Thursday, 17 April 2008 06:41am
Extracted from
The Straits Times, Singapore by Leslie Lopez, South-east Asia Correspondent
• Judicial Commission to appoint judges
• Greater independence for the judiciary
• Financial compensation to sacked judges
• Expression of regret by PM Abdullah
FIGHTING back stiff opposition from his own Cabinet and administration, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is set to unveil major reforms to the country's much-maligned judiciary.
The reforms will include the setting up of a Judicial Commission that will be responsible for the selection and the promotion of judges. It will also feature changes to the Federal Constitution that will restore greater independence to the judiciary, senior government officials and lawyers said.
The reform agenda, which will be announced at a special dinner hosted jointly by the government and the country's Bar Council tonight, will also see Datuk Seri Abdullah make an expression of regret over the 1988 judicial saga that led to the sacking of the country's top judge.
The government's effort to make amends to the jurists disgraced by the events in 1988 will also include some form of financial compensation, one senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan told The Straits Times on condition of anonymity.'
The amounts are being worked out,' he said without elaborating. Malaysia's once-robust judiciary was dealt a severe blow when it clashed with former premier Mahathir Mohamad in the late 1980s.
That face-off led to the suspension of six Supreme Court judges and the subsequent removal of three of them, including the head of the judiciary at the time, Tun Salleh Abas.
The sackings damaged the integrity of the judiciary, which came under fresh attack again 10 years later during the controversial corruption trials of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.
Shortly after taking office in November 2003, Datuk Seri Abdullah declared that he would push for reforms in the judiciary.
But those efforts were often stymied by his own Cabinet colleagues, who served under Tun Dr Mahathir and were not keen on reforms that could embarrass the former premier, senior government officials and lawyers say.
Even the Prime Minister's move to establish a Royal Commission late last year to investigate a damning video-recording that implicated a prominent lawyer allegedly attempting to broker the promotion of judges was privately criticised by senior members of his own ruling United Malays National Organisation Party.
But last month's stunning election results, which saw the ruling Barisan Nasional lose its two-thirds majority and control of five states, changed everything, close aides of Datuk Seri Abdullah say.
The Prime Minister signalled that judicial reform was his key priority when he appointed prominent lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim to his new Cabinet to push his agenda.
Lawyers and government officials credit Datuk Zaid for convincing the government to bring closure to the controversial events in 1988 and to establish a more transparent system of selecting and promoting judges.
Under the current practice, the country's Chief Judge recommends candidates to the Prime Minister and in the case of senior judicial appointments, the Chief Judge's recommendation must by approved by the Conference of Rulers.
But Datuk Zaid had to fight hard during Cabinet meetings, say senior government officials. There is also some unease among senior judges over Datuk Seri Abdullah's efforts.
Still, lawyers say that tonight's event could boost his battered public standing.
Sources say that the Prime Minister insisted that the six judges who were disgraced by the events in 1988 be present at the dinner where he will deliver a short address titled Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust.
Government officials say that former chief judge Tun Salleh Abas, his three other colleagues in the Supreme Court at the time - Datuk George Seah, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah - have confirmed their attendance.
The two other Supreme Court jurists - the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader - will be represented by their families, the government officials say.
Bar Council sources say that opposition leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ibrahim, who is Datuk Seri Anwar's wife, and Mr Lim Kit Siang of the Democratic Action Party, will also attend tonight's event.'
We hope this will bring closure to the 1988 judicial crisis,' said a senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan.
But to some Malaysians it may not be enough.'
An apology or expression of regret would be sweeping everything that happened 20 years ago under the carpet,' said Datuk V. C. George, a former Court of Appeal jurist. 'We need an investigation into the events of 1988 and to expose the conspiracy and its conspirators.'
TIME TO SHOW LEADERSHIP'
There are more important things than private peeves and settling scores. Neither the brewing crisis over soaring food prices nor other major issues are going to wait for Umno to put its own house in order. Now is the time for the grand old party to move on, do the things its leaders have promised and show that it still has what it takes to lead the nation.'MALAYSIA'S NEW STRAITS TIMES in a front-page editorial yesterday
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Abdullah to unveil judicial reforms today & regret to sacked Judges
PARAM'S FINAL RESPONSE TO DR M - Malaysiakini
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The tit-for-tat feud between former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Param Cumaraswamy, continues today with the top lawyer saying his response would be final.
Mahathir’s April 14 letter was a response to a letter written by Param, the former United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, which was published in Malaysiakini last Friday.
Param’s letter was in turn a response to Mahathir’s April 7 letter, which appeared in The Sun.
Param’s letter in full
The following is my response to Mahathir’s letter published in Malaysiakini on April 14 and The Sun on April 15 to place the facts and issues in their proper perspective:
The latest response of Mahathir is a pathetic piece of distortions and attempts at ex-post facto rationalisation by an angry and frustrated man attempting to defend the indefensible.
