Posted on by Kit

How to judge the judge?

by N. H. Chan

In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:

“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.
Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”

The arrogance of a novice judge

I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.

Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:

“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.
He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.
‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”

The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:

” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.
. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”

I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae – in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:

“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”

In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.

How you can judge this judge

You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.

On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956

I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:

“(1) Notwithstanding any written law
(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “

As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.

And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:

“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party –
(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;
a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “

See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:

” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”
” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”

This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.

In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service – if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:

“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise –
(a) …
(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”

So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.

On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law

According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?

The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:

“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.

Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:

“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”

It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.

From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.

In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:

“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”

The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.

There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:

“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions – Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”

At page 193:

“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter – on House of Commons paper – to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:
Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …
That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.
The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament – in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament – as a breach of its privileges.”

At page 194:

“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports – re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 – you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”

Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion – only the majority view is given.

——————————————————————————–
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.

85 Replies to “How to judge the judge?”

  1. “You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge.” – NH Chan

    I think you underestimated Malaysians Mr Chan, we are quite familiar with the laws of the jungle, the Ketuanan Melayu Act.

  4. Common Kit you r old enough to understand the current ploitical situation. This boxing match is one of life and death. U can kick between the legs, hit below the belt, bite the ears, pull the hair, squeeze on the balls, use ur elbow, sexy film/pictures and models to distract the oponents, the referee is the financial stronger boxer himself and the comentator is also the financial stronger boxer. there is no rules of law…. only the law of jungle prevails. No wonder foreigners like to show pictures of Malaysia as a twing tower within a jungles with babarians swinging around on trees wearing the bananas skirts holding the kris crying for bloods. Hey Kit u also should be wise enough to realize that even the ….. sound like the ….. learned batek(papaya) can be bought over by contracts and handouts. Well uncle Kit I am sure u would agreed with me that whether u r the bEtek, the leaders or the presidents ultimately RESPECTS FROM THE RAKYAT COULD ONLY BE EARNED NOT BE BOUGHT OR FORCELY ENFORCED. NO RAKYAT SUPPORT – BETEK IS NOBODY, PRESIDENT IS NOBODY & LEADERS IS ALSO NOBODY. ALL OF U WHO SIT UP THERE IS NOBODY WITHOUT OUR SUPPORT. LET THIS DECISION OF WHO SIT UP THERE BE RETURNED TO THE RAKYAT TO DECIDE, NOT THE JUDICIAL, THE EXECUTIVE OR POLITICIAN. WE THE RAKYAT R FED UP WITH ALL THIS BICKERING. RETURN THE APPOINT/VOTING RIGHTS TO THE RAKYAT.

  5. it worries me that the powers to be aand the institutions like police etc are disregarding the laws and are going against the constitution. even a lay man like me can understand what is written, guess a JC can too.

    Frightening that in quest for power, there is no rules and one wants it regardless of the consequences.

    end of a democratic malaysia soon? well the people will not allow it.

  6. YB

    We are going thru’ a very critical phase in the life of our nation.

    After 50 years plus monopoly of BN rule, almost all of our institutions safeguard of democracy had been compromised.

    The Parliament + State Legislatures are the only one standing.

    Honestly, when the Perak constitutional Crisis started, i thought it was all over, but the PR fought on. My appreciation for the FIGHT FOR MALAYSIA. The Rakyat is behind you guys.

    Salute.

  7. //Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country//

    This Ridwan Ibrahim is of chief justice material. You can expect his rise in the judiciary in the same way as former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz.

    In 1995 Ahmad Fairuz, as Election Judge disqualified Wee Choo Keong as MP and appointed the loser Ayam candidate from MCA as the MP for Bukit Bintang. Few years later, Ahmad Fairuz was appointed the Chief Justice.

  8. NH Chan was an eminent judge but I am not even a lawyer but I was dumbfounded by the intrigues of the Ipoh High Court.
    Some questions come to mind.

    1. The case was filed in the morning and disposed of on the same day without giving the defendant the right of reply. More alarming when it came out with a vague and meaningless Injunction restraining the Speaker from holding “unlawful” assemblies.

    2. Why did the judge refuse to hear out The Speaker’s lawyers and why did he allowe the unconstitutionally appointed MB Zambry to be represented by ‘private’ lawyers. Shouldn’t he too be represented by the state legal adviser.

    3. Why refuse to hold the hearing in open court when there was immense public interest in the case.

    4. What would have been the judges reply had Mr Thomas argued that the court had NO JURISDICTION (locus standi) to hear the case vis a vis Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) ?

    5. A judge must be seen to be fair but I am afraid public perception is not favourable to this junior judge.

    NH Chan, we thank you for the clarification and continue to do so for the public good. I hope more retired judges will come out with similar clarifications.

  9. NH Chan argues basically on interpretation of words and how section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act (requiring State Legal officer to represent a public officer) would not apply to V Sivakumar whose position as “Speaker” is not a “public officer” by Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution!

