Yes, it was Malaysia Boleh indeed. Tried to show the world what first class judicial prowess Bolehland had.

Funny that the Leadership Foundation wasn’t so zealous about the many human rights abuses that took place in its own backyard…

And to rub salt into the wounds of the victims of the 1988 crisis, Najib was also quoted as saying that, lest there by any doubt, the ex-gratia payments do not constitute an apology by the government.

Najib, we know that there is no apology, and we know there is no reform. How many times do you think you can hoodwink us ?

Does the payment bring trust back to the judiciary ? Is the one-time UMNO lawyer destined for the highest post in the judiciary ?

Yes, try to pay them off! Yes, that is what UMNO does best! Money Politics!
By the way, there was no Apology given!
Show that you mean what you say…start with sending Uthayakumar for proper Medical Treatment, then release ALL ISA Detainees (or charge them in court) & then approve the Licence for that Tamil Language Newspaper.
Then “maybe” we will believe you!

Badawi’s speech sounded like a “compromise” between the hardline faction of UMNO and the liberal faction of UMNO. The net result is nothing gets done.

If I were Salleh Abas, I would throw the ex-gratia payment in the face of this administration. No apology, no royal commission of inquiry - who is to say it won’t happen again ?

You proposal for ex gratia payment is nothing short of an insult.

——————————–

“This level of trust and respect for the judiciary, we must all admit, is simply not as strong as it was before.”

Are you kiddin’ me??

“…there are concerns related to capacity and efficiency, stemming from long case backlogs, delays and the outdated manner of court administration. There are concerns which are less tangible but are nonetheless prevalent such as perceived corruption and perceived decline in quality.”

So this is about backlogs and judges not writing judgments on time? Administrative delays and hiccups?? A smoke screen to matters more serious.

The rest is about perception? Perception suggests an appearance. We are talking about real allegations here and we’re never going to know unless we have a commission of enquiry.

“The business community, in particular, have voiced concerns about the fairness and capacity of Malaysia’s judiciary..”

A clear understatement! Rather than take their cases to Malaysia’s courts, they prefer to take matters to international arbitration which is not always satisfactory.

“Some of the Malay Rulers have openly voiced their disquiet..”

So “not voicing their disquiet” or silence means consent? The rest are quietly enraged Mr. Prime Minister - more like they are numbed to the moral core of their being. Like Sir Lancelot when King Arthur returned from the Crusades - “speechless” for a reason.

“Some retired judges have related troubling tales of impropriety.”

Another clear understatement. Tales of impropriety? C’mon! They are more serious than that. These are allegations of corruption.

“I even took a political leap of faith by appointing an outspoken maverick as my new de facto Law Minister.”

More like a political leap to save your butt, Mr. Prime Minister!

“The judiciary must be fortified to be an institution that serves the democratic principle of separation of powers. The judiciary must be the guardian of the Constitution and the sentinel of the people’s rights.”

You do not need to fortify. It is provided for by the Federal Constitution. The Judiciary is a third and independent pillar of the government. Not anymore since 1988. So re-instate those constitutional safeguards and provisions since amended or have them repealed.

The original constitutional procedures regarding the removal of the Lord President must be re-instated. The right to judicial review for example. This is to mention but a few.

“The absence of a system in nominating candidates has led some to believe that the process is characterised by abuse, even where there is none.”

Even where there is none? Even where there is none??

Don’t forget convention and the force of convention can be stronger than any written law which however well drafted may have flaws. It does not have to be so transparent as to transform the process into a political one.

“The system must have built-in safeguards to prevent potential abuse and it must have a process that will convincingly identify the best legal minds in the country to join the judiciary.”

There is enough good legal minds in the judiciary. Somehow they are not using theirs. Their preoccupation in many cases is with pleasing their political masters and less with the administration of justice. There should be security of tenure to ensure that judges are unafraid of executive interference in the legal process, of losing their jobs and their pension.

“Therefore, the Government proposes a change to make the process of nominating, appointing and promoting judges more transparent and representative.”

This is house keeping. It is just one issue. Another smokescreen.

“I am pleased to announce to you tonight that the Government is proposing the setting up of a Judicial Appointments Commission to identify and recommend candidates for the judiciary to the Prime Minister.”

“Government will initiate a review of the judiciary’s terms of service and remuneration. There is a pressing need to set salaries..”

“Therefore, the Government would like to recognise the contributions of these six judges to the nation, their commitment towards upholding justice and to acknowledge the pain and loss they have endured…”

“In recognition of the contributions of the six outstanding judges, the Government has decided to make goodwill ex gratia payments to them.”

You’re missing the point again Mr. Prime Minister!

It is not about financial compensation to those affected. They can do without the money. It is to protect their legacy Mr. Prime Minister. It is to find out, in the interes to justice, who played what role and about reinstating the constitutional provisions which helped hastened their removal.

It is about justice.

It is about bills not given their proper reading and discussion in Parliament like Article 121 (1A) and a host of other issues.

It is about the quadruple and other jumps of a chief judge-in-waiting – be it fully clothed or in his underwear! We want him stripped of his title.

The only ‘wrong’ he has done so far is he was caught making more jumps than allowed under the ‘hop, step and jump’ ( a field event in athletics) and in his underpants too.