Judiciary independent? Let its action do the talking

We’re not pro- or anti-government, says CJ

Kingfisher: It is quite peculiar to note Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria’s assurance that the judicial colloquium of Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) is not to be perceived as an effort against the government.

Any hint of apprehension for a worthy effort is rather unfortunate. One would have thought that all constructive inter-governmental initiatives on protecting and promoting human rights ought to result in social and economic benefits to member states.

Especially when the judiciary in these states are effectively associated and enlightened to a common basket of jurisprudence on relevant issues.

Consequently, there could emerge a commonality of social capital amongst the tripartite members (government, employer, worker) of civil society in and between member states.

Hang Babeuf: Translation: We are quite happy to talk and posture and masquerade about human rights, as generally and internationally understood, so long as we do not have to do anything serious about them.

Like respecting or implementing or enforcing them, for example. A fine, principled position.

Clever Voter: The judiciary is an important part of our parliamentary democracy. Despite its repeated denial, the judiciary is perceived to be part of the establishment.

Decisions made at this level have profound repercussions. But it must not be seen to be part of the executive. Neither should it be part of the patronage system.

Regretfully it fails as far as public perception is concerned. The decline of public confidence began way before Prime Minister Najib Razak’s regime.

It’s never too late to reverse this, but chances are slim since judges too are humans and they have put their pensions ahead of long-term national interest.

Anonymous_1429175092: These are the four things needed for a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially – Socrates.

Seriously Arifin, the judiciary is perceived to lack the four things mentioned above, and your ‘syok sendiri’ talk is not going to change the perception of the educated rakyat.

Fairman: Arifin has not left a lasting legacy as Federal Court judge, let alone as CJ. He wrote the ruling on the Perak constitutional crisis where the bench held the prime minister/chief minister/menteri besar need not test the floor to determine their measure of support.

He declined to give leave in the Allah case when the majority decision on the bench was four while minority was three. Each of the judges in the minority wrote their grounds while the majority relied on your (Arifin) judgment alone.

Drngsc: CJ, you are not pro-government but you are seen as another department of government. We have yet to see a fair judgment on cases that involve the government, yet.

If the judiciary is fair and just, and justice is blind, then PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim would have been freed. There was no case against him, whether Sodomy 1 or Sodomy 2.

It was so obvious. How can a judge believe that his accuser kept the seminal fluid and sperm intact for 48 hours? That is unbelievable. And the sample with its label broken and allegedly tampered with was still admissible.

Anonymous_40f4: Indeed, Anwar’s sodomy case was a “political trial disguised as a criminal case”.

The Court of Appeal brought forward the trial dates and the verdict was rushed through just to disqualify Anwar from the Kajang by-election nomination.

Our judiciary is independent, did you say?

Telestai: Sometimes I feel the judiciary behaves like a kindergarten teacher dealing with a rich spoilt brat in the class. Not wanting to upset the brat, the teacher makes sure that the brat gets his or her way every now and then, but not giving in at times.

This is so that the teacher cannot be accused by other parents of favouring the spoilt brat.

Ace: “We have to be independent. Integrity has to be maintained at all time,” said Arifin.

With such nice sounding words, can we dare to hope/wish that he really means just that? But then again, if wishes were horses, beggars may ride.

No gov’t interference in judge’s verdict, says CJ

Rojak: While I would not, in the absence of proof, seek to deny Arifin’s claim that the government never influences the judiciary, I would question his citing of decisions going against the government in support of his claim.

How is that any sounder than saying elections must be free and fair because the opposition wins some seats?

Liew Lean Kut: I remembered reading about a judge who was refused promotion because he ruled against the government, isn’t that meddling?

Who would dare to rule against the government? I don’t think there are any.

Worldly Wise: Promotion of judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the Federal Court should be based on seniority, not on ‘merit’.

At the time of giving decision, the judge must give his reasons not later.

Lexicon: Arifin, what if some poor sod can’t write good judgments and doesn’t have integrity? Wouldn’t that be a terrible legacy?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.