Does he not know or has he not been advised that it was not open to him to “have sued (for Anti-Corruption Agency chief Shafee Yahya) for libel” on the basis of Shafee’s evidence in court. Clearly, Mahathir felt more secure in being cleared by “the government agencies” than in having his version tested in a court of law against Shafee’s version. If the judges could not determine who was telling a lie, what advantage did “the government agencies” have?
With regard to the sworn testimony of Shafee, it was Mahathir who said in his letter published in the Sun of April 8, that “If I was to be accused I should be at least heard”. It was in response to that I said he had every opportunity then between June 12 and Aug 8, 2000, to give under oath his version of what happened.
It is too late in the day now after eight years to bemoan that he was not given a hearing. However, the public still have the right to know whether the police took a sworn statement from Mahathir and if so when and the contents of the statement. A mere public declaration of his version now as against the sworn statement by Shafee in court will remain a source for suspicion particularly in the light of lapses of memory on his part demonstrated when he testified before the Royal Commission on the Lingam video clip.
While on that video clip, this is the first time we hear the suggestion that the video tape could have been taken to blackmail Lingam. It was never raised by Lingam at the commission hearing nor put to the witness who took the video. Neither did Mahathir himself allude to that at the hearing. Is Mahathir now privy to some fresh evidence?
Mahathir justifies the appointment of the then EPU (Economic Planning Unit) director as governor of the Central Bank in September 1998 because “he had not been proven guilty”. But I never said or suggested that he had been proven guilty.
The concern which I expressed is how thet person who was under investigation from 1998 to 2001 (this is from statement of the ACA as reported in the media on April 8) could have been appointed and hold office as the governor of Bank Negara Malaysia during that period, contrary to the often stated government policy that a person under investigation would not be considered for appointment to a public office or for promotion.
As for the statements of the high officials of the enforcement agencies as reported in the media on April 9, my concerns were legitimate as supported by the facts including dates. It is regrettable that to date there has been no clarification forthcoming from them, particularly the Inspector General of Police. It really is incredible that an investigation into the testimony of Shafee was carried out by Feb 15, 2000, and papers submitted to the AG and file closed when in fact Shafee only gave his testimony on June 12, 2000.
Mahathir has shamelessly distorted my reference to the pleading filed in the London litigation in 1999 for the recovery of RM17.7 million from the publishers of International Commercial Litigation.
The words “Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system” were neither my finding nor my words. They were quoted from the defence pleaded by the publishers. That was their perception of the Malaysian judiciary then. How Mahathir could attribute that to me and allege that I was biased, etc, is beyond belief.
Mahathir appears to give the impression that as special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers I was preoccupied with investigating Malaysia only. Far from that. I can do no better than to quote what Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general, said in a letter dated Aug 2, 2000 to Mahathir.
He said, amongst others, “Param Cumaraswamy had received a universal mandate from the commission to investigate such complaints wherever they arise. Malaysia was merely one of the about 100 countries in which he intervened. The special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had a right and a duty to investigate Malaysia’s judiciary in the course of the performance of his mission”.
Among the 100 countries I intervened in were the US, UK, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Australia. My reports on Guantanamo Bay and detention without trial in the US are well-documented and my public statements which incidentally were adverse to the US, were published even in Malaysia.
That Mahathir abused his powers during his tenure as prime minister has been alleged by many, and of late, widely reported. I am just one of many. As to how he consolidated that power over the years I gave a brief account in the Far Eastern Economic Review of Oct 9, 2003 i.e. about the time when he retired.
As for the setting up of a royal commission, this is no doubt a matter for the government. However, taking into account the state of mind of Mahathir as demonstrated in his latest letter under reference, such a commission may be an exercise in futility. It may not be prudent to waste taxpayers’ money on such an exercise.
As for his other personal remarks against me, I do not propose to stoop to his level to respond save to say that his words and actions bring him no credit.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2008
Mahathir, Anwar, BN and the chaos of Malaysian Politics
Mahathir’s letter in full
The following is Mahathir’s full statement sent to Malaysiakini:
parliament ipcmc roundtable talk 281207 param cumaraswamyParam Cumaraswamy works on the basis of suspicions and his own perception of everything and everyone. Tangible evidence is not necessary.
As I said Shafee (Yahaya)'s statement was merely his version of what was said at a meeting between him and me. He may swear but that still does not prove he was telling the whole truth.
I could have sued him for libel but I too can only submit my sworn version of the verbal exchange between him and me. The judges would have to determine who was telling a lie and this the judges could not do with any certainty.
Consequently, I did not think it was worthwhile fo me to sue or even to defend myself. If I had done anything wrong then the government agencies would have to investigate and decide. Their decision was that I had done nothing wrong. I had every right to call up an officer against whom allegations had been made by another officer.
I suppose Param as a lawyer knows that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise.
The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) head had not been proven guilty. So why cannot he be appointed governor of the Central Bank?
Today there are lots of cases of suspicions of corruption and abuses of power in the government. But Param has not made any critical comment, much less take up the cases or even write and make known his suspicions and demand for a commission of inquiry.