    To me, it is just plain common sense and fairness that the government cannot have it both ways to hold dual inconsistent positions – to treat (on one hand when it suits its purpose) V Sivakumar as a ‘Speaker’ for purposes of depriving him the right to appoint his own counsel of choice, and yet deny (on the other hand, when it is inconvenient to it) that V Sivakumar could exercise his right as State Assembly Speaker, to lawfully convene a state assembly sitting (never mind whether inside the state secretariat or under a rain tree) against Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors !

    Indeed the whole Government Proceedings Act covering actions against government officers hass not contemplated much less cover a situtation of two competing governments in Perak – one led by PR and the other by BN – with the first question of which one is legitimate, being a constitutional one far exceeding the small purview of the Government Proceedings Act.

    In major issues relating to Constitution whereby the whole nation and large swathes of public are interested in its proceedings, it is of paramount importance that two cardinal principles etched in legal and constitutional stone are observed:

    1. the Rule of Natural Justice which says that in all dispute every party affected has the right to be heard on his side of the story and the right to reply if necessary via legal counsel.

    2. the Right to Counsel (also protected in our written Federal Constitution).

    The High Court ruling by Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim against V Sivakumar has ignored these two important cornerstones by reason of which alone, it ought not to be allowed to stand as good in law upon appeal to (say) an impartial Appellate Court….

  10. NH Chan argues basically on interpretation of words and how section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act (requiring State Legal officer to represent a public officer) would not apply to V Sivakumar whose position as “Speaker” is not a “public officer” by Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution!

    To me, it is just plain common sense and fairness that the government cannot have it both ways to hold dual inconsistent positions – to treat (on one hand when it suits its purpose) V Sivakumar as a ‘Speaker’ for purposes of depriving him the right to appoint his own counsel of choice, and yet deny (on the other hand, when it is inconvenient to it) that V Sivakumar could exercise his right as State Assembly Speaker, to lawfully convene a state assembly sitting (never mind whether inside the state secretariat or under a rain tree) against Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors !

    Indeed the whole Government Proceedings Act covering actions against government officers hass not contemplated much less cover a situtation of two competing governments in Perak – one led by PR and the other by BN – with the first question of which one is legitimate, being a constitutional one far exceeding the small purview of the Government Proceedings Act.

    In major issues relating to Constitution whereby the whole nation and large swathes of public are interested in its proceedings it is of paramount importance that two cardinal principles etched in legal and constitutional stone are observed:

    1. the Rule of Natural Justice which says that in all dispute every party affected has the right to be heard on his side of the story and the right to reply if necessary via legal counsel.

    2. the Right to Counsel (also protected in our written Federal Constitution).

    The High Court ruling by Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim against V Sivakumar has ignored these two important cornerstones by reason of which alone, it ought not to be allowed to stand as good in law upon appeal to (say) an impartial Appellate Court….

  11. Sorry, Ridwan, I just have to ask these questions. I don’t mean to be rude or crude. I just think the Rakyat need to know. If transparency is considered rude or crude, so be it. So:

    where did you graduate from and what did you study in your law course?

    Politics? A?
    Constitutional Law? A or E? Exempted like Mugabe?
    [deleted]
    OK, no further questions. I rest my case.

  12. people who obtained position and empowerment through shadow hand placement are in the system , imagine this has been going on for 50 years….albiet in silence, or ignorance or well greased so everything seemed ok.

    heading for the end of an era, lets move forward…lets called any of our meetings …Raintree meetings…well , this one is genuine from awakened malalysians….bravo ladies and gentlemen

    …who is trying to mislead, claim ownership of other people deeds, denied others of recourse..we can see very very clearly now

  13. If anyone want to know about how the Federation of Malaya Constitutional prepared.

    Want to know your rights you must download the 2 books. (Get one for your children and family)

    Here is the Malaya Constitutional books link.

    Report of THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION FEB 1957

    http://www.digitalibrary.my/dmdocuments/malaysiakini/223_report%20of%20federation%20of%20malaya%20constitutional%20commission%20%201957.pdf

    CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS FOR THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA JUNE 1957 12.7MB

    http://year006.tripod.com/constitutions_proposal_malaya_1957.pdf

    CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS FOR THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA JUNE 1957 (searchable) 5MB

    http://year006.tripod.com/constitutions_proposal_malaya_1957_searchable.pdf

  14. It is very simple all have been set. It is just for show. What is court? What Court? Badminton Court or Tennis Court? There is no more rule of court. It all set and all those involve are just bias.

    I do not think he did not know the law?

    Any way. People like us just want to make a living. It that war in Malaysia? But can you imagine, early in the morning two Kows already blocked 2 lanes from Batu Caves Round about heading KL and create jam for the people. They have nothing to do and just creat problem for the ordinary people.

