by Art Harun
When I first read the news report in the Star that YAA Tan Sri Zaki, the Chief Justice, had told 2 errant High Court Judges to voluntarily resign, my initial reaction was one of pleasure. I thought it was good that the CJ has finally cracked the whip and told these useless Judges to leave the Judiciary. However, after having thought about this issue with a little bit more depth, I am now hesitant to say that it was a good move by the Chief Justice.
Our Judiciary was among the best in the Commonwealth prior to 1988. We had people of absolute integrity and capable of serving justice with the highest standard of knowledge of the law coupled with flawless judicial temperament. Tun Suffian was highly regarded as among the finest. His Majesty the Sultan of Perak, Raja Azlan Shah was among the best. Tan Sri Eusoffee Abdool Cadeer, who would scold Counsel in Latin, could teach a thing or two about the law even to some British law Lords themselves. And at the lower rung of the Courts, we had Judges such as Dato’ VC George; Dato’ Mahadev Shanker; Dato’ NH Chan; Dato’ Razak Abu Samah, Tan Sri Harun Hashim et al. It was indeed a pleasure and an honour for me, as a young Counsel then, to appear before all these legal giants.
Of course the regime of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad had to change it all in 1988. Just after the highest Court of the land, led by none other than Tun Salleh Abbas had bent over backward to appease the Government in the UEM vs Lim Kit Siang case – and in the process set our administrative law back by about 50 years! – Tun Salleh was himself subjected to the ignominy of having to defend himself before a doubtful tribunal. The rest is history.
Our Judiciary was never the same again, until today. Tun Dr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s efforts in restoring some semblance of integrity in our Judiciary had seen the establishment of a Judicial Appointment Committee. How far does that go towards restoring public confidence in our Judiciary? When the absolute power of appointment still rest with the Prime Minister and nobody else, what does it matter whether there is a JAC or not? The JAC might well be just another coat of paint on a very old and rickety wooden hut full of white ants. Or favoured by Tan Sri Eusoffee, it is a very thick white sauce over a very large red herring.
To a large extent, the public have become numb with our Judiciary. The people know that there are some honest and hard working souls in there. But the people also perceive some unsavoury shenanigans in there. To top it up, the appointment of YAA Tan Sri Zaki, a former leading UMNO legal adviser, as the Chief Justice served to fan discontent with a section of the public.
Lord Chief Justice Hewart’s oft repeated pronouncement, “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”, is not only a legal truism as much as it is in fact an expectation. However, there is an obvious lack of appreciation as to what this phrase entails on the part of our Judiciary and Government. It really does not matter whether a given Judge had arrived at a decision after having applied the relevant laws honestly, with absolute integrity and the soundest of reasoning. If the ultimate stakeholder of the Judiciary, namely the people and litigants perceive that there is something wrong or improper, than justice is not seen to be done.
To illustrate, just imagine a situation where a brother of mine is a Judge (none of my brothers is a Judge I must hasten to add). Let’s say I have a case and the case is heard by my brother. Now, regardless of the fact that my brother is the most honest person on earth, and regardless of the fact that he has decided the case in my favour correctly under the law, justice is not seen to be done. This is because he is my brother. How could he hear and decide on my case? That is the crux of it all.
I have stated that the ultimate stakeholder is of course the litigants and the people. The people look to the Judiciary for justice and implementation of the law. The Judiciary is therefore not a private institution. It is an institution which is in the public domain. Although the Judiciary, theoretically, is not answerable to any branch of the administration of this country, it must however be able to withstand the closest of scrutiny by the people. And it must be able to take it up its chin with nary a grimace on its face.
The legal fraternity is pregnant with speculations as to the identity of the two Judges who are now asked to leave. The antics of one of these two Judges have been a source of wonderment for a very long time. He has been misbehaving from day one. His was a case of a Judge who was contemptuous of the very seat of justice which he himself occupies! Thus it is a source of another great puzzlement as to the timing of him being asked to leave. Why now? Or why only now? I am sure the public would ask.
Judges are well protected under the law. And it is not any insignificant law at that. They are protected by no less than our Federal Constitution. Under Article 127 for instance, the conduct of a Judge cannot even be discussed by Parliament without a notice of a substantive motion being given by not less than a quarter of the total number of Parliamentarians. Also, a Judge cannot be dismissed except by His Majesty the King upon a recommendation by a tribunal established under Article 125.
Such is the protection accorded to Judges. This is necessary in order to prevent the Executives (the Government) from interfering with the Judiciary by asserting powers of dismissal or transfer at its own whims and fancies. Nevertheless, with compliant cohorts, 1988 has proven that despite such protection, the system could still be breached!
