The Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim dropped a bombshell at the swearing-in ceremony of eight new judicial commissioners in Putrajaya on Thursday when he exposed gross judicial misconduct in the judiciary, including:
- Judges who accept bribes;
- Judges who were often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures while hearing their cases in court; and
- Judges who were “constantly angry and foul-tempered”.
Ahmad Fairuz may have to step down as Chief Justice for tarnishing the image of the judiciary if he is not prepared to take action and substantiate his grave charges of judges accepting bribes or guilty of misconduct in acting unethically in socializing with parties while hearing their cases.
The Chief Justice had used the plural when he “hit out at judges who accept bribes”. Had he initiated action against “judges who accept bribes” under Article 124 of the Federal Constitution for the establishment of the judicial tribunal to remove these “rogue judges” or at least lodged police reports against them for full investigations to be started?
If Ahmad Fairuz had not initiated any action against “judges who accept bribes”, then the Chief Justice would be guilty of being a party to the commission of serious crimes which would not be compatible with his continued tenure as the highest judicial officer of the land. If he could not substantiate his allegation of judges accepting bribes, then he had made a most reckless and irresponsible statement seriously tarnishing the image of the judiciary.
Furthermore, what action had Ahmad Fairuz taken against judges for the judicial misconduct and unethical behaviour of “often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures” while hearing their cases in court or for “being constantly angry and bad-tempered”?
Ahmad Fairuz had mentioned another form of judicial misbehaviour — those “who portrayed themselves as being the most brilliant or perfect judge in court”.
I do not know whether judges “who portrayed themselves as being the most brilliant or perfect judge in court” are guilty of judicial misconduct or misdemeanour and I do not know who are the judges the Chief Justice is referring to, although one name I can guess will be above the High Court level.
Ahmad Fairuz’ outburst have brought to the fore the Judges’ Code of Ethics and the public undertaking he had made 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.
The Judges’ Code of Ethics was promulgated in 1994 to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges and enhance public confidence in an independent, fair and competent judiciary to deliver justice to all Malaysians, but the chief wrecker of the 1994 Judges’ Code of Ethics was none other than its author, the then Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, who violated and discredited the Code of Ethics by his own judicial misconduct and impropriety, to the extent that he left the high judicial office in disgrace.
Almost four years have passed, but nothing has been heard of the recast Judges’ Code of Ethics.
I had in May 2003 called on the Chief Justice to initiate a nation-wide debate as to why the Judges’ Code of Ethics had failed in the previous nine years to enhance public confidence in the independence, fairness and competence of the system of justice in Malaysia and how it could be revamped.
In keeping with the principle of public accountability of the judiciary, I had also asked that Malaysians be told as to how the Code of Ethics had worked or failed to work in the previous nine years, how many complaints had been received each year under the Code of Ethics, the number of judges who had been investigated and the outcome of such investigations.
The Judges’ Code of Ethics suffer from three major defects:
- Absence of satisfactory and accountable mechanism for public complaints of breaches of the Judges’ Code of Ethics;
- The Code of Ethics had not been satisfactorily formulated so as to deal in a more comprehensive manner with all instances of judicial improprieties and misconduct as illustrated by the many judicial controversies and scandals; and
- How breaches against the Judges’ Code of Ethics could be invoked against the Chief Justice himself.
Has the Chief Justice been guilty of dereliction of duty in failing to honour his commitment to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics to fully restore public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary?
#1 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 4:37 pm
It seems the CJ is not as drowsy as Pak Lah if he knows the judicial branch is bedraggled by corruption or corruptive influences.
The next question which escaped Pak LAh which I hope does not escape the CJ is this: ‘The buck stops here!”
As the judicial CEO, telling the nation about the filth in your own backyard without cleaning it up is like Indah Water pouring the shit into the rivers and ‘allowing’ an unaware population to just drink it up.
Cheers Fairuz! Name them, shame them and sack them!