  15. Maybe Malaysia should amend the relevant Acts that will allow senior members of the Bench to retire later rather than at age 65. I kinow some members of US Supreme Court are around 80 years old and still serving and sharing thier wisdom. That would also help novices like Ridwan to pick up the ropes before he tries to lasso the cattle.

    One useful task is for novices to begin by making tea for judges and sitting at their feet…you never know how much you can pick up by just being around some of the better legal minds. Novices like Ridwan can also learn by being ‘chambered’ with more illustrious lawyers like Tommy Thomas and taking a different look from the other side of the Bench. Such ‘pupilling’ if you wish would make judges more humble.

    This is not strange because that’s the sort of training many corporates do to their executives. For example, McDonald’s hve even their Directors start their careers by training to make burgers at their outlets so that they understand how customers feel and react. Some service companies in the cleaning business in the uS have their senior executives begin by mopping the floors at the Arrival and Departure lounges. These are great lessons in humility and help senior execs understand their subordinates from the lowest levels.

    …But I am suggesting that judges shud be trained and be more disciplined not to ‘abuse’ their Bench seats and foul up already nervous and tense litigants by their not-very-smart-but-very-haughty words hurled from their raised seats.

  16. Maybe Malaysia should amend the relevant Acts that will allow senior members of the Bench to retire later rather than at age 65…so judges like NH Chan can stay around and not retire their judicial wisdom so early.

  17. Straits Times: “MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was honoured last night by one of the world’s largest and oldest philanthropic organisations, Rotary International, which gave him a rare award.
    He received the Rotary International Award Of Honour, in recognition of his ‘long and visionary leadership in Singapore and in the international community.”

    This should make Tun M green with envy. BTW, what did Tun M do to get his Tunship. Anybody ever asked?

  18. It all boils down to putting someone into position not because of merits but of a secret agenda……….RUBBISH IN RUBBISH OUT……….this is what it is ALL ABOUT (CAUSE AND EFFECT)…….

    Send this judge back to the BASIC- the ENGLISH law school

  19. I read somewhere Tun M got some US lobbyist to pay millions of $ (most likely Malaysian taxpayers’ money) just to be able to sit in the Oval Office of the White House for some pictures taken with George Bush. After all those millions spent, Bush and MM are not even friends. Yikes!

    If all those money could have been given to Rotary International, perhaps Tun could have got a citation and remebered for helping polio children. Now many rmember him for wasting Malaysians’ billions and fouling up the Malaysian judicary, corrupting the political system and so many more, it deserves a citation somewhere. Does Rotary International have an award for the opposite of a statesman?

  20. NH Chan argues basically on interpretation of words and how section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act (requiring State Legal officer to represent a public officer) would not apply to V Sivakumar whose position as “Speaker” is not a “public officer” by Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution!

    To me, it is just plain common sense and fairness that the government cannot have it both ways to hold dual inconsistent positions – to treat (on one hand when it suits its purpose) V Sivakumar as a ‘Speaker’ for purposes of depriving him the right to appoint his own counsel of choice, and yet deny (on the other hand, when it is inconvenient to it) that V Sivakumar could exercise his right as State Assembly Speaker, to lawfully convene a state assembly sitting (never mind whether inside the state secretariat or under a rain tree) against Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors !

    Indeed the whole Government Proceedings Act covering actions against government officers hass not contemplated much less cover a situtation of two competing governments in Perak – one led by PR and the other by BN – with the first question of which one is legitimate, being a constitutional one far exceeding the small purview of the Government Proceedings Act.

    In major issues relating to Constitution whereby the whole nation and large swathes of public are interested in its proceedings it is of paramount importance that two cardinal principles etched in legal and constitutional stone are observed:

    1. the Rule of Natural Justice which says that in all dispute every party affected has the right to be heard on his side of the story and the right to reply if necessary via legal counsel.

    2. the Right to Counsel (also protected in our written Federal Constitution).

    The High Court ruling by Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim against V Sivakumar has ignored these two important cornerstones by reason of which alone, it ought not to be allowed to stand as good in law upon appeal to (say) an impartial Appellate Court….

  21. …….” You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this”……………….

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I am impressed WITH NEW FOUND MY ABILITY- DOES THIS MEAN THAT I AM BETTER THAN YOU- JUDGE RID- WAN BECAUSE I CAN NOW SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GOOD JUDGE AND AND A NOT SO LEARNED ONE ……………….

  23. How to Judge a Judge?

    A good one is a retired one who could use his legal skills to interpret the rules and the law according to broad dictates of conscience unbeholdened to those in power who could decide on his position and remuneration. :)

  25. It is not that those people do not understand. It is a matter how they can manipulate them to their own benefits.

    Common sense will tell you all those are just show and all actors and actress think Malaysian are fools.