It is therefore imperative that any decision to remove any Judges, whether by reasons of misbehaviour or wrongdoings, must be done, and ONLY be done, in accordance with the procedure enshrined in the Federal Constitution. It does not speak volume for us to say that the procedure would be too expensive, time consuming or cumbersome. It is there for a reason.
My concern is this. What will the public now think? They do not know what these two Judges had done. Is justice seen to be done? To the people, it might not be. They could question the real intention. Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed? What were the complaints against them? With all due respect, to ask Judges to resign voluntarily in the comfort of the Chief Justice’s chambers without laying out the exact reasons, in clear and precise terms, is a recipe for disaster. The Judiciary is not a private coperation or institution where disciplinary proceedings could be initiated and proceeded with behind closed doors.
Had there been a tribunal, all these would be in the public domain. There would not be any speculation. Nor would there be any suspicion of unsavoury motive or motivation. If a citizen could be given the right to be heard, – and this includes the right to be defended – why wouldn’t a Judge be accorded such right?
With all due respect, this is a dangerous precedent. And it is not going to help improve the image of the Judiciary. Not when justice is not seen to be done.
How is it possible for a CJ with tainted record to clean-up the Judiciary? He said it himself that he bribed the peon working in Court House while he was a lawyer……. Common, people of the world, look at this man who is now the Top Judge in Malaysia
Resign, Mr. Zaki. The Malaysian Judiciary can never be clean with people like you holding the top post.
Merely asking “errant judges” to voluntarily sign (or be removed) is apparently the modus operandi of those in power with secrets to protect. I am sure those two errant judges would take up the offer. But where is justice? We will never know what it is that they did wrong.
These rogue judges must have written questionable judgments in a number of cases that came before them. These cases will have to be looked into. Injustice has been done to litigants. Can anything be done ex post facto to undo the damage and restore justice?
As long as BN is the government, there is no hopes for change in our judiciary.
In 1987 Mah Ha Tee did away with the UMNO party founded by Hissmoodin’s grandfather, Dato Onn Jaffar, and formed his own party-UMNO Baru. The following year he institited a Boot Camp for ‘errant’ judges.
The judges removed by His Rogueship the CJ of Malaysia refused to go to the Boot Camp, leaving the CJ with no alternative but to boot them out.
One can ask Judges to resign voluntarily but they don’t have to resign.
If they refuse to resign, then they cannot forcibly be dismissed/sacked by the Executive. (There is constitutional provision in article 125 providing that a judge cannot be dismissed except by the King upon a recommendation after public hearing by a tribunal).
This Constitutional provision requiring a Tribunal protects both the independent and otherwise capable judge from capricious removal by an Executive acting in bad faith and making false accusations of misbehaviour or incompetence – and it also protects the public from having a brave and independent judge forcibly removed under false pretexts!
However removal of a judge against the judge’s will (as happened in 1988) is not the same as a judge’s voluntarily resigning.
If he voluntarily agrees to resign, even if that is a consequence of being asked to go, then it means that the judge does not want the constitutional protection. It may be because he does not want the hassle or he has skeletons in the cupboard or otherwise admittedly incompetent.
Writer Art Harun, obviously a lawyer, asks, “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” and presses for a Tribunal to be instituted. It is all well and good in service of purposes of transparency and public knowledge but not necessarily for standpoint of the Constitution or even the judges….
It is a judge’s right to resign on his own accord, which is provided under article 125(2) of the Constitution.
When a judge is asked to go for whatever reasons, one can’t force a judge not to accede to the CJ’s request/demand to go or not to resign but demand a tribunal!
It is the judge’s right to resign on his own volition (especially when he is confronted with certain allegations, whether true or otherwise that he does not want to be publicised in Tribunal). He may owe a duty to public to mete justice when he is judge but he (the judge) owes no duty to disclose allegations against him or have them ventilated through a public hearing of a Tribunal. (Whether the government or CJ has the duty, from standpoint of public interest and transparency, to disclose the reasons for asking judges to go – well that’s another question). There is however certainly nothing constitutionally wrong to ask for and accept resignation of the judge, the fact that it is given implies its voluntary resignation.
To Art Harun’s question “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?”, well the short reply is that where such a judge resigns on his own accord, and is not forcibly removed without Tribunal Hearing, the Constitution is followed to the “T” .
//To Art Harun’s question “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?”, well the short reply is that where such a judge resigns on his own accord, and is not forcibly removed without Tribunal Hearing, the Constitution is followed to the “T” .// (Jeffrey)
What Jeffrey commented here does really make good sense.
