Dignity

“A stiff custodial sentence will redeem the dignity of the Federal Court,” so said that judges who had a shoe thrown at them. This something new and like all revolutionary concepts it came from wonderfully inventive Malaysia. So now beware, there is a new law, though not from Parliament; so keep in mind the “dignity” of the court, a dangerous area because it has not been defined by the Penal Code.

But can we blame the judges for talking like policeman rather than judges? Ever since Dr Mahathir removed their judicial power they have been reduced to mere arms of the government.

It is good to be reminded of some of what the hopeful Raja Aziz Addruse and Logan Sabapathy said in 2008 about Dr Mahathir’s destruction of Article 121 of the Constitution..
I
“... the tacit concession by Government that wrong had in fact been done in 1988, significant reforms could be achieved to great effect.
”A query however arises as to what it is that we aim to achieve. Though there is universal acceptance of the need for reform, there seems to be no consensus about the ultimate objective of any such endeavour. Though a â˜more competent or â seemingly less corrupt or â ˜more efficient judiciary are all satisfactory aims in themselves, we must keep in mind that as aspirations they are ambiguous. The exercise requires the kind of strict benchmarking that would allow us to establish a Judiciary that inspires confidence both nationally and internationally. We should also not be distracted from the fact that the difficulties we face go beyond the Judiciary into the wider system of the administration of justice.
“It would thus appear that for any meaningful progress in this regard, we must first determine the objective of reform, having regard to the standards that we wish to achieve. As we see it, any undertaking would only be of value to the nation if its ultimate aim were to be the establishing of a framework that would once again allow for the Rule of Law. By this we mean a system in which everyone is made safe from arbitrary governance by subjecting all persons to the law.
Though some might argue that the Rule of Law is in place, pointing to the existence of laws and institutions that constitute the wider system of the administration of justice, an honest and objective assessment would make it patently clear that this is no longer the case. Serious doubts have been cast over the competence and integrity of the key institutions. No less significant is the very low level of public confidence in the system as a whole, such confidence being a necessary prerequisite to its effectiveness. We are in the midst of a serious crisis of confidence such that decisions of the courts and the authorities, be they the police or the Attorney General, are doubted virtually as a matter of course. It is regrettable that the current state of affairs in this country is such that many now believe that governance is arbitrary.
“In view of this, an intention to address those factors that have led to the belief that governance is arbitrary for there being no effective Rule of Law must be central to any campaign for reform. This in turn brings into relief the need to build a consensus as to the level of influence the Executive should be permitted to have, if at all. The Government’s apparent reluctance to dilute its involvement in the appointment of judges despite having very publicly endorsed the need for an independent judicial appointments commission points to a continued desire on the part of those who form the Government that the Executive should be allowed to shape due process. Mirroring attitudes of the Executive arms of governments in other jurisdictions, our Executive’s desire for influence must not be dismissed as being idiosyncratic to merely those who make up the incumbent Government.
“It also becomes apparent that the reform initiative must be approached on at least two equally important levels; the legal framework and human resource.
“The former is crucial in ensuring that the fundamentals of the system are strong. This can be seen in the impact that the controversial amendment of Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution in 1988 has had. The amendment did immeasurable damage. Not only did it affect the psyche of judges, already battered by the attack on the Judiciary, it set the foundation for a reshaped perspective on the role the Judiciary was to play in promoting the Rule of Law. In its 2007 decision in PP v Kok Wah Kuan, the Federal Court in effect held that the doctrine of separation of powers was not relevant to constitutional law in this country. In a previous decision handed down in 2002, Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan , the Court had for all purposes and intents concluded that it was Parliament that was supreme and not the Constitution. These decisions, and others of a similar nature, have in many ways lent to the arbitrariness we have seen these past two decades. ..”