By Shamala Suresh Kee

The VK Lingam Tape revealed the ugly side of our judiciary system in our nation. The revelation did not only astound V.K Lingam and then Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal and former Chief Justice, Ahmad Fairuz Sheik Abdul Halim, but, the public were left in doubt, questioning the credibility and the integrity of our judicial domain’s honorable members and the judiciary practice in our country. Now, you don’t only need cables to land with a temporary teaching post, but you can get to be the Chief Justice of Malaysia if you pull the right strings.

As a country that practices democracy, the state comprises of three chambers including the executive, judiciary and legislative, the three are not to overlap with each other as the doctrine of power separation disallows this; so, the sovereignty of each chamber is constituted.

Since, under normal circumstances, hearing on cases involving civilians would be conducted by the court, now, who would hear the dispute that occurred within the executer of the law and order? The royal commission that was formed is chaired by Haidar Noor (former Chief Judge of Malaya), consisting members Mahadev Shankar (former Court of Appeal Judge), Steve Shim (former Chief Judge of Sabah And Sarawak, former solicitor-general, Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh and Khoo Kay Khim (a well-known historian and SUHAKAM commisioner) under the consent of Yang Dipertuan Agong now is investigating the scandal divulged by the incriminating video, released by PKR President, Anwar Ibrahim.

The most authoritative court in Malaysia would be the Federal Court, followed by the Court of Appeal and High Courts. The Sessions and Magistrate courts are below those and finally the Syariah Court and other smaller courts. So, being the Chief Justice (President of the Federal Court) means, you are among the most powerful authority in the Judicial System of Malaysia. The influence and the power that you hold literally put, would decide the life and death of a man. Therefore, the nobility and morality of the individual in position should not be overlooked, either.

However, my question is what makes a person the Chief Justice of Malaysia? Is he gauged by the number of ‘influential’ people that he knows or rather, how well he has served the executive part of the state? For, before his appointment in 2003 as the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal, Tun Ahmad Fairuz had played a role in Anwar’s trial, Anwar being “the traitor” and anti-BN reformation activist and sexual offender (maybe future terrorist) and his and several others ‘mass promotion’ were between the protests by the Bar Council over such “indifference to transparency and objectivity and in the absence of consultation with the bar”. (Freedom House)

Excerpt:

‘In March 2003 however, Dzaiddin was replaced by the Court of Appeal president, Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, a figure known best for having upheld the conviction of one of Anwar’s counsels on a dubious contempt-of-court charge. Fairuz’s promotion meant that a more senior, more reformist judge on the Federal Court was passed over, as was Siti Norma Yaakob, “the first female High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court judge.” In addition, four High Court judges who had been involved in convicting Anwar were promoted over more senior judges to posts in the Federal Court and Court of Appeal. The Malaysian Bar Council lamented that the en bloc promotions were carried out “with indifference to transparency and objectivity, and in the absence of consultation with the Bar.”’

The atrocity of it would have been visible, has not Malaysia seen more as such scenarios, not unlike this, involving the many VIP and VVIP’s who could, somehow, wriggle away from the hold of justice and the execution of law and its procedures, and as they did, depriving the right of a normal individual to have a fair chance of obtaining justice.

When this happens to a person, say like 10 000km away, we could be indifferent and take a pass from the ride. But, somehow, someday, when the one we know, the one whom we love, were deprived his or her right as a democratic citizen, the right to have a fair trial, then we would start thinking. When that happens, it would be too late.