If the “errant judge” is not guilty-conscious, what thing can really make him feel afraid of even if a tribunal hearing is to be instituted for invoking the proper procedure of impeachment against him?
If the “errant judge” feels guilty-conscious, then he will by self choose to resign voluntarily in order to prevent, at the mercy of the immediate superior, further disclosure of his guilt to the public so that he may still save his face when confronting the ignorant public!
//“Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?”//
Simple, just charge these two judges for the so-called “wrongs or whatever that deemed serious enough for dismissal”, I am sure they will immediately run after the constitutional protection.
//If the “errant judge” is not guilty-conscious, what thing can really make him feel afraid of even if a tribunal hearing is to be instituted for invoking the proper procedure of impeachment against him?//
I think the judges must have thought that in Malaysia, they don’t stand a chance even if they have done nothing wrong. They have to go quietly if they are no longer “acceptable” to whoever that may be.
I think it is not proper to ask judges to resign in an opaque manner. In the future, good judges but not acceptable to the bosses or the executive may also be removed in the same manner. If we want to remove judges, let’s have an open tribunal.
If judges are asked to resign to save “face”, time and trouble, why announced it to the public. Once the public knows about it, like in this case, many questions, and justifiably so, arise. It is never as simple as one wannabe here put it.
//These rogue judges must have written questionable judgments in a number of cases that came before them. //
Too presumptuous. The removal is not necessarily due to rogue judges or even incompetent judges. The whole public service (from judges, police, to macc etc) is filled with incompetency, but why these two judges, one may ask. Unacceptability and therefore asked to resign, as we know, can be due to many factors – know too much, making decisions that some people don’t like, too clean, too efficient, too independent, and do not know how to play ball. I wish we are more circumspect in our comments.
Calm down Kamput! You can play my ball.
Now, who is vulgar and who is being unreasonable. I have suspected all along, you can’t fight me with ideas, knowledge and experience and have resorted to rattle me. May be you are a imposter here, working for someone. After all you have disappeared for while only to reappear under another name. I guess every one can be bought, if the price is right. You and wannabe must have thought that to comment on legal issue is safe, am i right? Well, i have shown that both of you are inedequate and half baked even in this department.
“Errant judges” is likely to be euphemism for judges suspected of corruption, evidence against whom may not be sufficient to secure a conviction or even enough to make a prima facie case.
Why use big big words. What you have said is the beginning of a slippery slope that has no end. So today is judges, may be tomorrow is police and officers from macc and AG chamber. So much for someone constantly talking about open court, evidence and proper conviction. Tell me when or how would we know the evidence is sufficient or not sufficient other than through an open court. Hmm interesting, guess gestapo system is making its way back.
CJ Zaki already gave his reason why the judges were asked to go. “They were grossly inefficient,” said Zaki reported in The Star Online Sunday, 06 September 2009.
If inefficiency (incompetence) were a false accusation, the judges, who would know their constitutional right could invoke constitutional protection to require a Tribunal to adjudicate whether the Zaki’s charge of inefficiency were true or not true. They could reject the CJ’s request to resign and for them to be otherwise removed, a Tribunal will have to be instituted. Why don’t the judges do that? Why do they resign?
If the judges accepts the request and resign then it must be taken that they do not contest the allegation of inefficiency.
Their resignation (without invocation of Tribunal) is also allowed by article 125(2) of the Constitution.
No constitutional provision is deviated from.
The constitution has been followed, So how does the question “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” arise?
So what is the issue?
That Zaki’s reason of inefficiency given to public is not his real reason? You have evidence of that?
If there were reasonable grounds to think that Zaki is not giving the “real reason” – provided one has such reasonable grounds to believe so and to contradict Zaki – then the issue would be the propriety of the CJ’s conduct in sweeping things under the carpet by way of giving the reason “inefficiency” when that is not the real reason.
Even in such a case, this issue of Zaki not telling the truth has nothing to do with the separate issue of the Constitution, which provisions have apparently been followed..
Art Harun asks “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” This specific question does not arise by the fact of the judges’ acceptance of the request to resign. If one says the government has not given the reason, thats not true for Zaki has already given the reason – inefficiency.
One is entitled to introduce the separate issue of whether Zaki has acted with propriety in asking judges to resign if one has reasonable grounds or proof that the judges are guilty of other things than inefficiency, and that inefficiency is just an excuse. Does any one have reasonable grounds or proof in these respects?
Lim Kam Put tries to be clever here by saying “as we know, it can be due to many factors – know too much, making decisions that some people don’t like, too clean, too efficient, too independent, and do not know how to play ball.”