    I will suggest NH joint run as a candidate in nest GE to contribute his final golden years to Malaysian people. run for the parliament. Please

  26. I put it out again that that UMNO is SUBVERSIVE against the state – treaseanous in fact – an ENEMY OF THE STATE – no different than the Communist.

    After Pakistan, no other country has their lawyers protesting against the judicial system. All those people with expensive degrees and high pay, does not go protesting unless its CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER. And we see it clearly.

    What must be put before the Sultan of Perak is not just about who constitutional issues BUT the state of the nation itself. What is the role of the Royalties if the state fails i.e., is subverted- attacked by foreigner/enemy. Its within his power within mechanism to reverse the attack by the enemy. Does he wait until its NOT within his power to act against the enemy and the state irrepairably harmed?

  27. The Great Leader Mahathir transformed the judiciary into a kangaroo court so don’t be naive to think that justice can be done in our courts. As far as the BN is concerned, everyone can be bought at a price. Doctors, police offcers, judges, witnesses in murder cases, opposition elected reps. You name it they have the money.

  28. Sivakumar only a tool an actor for some director and producer to shoot a tamil movie for vanaavil channel astro, the rest are supporting actors and actress in supporting role
    Where is LKY type of leader , we need him to govern Malaysia…

  30. Malaysia with once a highly respected judiciary has degraded into a Police State ….all, but in name.
    [deleted]
    I am a layman of the law, I can almost conclude the outcome of the pending cases linked to the Perak impasse.
    It is not surprising but, sickening!

  31. Political issues require political solutions. I believe PR goes to the court to keep the issue alive, not to seek justice and fair resolution. Frankly, what do we expect – a judge that can rule like NH Chan? But then he is a retired judge. If he is still a sitting judge, I doubt (i) he will get to decide this case and/or (ii) he will decide the way he writes now. This is the system we have today. It has become the national ethos, like the habit of double parking we find in all our city/town roads.

    Just look at the first and second autopsy reports on Kugan? I think everyone – not just police, judges and MACC – that we should be concerned about. Sdr Lim, Kugan’s autopsy reports controversy deserves a separate write up here. The doctors and the hospitals concerned should be pursued relentlessly, for this is the mother of all ills that are inflicting on our country today. To me, I would venture to say Kugan’s case is not necessary due to collusion, bribery, or conspiracy. It is the way we are – the inbuilt racism, lack of professionalism and no sense of fairness and decency in our souls. There are sayings in the scripture that even an evil person knows the pain of injustice. For us as nation, I think we are more than evil.

    Finally, I guess it is ok for the court to continue making ridiculous decisions. PR will lose the battle, but they shall win the war. The more ridiculous decisions the court made, the more injustice, prejudice and biasness they manifests. This is good.

  32. Toyol Says:…..and there are people still out there who believes in their cause. Unbelievable!!!

    Sure, we have lots of corrupted and naive people like the eunuch admiral from China.

  33. Everyone forgets we are in Bolehland where strange things do and can happen, deliberately or otherwise. See Believe It or Not!!!

    Anyway, don’t forget this quotation:

    Politics is the art of the possible.
    Otto Von Bismarck, remark, Aug. 11, 1867
    German Prussian politician (1815 – 1898)

    NH Chan would do well if he could just have tea with the Sultan, his former colleague and fellow judge, and talk about old times, when the law is the law and not the law of the jungle and where kangaroos are not found in Malaysian jungles, where the courts dispense justice, not illicit concoctions, mocktails and mumbo-jumbo, and the people have confidence to find justice at the courts and with their ruler, and not face stonewalls. Ah, yes, those were the days. Zimbabwe, we be.

  35. With such biased people as judges etc no wonder the Judiciary has fallen into disrepute.
    So the system of appointing such persons as judges is flawed. I quite like the US system where even ministers have to appear before a panel of the House before they are cleared.
    As for JCs etc, I suggest the rules should be definitely tightened or people will lose all confidence in the system.
    Correction: Maybe they have already lost confidence with this type of Kangaroo Court.

  37. yes,good judge like NH Chan should actually be promoted to the top seat,unfortunately,he is none-malay,the ones that being promoted are always the UMNO cronies(similarly to IGP,Parliament Speaker,MACC’s Head,University Chancellor,BN’s Menteri Besar,blablabla…),they push NEP to every corners,NEP is ANTI-MERITOCRACY!

    If like what they say NEP is very fair,it is lifting up the non-malays’ economy,but what about in the govt. sector,educaton,promotion,recruitment,did thy increase the vast differences of non-malays? Damn hypocrite!

    [deleted]

  40. Recent events in our courts, police stations, and hospitals will continue to haunt our judges, police, and doctors.

    The rakyat shall continue to hunt down the culprits, including Serdang Hospital and Prof Dr Abdul Karim Tajuddin who conducted the first post-mortem of A. Kugan.

    Why are there so many so-called educated people who chose to see not, hear not, talk not, and think not, but chose to serve the antinationals against the well being of our nation?