#2 by shortie kiasu on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 5:36 pm
It is strange and puzzling to note that judges misbehave too. It goes to show that they are just as human although they should be aware constantly that their positions do not allow them to do so.
They are supposed to be selected through a rigorous process before appointed, and they are held in high esteem by the public and the country. Their positions are sacrosanct; good behaviour should come naturally from them. Misbehaviour should be out of their mind at all times.
It is interesting to see how the CJ would react to the responses to his public statements by his peers.
There may just be the usual reply that he was “misquoted” by the media. The issue will just be rested, forgotten and forgiven.
Let’s wait and see the next development in this happening in the judiciary of the country and whether the PM or the government will be involved.
#3 by pwcheng on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 5:39 pm
Everyday there are reports of corrupt practices in the government be it the Police, Judiciary, Local councils, Bandaraya, Customs,Immigration, Land Office, or any govt dept where you can name it they have it. Even ACA which is suppose to check on corruption now needs somebody to check on the person at the helm. Can you imagine the extent of corruption in this country. We are no beter than Indonesia if not worse.
The wonderful thing is that the UMNO political leaders are NOT determined to eradicate it. They are simply enjoying it and make hay while the sun shines. Fortunately there are still some good people who never gives up to drive away this menace even though we face a uphill battle as we know the govt is not determined to do it.
#4 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 6:19 pm
When Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim (“CJâ€Â) lashed out and chastised :-
• Judges who accept bribes;
• Judges who were often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures while hearing their cases in court; and
• Judges who were “constantly angry and foul-temperedâ€Â,
he clearly intended it as a message that our judiciary (with him as the head) is capable of self regulation and disciplining, and that errant judges failing to meet standards of appropriate judicial behaviour will be weeded out.
The implicit message is to rebut public demands for the Independent Judicial Commission (“IJCâ€Â) and to argue it is superfluous.
This is where the CJ got himself entangled because the argument can cut the other opposite way – that the very presence of such angry foul-tempered judges who accepted bribes, socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures under present system of judicial appointment that has been going on for more than 20 years (as admitted by the CJ) contradicts his implied suggestion that the present system can self regulate and eliminate such errant judges of inappropriate behaviour!
It vindicates instead the argument of the advocates of IJC that we should have an institution like IJC to raise the selection/entry bar for judges in the first instance rather than lowering that bar by not so transparent an appointment process and, having to thereafter worry about how to remove such errant judges after embarrassment and damage have already been inflicted on the standing and image of the Judiciary.
In fact, the CJ’s “bombshell†revelations also provide a glimpse and insight into what he meant in his earlier startling analogy of how the proposal of IJC for judges selection was more akin to “nudity rather than transparencyâ€Â.
As I have said in my earlier posting, the difference is that whilst transparency is, in all contexts, associated with socially approved values of openness, honesty and accountability, nudity is however, especially in the minds of persons of conservative mould, associated with socially disapproved values of shame (except in limited context of pre-pubescent youngsters or adults like husbands and wives or lovers in sexual relations within privacy of their own environs, shielded from prying public eyes).
[According to religious scriptures, human body is sacred, private sexual parts are even more sacred – as they facilitate reproduction and survival of our species – and therefore should be shielded by clothes, and not seen by the prying eyes of others with whom we are not in matrimonial sexual relationship (One can understand this, in that a husband and wife, in scriptures are said to be enjoined in one flesh)].
For these reasons, we are ashamed of nudity as in exposure of sexual parts that are not meant to be seen by inappropriate persons.
So for the CJ to use the ‘transparency akin to nudity analogy’ for IJC, he was in fact implying that the IJC would ‘strip’ bare parts of judiciary that would be as shameful as nudity to be exposed to prying public eyes.
Well, we can all agree that “angry foul-tempered judges who accepted bribes, socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures†are shameful parts of the Judiciary institution.
But let it be so.
Now that the CJ has by his own statement given us a glimpse of these “shameful†parts, it only reinforces the urgency (in relation to the institution of judiciary) to move ourselves higher from the shame of nudity to the pride of transparency in our judicial appointments by implementation of the IJC.