All these are speculations. Who does not know to speculate? Maybe Zaki does not like their face. Maybe this or maybe that. May be(s) don’t get us nowhere. If there were grounds to suggest there are some “reasons” other than inefficiency – and I don’t see Art Harun suggesting there is any – then the issue posed by Art Harun will arise ie whether Zaki acted appropriately. It has nothing to do with the question why tribunal is not invoked, and whether the Constitution is followed because the Constitution clearly covers the situation of a judge resigning when asked to do so on ostensible grounds of inefficiency.
///Why use big big words?/// – Lim KamPut
So any word that you don’t know is regarded big?
What about using wrong words (whether one regards them big or small) like Oxymoron to mean a moronic ox? Or wannabe intended to be a reference to hypocrite???
///May be you are a imposter here, working for someone/// has got as much merits or lack thereof as the other speculation that Maybe you have just made your postings from a lap top somewhere in room 69 Hospital Permai, one of the oldest mental asylum in this country!
If others are speculating, may I know what are you doing, wannabe? Are you a gullible fool who is easily duped? You have not answered a single point I raised other than throwing insults.
Given Malaysia’s track records, do you think judges (whether errant or otherwise) would dare to go through the tribunal? I think the fear is real. Was there a significant change from 1988? If a judge resigns, he gets pension, gratuity and retains whatever status he/she has. If he/she goes through a tribunal and gets fired, he/she loses everything, you got it, wannabe?
You are saying there is no reason to doubt CJ. May I know on what evidence you based your confidence? For those who have some reservations, at least they have learned the lesson of history. As for you, it is just based on plain simpleton mentality, or perhaps you are paid to provide certain views. A person who can write so eloquently can’t be so stupid or of unsound mind.
The chief justice appointed from Umno rank has no credibility to reform our judiciary. The ‘sacking’ of two judges without a open tribunal will only add to speculations about his decision. Transparency should apply so that public informed of the justification to two judges sacking.
The honourable YB Karpal Singh has called for the resignation of CJ based on very valid reason. CJ should quit as he no longer fit for the post, how the public trust an incompetent CJ to monitor other judges. The reformation of our judiciary system won’t happen under BNajis rule as they are the culprits in making the system rotten. Only change of government by Pakatan could reforms our judiciary.
“They were grossly inefficient,” said Zaki reported in The Star Online.
//If the judges accepts the request and resign then it must be taken that they do not contest the allegation of inefficiency.// Jeffrey
——————————–
Not necessary. Most judges will back down if they were ask to choose between MACC, ISA and resignation with full pension.
Anyway, the public will know whether the reason given by Zaki is true for false once we know the names of the 2 judges. We will know by just looking at their recent written judgments.
That’s what the STAR says, Zaki said i.e. that these judges were “grossly inefficient”? This can only mean they take unusually long periods of time to write out their judgments – years in some cases? That normally would warrant only a reprimand by the head judge.
Needless to say there’s more than meets the eye.
“We will know by just looking at their recent written judgments.”
What do you expect to get from reading their judgments? Don’t ask Kamput to read. He won’t be able to understand ‘big’ words. He thought errant judges means sending judges on errands.
///You are saying there is no reason to doubt CJ. May I know on what evidence you based your confidence? /// – Lim Kam Put
I am not saying that. Whether there is a reason or no reason to doubt what the CJ says was not the issue discussed by me.
The issue discussed by me was Art Harun’s raising the question “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?”, in terms of Tribunal invoked, which I said did not arise in the case of resignations as distinct from removal/dismissal. Thats all!
Issues other than “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” are speculations.
There’s nothing wrong with speculations. My posting did not dwell on issues of what might be speculated on basis of probabilities. More important Art Harun’s essay and the argument in it does not seem to have been based on what might be speculated or that there is a basis for various speculative possibilities. His argument is structured on saying CJ Zaki is not following the constitutional option of invoking the tribunal, and as a result the public do not know the reason for dismissal which misses the points that:
(1) the constitutional option of invoking the tribunal is an option for the judges (not Zaki) which they invoke only if they don’t accept Zaki’s request to resign. Here however I assume they have agreed to resign.
(2) on the issue of informing the public, Zaki has already given reason – inefficiency (incompetence). That may be the true reason; or maybe not true, or maybe half true but these are issues not raised by Art Harun, anmd neither by me.
I thought we should confine to the immediate issue raised than jumping all over the place entangling all other collateral issues. I have addressed only the question raised by Art Harun – “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” and said that this question did not arise!
Now in earlier thread on ” Chief Secretary should explain why he had failed in past two years” in posting #4 by limkamput on September 16th, 2009 21:43, this Lim Kam Put himself said:
“When we fight, we must adhere to issues, not fearing how many people are on the other side. That is the hallmark of leadership and tenacity….”
