Congrats to Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi for being conferred a “Tun” on the occasion of the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s birthday on Saturday.
But where is the Court of Appeal judgment in the Nizar vs Zambry case after its five-minute shotgun unanimous decision 18 days ago overturning the landmark decision of Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim of Kuala Lumpur High Court by declaring Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir (self-claimed 3-in-1 Mandela, Gandhi, King) as the lawful Perak Mentri Besar?
Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif had promised on May 22 that the written judgment would be made available in a week when Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin’s counsel Sulaiman Abdullah gave notice of leave application to the Federal Court to appeal, but it is now 18 days since the Court of Appeal decision.
This long delay is in sharp contrast to the lightning speed with which the High Court judgment declaring Nizar as the lawful Perak Mentri Besar was “stayed” in a matter of hours in a single-judge Court of Appeal decision!
These developments are not conducive to the restoration of national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
When he was appointed Chief Justice in October last year, and in response to allegations that the country was having an Umno Chief Justice for the first time in view of his long service to Umno in various capacities, Zaki said that he would not hear cases involving Umno which come to court.
What else has Zaki done to ensure that he distanced himself and is not any way involved with the Nizar vs Zambry case, the most high-profile Umno case in court since his appointment as Chief Justice?
This is a pertinent question as it is not just Pakatan Rakyat leaders, but lawyers and independent jurists like Prof Abdul Aziz Bari, Professor of Law at the International Islamic University, who said in a public forum in Ipoh last night that the judiciary and other institutions like the civil service, police and mainstream media had been used by the federal government to topple and seize power from the lawful Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak.
It is no business of the judiciary to help the incumbent federal government to topple any Pakatan Rakyat state government!
No wonder another constitutional law expert, Professor Shad Faruqui had presciently warned that the Perak crisis has become “a hydra-headed monster that cannot be eliminated by ding-dong judicial decisions”.
This is in fact a critical test for Datuk Seri Najib Razak as Prime Minister as he should be aware that the judiciary is coming under adverse spotlight both nationally and internationally in the Nizar vs Zambry case.
If Najib is serious about the great task of restoring public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of key national institutions, as well as winning public support for the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of his premiership, he should spare the judiciary from such an adverse national and international spotlight and cut the Gordian knot of the four-month-old Perak political and constitutional crisis by dissolving the Perak state assembly for a Perak state general election to be held.
Even cows like that former ZamzamAlikazam cld get a tiltle….. titles in Msia is totally laughable.
This is the only country other than Zimbabwe where the judiciary makes decisions based on know-who, and then tries to write their judgments afterwards to justify their decisions. In the Perak case, they haven’t figured out how to justify their decision, so we won’t get anything in writing.
The judiciary now looks at you straight in the face and say “So What?”
Dont forget the other fellow who got a Tan Sri, the President of the Court of Appeal. Things are becoming much clearer now.
No written judgement is just not acceptable.
The written judgment is still pending after the “5 minute lightning extraordinary finding” at 3.30pm on 22 May 2009. Nizar has only left 11 days to file an appeal to the Federal Court. As each day passed by, the people of Perak are very anxious.
Can it be a delaying tactic to discourage Nizar to file an appeal? Or, they are at a loss of words to counter the 78 page High Court written judgment. Never mind lah, they can write in Greeks, the people cannot read and understand Greeks.
We, the people of Perak, will have to resign to our fates in having a MB by the court to govern Perak until the next elections.
Maybe they are just now still finding the reasons to fit the judgement?
i do congratulate the conferment of tunship for zaki. it is a recognition of what he has done in the past. next question is: what can he do in the future for the good of the country?
Yang di Pertuan Agong had made the recognition for zaki. what’s next?
do we have the courage of obama in the matter of nominating sonia sotomayor to the u.s supreme court?
please do not let the BN govt lose any square inch of our sovereign territory.
Malaysia to soothe Indonesian anger over sea spat
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSKLR25757920090609
The Court of Appeal judges have to confer with the Federal court judges and the CJ to write the judgement. That’s why there is a delay.
Do you think the Federal Court will overturn the COA judgement which they themselves helped to draft?
Zaki may bring his Tunship to his grave.