  41. When NR takes a deer into the court and calims that it is a horse, the judge will say: Yes, Minister. Horse yang cantik!
    The mata-mata there will also echo: Aye, aye, Sir! Nice horse with horns!
    This is the state of affair in our court.

  42. Umno and najib and gang is way above the laws of our land and they somehow found the right to enforce the same laws against the rest of us non-umnoputras. So no point talking about laws to those idiots. Imagine reasoning with cintanegara. It gets you nowhere. So what if the laws have been breached or not followed by them? They can terrorise and harass you in parliament and not only nothing will happen to them, they can still announce publicly that it was you who started the whole thing. We really are left with two choices. One, rebel which is not a good idea at all for there will be no winner in the end. Two, throw them out in election which is what we all must do. Three by-elections are coming up. Stand up and show them that they are no longer wanted.

  43. It seemed from the above writeup by NHChan that the speaker could actually throw the police chief, macc chief (sounds like macdonald’s new offering) and gang and even ridzuan into prison.

    Sivakumar should do just that.

  48. In Malaysia when you mention Court. We only know badminton court or basketball court where the players just have fun. We do not have court of justice.

    All those idiots are just wasting all our tax payers money by fooling around and just they call themselves PAu Kung???

  50. The lecturers in U are low class.
    The police also low class.
    Some judges are low class.All because UMNO keep playing race and religion politics…..favouring one race and royalties seem to be supporting race and religion..for unity.
    Mama Mia!!
    When the going is tough…the TOUGH gets going.
    Daring road shows will be tough guys responsible acts.
    Politics in Malaysia have reached all time low.
    How low can they go?
    Meanwhile..I wish everyone..a pleasant peaceful…rare weekend.

  51. Saudara Lim,

    It’s time to do so….!
    Let’s start one Speaker Corner at “Tree Assembly” in Perak as first one here for people to speak up!
    Make it on coming 090308 and that’s good too to have one at FRIM in Wilayah KL!

  52. Raja Petra has written in one his article saying that some judge hind behind the black tinted car just because not for security purpose but they are too shameful to let people know they are the judge.

    I do not understand when I read that. Now I do and absolutely understand what Raja Petra mean.

    On the other hand I pay my respect to the your honor NH Chan and other like Tun Salleh. You see their names also tinted because of these black sheep

  53. Maybe the judge read law in Timbaktu and not familiar with Lord Dening!
    Yes, our judges are real “knows all”. They are even better than Lord Dening.
    ASnyway, I am fed up reading all the court actions against Sivakumar.
    Pooer Siva, your fooftball team is infiltrated by an opposing team goalkeeper and also the refreree, tak tahu la!!!
    Sure no fight la!!!

  54. Every move made turned out to be a wrong move.
    Every word spoken turned out to be a wrong word.
    Every decision taken turned out to be a wrong decision.
    At the rate they are committing mistakes, umno and Tuan Rempit McBullys will disappear sooner than we Hamba deBullys thought they would.
    We should really cheer them on.
    Let them sink under their own mistakes.
    They not only are super greedy and power crazy, they are also super sensitive and blindly emotional.
    Just challenge them and you can see them bark like mad dogs and do stupid things.
    Good. Good.
    That means we may not have to go for the kill.
    They will simply trip and fall all over their own mistakes.
    Good. Good.

  56. There is nothing to be surprised when you have racist policy. What is most surprising is that when you have all these semi-qualified impostors sitting on top post, they will soon forget they were not the real thing and began to behave like an expert in his field! I just wonder what the sultan will think when he sees this [deleted] making a mockery of his profession in his state.

    The same thing also happened to that Serdang scam doctor who think that, just because he has a statoscope around his neck, he think he is also expert in medicine and starting to make medical report in Kugan’s autopsy. This is very scary if he is your doctor!

    When the universities lost its ranking, we have the minister who said that we should not be concern with the ranking because we are using different criteria. He has however conveniently omitted to comment on non of our degrees are recognized overseas! Perhaps this is irrelevant because we only need semi-qualified graduates in the country! What is most interesting is that the professors are sub-standard and yet they are allow to train Phd graduates out from the sub-standard students.

    This remind me of a friend who commended that in Nigeria, a muslim country, everyone is a Dr. or a Chief if you want to be somebody important. Unfortunately, all of them are just scam artists out to con people! I think we are going to see a parallel in this country soon with so many of these poorly qualified graduates producing by the thousands and all the Tan Sri and Dato. What are they going to do when the economy gone south?

    We have already seen how our so-call high power expert conduct themselves when they are meeting overseas. When Najib send his expert to talk about the submarines deal, did he go there to discuss about the submarines like an expert supposed to be. No, he only talk about the commission! What a joke?

  57. We have Rais Yatim who is very well versed in law. Never heard of him commenting on the legality of all these proceedings.
    I admire Tengku Razaleigh for calling a spade a spade. God bless you Tengku because you stand for the truth.
    The rest, rather keep qwuiet even though they now that they are wrong!!!

