by Yong Ling Loong
I didn’t believe what I read in The Star newspaper (15th July 2008). The news seem to overshadow other unbelievable stuff that I have read in The Star over the years.
I know Karpal Singh is against the Establishment, namely Mahathir & cronies. And he is a long-time Opposition man. And wasn’t he the one who lodged a police report against Mahathir over the latter’s remark that some judges had approached him to lobby for their appointment (May 24th 2008 The Star)? But what was reported yesterday really had me thinking – what’s happening?
Karpal did the almost unthinkable. By calling for Justice Ian Chin to be sacked immediately over his criticism of Mahathir and further that “he (Ian) was not a disciplined” person, I had to re-read that. It had me seriously wondering about Karpal Singh’s state of mind. Whose side is he on?
If the Star reporter had quoted him correctly, Karpal had said “I don’t want to have to use the word kurang ajar (ill-bred) but judicially immature,” he said, adding that the judge had been “narrow-minded” in his statements against Dr Mahathir. ”
Hello … why such harsh criticisms against Ian? In fact, the majority of the legal profession is in favour of Ian Chin’s stand. The judges that deserve the description of “Kurang Ajar” or “judicially immature” are corrupt judges, as well as judges who compromise their principles by perverting the course of justice and convicting the innocent. Is Ian guilty of all that?
Surely, Karpal has been misquoted?
Next, it was reported in the same article that Karpal Singh had asked why Justice Chin only revealed the 1997 boot camp episode now after Mahathir had retired instead of making the allegation then.
“Is it because Dr Mahathir has retired and one can attack him now?” he asked.
“If a judge is scared, he does not qualify to be a judge,” Karpal Singh said.
The Star, July 15 2008
Again, Karpal — weren’t you aware that those judges who judged without fear and favour, and spoke out against injustice, were sacked back then or earlier in 1988 ? Remember Tun Salleh Abas, and that unforgettable judge, Justice Syed Aidid. They had such a tough time. Both got sacked for speaking the truth. What about that judge who committed suicide by putting a bullet in his brains (Although the official reason was that he missed his recently demised wife too much, rumours had mentioned other causes). It wasn’t an easy time being a judge then with Mahathir and cronies breathing down on them with the threat of sacking and humiliation. Wish you had been a judge then, Karpal.
Sure, Ian might have put family and his pension first. It wasn’t easy. I am sure being schooled in justice and principles of fair play, he did not sleep well all those years. Which is why he mentioned that he needed to reveal all those things in order that he could sleep well after his retirement.
As I recall, judges are also human and sometimes, faced with difficult choices, they spend sleepless nights mulling over which side to decide for and against (that is, if they had not already been “instructed” as to which outcome is expected.) Some judges do admit in their judgments that they had spent sleepless nights thinking about a case that they have had to decide. But of course, this is because of the huge repercussions of their decisions. Sometimes matters of life and death are decided by them. Often, people’s entire future lies in their decisions. Judges are also humans who have their own flaws and prejudices, and individual beliefs and principles. I repeat: Judges are also human.
“If a judge is scared, he does not qualify to be a judge,” Karpal Singh is quoted to have said. If this is strictly applied, then some of Mahathir’s and the current Establishment’s appointees may not qualify.
And if this is not enough, some MPs (in the same article) have called for action to be taken against judges who spoke out against some politicians, and in doing so, have sullied the reputation of the Malaysian judiciary system.
Wait a minute. Weren’t these MPs around when the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Lingam-gate (Lingam tape scandal) found the tapes more likely than not to be authentic? Surely, this already says something about the state of our judiciary long before Lingam-gate exploded into mainstream consciousness? After that finding, you have some judges and senior lawyers speaking out against the quality of the legal profession and judiciary in Malaysia.
Verdict: Something fishy is going on … I might have to dive underwater to find out more. One thing however is clear. If our MPs continue saying things like aforementioned, I worry for the citizenry. These are the very people who enact laws in Parliament. Small wonder that some Acts of Parliament (statutes) are behind time and do not address the current needs of the citizenry, in addition to being an instrument of abuse in the hands of a government.
The position of judges in any civilzed community is not a position that ought to be open to or to invite criticism or be the subject of political (and that includes lawyers with political views) and unsubstantiated accusations and ridicule outside of properly established avenues and procedures for complaint and criticism.
Malaysia led by its legal fraternity in its many forms (as politicians and politicised lawyers) appear to have taken the slippery slope to ruin in the undermining of its legal institutions by allowing the politicisation of the judiciary and individuals who occupy roles as judicial officers. This has become a prominent pastime for lawyers over the past decade:
http://takemon.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/the-eminent-persons-report-sacking-of-judges-1988/
It is important that lawyers especially in a “tinder box dry” political environment as Malaysia is, have a role to play as role models in maintaining law and order. It is when they as the most prominent of legal officers digress or divert from their roles as independent practitioners and parade as journalists and political voices that the precedents are set for trouble to begin.
There is little apart from a compulsive disorder of being anti government for the sake of being anti government that the Malaysian Bar under its most recent leadership is branded with. Comments by so called constitutional law experts on the issue of the Allah matter is but one example. Other unhelpful comments and misadventures such as the Bala Statutory Declaration is another.
More important and a blight on the record or practitioners is Karpal Singh’s performance at the Teoh Beng Hock Inquiry. Karpal demonstrates a contemptuous attitude in his language and demenour showing little regard for the authority of the law ad the court. Accusing a rival of being in contempt for a particular comment he suggests made by his rival about his physical disability is contempt, Karpal engages with his son on a tirade of abuse in contempt of court. Interjections, refusals to contain his anger, unethical and unprofessional conduct in court and a patronising attitude towards the bench all are clearly visible on the AG’s website on the inquiry.
He clearly does not understand the concept nor the meaning or the origins of contempt of court. It is not personal. It is a defensive mechanism against the abuse of the sanctity of the court, proceedings and the law in defence of public interests and not his own perceptions of whats right and wrong.
Karpal is contemptous of the judge or tribunal member and attempts to force in the most undecorous manner, his views of the world and the law subsequently. His conduct is shameful and lacks the decorum and courtesy and dignity the court is entitled to especially from an officer of the court. If it were the case th other lawyer was in contempt it is surely up to the judge (the bench) to decide that and not for Karpal to be judge jury and executioner all in one in defiance of the law.
If this is an example of Malaysia’s brightest and best God help us all. Right throughout the filmed inquiry in that particular segment, Karpal makes allegations in statements not supporting it with even a single shred of admissible evidence. He uses the term murder with impunity when the findings into how Teoh Beng Hock died and the inquiry incomplete. Thats contempt.
These are but issues that although not isolated incidents in Malaysian legal practice is very unfortunately an integral part of the problem that eventually leads to perceptions of weakness in the judiciary. After all the judiciary is by and large made up of legal practitioners. You poison the well you expect to get sick from drinking from it.
I often wonder why these authors of great controversy like the lawyers who wirte on this site or post articles on this site have little to say or rebutt when someone as erudite as this writer Gopal Raj Kumar (lawyer or journalist) responds.
Please editor make sure that articles posted her are vetted for their quality.