The judiciary now looks at you straight in the face and say “So What?” godfather
The QC wannabe would give you a three page explanation how the “so what” come about!
Nah, the QC Wannabe is the total opposite of the court of Appeals. The QC Wannabe will write a hundred pages in the hope that everyone falls asleep after reading 3 pages. He doesn’t have to justify how the “so what” has come about – all he needs to do is to twist and turn until we fall asleep.
This is a very important event… the judgement to be seen as creditable by the public for UMNO-BN to come clean…
Qc aware this opportunity to skin the fat cat… raising his fees to the top tier price tag…..knowing these kangaroo court judges are incapbale of writing a decent sentence…mana ada class, mana ada standard…Malaysia tiada boleh…bohonland!
just what the heck did he do to get TUN-ship? If by virtue of his office then ….
It certainly devalue it, ain’t it? Siti Nurhaliza, Nicole David, Lee Chong Wei, sheila Majid, Alley Cats Amber Chia, Fish Leong, Xandra Ooi, Ling Tan, Jimmy Chooi etc surely have all done more to make Malaysians feel proud and happy.
Hi guys,what would you give to your pet dog when he does all the tricks you wanted him to do ? A good and loving pat and some foods,isn’t it right guys ?.Similarly why do you guys think Zaki gets his reward ?.In view of this,I think any opposition’s case/cases that goes/go through his hand will not be given due consideration. Isn’t it sucks ?. Malaysia indeed is a weak nation .From paradise to hell,it’s a great pity that we are now in a mess of fire and dust.
Lingam O Lingam, where r thou
Judgment day is not possible ‘cos of your absence
That’s why he is decorated with a false title…excellent job done to protect UMNO.
Real justice is rare.
Brave judges are being sidelined….or stay helpless.
Lingam and Eusoff Chin….what happened?
Not one word from our so call….People’s PM.
People easily forget….move on…forget the past?
Najib can dream on.
Can we expect the three judges to EACH give his own individual decision and not only one joint decision? That way we will know that each is doing his own assessment and decision.
We have too often “unanimous” decisions without knowing how each judge felt about it. It can’t be that all three have the same thoughts and thinking. Maybe two were sleeping and only one working.
Hi sheriff sings why do you forget so easily that we have too often ” unanimous ” decisions because they have people similar to Lingam who helps these stooge judges to write their decisions ?.
Whether Court of Appeal in Nizar vs Zambry have a five-minute shotgun unanimous decision or 3 or 100 page written jugment will make no difference to wrinkled/fossilised/bias minds having neither the interest nor the capacity to understand the rationale/merits of judgment but only interested in the outcome – whether the party they like/favour won or lost the case.
Had their party won, a five-minute shotgun unanimous decision will be a distillation of pure legal and judicial wisdom. Why ? Because, they would say, the law/facts are so obviously in their party’s favour that to deliver anything longer than 5 minute is long winded and superfluous.
However if Court of Appeal judgment delivers a judgment against the party they favour , then even 3 separate well researched and well reasoned and argued judgment delivered (with dissenting judgment) over 5 hours, replete with judicial citations and learned analysis, would be a legal “sandiwara” and mumbo jumbo. (If the Bar Council agrees with such a judgment then it must be that BN agents have indiltrated the Bar Council and the independence of the Bar has been compromised. If a law lecturer agrees, then he must be promised professorship or deanship by Ministry by higher authorities).
For wrinkled/fossilised/bias minds are interested only in result of a judgment – whether it favours their party – if “yes” it is good judgment, there is justice and if “no” it is bad jugment and there is injustice, it is as simple as that – and never its rationale, merits or how long it takes to deliver the judgment etc though they pretend otherwise.
Farish Noor just wrote an article about how our politicians devalue history for the sake of self-empowerment. All they need is to stay in power and in the process be prepared to literally ‘the burn’.
They distort history, devalue the judiciary, police, MACC, education, monarchy, civil service and themselves.
The point is, a well thought out, researched and argued decision will inspire confidence even if it is a wrong one.
A decision, even if it is a right one, does not inspire confidence if it is delivered in 5 minutes without proper reasonings, leaving everyone in the dark as to why they won or lost.
