The announcement by the newly-appointed Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi, who as a lawyer had represented Umno, that he would as far as possible avoid hearing cases involving the political party (or as Star headlined “No Umno cases for now”) is a step in the right direction to disprove doubters wrong about his suitability as the No.1 in the judiciary.
This is however only a small beginning if Zaki is to dispel all the doubts even the most non-partisan in Malaysia entertain about his controversial appointment as Chief Justice.
Public disappointment at the appointment of Zaki as Chief Justice had been most palpable especially as the the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had promised judicial reform to top his final short-list of three reforms before stepping down from office next March – but Zaki’s appointment as Chief Justice was made in disregard of the spirit of judicial reform and there was no consultation whatsoever with the major stakeholders in the country, whether Bar Council, MPs or the civil society.
As I had said before, MPs who had grave reservations about Zaki’s fast-track appointment as Chief Justice had two options after his elevation: 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 belong to the latter category and I will like to see Zaki proving all the doubters of his appointment wrong.
Malaysians are hungry for a Chief Justice they can be proud of, as for two decades, the judiciary had proved to be the weakest link of the Malaysian system of governance – even weaker than Parliament.
The judiciary is the last bastion of the constitutional rights and fundamental liberties of Malaysians to protect them from the excesses and corruption of executive power but the judiciary had been an abysmal failure in this regard.
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.
Two others, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah and Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamed were basically “stop-gap” Chief Justices, who were unable to carry out any institutional reforms to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary, although the former must be credited with “stopping the rot” in the judiciary.
Can Zaki restore Malaysia to its pristine credibility, integrity and high international esteem it had enjoyed until two decades ago, painstakingly nurtured by his predecessors before 1988 including his father Tun Azmi Mohamad – despite coming to the highest judicial office in the land with very “heavy baggage” from the past? This is Zaki’s greatest challenge and test as Chief Justice.
Zaki’s interview with Bernama Chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Annuar Zaini is however a cause for concern, as in a matter of 24 hours, he seemed to have quickly backtracked from his zeal and fervour against corruption in the judiciary reflected in his speech at the panel on “Integrity, the Catalyst for Sustainable Development” at the national integrity convention in Kuching on Friday to one which is equivalent to a denial syndrome, when he said: “From my observation, if there had been one or two corrupt judges before, now there is none.”
Let me remind Zaki of the latest survey among expatriate business executives in Asia by the Hong-Kong based Political and Economic Risks Consultancy (Perc) in September which 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.
Another local survey last month 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.
These surveys should banish from Zaki any denial complex about the need for a root-and-branch overhaul of the judiciary, if Malaysians are to be proud of the judiciary again as two decades ago.
Zaki should not be too quick to declare that there is no corruption in the judiciary, when he had just painted, and truly, a picture of grave corruption in the judiciary in his talk in Kuching last Friday.
I think he should hear UMNO cases asp to show that he can judge without fear or favour.
It is a flawed argument that people’s perception will change over time. Let them make proper written judgements that people can analyse for bias etc.
http://malaysiawatch4.blogspot.com/2008/11/malaysiakini-and-new-chief-justice-new.html
YB Kit said that he belonged to category two group of people who would rather “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”.
Be careful Kit, lest you might be chastised by Godfather who in posting today at 16:09.38 in earlier thread [MCAC – 3 reasons why no confidence in Abdullah’s last fling with anti-corruption reform] just derided giving “Zaki a chance to do an exceptionally good act despite his immoral past” or for that matter “Chua Soi Lek a chance to do good despite his lack of moral fibre”. :)
On the thread subject however, even if he were to tackle judicial corruption, he could not be expected to immediately name publicly this or that judge as being corrupt based on suspicions only without clear evidence.
His statement “From my observation, if there had been one or two corrupt judges before, now there is none” should perhaps be better viewed in this context, at least in the beginning, rather than dismissed as “denial syndrome”.
Meanwhile as I commented in earlier thread, it is a promising start that under Zaki’s stewardship as Chief Justice, the Judiciary suspected of being tainted with executive bias since 1988 has delivered an exceptional decision of Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy to release Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) under the Internal Security Act.
According to RPK’s lead counsel, Malik Imtiaz, this was the first time a Malaysian court has ordered the release of an ISA detainee since 1989!
Zaki,
Why “No UMNO cases for now”?!
If you are impartial, unbiased, clean, honest, do not take bribes and ruled with a conscience, you have nothing to fear – be they UMNO or PR cases for NOW or for the FUTURE.
YB Kit, in Malaysia not only the judiciary needs overhaul, in fact all other agencies need overhaul. There is a need to revamp and introduce a new selection system for all the top appointment posts for all government agencies.
The country will remain mired and as long as change doesn’t happen, don’t expect any progress and improvement, The element of transparency and accountability must top the criteria, beside qualification and experience and who ever is selected must place the nation interest without fear or favor.
Institutional change must take place. This changes is paramount or else the country will remain with liabilities and may be a burden that can be disastrous
to the nation.
GOOD LUCK
Of course Zaki now has an ardent supporter who believes that his immoral past has no bearing on the possibility of an “exceptionally honest” future.
Justice Syed Helmy’s decision to release RPK does not a summer make. Suddenly the rain clouds have disappeared and the sun is shining strongly again under the stewardship of Zaki. Yeah, right. My business partner Kasim Amat would agree wholeheartedly with Jeffrey.
Yes the judiciary is corrupt,no the judiciary is not corrupt.This flip flop by Tan Sri Zaki, doesn’t it remind us of something?
Justice Syed Helmy’s decision is as I said a ‘promising start’ : a promising start does not conote a promising end. I have neither said Justice Syed Helmy’s decision to release RPK a summer make nor suddenly the rain clouds have disappeared and the sun is shining strongly again under the stewardship of Zaki”. These are conclusions attributed to me that any person who reads objectively what has been commented will not make. Also judging Zaki by what he does, as he goes along, which is giving Zaki the opportunity to acquit himself based on what he does or will do than merely prejuding him based on his so called “immoral past” or association with UMNO (as what Kit and I incline to do) makes neither of us by that inclination of view alone ardent “supporter” of Zaki.
It amazes me how Godfather extrapolates from one thing to another… drawing a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming that because one wants to give Zaki a fair chance based on actual record of what he could do as a CJ, it automatically or logically implies one is an ardent fan of Zaki or that one’s statement of a ‘promising start’ is equal to saying that judicial scene has changed from darkness to sunlit skies in a permanent way…Anwar himself in same vein has commented that “recent court decisions had “given us hope” of shedding away the “dark recesses of the judiciary’s checkered history”. This however – he was careful to qualify – did not suggest that the judiciary is truly independent yet.
When someone states “A” which is justifiable on the basis of the facts existing, it is an unfair and fallacious approach to discussion to extrapolate/ exaggerate by restating that he had said A+B (which is not justifiable on the basis of the facts existing) just so in order to contradict him and discredit “A” that he has stated, when plainly, he didn’t state +B attributed to him at all….
If our lawyer friend had simply said that we should not rush to judgment, whether it is for Zaki’s effectiveness, or for the setting up of the commission against corruption, then there would be no issue with that statement. However, to justify that statement that “a dishonest person could well do an exceptional honest act” is simply mind-boggling in the context of Bolehland politics.
The mere facts that (a) Zaki has admitted to giving bribes as a lawyer and (b) Zaki knows of two corrupt judges but chooses not to take action on account that they have already retired, are sufficient grounds to call for his resignation. People with no moral fibre have no right to govern or to enforce the laws of this country.
Well, I would like to say that what he says not necessary be the same at the end. Can you all remember what our PM promised us when the first day he became PM and now what he did before he is going to step down?
Of course, I would prefer the later, which is for him to prove himself being away from political cases and will judge a case in a fair, just, impartial and unbais manner.
My comment about Jeffrey being an “ardent” supporter of Zaki’s was based on a thread several weeks ago when he (Jeffrey) forcefully argued that Zaki’s immoral past was his (Zaki’s) personal business and should not be used by others as fodder to question his effectiveness as CJ.
Yes, Jeffrey’s defence of Zaki’s past immoral acts entitles me to infer that Jeffrey is an ardent supporter of the CJ.
I happen to draw a line between private morality and public morality.
I happen to hold higher a person’s right to private life that should be free from public intrusion.