He does not even follow his own prescription of ” we must adhere to issues”…
I must apologise for the long windedness in triple postings harping on these points – it is forced upon me because of their impenetrability to LimKamPut’s mental make up who keeps saying “You have not answered a single point I raised’ when he is out of point regarding the issues I discussed!
///Don’t ask Kamput to read. He won’t be able to understand ‘big’ words. He thought errant judges means sending judges on errands./// What does one get when he mixes up not only words but also issues?
He uses arguments like a torch light to selectively aim at discrediting postings of those whom he wants to selectively discredit (for only the sake of discrediting only) to satisfy the cravings of a demented/vengeful mind instead of to illuminate the issues raised for answers.
Discussion of issues is but a mere cloak to camouflage this subterranean motive to revile as a pretext that he has improved from “name calling” to another platform of so called civilised discussion. Although tactics are superficially changed, his fundamental objective is the same, and the result of it – to disrupt the forum here – remains.
Do not expect him to change anymore than leopards to change their spots.
///Given Malaysia’s track records, do you think judges (whether errant or otherwise) would dare to go through the tribunal? I think the fear is real. Was there a significant change from 1988? If a judge resigns, he gets pension, gratuity and retains whatever status he/she has. If he/she goes through a tribunal and gets fired, he/she loses everything, you got it, wannabe?/// – Lim Kam Put
I did not raise these issues. I have not discussed these issues. These issues were not raised by Art Harun.
Lim Kam Put raises these issues; he answers them for me and then he called me a “wannabe”.
That is the type of quality of his arguments – irrelevant and dishonest.
He raises
Thank you very much Tun Dato Seri Dr Mahathir for spreading a “thick coat of paint” over the judiciary and a “thick sticky white sauce over the red herring”.
Now this stupid debate will rage on endlessly – did we have a red herring for a judiciary or a rotting, white-ant infested judicial system? Once again, thank you Tun for a marvellous job well done. History shall remember you well for your arty-farty contributions to judicial art.
Judiciary Reform? No way. That is so un-umno-like. Najib may implement a wayang reform though. He loves to wayang. Dont forget that! Wots worse. He will push the wayang through in complete disregard of the fact that no one in umno listens to him. I mean look at his 1malaysia thingy. And look at the actions of those cow-head idiots. And the published views of those utusan people. All of which are anything but 1malaysia. Still najib has no qualms and he has the audacity to continue with his shout of 1malaysia. Obviously he thinks that we are all gullible fools. Some of us are. Not that many in number fortunately. And they can all be found in barisan.
//If he voluntarily agrees to resign, even if that is a consequence of being asked to go, then it means that the judge does not want the constitutional protection. It may be because he does not want the hassle or he has skeletons in the cupboard or otherwise admittedly incompetent.//Jeffrey
Telling the whole world others are speculating. Are the above not speculation? What do you mean voluntarily agrees to resign. If you are asked to resign, and if you have no choice but to resign (and this could be due to many factors, not necessarily your own fault), is this the same as voluntarily to resign.
//It is a judge’s right to resign on his own accord, which is provided under article 125(2) of the Constitution//Jeffrey
You are speculating unnecessarily. Yes, it is a judge’s right to resign on his own accord. But in this particular case, did these two judges “resign voluntarily”?
There is logic in Art Harun’s argument. It is not as simple as the judges are forced to demand a tribunal if they have chosen to resign as stated by this wannabe. If we want to remove a judge due to certain reasons, the process must be allowed to take place. Allowing judges to resign even if “wrongs” have been committed by them to me will not serve justice. In fact this is precisely happening in many cases where senior members of the administration (both politicians and civil service), having committed wrongs were allowed to resign quietly. It is this kind of mentality that continues to breed incompetency, corruption etc. You are essentially saying: yes errant officials can do whatever they want, but once caught or no longer tolerable, just allow them to resign. This is too easy, too unfair and too stupid.
I hope my explanation, in simple English, would help to put some logic into his thick skull. But I am not hopeful. You know what, he will come back to say this is not what I say, others have misconstrued him, others have never kept to the issue when he was the one who introduced new and irrelevant issues into discussion. Art Harun’s essay is clear, except to this wannabe for reasons best known to himself.
Lim Kam Put – you are nitpicking and pedantic. When two judges choose to “resign” instead of resisting the CJ’s request, it must be taken that they resign voluntarily. This is the way an inference by outsiders is made. It is not the state of minds/feelings of the judges that counts which you, in your naïveté suggest that I am speculating.
The way you posed the question is whether inside their minds they are “voluntarily” in sense of being without unhappiness or rancour. I have no equipment to ascertain whats go on in their minds even if I knew who they were.
There’s a saying that even the Devil knoweth not whats on the minds of men and they have to be assessed objectively based on what their actions lend objective inference of (whatever goes on in their inner feelings of which no one could ascertain)!
This is ridiculous if you rtalk of subjective mental state – you know that they are not voluntarily resigning?
The fact that you talk of subjective states of minds and challenging if I were speculating about their subjective frame of mind (voluntarily) when I am addressing what people might deduce and conclude from an objective set of facts of their resignation suggest that you are entirely arguing off tangent, seeking to nit-pick a point at basement level what that others have already settled at that level and now at the 5th Floor!
//What do you expect to get from reading their judgments? Don’t ask Kamput to read. He won’t be able to understand ‘big’ words. He thought errant judges means sending judges on errands.//Just one whatever
It is not i don’t understand those words. It is you and of course wannabe, never stop trying to impress. Frankly I think no body is impressed because i think many don’t really understand what you two great masters of English (and Latin – was it silence is golden) are saying. Take a poll, I am that confident most visitors here don’t understand what Jeffrey was saying. Dia cakap, dia shiok sendiri punya orang lah. Sidekick dia pun macam itu. Dua dua sama sahaja.
//But I am not hopeful// – Lim Kam Put. You are right. You are thick. You don’t understand no matter what I said that I did not discuss issue of the propriety of what the CJ did. That was clarified in my 1st posting.
//When two judges choose to “resign” instead of resisting the CJ’s request, it must be taken that they resign voluntarily. This is the way an inference by outsiders is made.//
I have read this sentence slowly three times, and i conclude that it is your opinion and your inference, no one else’s. Please don’t be arrogant lah, I know you are good, but not that good.
#28 by limkamput on September 13th, 2009 16:27
“Never mind, you don’t have to moderate me, i quit despite the fact that i love this blog and have been contributing probably when you were still sucking milk. It is not just the qualities of bloggers have gone down, even the moderator is also a phua tang sai (half baked in case you don’t understand)”??
Even the moderator is also a phua tang sai??
That’s not nice to say when you’re fasting.
//What do you expect to get from reading their judgments?// jaswant
Written judgements not favourable to UMNO may mean “grossly inefficient”
Jaswant, please start to press your pants now for your sunday service. Please don’t wait till the last minute and then tell the whole world about it. that is hypocritical. By the way, when you go church, please be reminded that Christianity is NOT a religion. You love to say Islam is more than a religion. I am telling you Christianity is not even a religion. I hope it is not too profound for you. I sincerely hope you understand.
//I have read this sentence slowly three times, and I conclude that it is your opinion and your inference, no one else’s// – Lim Kam Put.
Then I suggest you read the sentence slowly another thirty times. This is not “my opinion or inference” as you allege. This is the objective reasonable man’s test. I am well reminded that an unreasonable man may either not so readily grasp what is an objective reasonable man’s standard, or even if you could, you would refuse so.
Let me then explain a little further one last time: when adjudging what a man intended we (3rd parties and bystanders) obviously have no equipment to ascertain his subjective mental state. That is why judges always proclaim, ‘that the intent of a man cannot be tried, for the Devil himself knows not.
So if we cannot delve into a person’s states of mind how else can we ascertain his intention from the standpoint of reasonable criteria?
It is always determined from objective facts – what he has said, written or done.
Even in construing commercial agreements when a dispute arises and it becomes necessary to determine what the parties had originally intended and agreed – of which they presently obviously deny that there was an agreement, which is why they are now in dispute – any judge, will not to seek the futile task of trying to determine the elusive mental element subsisting between the parties but to examine the surrounding circumstances of what they next after said or wrote or did to each other, and then ask, based on these specific circumstances provable (in contrast to mental states not provable) what the intention of the parties was or must have been, as may be reasonably inferred, based, as far practical experience permits, that the reasonable expectations of honest men, given what the other side have said or written or done to them, are not disappointed. This is often compendiously expressed as the objective reasonable test.
And this is the way one look at the two judges tendering their resignation. They were asked to go by the CJ. Reason has been given – their inefficiency. The judges could refuse to accept the CJ’s request. They could dispute the allegations of inefficiency. If so the CJ has no choice but then – only then to invoke the Tribunal. The judges will know better than you and I their constitutional protection and recourse to a tribunal before unilateral attempt may be made to remove them against their consent. Yet the judges accede to the request and resign, so what does objectively the situtaion infer? Isn’t it that they must have accepted the allegations of inefficiency and that their resignations are “voluntary” (whether actually in their individual minds they agree or not that they are inefficient, and whether there are other reasons we will never know and can never ascertain as facts though we speculate whatever probable).
