Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Beh Lih Yi

Oct 10, 1988. What was to have been a special morning for veteran parliamentarian Shahrir Abdul Samad ended with him being penalised for defiance.

Just 46 days earlier, Shahrir had won the Johor Baru parliamentary seat as an Independent in a by-election, with a whopping majority of 12,613 votes. He had held the seat for three terms since 1978, but on an Umno ticket.

As the swearing-in ceremony got underway at Parliament house, he stunned the House by refusing to stand when he was called to take the oath of office before Speaker Mohamed Zahir Ismail. He was ordered to leave the House.

Sixteen days later, Shahrir returned and took his oath before Zahir so that he could keep the seat and perform his duties as a member of Parliament.

His refusal to take the oath the first time was an expression of how strongly he feels about judicial integrity, he recalled in a two-hour interview last week at his office in Sri Hartamas, Kuala Lumpur.

Zahir, a former high court judge, was on a six-member tribunal that had found then Lord President Salleh Abas guilty of misconduct earlier that year and recommended his dismissal.

“I don’t think it was a right thing to do (to sack Salleh),” said Shahrir, now 57.

“To do it (impeach Salleh) without having all the necessary strong reasons to make that move, that’s the failure of the system - because once you damage it, it’s not easy to get it back...”

In 1988, then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad had Salleh tried by a special tribunal on charges of misconduct, for questioning constitutional amendments that seriously eroded the powers of the judiciary.

Two of five Supreme Court (now known as the Federal Court) judges - George Seah and Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh - who had ruled that the tribunal was convened unconstitutionally were sacked along with Salleh after being found guilty of misconduct by the tribunal.

Return to Umno

The protest was typical of a politician often deemed a maverick because of his outspoken ways and independent thinking.

Having been trained in economics and statistics, he then earned a Master’s in Business Administration. From 1983-1987, he helmed the federal territory and welfare ministries respectively and was generally seen as a potential high flier in Umno politics.

In 1987, infighting saw the party being split into Team A and B and then deregistered after being declared illegal in a court ruling.

A supreme council member at the time, Shahrir was in Team B camp led by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. However, he was left out of the new Umno pro-tem committee along with seven other council members.

Amidst the crisis, Shahrir resigned as MP and contested the ensuing Johor Baru by-election as an Independent.

Shahrir returned to Umno in 1989 but took a back seat until his return to full-time politics in the 2004 general election, when he retained the Johor Baru seat.

‘Ridiculous stage’

So what has changed within the judiciary two decades after his one-man protest in Parliament?

Shahrir said he believed that the repercussions of the 1988 judicial crisis are still being felt today, even coming to the “ridiculous stage” where people can correctly predict the outcome of court cases.

“There are some judges who think they still have to be over-conservative or over-protective of the government, rather than justice,” he argued, quipping that they may perhaps think they are still in 1988.

Something has to be done, he said, and it needs to come from judges themselves.

“It’s really more of a problem of culture and personality, which has caused the judiciary to be held in a position of some disrepute. I hope that this culture can be dismantled if the personalities who are now occupying the judiciary understand that things have to change and try to go back (to how it used to be).”

Asked to comment on revelations in an explosive video clip on alleged ‘judicial appointment- fixing’, Shahrir said the matter has to be investigated.

The eight-minute edited clip, said to be recorded in 2002, shows senior lawyer VK Lingam talking on the phone allegedly with Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim - then the chief judge of Malaya - about judicial promotions, among other matters.

(Ahmad Fairuz is said to have denied any involvement in the matter, while Lingam has not been available for comment as he is said to be abroad.)

“If (mentions of) fixing cases are bad enough, fixing appointments will be worse,” Shahrir noted.

He was not too optimistic that the problems within the judiciary can be fixed any time soon.

“Once the system is tampered with for some frivolous reason, the repairs may take a long time to happen. You will need another generation (to see the effects),” he added.

Q&A: ‘No strong reasons to sack Salleh’
Beh Lih Yi

Two decades after Johor Baru MP Shahrir Abdul Samad put up a one-man protest in Parliament over the sacking of Lord President Salleh Abas, has the judiciary gone backwards or forwards?

He shares his take in the first of a three-part interview.

Malaysiakini: You feel very strongly about the judiciary - so strongly that you refused to take the oath as a member of Parliament in 1988 before the Dewan Rakyat Speaker Mohamed Zahir Ismail because he had sat on the tribunal that recommended the sacking of Salleh Abas as lord president. You were asked to leave the House because of that. Tell us what happened.

Shahrir: I feel very strongly about the judiciary. I don’t think it was a right thing to do (to sack Salleh). To impeach the man for what? So I didn’t get up to take my oath before Tun Zahir because he was a member of the tribunal, I did my part. When they called my name, I didn’t get up, then they told me to go home - ok-lah, it was a protest.

But you did take the oath 16 days later.

I had to, or I would have lost the (Johor Baru) seat and (let down) my voters.

What has changed since then, in relation to the judiciary? Some say things have become worse.

The (move to) impeach Salleh, to me, was a very serious step. To do it without having all the necessary strong reasons to make that move, that’s the failure of the system - because once you damage it, it’s not easy to get it back....

I believe there are some judges who think they still have to be over-conservative or over-protective of the government, rather than justice. This repercussion is unfortunate but I supposed we have to wait and see whether (there will be) changes after this. Maybe judges don’t know what’s happening because by the nature of the judiciary, they don’t get involved (with other matters) and just look into the law, so they think they are still in 1988. (Laughs)

How can this problem be fixed apart from appointing the right people to the Bench?

It’s not very easy - (how do we do this) without Executive interference, without parliamentary interference....How do we fix it? (Laughs)

Does it all boil down to the prime minister being too powerful?

Not, the prime minister is trying not to interfere, I blame him for not interfering sometimes.

What is your view on setting up a judicial commission to deal with appointment of judges?

(The problem is) who will get on the judicial commission?

Would you support the idea?

Maybe it will not be a permanent path but it’s (a way) to get the system back [...] It’s really more of a problem of culture and personality, which has caused the judiciary to be held in a position of some disrepute. I hope that this culture can be dismantled if the personalities who are now occupying the judiciary understand that things have to change and try to go back (to how it used to be).

It’s imperative (to have) an independent and strong judiciary. It’s something necessary for the country, particularly (to have a body) that is clean and fearless in making decisions - because it has come to a quite ridiculous stage where people can predict the decisions that are being made.

Are you surprised to hear about the video clip on alleged fixing of judicial appointments?

I would like to see the matter being investigated (to find out) what actually happened. Nobody knows - it may just be a little ‘show’ by the lawyer in the clip. The Bar Council needs to call the concerned lawyer and get his explanation to check on what happened, this is what the council can do.

If (mentions of) fixing cases are bad enough, fixing appointments will be worse.

You are saying everything in the judiciary has gone wrong since the sacking of Salleh?

Yes, once the system is tampered with for some frivolous reason, the repairs may take a long time to happen. You will need another generation (to see the effects).

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed