Fourthly, on an independent judiciary — Malaysia was held in high international esteem until the 1988 judicial crisis, and the nation has not fully recovered from the trauma and fall-outs of the successive series of judicial crisis for the ensuing 15 years. How to restore full public confidence in the system of justice in the country?
The answer by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz to Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Glugor) yesterday that the government has no plans to set up a Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges is most deplorable.
What is even more shocking is that this is also the view of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who had likened the proposal for an independent judicial commission on appointment and promotion of judges as akin to nudity rather than transparency. Such comment by the higher judicial officer in the land is most ill-advised, in poor taste and reflect badly on the office of Chief Justice.
Ahmad Fairuz may be unhappy with the proposal of an independent judicial commission to oversee the selection and promotion of judges, but he should realize that this proposal pre-dates his appointment to the top judicial post in the land and meant to enhance public confidence in the system of justice and in that context, there is nothing personal against any personal holder of the office.
Ahmad Fairuz should not have questioned the motives of those who had made the proposal, such as the Bar Council and several prominent lawyers, posing the rhetorical question: “Are we to allow whoever has cases in court and who lost to decide on the fate of judges?” He ignores the support of retired judges for the proposal.
It is absolutely wrong and inapt to categorise the proposal of an independent Judicial Commission as an exercise in nudity rather than transparency, especially when this judicial reform had been adopted by other countries such as Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The proposal for a Judicial Appointments Commission was not made only during Fairuz’s tenure as Chief Justice. I for one had been calling for a new system of judicial appointments to ensure transparency, top-quality judges and a world-class justice system since the nineties.
Here, I want to know what has happened to Fairuz’s public undertaking on his appointment as Chief Justice some four years ago in 2003 to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics to restore public confidence in judicial independence, impartiality and integrity.
Has the Chief Justice reneged on his commitment to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics to fully restore public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary?
It is most surprising that the post of Chief Judge of Malaya had not been filled for over two-and-a-half months since the retirement of Tan Sri Siti Normah on 5th January 2007.
The excuse that it will take some time to fill the position of the Chief Judge of Malaya because the name of the candidate had to be forwarded to the Prime Minister who would advise the Conference of Rulers on the appointment and that the Conference only meet once in three months is completely unacceptable, as it is known at least six months in advance when the position would definitely fall vacant — when Siti Normah was given a six-month extension (which cannot be further extended) when she turned 66 on July 6 last year.
It reflects poorly on the efficiency and professionalism of the Chief Justice that he cannot ensure a smooth transition for high judicial appointments so that a new Chief Judge of Malaya was able to take over from Siti Normah on her retirement on 5th January 2007.
At present, Ahmad Fairuz is the Acting Chief Judge of Malaya. Is this proper and even constitutional? Will Malaysia one day have a Chief Justice who even trebles up as Acting President of the Court of Appeal as well as Chief Judge of Malaya?
[Speech (15) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 22.3.07]