#5 by democrate on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 7:15 pm
From the case Of ACA chief now come to the judges. Habis lah Malaysia ! These are the two government bodies that should act as watch dogs to eliminate corruptions in the country, instead. there are crooks in these two public services and being warned !
What about each individual KEMENTERIAN ? I am filled with doubts that the head of the Kementerian will follow the example of the Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz.
As i had say b4,’ if top of your nose is bend, the lower part of the nose will turn crooked ‘ Sang liang pu chen siah liang why…. ha ..ha…
#6 by Libra2 on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 7:40 pm
In a nutshell, the rot is complete. What started at the head has now covered the entire body!
PM, ACA chief, Judiciary……. how low can we go!
From the Executive right down to the office-boy in the local council is rotten.
Instead of fighting this tide, let us accept the fact that corruption is an accepted national culture, a Malaysian way of life.
#7 by Jong on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 9:34 pm
Yeah, real sad corruption is here to stay. There’s no denial the whole goverment is rotten to the core, head to tail! Rhetorics are never short of supply. Our Deputy PM just said, “No one is above the law” Is that so Datuk Seri and since when?
Look at the case of the Ipoh City Councillor Lim Huey Shan who is expected to be law-abiding, upholding the law of the country. The Perak goverment is still playing ding-dong, and passing-the-baton game. No action has yet been taken to charge, suspend/dismiss Councillor Lim who is from MCA, from his Councillor post.
Had it been someone else, an ordinary Perakian/Malaysian, things would have been different; he/she would be swiftly and severely dealt with, no ifs no buts. Would the Menteri Besar then need to get a report from the Datuk Bandar of Ipoh, and Ong Kar Chuan the MCA chieftian of Perak ? And very interestingly, how does Ong Kar Chuan fit in on this case?
#8 by shortie kiasu on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 10:41 pm
Judges in Malaysia should benchmark themselves against the best in the world, not to compared themselves with the worst in the world.
That is the subtle difference. As the creme de al creme in the society where they exist, there is no room for mistakes, misbehaviour or mischief.
#9 by shortie kiasu on Saturday, 3 March 2007 - 10:45 pm
Judges can err in their judgement but not in their judicial conduct.
#10 by Haji NoMoto on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 12:25 am
Politicians corrupt. MPs and Assemblymen corrupt. Councilmen corrupt. Businessmen corrupt. ACA men corrupt. Police corrupt. Civil servants corrupt. Now even judges are corrupt.
We are indeed a corrupted country. Nothing is clean anymore.
Dubious transactions are made legal and proper through co-operation all around. There is no transparancy, accountability or integrity.
Is there any hope for us?
#11 by Open Air on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 12:53 am
.
This CJ has been sitting pretty for far too long. His exposure of corrupt and misconduct judges is too little too late.
Why a sudden change of heart and why now. Why suddenly he found the courage to speak up? – so that he could maintain his position?
He should resign if he knows what is good for the country’s judicial system. The fact he has been keeping quiet in the past of such misconducts by peer judges has compromised his position. He cannot be trusted as a person given the power overseeing the judicial system.
.
#12 by smeagroo on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 1:27 am
Looks like the cj wanted to be The One but now has himself in a difficult position. Catch 22 for him now. Or maybe in chinese we call it, “Takk Hann Mou Yea Chou Lor See Lei Fann”. Will all the corruption cases surfacing it is no wonder the plunderings have become bigger and more as there are more mouths to feed and shut.
#13 by Godamn Singh on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 6:40 am
Judges Code of No Ethics
1. A judge must be seen fraternizing with members of the Bar, play golf and go on overseas trips on airline tickets and accommodation paid for by lawyers who are scheduled to appear before him or her. The judge does not need to recuse himself afterwards and whenever there is a conflict of interest.