  58. Allan Tham said:

    “In Malaysia when you mention Court. We only know badminton court or basketball court where the players just have fun. We do not have court of justice.”

    No. No. No. Ours is better. Ours is not court of justice. Our is palace of justice. Much better. Ask Daniel Li of HK ICAC.

  59. passerby, do you remember that the Gomen had wanted to register all PhDs to distinguish the real from the fake? They gave up, why? because most of those who had fake ones are in BN and some are in the service. They have to fear truth because they are fake most of the time. I know of one guy who became the head of an engineering department of a statutory body for years until someone recognised and asked the edepartment to check with the U he was said to have attended. Bingo! he was sacked in the 2nd year!! He was fined for $600.00 for imposting!!
    Sure enough with the correct contacts in defence business he became kaya and bought his PhD!! Malaysia Boleh.
    With such characters in the thousands,would they ever think rationally?? They have come to THE CONCLUSION long ago, keep the majority of the Malaysian population BODOH by instigating them to fight for the leftovers while they keep the goodies to themselves.
    That is one reason, they stop them from thinking even at U level. When people start to think and reason, you wont find characters like chenghos, cintanegaras or kasim asmats around. Of course, the sad thing is such characters are normally equipped through the ill-gotten gains to buy those titles to impress the rural folks!!

  60. Funny things happen in Malaysia.

    The judiciary, the police, and almost everthing that matters in Malaysia are under the control of Umno. These days, Umnoputras are suing left, right and centre.

    Yet, very strangely, our DPM and his wife are so cooooooool!

    This week, the Liberation French newspaper on 5th March 2009 published an article that claimed “At the end of March 2005 the couple [i.e., Altantuya and Abdul Razak Baginda] was in Paris, where they met with Najib Razak. A picture shows the threesome in a Parisian private club.”, “A jealous Rosmah Mansor, the feared businesswoman and wife of Najib Razak, objected any payment to Altantuya.”, and “Events unfolded that even the Deputy Prime minister Najib Razak could not impede. He tried to cover the case.”

    When our DPM and his wife are insulted by being linked to a senseless and gruesome murder, we Malaysians are also insulted and ‘boh bin’/jatuh maruah.

    If exposed activities did not take place, we expect NR and RM to sue the Liberation French newspaper and its reporter till they are bankrupt.

    How come NR and RM are so coooooool? No action, not even a protest in front of the French Embassy by our usual fast-acting keris-waving, blood-thirsty Umno Youth to demand a public apology from Liberation for slurring the strange couple? No call for boycott of anything French, including French kiss? Where are you, KJ, HH, and MKT? Your boss needs you and Malaysia wants her maruah back.

  61. Many other retired judges are still alive and well. Other than N H Chan none have expressed a public opinion on such an important issue. Why aren’t they giving their views and opinions? Is it because since retirement they have caught the TIDAK APA disease? I believe that those who believe JC Ridwan Ibrahim’s judgements are correct will not be scared to express their opinions. Therefore perhaps they keeping quiet because they have become too PENAKUT to express their views which may be similar to that of N H Chan?

  64. a classic case of result of malfunction in implementation of NEP….bright talents and minds are subordinated to arrogance and the unqualified.

    time for us to have a constitutional court

  66. I decided against posting a comment yesterday about seeking impartial judicial reviews from overseas. The problem with much of what happens in Malaysia is that there’s only one point of view presented to Malaysians. If the NST prints an article about a man in a funny wig saying something, that must be justice – because it looks like justice.

    I decided against posting it, because it seemed like a terrible expense. N H Chan is to be commended for providing a local equivalent. Somebody in a position of authority (even if it is retired authority) has to do the right thing and call a spade a spade.

    As for those wronged, isn’t the ‘right’ thing to do to take some sort of civil action against the judge for failing to deliver justice? Perhaps that’s what an appeal is… they’re only human after all, and I do occasionally get a bad nasi ayam.

  67. boh-liao,
    How come NR and RM are so coooooool? No action, not even a protest in front of the French Embassy by our usual fast-acting keris-waving, blood-thirsty Umno Youth to demand a public apology from Liberation for slurring the strange couple? No call for boycott of anything French, including French kiss? Where are you, KJ, HH, and MKT?

    =================================================

    you know my fren,the UMNO jerks only bully local ppl,when they see european ppl,like for instance jews from israel,their ‘bola” will be gone!
    they are so feared infront of us,you see some UMNO youths asking for fight from the Perak raintree and the group that confronted Karpal Singh incidents,we wonder why how come they never represented malaysia for Olympic boxing,karate,judoh,taekwndo or whatever fighting events,managed to get at least a bronze medal back to bolehland, you and i know very well,they are just “Jagong Kampong “,right?

    or maybe these thugs went to a wrong profession,instead of becoming gangsters,they joint politic?