If you are nitpicking that I am arguing and speculating on the “voluntariness” of their resignations based on their subjective states of their mind, then you have not understood the very basics of the objective reasonable man’s test underpinning my earlier postings before launching into an argument.
If you still cannot understand, please read a 100 times for I can explain no further.
When one is asked to leave; “some prior negotiations” behind the scene must have taken place. This is what worries the public. A tainted and powerful UMNO represented CJ’s way of “negotiation” could be “strongly convincing” to the listener.
//Christianity is not even a religion// – so claims Lim Kam Put.
First you tell me what is your understanding and definition of religion before you proceed to say Christianity is not even a religion.
//Isn’t it that they must have accepted the allegations of inefficiency and that their resignations are “voluntary” (whether actually in their individual minds they agree or not that they are inefficient, and whether there are other reasons we will never know and can never ascertain as facts though we speculate whatever probable). //
This is what a simpleton would have drawn the inference from, but I guess not many others.
You are using a principle, in this case the objectivity test, to support your flawed inference, got it? How can you say the moment the judges acceded to the request to resign, they have deemed to have resigned voluntarily. The objective test, as far as I understand (I am not a lawyer or a wannabe like you), is what would a NORMAL person do under NORMAL circumstances. In this particular case, are the judges making THE decision to “resign voluntarily” under normal circumstances? I would say they are making the decision under abnormal and perhaps duress circumstances.
I am also telling you for the last time. No, I lied, I did not read three times your sentence in #33. I did not even read, but I know that is how a “sophisticated simpleton” thinks (yes this is oxymoron).
//First you tell me what is your understanding and definition of religion before you proceed to say Christianity is not even a religion.//
First, it is not my job to educate you. Second your sidekick, being a church going Christian should understand what i am saying unless he wishes to commit sin against god by saying what i said is not true.
Kamput and Jeffrey – can you please stop hogging the space here with yr nonsensical personal debate. Makes no sense to carry on some private ego-busting exchange here when the rest of the public wud rather read something more substantive regarding the topics canvassed here. Cud u guys exchange yr email addresses & take it from there; maybe courtesy of LKS.
Not that i am contributing much before u shoot me down. But i think yr exchanges & some of the others are …well, just a little too much to digest. OK, that’s enuf from me. I think we shud just move on. TQ.
//Christianity is not even a religion// – so claims Lim Kam Put.
//First you tell me what is your understanding and definition of religion before you proceed to say Christianity is not even a religion.// (Jeffrey)
Jeffrey,
I used to hear a young cell group leader of a church trying to preach to a non-believer, “Christianity is different from other religion or philosophy. Confucianism may be a philosophy but Christianity is not. In fact, Christianity is also not a religion. Christianity is a personal relationship between you and God!”
I think LimKamPut is trying to learn Christianity now. If you are a Christian, you should have shown him your love in God’s love. Don’t forget the second biggest commandment: Love your neighbour as yourself!
can you please stop
It is horrible to watch. If this was boxing, the referee would have stopped it a long time ago. Mind you, if this was boxing limkamput would have been stretchered off a long time ago.
Orangrojak, that is why you are not a referee because obviously you do not know who is winning. And please write proper English here because we Malaysians read and write standard English, unlike the poorly educated class from UK.
[deleted]
ENDANGERED HORNBILL – did I read an article of yours about living in houses with no windows recently? I thought it was very good. Maybe it wasn’t you – was it?
“A word of caution. Under our Federal Constitution 1957, you’re not only liable to be fined but jailed for proselytizing a Muslim like Kamput.” (Jaswant)
For those who have ears, let him hear. For those who have eyes, let him read! Jesus said, “You don’t choose me, but I choose you!”
Are you a chosen one, Jaswant? If yes, then there is no way the human made law such as Fedral Constitution can stop Jesus from choosing another one!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[Jaswant. limkamput – time for a moratorium and return to cyber civility as well as to other blog visitors. – Admin]
The fact that we have a bunch of people endlessly debating the myriad of possible reasons behind the ‘voluntary’ resignation of 2 judges just proves the point Art Harun was trying to make.
In a judiciary with a tainted reputation as in Malaysia, the right thing to do would have been to hold an open tribunal so to ensure that justice is SEEN to be done.
As it stands, the sneaky backdoor way that was used to remove the 2 judges only opens up the reputation of the judiciary to more wild speculations.