2. The judge must be given a fleet of imported BMW and Mercedes and chauffeurs who are chambering students scheduled to be called to the Bar
3. The judge must be seen eating with business corporate leaders with their mistresses during lunch and dinner at five-star hotels
4. The judge must eat at roti canai and teh tarek stalls along back lanes and do not have to pay for it
5. The judge must have more than one wife and a string of mistresses all under one roof
6. the judge are free to use hotel rooms for day-use without having to register, and not have to pay for them
7. The judge must live in palaces fit for a King
8. The judge must take holidays overseas and visit Las Vegas and Monte Carlo and chalk up debts totaling not less than USDLS5.00 million each time
9. Judges must be given revolving credit with open limits, to purchase shares in public listed companies, and run their own companies.
10. Judges have the option to continue serving until the age of 75 if they think they are fit to continue
#14 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 7:05 am
One has to assume that the honourable Chief Justice will be the first to know about the rule regarding inadmissibility of ‘hearsay’ evidence.
If however he knows as a fact – and there is proof – about some “judges who accept bribesâ€Â, why have we not heard of action being taken against any of these errant judges?
So far in the annals of judicial history, we have only heard of judges of integrity being either sacked or forced to resign. Cases in point will be : 1988 Judicial Crisis leading to sacking/replacement of the Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas and the removal of 5 other Supreme Court judges for standing up for the Rule of Law against the Executive in 1988; the forced resignation of High Court Judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid for his whistle-blowing circulation of an anonymous letter alleging rampant corruption within the judiciary!
The other point raised about “judges who were often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures while hearing their cases in court†is open to interpretation depending on circumstances.
I think it is clear that if a judge were hearing a case involving a corporate boss, then it would be clearly improper for the judge to be seen being “entertained†by the corporate boss or his lawyer to lunch and dinners in restaurants or worse still in one of the popular karaokes or spas in town (including of course accompanied for a holiday abroad)!
In fact a judge has to maintain an anti-social and solitary personae. He can’t be seen socializing with people in general. Knowing the ‘sensitivity’ the corporate boss or his lawyer can otherwise arrange for their subordinates or friends or agents to entertain the judge.
Actually what is ‘socialising’? If the judge happens to go to Selangor club (near the courts) for lunch and by chance run into the corporate boss and his lawyer in the club who greet him with hello and some small talk, is that “socialising� Is he to quickly say hello goodbye and scurry away? Even if he does, could he not communicate with them via private phone calls and e-mails or communicate via respective emissaries and representatives and agents? How does one prevent that?
We hear of judges being over burdened by backlog of cases. Supposing he wants to research on one legal point or case and phone or email some senior lawyer in some big law firm that has plenty of books and research facilities to help in elucidation of some legal point or case to lighten his case load. Is that ‘improper’ in the sense that the judge may become beholden to that senior lawyer who has provided assistance so that in a future case involving that same lawyer, the judge might tend to be partial in favour of that lawyer’s arguments? What exactly is “inducement†as in corruption to purchase public official’s favour? If it need not be money only, what about assistance provided in the form of access to research facilities or even legal advice on a point by that senior lawyer to the judge in the above example?
Next comes to the point about judges who were “constantly angry and foul-tempered†as mentioned by CJ. Now this is an even more contentious point – this issue of the right judicial temperament.
Some of our past judges of highest personal integrity and intellect
were “constantly angry and foul-tempered†because their patience was often taxed and exhausted by the comparative incompetence, long-windedness and inadequate preparations of the lawyers and prosecutors arguing the cases before these judges. What then?
Would we prefer benign and even-tempered judges who couldn’t constantly follow what is argued before them?
Once upon a time there was this judge who terrorized all who appeared before him by his irate temper, sarcasm, quick wit, whose English, both written and spoken, sprinkled profusely with Latin, was so powerful that every sentence he uttered, the lawyers and prosecutors had to consult the English and legal dictionaries.
Yet there was another brilliant judge who when angry was seen throwing his file and papers from where he sat on the high bench at the lawyers and public gallery. In spite of this, his legal judgment was erudite, first rate and almost perfect in law and logic.