That would include an individual’s private conduct (previous matrimonial problems and affairs) which is not a governmental or societal concern because they don’t affect us (unless we extrapolate that with such private conduct they will either not discharge their public duties efficiently or would do so in a way inimical to public interest).
In comparison, public morality refers to the conduct that affects other individuals or the larger society, and which should be governed by externally imposed laws and norms such as for examples acountability, transparency in discharging public office duties and integrity in not accepting bribes etc.
I have defended Zaki, as I would, Chuah Soi Lek or anybody – which does not imply I am necessarily an ardent supporter of anyone defended – based on a defence in principle of this bifurcation between public morality and private morality, preferring to judge them based on the results when they are actually performing their public job.
Whether or not you would agree with the relevance or irrelevance of such a distinction between private and public morality is a thing – ie a value judgment – separate and apart from what we are arguing here about, and constitutes another subject of debate.
YB LKS and Bar Council chairman have not held it against Zaki – his appointment as CJ – based on his past controversial matrimonial relations or alleged sexual romps.
Most people who have misgivings and reservations about Zaki’s appointment rest their misgivings and reservations on the basis of his past association with UMNO – which is quite different from Godfather’s allusion to “immoral past”, which he says I defend.
I may plead an understanding for but that is quite distinct from defending or praising his manner of conduct of private matrimonial life or private relations with members of opposite sex as a model for all to emulate.
I just think that it irrelevant for purposes of imputing fitness of holding office.
Whether one agrees with that value judgment or not is another matter, an opinion that others may well be entitled to hold different : that is howver not a basis to extrapolate and infer I am his ardent supporter or defender of his exploits just because I draw the line between porivate and public morality.
It is very obfuscated thinking to infer otherwise.
Godfather,
The issue is whether private acts of a person in the past—can and do have public consequences of his carrying out public office properly or improperly.
One like myself may think it is not necessarily the case, so lets judge based on how he performs. Others may think different. So there is one argument on the principle of that.
It has nothing to do with ardent supporter of the person or defence of his exploits.
It is about the defence of the principle of whether or not a distinction should be drawn between his private affairs, when he was not then a judge and his capability to hold public office now.
There is no need to skew an argument over a principle like that and extrapolate/extend it to infer on personal level that one who supports that principle of maintaining the distinction is equal to being an ardent supporter of Zaki.
As I said before you have the propensity to confuse and mix up issues being discussed.
Listen up you guys!! The job of CJ is no ordinary job. Few would have the resume required to meet the job description. Even fewer would have achieved the moral high ground required for the job. It is not a job for those who have neither.
If you have one and not the other, then you have neither.
“(Jeffrey) forcefully argued that Zaki’s immoral past was his (Zaki’s) personal business and should not be used by others as fodder to question his effectiveness as CJ.”
It is his ‘personal business’ to lead his life as he pleases, but who says he has to take the job as top judge??
oooops ‘live his life as he pleases’
Those are not mere peccadilloes but major scandals involving a man widely deemed today as unsuitable to hold the top job in the judicial branch. It may be political fodder to the opposition but it is the requirement plain and simple demanded by all right thinking Malaysians that only the best and the finest should hold this job. It should also be the requirement of a government which says it subscribes to the doctrine of separation of checks that a man long immersed and at the forefront of partisan politics is just not suitable for the job.
“DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang today questioned new Chief Justice Zaki Azmi as to why he has not lodged a report against “two corrupt judges he knows personally” to the Anti-Corruption Agency.” KIT
That could make him potentially an accessory after the fact! There is no statute of limitations on crimes.
oooops separation of powers’ not ‘checs’
Can Zaki prove his doubters wrong??
Why do we have to settle on somebody who needs to prove anything. There are others equally qualified who do not have to prove anything.
i agree with undergrad2……..why do we have to waste our time by apointing a cheif judge who have to prove himself first….There are lots of them out there who are more qualified for the position and yet there is no need for them to prove thier abilities……..
Zaki won’t be able to live that long to settle UMNO involved cases (too many). He MIGHT do a good job if PKR takes over the whole goverment.
I agree with undergrad. “Why do we have to settle on somebody who needs to prove anything. There are others equally qualified who do not have to prove anything.”
Remember the Eurocopter deal when the Bolehland ministers confirm the purchase without a physical test drive? BUY FIRST, then see if it is good?