Tan Sri Zaki thinks what he has done will help improve the image of the judiciary when it has actually done quite the opposite.
“But the UMNO government, Kamput’s employer for some twenty plus years and in whose debt he shall always be, if for nothing else for his community college education, can stop you.” (Jaswant)
Jaswant,
Please do remember that apostle Paul was once an employee of the tyrannic Roman Empire but the work experience of his earlier part of his life did not stop him from pursuing the justice and righteousness of God at the later stage of his life! What really makes the difference here is REPENTANCE AND BELIEF IN JESUS! That is basically what Christianity is all about – inviting Jesus into one’s life and modelling after Jesus!
[deleted]
As for Zaki being sent on an image building mission, the only image he is concerned with is that of his master. That’s what a prostitution syndicate expects from a recently promoted jaga pintu to head pimp.
Tan Sri Zaki thinks what he has done will help improve the image of the judiciary
Do you think he believes that? Ever since I came to Malaysia I’ve been convinced that most things here happen out of pure caprice and the people who do those things just say the first thing that comes into their minds when they’re asked why they happened. I get the strong impression that many public figures are ‘acting important’ because they don’t really know what they’re supposed to be doing. Since everybody has to “jus accep it”, the excuse for the judges’ requested voluntary retirement could have been anything.
In the absence of any real information, I would be happy to believe the CJ did what he did just because he hadn’t seen his name in the mainstream media for a while. Perhaps he thought defending violent racists and interpreting catchy slogans in rhythmic movements suitable for all ages had been ‘done to death’. Aside from the obvious racial supremacy project, I don’t see many patterns at all in the behaviour of Malaysian public figures – it looks utterly chaotic to me.
The judges? Maybe they are “jus accep it”. ‘Questioning’ under the current regime probably isn’t a great career move. I can’t see how to read anything into this non-news item. It’s just another day in paradise.
“It’s just another day in paradise.” Rojak
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
///With all due respect, to ask Judges to resign voluntarily in the comfort of the Chief Justice’s chambers without laying out the exact reasons, in clear and precise terms, is a recipe for disaster.///– Art Harun
The judges do not have to resign if they think that they have done no wrong. Then the exact reasons will have to be presented to the tribunal. Tun Saleh Abas was removed because UMNO did not trust him on the appeal case, but then it was said that he sent a letter complaining about noises due to renovation was the reason, and the PM being subservient had to follow order to remove him. We do not know the reasons why the two judges were asked to resign. It might have been because they took 20 minutes for tea instead of 15 minutes allowed for tea time.
“The judges do not have to resign if they think that they have done no wrong”
It is because these judges knew what they did they will want to resign. You don’t think Zaki is stupid, do you??
He also would like to find out how many would resign in the light of his public statement. I don’t think he called any of the “errant judges” to his chambers recently to discuss the matter of resignation. Nor does he intend to do so. I think he’s curious right now to know who would resign. A smart move on his part.
It is because these judges knew what they did they will want to resign. You don’t think Zaki is stupid, do you??
Did I ?
That was a question.
1. Basically, the Constitution is not fair not to provide a clear stipulations on what should disqualify a judge and how. Therefore, those misbehaved judges can be disqualified with transparency and with more standardized procedures that can be initiated not only by CJ or the Parliament but anyone who had been biased by the Judge.
2. Judges should be considered as Public Servant with responsibility to act Fairly and without Bias. Giving privilege than necessary or fair is already a contradiction of the Principle of a fair Constitution which should meant for the People!
3. Judges came from lawyers. But, had lawyers been properly regulated by the Bar Council? Or does Bar works strictly or accordingly on the Disciplines of their members? Had Bar done their best in educating or even stopping lawyers to gang up with Judge?
4. Has the Judiciary system or CJ worked towards the discouragement of Judge ganging up with lawyers?
5. In one single case in Sham Alam court, 3 judges in consecutive had been bias to allow lawyers to file their discharge with false statement, allowing the plaintiff to drag for years without Suggested Statement of Facts and Issues, allowing lawyers not appearing in court for over a year but asking the clients to prepare their own case, and, not asking the lawyers to file application for discharge when the lawyer assaulted the clients and officially said he would not act for his clients any more!
Should Judges acting with Bias be disqualified? So, how come the CJ found only TWO to be “recommended” for resign?
6. If Judges and Lawyers work accordingly to law, why should Judges be considered as “Legal Giants”?
When Mahadev Shanker did not even dare to ask the parties concerned in a housing projects to provide the Development Order as the basis of the case as in
http://www.hba.org.my/laws/CourtCases/1996/emko_properties.htm
and not performing independent in the Lingam “RCI” case, why should he be a legal giant?