Bad temper appears to be a badge of distinction for superior intellect amongst these rarefied circles. If one’s intellect and knowledge were not very high, how does one’s threshold of patience get so easily reached – and crossed for temper to flare – so the reasoning goes?
Now losing of temper is not just the exclusive preserve of judges.
One of the most distinguished doyen of the Malaysian Bar, a well known court lawyer having a string of celebrated cases over a span of nearly 50 years of practice, had also thrown his files and stomp out of court in a fit of temper and impatience at the slowness of the judge’s mind. His celebrated status appeared to have saved him from being committed for contempt of court!
What choice have we really got (with the brain drain in all sectors)?
Would we prefer a judge who is amiable and even tempered with all the appropriate judicial temperament and demeanour in court but who depends on his fellow brother judge to write all judgments for him, leer and ogle at attractive ladies in and mostly outside the court, and in social functions, like to get to know MAS flight stewardesses?
At least with “constantly angry and foul-tempered†judges, we know what he get – it may be a quirk of character undisguised arising from great legal erudition and genius better than the amiable and even tempered Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde type who is proper in court and improper outside.
#15 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 8:35 am
Judges who lose their temper should be sent to anger management programs.
#16 by taikohtai on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 10:37 am
Malaysian judiciary at the cross-roads……..because no appeals are allowed outside Malaysia.
One would think that laws should be universal but then, the Rakyat must be kept under the tempurung.
Time to wakey wakey! Bloody lawyers everywhere but most ‘boh lan hoot’ (no balls) and so servile to gomen.
#17 by sheriff singh on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 3:00 pm
If anyone is aware of a crime, then he is required by law to report it. Otherwise he will be commiting an offence.
If the Chief Justice is aware of any wrong doings by his judges, then he is duty bound by law to report it. Otherwise he would be commiting an offence(s).
#18 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 9:55 pm
“If anyone is aware of a crime, then he is required by law to report it. Otherwise he will be commiting an offence. Singh
And what offence is that? Failing to be a good citizen? Failing to be a model citizen? Not being honest and conscientious is a crime etc?? Telling lies is a crime?
#19 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 4 March 2007 - 10:59 pm
Yeah I think thats correct – witnessing and aware of a commission of crime and not doing anything about it is immoral but not itself a crime if one is not abettor or accomplice. Encouraging someone to commit a crime by cheering the perpetrator to commit the crime may in some cases be considered a crime if you have seen the Hollywood movie based on true story called ‘The Accused’ starring Jodie Foster as the woman gangraped by three college students on top of a pin ball machine before throngs of people and Kelly McGillis as women prosecutor.
But if one has a duty as a chief justice to do something about a subordinate judge being implicated in corruption and yet one does nothing about it, then he is not fit for the job and should be removed for not discharging his duty.
#20 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Monday, 5 March 2007 - 8:29 am
Jeffrey, even if it doesn’t fit the pigeon-hole of ‘crime’ in its strict definition, we are ad idem that it is nevertheless morally reprehensible..
Guess all of us are also agreed that the nagging question is how much does the CJ know to cause him to make such an explosive and drastic announcement in court before a newly appointed panel of judges.
Then, we are all entitled to ask the CJ in the face of such ‘an inconvenient truth’: Now so what??
#21 by DarkHorse on Monday, 5 March 2007 - 11:58 pm
“But if one has a duty as a chief justice to do something about a subordinate judge being implicated in corruption and yet one does nothing about it, then he is not fit for the job and should be removed for not discharging his duty.
Yes, still it does not make it into a crime. Just take a second to reflect. If that were the case then all of us would be in jail sometime during our lives.
#22 by ihavesomethingtosay on Thursday, 8 March 2007 - 2:07 am
Open Air Says: “This CJ has been sitting pretty for far too long. His exposure of corrupt and misconduct judges is too little too late.”
It is never too late, publish their names and have all cases reopen for just justice. otherwise it’s just another empty ended talk, designed to wow, but lacks punch.