Let us inculcate a system where each judge should judge fairly and with reasons and not hide behind “unanimous” decisions without decisions which of late is causing the public to lose confidence in this institution.
If each judge is obliged to give his or her reasons, then hopefully, hopefully, there will be deeper thoughts with responsibility and accountability as each one will be judged accordingly by the court of public opinion.
Only those who do not deny that they write eloquently would make a foot-long posting to claim that I have political bias. Just use the simple words “political bias” without the mumbo jumbo.
Of course those who pontificate and show off their writing skills still do not understand that we don’t have a written judgment, which is the crux of this thread.
///The point is, a well thought out, researched and argued decision will inspire confidence even if it is a wrong one. A decision, even if it is a right one, does not inspire confidence if it is delivered in 5 minutes/// – sheriff singh said Today at 10: 58.13 (1 hour ago)
What Sheriff Singh said is generally true. However the following should be considered:
1. it has become customary for judges to just deliver a quick 5 minute decision and leave the writing of a more detailed one later on;
2. Even “later on” may be inordinately late, unjustified because it is an issue of great public import. Either way the decision goes, public expects “a well thought out, researched and argued decision”. More so when the side that lost needs the record to prepare for an appeal.
3. A failure to deliver a longer “a well thought out, researched and argued decision” might (in part) because of the tediousness or plain inability of some judges to write. (English is not first language, often such an excuse is made). No reliance may now be placed on likes of one of our greatest judge, the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader – one among the five courageous judges who were suspended in the 1988 judicial crisis – who never failed to inspire by his erudition of the law and intimidate by majesty (some would say pomposity) of his language. A prolific writer who littered his lengthy and detailed judgment by not only bombasity of the English word but a generous citation of Latin quotes as well. (One needs the Oxford dictionary, the Latin dictionary and the Law dictionary to read and understand his judgment). So the rest of the judges could rely on his taking on the arduous task to write a good judgment to go into annals of legal history whilst rest of the bench could take the easy way out by saying “I concur”, I concur”..”korect” “koreck” “koreck” so that they could go on with their other business including golf, unless one wanted to deliver a dissenting judgment, the occasions of which are, in any case, extremely rare in view of Eusoffe well thought out and reasoned judgments.
4. Also a correct as stated by Sheriff, it does not mean a 5 minute decision is wrong or “a well thought out, researched and argued decision” taking 5 hours to read out is right if judges come to conclusion first and then research and argue for points to support that bias decision. This is called expo-facto rationalization.
So too lay persons receiving the judgment: it depends on whether the decision accords with their political positions. For a judge like NH Chan, sympathetic to the legal or political correctness of Nizar’s Cause, a five minute 1 page decision from him would, to fanatic supporters, suffice to be the highest distillation and abstraction of legal wisdom, and anything longer would be sheer superfluity and redundancy.
///Only those who do not deny that they write eloquently would make a foot-long posting to claim that I have political bias/// – Godpapa.
If not political bias entirely, then maybe also dyslexia, a pathological problem of dealing with syllables and putting them together in coherent manner, and having a problem with those not similarly so afflicted.
Obviously not all are endowed with such eloquent writing skills as the pathological show-off because many of us don’t have English as our first language.
My simple question is this: Can we ever trust the Court of Appeals again when the presiding judge promised in open court a written judgment in a week, and it has now taken more than a month ? What would the bombastic show-off say to this ?
Maybe the narcissitic show-off would say “on the one hand, the oral judgment could be wrong, but on the other hand, the oral judgment could be right, but on the third hand, if the oral judgment is right, then someone should not be afraid to put it in writing; but then if someone puts the judgment in writing and it turns out to be wrong, then it would be better not to put anything in writing…..”
Yawn. Your usual retort of, “on the one hand…. but on the other hand”, can you come out with something different and less hackneyed and boring, so that I can respond?
Define “hackneyed”, oh eloquent one.
“….if judges come to conclusion first and then research and argue for points to support that bias decision. This is called expo-facto rationalization.”
I put it to the QC Wannabe-cum-showoff that his views on PAS is a clear example of expo-facto rationalisation.
“Hackneyed” means in relation to certain allegations and retorts like “on the one hand…. but on the other hand”, they are repeated so often and overfamiliar through overuse (like a broken record) that causes one to yawn….
