To say what I said was “paranoid thinking” is ignorant. If what I say is not true above why the need for moderator to moderate comments (not made by blog owner)?
So Jeffrey, QC, if I own up to making the supposedly libellious comments about a particular individual, and am prepared to face any action in a court of law, LKS would not be able to get off the hook ? You mean I’ve been calling a certain leader “stupid”, “ignorant”, “Forrest Gump”, and “Sleepy Ears”, and LKS could be sued for defamation and any admission on my part would be useless ?
I’m a simpleton, and I may be ignorant about the law. I ought to be more careful since Kasim Amat and others have threatened to take action against me for calling UMNO a den of thieves. Help !
“Getting married at the border to circumvent what was at the time local syariah laws is inappropriate. Worse, changing your mind when caught and leaving the new “spouse” high and dry is not the act of a honourable man.” Godfather
Look guys. The post of top judge is no ordinary position. Zaki may have what it takes to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and his private life matters not one iota. But the post of CJ is no ordinary post. The man for the job should be free from controversty of any kind. In Zaki’s case his reckless disregard for the law when it comes to his own personal affairs is too glaring to be ignored.
Here is a man who ‘cheated’ on his wife, who carried on a clandestine relationship with a woman half his age, married her to satisfy his lust for younger women, in a foreign jurisdiction knowing that the marriage would not be legal in his own jurisdiction, a man whose wife threw him out of their house together with his clothes and who has had to live in an apartment in Bangsar by himself.
Is this the kind of guy you want to be the country’s top judge?? Be serious!
It is not the fact that he ‘cheated’ on his wife but his reckless wlful disregard for the law when it serves his interest that should worry you guys!
It’s what UMNO has in store for the new CJ that worries me !
When monkey becomes the zoo keeper, the zoo will be messed up in no time !