As to the video-taping of (well-connected senior lawyer) VK Lingam, one should ask why this is done. Isn't it because of the intention to blackmail? Incidentally he is my lawyer in a case where Anwar Ibrahim (the same person who provided the videos) had sued me for RM100 million because I said he had indulged in sodomy. It should be pointed out that in releasing the video in two parts, Anwar was tempering with evidence.
And he claims he has more video clips to release. The video clips are obviously being withheld and their value as evidence is questionable.
I had already explained to the commission that there is nothing in the law to bar me from listening to anybody's view of a candidate for the bench. But who I recommend is my own decision. Lingam may have influenced judges etc, but that did not mean I made a decision based on Lingam's views. The real truth is that I had never been lobbied by Lingam.
Param seems ever ready to denigrate anyone who did not do what he expects them to do. Thus because the late attorney-general Mohtar Abdullah cleared then chief justice Eusoff Chin of any wrongdoing therefore Mohtar's decision that there was no case against me must also be in the same category.
In fact, he condemns Mohtar's decision during my era, implying that I had been responsible for all of Mohtar's decisions. What is his proof that all of Mohtar's decision were influenced by me? Again his apparent reason is because of his suspicion and his contempt for anyone who did not decide the way he expects.
I just wonder how he was appointed by the UN to be the rapporteur on the commission looking into the independence of the judiciary and lawyers. He already had a biased opinion of them as evidenced by his statement in his letter about "Malaysia's internationally discredited judiciary and legal system". His report on them cannot be regarded as impartial.
As far as his immunity to Malaysian laws is concerned, the ratification by Malaysia of the Convention on Privileges cannot possibly cover personal attacks against private individuals. Otherwise people on the UN commissions can do anything they like including as I mentioned, murder. When immunity is granted, it is expected that the person concerned would behave with propriety and would not abuse it. The report should be submitted to the UN authorities.
It must not be made use of by the author to score (points) against helpless individuals. That would be abusing the immunity conferred. It is contemptible. In any case, the UN only imposes its rule on weak countries that cannot do anything to defend themselves.
Powerful countries can totally disregard the UN, hence Guantanamo Bay.
No Malaysian court, according to Param found his statements libelous. But then all these courts according to Param are internationally discredited. Their not finding Param's statements libelous should be rejected especially by Param, because it would be made by discredited courts. Why is Param citing these courts' decision to back his claim?
Had I volunteered to appear in court to clear my reputation, I would be at the mercy of these internationally discredited courts also. If they did not find me guilty, then Param would say the court is a discredited court.
This of course would be considered by him as irrefutable evidence that my sworn testimony was wrong. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't.
In any case, he insists that the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies (the AG, the head of the ACA and the police) are very unsettling. This is a nice way of saying he believes they are lying. These officials are not saying this in my era or Eusoff Chin's era. How does he conclude they are lying? Would he appear in court to say these officials are lying in the era of Abdullah (Ahmad Badawi)?
Param has gone through great lengths to assert that I had abused and consolidated power when I was prime minister. He has not shown a shred of admissible evidence to show that I had done this. Only surmises and personal opinion. Do you convict people based on these?
Still I would be happy to face a royal commission of inquiry. The only problem is that Param has already concluded that they would not possess integrity. Only if he himself makes up a one-man commission would the result be acceptable to him. That is the kind of judicial approach he apparently believes in.
I hate to think that the world might take this bitter man and his personal hatred as typical of Malaysians. We have better people who are representative of the Malaysian character.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad
In the latest tit-for-tat feud between Dr Mahathir Mohamad and top lawyer Param Cumaraswamy, the former premier said he was ready to face a royal commission over allegations of abuse of power.
According to Mahathir, while he was “happy to face a royal commission of inquiry”, Param would reject such a body for lacking integrity.
“Only if he himself makes up a one-man commission would the result be acceptable to him. That is the kind of judicial approach he apparently believes in,” he said in his letter.
Mahathir was responding to a letter written by Param, the former United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, which was published in Malaysiakini last Friday.
Param’s letter was in turn a response to Mahathir’s April 7 letter, which appeared in The Sun.
In his latest salvo, Mahathir also explained why he did not sue Shafee Yahaya, the former Anti-Corruption Agency chief, who had claimed the former PM had instructed to him to drop investigations involving the director-general of the Economic Planning Unit 10 years ago.
In his letter, Mahathir again defended himself over the VK Lingam tape scandal, where a well-connected lawyer was filmed for allegedly brokering the appointment of top judges.
“I had already explained to the (royal) commission that there is nothing in the law to bar me from listening to anybody's view of a candidate for the bench. But who I recommend is my own decision. Lingam may have influenced judges etc, but that did not mean I made a decision based on Lingam's views. The real truth is that I had never been lobbied by Lingam.”
In the grainy 14-minute footage, Lingam was seen talking about approaching Mahathir through two intermediaries, a minister and a business tycoon - both of whom are said close to the then prime minister - in getting the “right” judges promoted.