Views on PAS are not expo-facto rationalisation (ie arguing for points to support a bias decision)?
Views are borned out by subsequent events. That is not bias. it is forsight.
Today even Kit admitted Pakatan Rakyat faced crisis of Confidence by PAS’s actions (Unity Talk & call to ban SIS). Malaysiakini reports Lim Guan Eng concurred with his father that PR hit by a confidence crisis. “At the same time, Guan Eng also slammed PAS’ hypocrisy of playing a dual-faced political game by rubbing shoulders with Umno on one side while picking up a fight with it on the other. DAP has never been told, nor it ever agreed, with the unity talks between PAS and Umno. We have never discussed it in any Pakatan meetings,” said the DAP secretary-general.
So are Kit or Guan Eng bias? You’d say not because their views are supported by present events. Then you’d say Lee wang yen and I expressed our negative views a year ago when facts had then not unfolded yet, that the views were unsupported and therefore bias.
This is a wrong understanding of bias.
Bias is a partiality that prevents objective consideration of the facts.
Objective consideration of the facts had been done – the facts of the nature of PAS’s world view and ideology that it could not genuinely in the longer run permit accomodation of pluralistic or other ‘live and let live’ considerations that they view inconsistent with their core beliefs that all morality and law are derived from the Almighty and it is their mission to establish his State. Their ideological leanings can be discerned from various forms as are practised throughout large swathes of Middle East if you care to look.
One does not need to come to the river, like you tend to do, to then only realise that there is no bridge.
That would be, as what I said, having a vision equal to the distance from your eyes to the tip of your nose.
As one progresses in age, Hyperopia is a commoner condition than (say) Myopia that affects the few whose thought patterns and mind-sets become crystallized and inflexible though they are not aware of it.
Now the QC Wannabe has defined hackneyed, bias, hyperopia and myopia. Do the words “….equal to the distance from your eyes to the tip of your nose” make the QC Wannabe hackneyed ?
How about the definition of “show-off” ?
Have you studied the ideology of a theocratic Islamic state?
It is not just political rhetoric. It is based on a sincere belief that it is the ideal state required by the Almighty to be eventually established in which Islamic principles – both as a matter of law (sharia) and Islamic morality – are embracive of all aspects of life within the state making no demarcation between what is private sphere/domain and public sphere/domain and tolerating no exercise of personal freedoms of actions and behaviour inconsistent or contravening Islamic precepts of law and morality.
In the premises the people fit to rule will be ulamas and scholars well versed in Islamic laws/morality which are derived from and based on sovereignty of God rather than man made in parliament.
So to the faithfuls, how can these premises be ever changed by man’s interpretation or interpretation of those of other or no faiths?
These are some of the fundamental precepts that PAS believes. There are more but in a nut shell this sufices.
Tell me I am wrong or that these values are consistent with or can accomodate the liberal tolerance of pluralistic ideas and moralities of other races/cultures in this diverse society.
Perhaps you can also enlighten readers here by your assertion that you “do not deny that you write eloquently”. Is that a function of narcissism or insecurity ?
definition of “show-off” ?
The preconception of a man of no show.
Hellooooooooo……this thread is about the lack of a written judgment by the court of appeals AFTER the president of that court promised a written judgment in a week. Do not allow me to sidetrack you with your obvious hatred of PAS.
The definition of a show-off is a person who persistently juggles something in between his two hands when in fact there is nothing….
“do not deny that you write eloquently” is an assertion made by you (for branding purposes) – not me. The achives will testify to this (when Lim Kam Put was implicated in our exchange). Way back I had explained (in detail) how you twisted this to attribute to me that which I have not said/implied. However by constant repetition you would expect this to be believed. This is not an honest practice.
//The definition of a show-off is a person who persistently juggles something in between his two hands when in fact there is nothing….// is a validation of my earlier observation that you are perenially obsessed with what’s between two hands, and an ever ready attempt to resort to profanity or hints suggestive of it, when words and reason fail to fill in the spaces of exchange.
Can I ignore you a while? I have something to do. When I return hope to read/see something of substance from you. cheers.