  68. Wow.wow.wow,rhetoric,hypocrites,scandals,racists,sexis,you name it we have them all.Ha Ha Ha.This is 21st century modern malaysia,a place we all called ” our home land”. How many of us paarticularly our politician,judges,monarchs are ashmaed of what’s going on in our country. The world is watching and God is also watching from a distance .The present political scenario is volatile and can burst into a very catastrophe.I ‘m appealling all malaysians to come to our full good sense especially,politicians to end this volatile dangerious situation,desolve the Perak state assemby,call for election and let we the rakyat in particular the Perak voters.

  70. A BIGGGGGGGGGGG THANK YOU MR NH CHAN!

    This country need EXPERIENCE POEPLE like YOU to check the activities of bn robber(robbing Perakian), thief(corruption) and rapist(rape the CONSTITUTION).

    Keep up the good work AND GOD BLESS YOU!

  71. First year law students who study the subject of constitution will come across the term audi alteram partem – meaning to take cognisance and to listen to both sides of the argument. That is the adversarial system of justice that we inherited as a Commonwealth country. The JC obviously forgotten this by refusing representation for the Speaker. His single action now throws the entire Judiciary into disrepute, but I won’t be surprised if he will now be the first on the list of judicial commissioners to be confirmed as a judge as proposed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

  72. Orang makan rojak says,

    ” Perhaps that’s what an appeal is… they’re only human after all, and I do occasionally get a bad nasi ayam.”

    Suggest you sue the nasi ayam guy for damages RM 1.0 million like the judge in the U.S. who sued the Korean laundry guy for some US$14.0 million. That must have been the most expensive pair of pants in the world.

  73. Recent events in the apparent breakdown of the practice of democratic principles in Perak would add to make it appear, in hindsight, that the Reid Commission appointed by Her Majesty’s government in 1956 to draft the Constitution for Malaysia is a waste of time.

    For a good part of the fifty years after Merdeka, what ought to be the enshrined embodiment of all principles that identify this country to be a democracy steadily got trampled upon thanks to an over-zealous executive and an unchecked legislative.

    If that is not bad enough, now in this embroiling grab for political power for which the Constitution should be the reference point, we even have officers of the judiciary treating it with disdain.

  74. The lawyer representing zambry’s gang argued that becuase sivakumar’s gaji is paid by the govt that makes him a public officer under the government procedings act. I just wonder, all the prisoners are also paid while they bertugas during their prison terms, does it mean they are also public officers?

    The precise reason for not hearing the case in open court is so that not to have to deal with all these tricky issues, that is my speculation.

  75. The views in this article by N.H.Chan of the recent events at the Ipoh High Court have reaffirmed my fears that this nation’s constitution and laws have been selectively pushed aside & replaced with ‘Undang-undang Ketuanan UMNO’, as long as it suits this party’s insidious agenda of holding onto power or even wresting power from their political opponents, as we are now witnessing in Perak.

    ‘Undang-undang Ketuanan UMNO’ has obviously infected the courts with ‘marsupialitis’ where a supposedly impartial judge will display the symptom of Judge ‘I am the law!’ Dredd, playing the roles of judge, jury and executioner.

    If anyone still wonders whether Zambry & Co. actually have the mandate of the people of Perak to run the state govt, wonder no more, because clearly the mandate they’ve actually got is by ‘Undang-undang Ketuanan UMNO’…

  76. Datuk Dr Zambry & 6 others seek a court declaration that the speaker’s decision in suspending and preventing them from attending the assembly’s sittings for 18 months (for Zambry) and 12 months (for the rest) is null and void.

    In other words, Zamri & 6 others say that they are the state government while Nizar is no longer Menteri Besar.

    If they take that position, then, in relation to the Government Proceedings Act, Zamri & 6 others should have got the State Legal Counsel to represent them instead of trying to disqualify V Sivakumar from engaging private lawyers and get the State Legal Counsel to represent him!

    And Judicial Commissioner Mr Ridwan Ibrahim should have disqualified the lawyers for Zamri & 6 others instead of the other way around Siviakumar’s lawyers.

    With respect to the judicial commissioner, I think he ruled “wrong representation” on the wrong party (Sivakumar) than the right one (Zamri & 6 others)! :)

  77. So the lawyer representing Zambry argued that because Sivakumar’s gaji was paid by the govt that would make him a “public officer” under the Government Procedings Act : but about Zamri & 6 others? Aren’t their salaries also paid by the Govt making them “public officer”? They obviously know that State legal adviser cannot represent both sides of a dispute due to “conflicts of interest”.

    However it is obvious that if Zamri & 6 others contend that they are lawful representatives of Perak state govt (validly appointed) and not Mohd Nizar, who has been dismissed – and it is also clear that Speaker Siva Kumar is alleged to be siding the side that has been, according to Zamri, lawfully dismissed – then it is incumbent that solicitors of Zamri & 6 others should have been dismissed instead of Siva’s.