Tis one same la. Don’t appoint someone and let him prove his capability when there are others who ALREADY have many years track record to show!
Bolehland…. Sheeshhhhh. May God help Malaysia.
Yeah, but we have a defender of Zaki’s here who draws a distinction between “private” morality and “public” morality, the defence being that private morality should have little or no impact on public office.
Yeah, it’s between me and God, I’ve made my confession, and so I am now cleansed of my immoral past. Hahahaha……I must have been so stupid as not to raise my hand for the job of Chief Justice !
In Zaki’s case, an affidavit detailing his “indiscretions” was never repudiated. In CSL’s case, his “indiscretion” was videotaped and CSL admitted that he was the porn actor in the video. Both private immoral acts are now public. One has become CJ, and the other may just become a senior minister.
As Undergrad2 says, are we so short of good and eligible people that we have to start defending those who are clearly handicapped ?
This isn’t a case of “buy first and see if it is good” or “let’s give him a chance to show how good he is”. This is an orchestrated case by UMNO over several years to ensure that their candidate gets the top judicial post.
The old mamakthir used to keep dossiers of those who worked for him – of private and public acts that could be used against them should they “turn” against the government.
It would be foolish for anyone to assume that UMNO no longer uses such tactics to ensure that their people stay in line with party objectives.
On the matter of why do we have to settle on somebody who needs to prove anything when there are others equally if not more qualified to do the job who do not have to prove anything, this is true, and a question to be addressed to the UMNO government.
As regards Zaki, we do not know for a fact that he vied/lobbied for the job. We however know he accepted the appointment of CJ.
It might be argued that he should voluntrily recuse himself because of his past private controversy – that his acceptance of appointment should not be lauded as it is a mere expression and normal human susceptibility sullied by the quest for vanity, fame, glory.
Or it may be something nobler that we don’t know.
When requested by the PM/Government to do a job like CJ, an individual, in spite of his own misgivings, might think it a situation not permitting a choice : for such a request imposed a duty – national duty.
If it were rejected, he could blame himself or be blamed by people otherwise favourably disposed towards him for every judiciary reform or policy failure occuring by reason of another less competent and more beholdened in attitude to UMNO than him appointed by the UMNOputras as his replacement by reason of his decline of the job.
It may be argued that his immoral/tainted private past would not render him fit and proper to hold the post, that there ought to b e no distinction between private morality breached in the past and public morality to be observed for the present if the CJ job were accepted. Different people would have different views on this though I support the principle of maintaining that distinction.
However that is an issue for debate left for another occasion.
Suffice for now, what I have expressed may be revisted in in posting at 01: 14.23 (7 hours ago). It isn’t about this debate about private vs public morality and relevance topublic office.
It is about twisting peoples’ word, extrapolating someone’s position on “A” to something he never said (“A+B) in order to discredit original position “A”.
It is about ingrained habit to indulge in irrelevant non sequiter arguments in public discussion (eg imputing unto others what they have not said) that only serves to obfuscate than clarify the issues for discussion on the table…..
To attack the government for such a choice and its motivations is a separate issue from attacking Zaki the man for his acceptance of the offer and his motivations behind such acceptance.
Who “attacked” Zaki for his acceptance of the offer ? It was probably an offer made by UMNO that Zaki could not refuse.
It is all about an ingrained habit to write long and flowery sentences which only serve to confuse readers of non-legal background and perhaps even masquerade the true intentions of the writer.
“It isn’t about this debate about private vs public morality and relevance topublic office.” Jeffrey
He must be on a different planet if this thread isn’t about the suitability of Zaki for public office.
“If it were rejected, he could blame himself or be blamed by people otherwise favourably disposed towards him for every judiciary reform or policy failure occuring by reason of another less competent and more beholdened in attitude to UMNO than him appointed by the UMNOputras as his replacement by reason of his decline of the job.”
Aside from the triple or quadruple negatives in this statement it also shows the “on one hand it is this, and on the other hand it is that” mentality of our lawyer friend.
Helloooo, us mere mortals don’t speculate on what if’s. What if another person takes the job and turns out to be less competent than Zaki ? Who is ever going to know since Zaki would never have had the chance to set any benchmark ? Who is ever going to know if Zaki or his replacement is going to be more beholden to UMNO ?
Pure speculation, counselor. Move to strike !
Pure speculation? No less than you are yourself speculating that because of what you dubbed as his “immoral past” he will lack present competence to execute the duties of a CJ or that there will be multitudes more c ompetent than him!
“It isn’t about this debate about private vs public morality and relevance to public office.”
It may be a debate relevant to this thread but it wasn’t the issue that we engaged in on the matter that by reason that I support the principle of private morality be not used to adjudge a person’s fitness/competence to hold public office, therefore on apersonal level I am an ardent supporter of Zaki, Dr Chuah or any person of controversial private life holding office…or the fact that (in the beginning point of argument) there might well be exceptions to what would be expected based o perceived general traits – ie. that a dishonest person doing an honest act, an authoritarian person doing a liberal act for reasons/imperatives supporting the exceptional behaviour.
When a debate/argument is on a focal point A, it is impossible to focus/exhaust it when the other side hops like a jumping b ean from A to B (befire A is settled) and from point B to another point C before B has b een settled ad infinitum.
What you said couild be put back with equal force to your argument here which is pure speculation – What if there are so many person out there who without a controversial moral past will likely prove more suitable or competent than Zaki ?
Now who is ever going to know since Zaki would never have had the chance to set any benchmark ?
Who is ever going to know Zaki’s replacement without a tainted past is going to be less beholden to UMNO ?
At the end of the day you are equally speculating (that you accuse others of) based on probabilities whether if a person behaved “X” in the past he would like wise behave “X” now in a different present position or he could be otherwise behaving different as in “Y”.
The last time I looked, there was overwhelming distaste expressed over the CJ’s appointment in this blog. As far as I know, there was only one defender of “private morality having little or no bearing on public office”.
Or maybe some of us have read your postings wrongly. Blame us non-lawyers. We are not very good at diciphering triple and quadruple negatives in one sentence !
My apologies to Jeffrey for jumping from A to B to C in such a rapid succession that he lost focus.
Yes, I understand you are still in sub-para (i) of para (a) of Clause A.
I guess I can’t blame you.
This thread has stimulated quite a bit of debating and I find undergrad2’s stand most compelling,one that I can relate well with.YB Kit’s subject of this thread ‘Can Zaki prove his doubters wrong?’ has been adroitly turned around by undergrad countering with the question “Why do we have to settle on somebody who needs to prove anything?”.
No job in the world demands out of any mortal who aspires for the job such high standard of honesty and intergrity besides being the best and finest in the land as stated by undergrad2 than that of the Chief Justice of the land.We don’t even expect such standard from that of the President or the Prime Minister since they are elected positions.
The question to ask is “Does Zaki measure up to such high standard of him when he accepts the job even though we know it has been given to him?”.
The fact that he says recently he personally knows 2 corrupt judges and hasn’t taken any action to-date plus the fact that he confesses recently that he has bribed his way to get things done do immediately speak volume for this man–that he isn’t in the company of that rare breed of men with impeccable clean bill of intergrity and honesty.There are also other incidence in his past that entrenches this fact as well.
The fact that in spite of this he still accepts the job begs the question “Can this man do anything right and proper?”.
My answer is simple,Zaki will prove doubtors right.Just wait and you guys will see the true colour of him.Who is in power,the judiciary or the executive ? Come on guys,let’s be real for goodness sake ,ok ? Like I said before,no good hunters will set trap to trap themselves, or would you guys do such thing,yes unless you guys are nuts. How can you chop off the hand which feed you.This is as simple as ABC.
Someone has said in this blog the following statement which I shall re-post for posterity:
“This kind of thinking is based on the asumption that becuase a person is dishonest then every act and proposal that emanates from him must in all instances be also dishonest, a proposition that does not allow the exceptional possibility of any honest act from a dishonest character ; and one that ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from his dishonest character that might otherwise lead to him doing an exceptional honest act.”
This is apparently not as simple as ABC.
Mark my words, this new broom sweeps clean! The layer of new paint will wear off in due course, and the leopard spots will appear once more!
It is too risky to take on a questionable character to be the CJ and then wait and see if he will perform. There is also no way we can tell if another less controversial character if appointed instead of Zaki can do a better job than him. Because results or performance are in the future, we can go on arguing for hours till we are blue in the face whether we should or should not give Zaki an opportunity to prove himself and we will come to no conclusion.
The problem is in the manner or method of selection and appointment to that high office. Granted that all new appointees would need time to show and prove his worth and therefore there would always be a certain degree of risk of making a wrong choice of appointee, we should at least reduce that risk by having an independent body to search for and vet through the candidates and by reference to highest standards choose or recommend the best one to be the CJ.
Having said that, so far as the appointment of Zaki is concerned, it is too late in the day to stop him from being the CJ. He is already the CJ and the best that we can do now vis-a-vis him or his appointment is to continuously apply pressure on him to perform to the highest judicial standards. What choice have we now except to accept him as the CJ and to give him the opportunity to prove himself?
Instead of fighting over whether we should give Zaki the opportunity, we should come together and apply pressure to have an independent body formed for the purposes of choosing and appointing the next CJ.
“Instead of fighting over whether we should give Zaki the opportunity, we should come together and apply pressure to have an independent body formed for the purposes of choosing and appointing the next CJ.”
Are you suggesting that we adopt a more transparent method when vetting the candidate for this very important job – like making him appear before a select committee a judiciary committee to answer all questions asked of him pertaining to both his public and private life? Have the proceedings telecast over TV perhaps?
HB Lim,
The “independent body” mooted by Govt is the Judicial Appointments Commission” or JAC.
Unfortunately the JAC does not select or recommend appointment of the Chief Justice.
It is not expected to be different in this respect from the JAC in the UK.
In the UK the JAC is an independent non-departmental public body that selects and ensures that the best possible candidates based on repute and merits are recommended to the Lord Chancellor for appointment as judges.
This means that the CJ’s appointment will remain political – at the UK Prime Minister’s discretion just as it would be here or for that matter in the United States in which CJ of Supreme Court is nominated by the President.
The ideal choice of a CJ will not be our call. It is always the PM’s and his ideal and the considerations behind his choice are not and never likely to be congruent with ours, Civil Society’s or the Bar’s standards or preference no matter how loud we protest.
So whatever our misgivings, concerns and reservations publicly expressed may be heard but not entertained by him for which we can do nothing because the CJ’s appointment ios the PM’s constitutional prerogative.
The appointment of Zaki is fiat acompli. As you correctly observed the best we could do is to apply pressure (combined with encouragement) in hope that he would bend backwards to do right and fair to contradict the pervasive misgivings/reservations of certain sections of the public.
Zaid Ibrahim’s initial appointment as minister in charge of judicial reforms was received with pervasive misgivings/reservations of certain sections of the public regarding his sincerity.
He was after all also a lawyer not directly for UMNO (like Zaki) but indirectly for UMNO affiliated companies which dished out by way of patronage a significant portion of privatisation contracts to his firm of which he surely benefited.
Though he failed in his reforms ostensibly by reason of widespread opposition to them from his party’s elders, he did resign on principle and today faces a show cause action for speaking out against the ISA.
He, in spite of being beneficiary of UMNO largese and one time UMNO chief in Kota Bharu, manages to prove his detractors wrong in their initial misgivings and reservations relating to the issue of his integrity.
Jeffrey:
Is Zaid your example of a “dishonest person being capable of an exceptionally honest act” ?
Or was it your earlier example of Mamakthir being a dictator who somehow saw the light and liberalised the internet sector ?
I would put it that for a politician or any person with political ambitions and outlook, it would be difficult to fix him to a certain and permanent character trait, whether honest, dishonest, authoritarian or liberal because he responds to evolving and changing conditions to suit them and the expedience of the circumstances as they serve his interest and plans at that moment.
Anwar Ibrahim of UMNO then is one radical departure from the Anwar Ibrahim of Pakatan Rakyat now.
Hey hey Godfather,please don’t get me wrong .No doubt Zaki is an honest judge as he had admitted his mistakes.Much as he wishes to be clear,clean and honest as a new CJ . Can or would he be able to function and perform as he wishes ? As those who appointed him are dishonest and corrupted hunters who liked I said would not set trap to trap themselves.I just feel sorry for our new CJ.See.seek ,and ask and time will tell you what i mean.
What do you expect from an UMNO dog? It will just wag its tail and bark when its master calls!