    I address this comment to my old friend Siva’s lawyer Nga Hock Cheh (if he’s reading this) to take the point on appeal. He ought to to understand what I am talking about!

  78. If lawyers for Zamri & 6 others are from the State Legal Advisor’s department then obviously the opposite side cannot be rrepresented by State Legal advisor due to obvious conflict of interest. this is basic.

  79. When interpreting fine print of legislation like Government Proceedings Act, the judicial commissioner just cannot ignore the most basic principle of a party’s right to appoint his own counsel of his choice or force him to accept counsel from State Legal Department already helping or representing one or two person(s) of the opposite side, in obvious conflict of interest.

    Otherwise – this denying of one side of his right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution and acquiescence with conflicts of interest of the State Legal Department representing both sides of a dispute – would make a mockery of Malaysian court proceedings and justice is not only not seen done, but injustice is positively seen done instead.

    If I were a person bias against Sivakumar/Perrak PR, and called upon to adjudicate the dispute, it would be a wiser course for me to allow Siva to have his own lawyers and even Queen counsel if he so desires – so that “impartiality & fairness” is a least “seen” done at the outset to back my bias ruling later that however cogent Sivakumar’s lawyers argue his case, “I am still not convinced with the merits, that properly should go to opposite side, Zamri’s’.

  80. Malaysia may had only 1 simple law, i.e. KETUANAN UMNO ACT.
    So by that ruling, a govt school teacher (husband) and a government hosp. nurse (wife) if they want to divorce, then also cannot hire outside lawyer, must be represented by state legal advisers???
    Then, govt must hire at least another 3000 lawyers to be state legal advisers for one million plus civil servants??

  81. something out of topic,but i still need to alert the Rakyat,there are so many issues that the federal govt. is cheating us,from the earlier bumi equity achievement to the number of govt. servants in malaysia.

    i challenge the federal govt. to reveal the actual figures of total govt.servants into details,not just mentioning 1.2 or 1.3 million,a stupid guy will believe it is such a small figure,i have mentioned a couple of times,it’s actually 2.5 million!

    you see,from the newspaper yesterday,merely teachers has already a whopping 370,000!

    police:200,000,
    army:300,000,
    bomba,pga,fru:100,000
    macc:5000
    nurse n dr:250,000
    putrajaya staff:50,000
    dbkl and all PBTs:250,000
    kementerian pelajaran,kesihatan,mahkamah,jakim,ikan,alam sekitar,tenaga/air dan komunikasi,dalam negeri,luar negeri,budaya,wanita,sukan,income tax,immigration,custom,blablabla all over
    the country,how many do you guess?plus the unnamed jabatan-2 and kementerian-2,easily 1 million,so total up:2.5 million!

    my goodness,i havent take into account the Suruhanjaya,like the SPR,SC,member of parliaments n their assistance n staff,embassies n their staff outside malaysia…………

    so,it is actually 3 million,but the sleeping head is all the whle telling us 1.2 million,why not we ask hm to pay the salaries of the 1.8 million himself?

    if we enjoy a good services,many would not mind,but,their number is huge,services are terrible!

    i hope the PR will make this a big issue,pressure them to announce the actual figures into breakdowns and reduce unnecessary departments,save the Rakyat’s money!

  82. “If that is not bad enough, now in this embroiling grab for political power for which the Constitution should be the reference point, we even have officers of the judiciary treating it with disdain.”

    …and (if I may add) over just as many years, Malaysians have come to show little repect for the law as their leaders manipulate it to serve their interests with the help of the judiciary. Malaysians routinely bribe public officials and law enforcement officers to get what they want. They are no different from the legislators.

    Malaysians have never come to know the rule of law and why it is important.

    As for their Constitution, their lawmakers would do well to flush it down the toilet. Even the toilet paper in the restroom of the lobby of Parliament Building serves public interest in more ways than our Constitution could hope to do.

    Anybody who says the constitution is supreme should have his head checked. What?? The legislature is supreme because it can amend the constitution willy-nilly? Not even the legislature but UMNO-BN lawmakers are supreme.

    Every has had a role in this mess and every has to be blamed.

  83. The law is an ass. First they say homicide is subjective, Cunningham way in 1957; then objective in 1982 Caldwell by the great Diplock. After all of them are dead new Lords like Hope, Cooke went back to Cunningham. No wonder Humpty Dumpty can go the way of Adorna.

  84. Re comments by undergrad2 above –

    Right on!!

    As Malik Imtiaz Sarwar had put it…”The expectation that all affairs will be conducted to the exclusive convenience and the advantage of the Barisan Nasional and its leaders is more suited to a dictatorship in which the Rule of Law means nothing.”

    Well Sir, you can replace ‘Barisan Nasional’ with UMNO.

Leave a Reply