website statistics
feed
Home arrow News arrow Press Statements arrow Press Statement: Interest of the institution of judiciary is best served by refusing the extension
Advertisement
Press Statement: Interest of the institution of judiciary is best served by refusing the extension PDF Print E-mail
Contributed by Ambiga Sreenevasan   
Wednesday, 17 October 2007 09:19pm

Ambiga Sreenevasan• Reject CJ's bid for extension

The Bar Council notes the statement of the Minister published in the New Straits Times that the King must act on the advice of the Prime Minister in relation to the extension of the current Chief Justice. This is the first time such an issue in relation to extension sought under Article 125 has arisen. The Article provides that the extension of a Judge of the Federal Court may be given “as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve”. The argument appears to be that this nevertheless requires the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on the advice of the Prime Minister in accordance with the scheme under the Constitution in relation to the appointments and promotions of Judges under Article 122B. If that be the case, it would also require consultation with the Conference of Rulers to provide the necessary checks and balances and to preserve the core value of the independence of the Judiciary from the Executive. Whatever the interpretation, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not precluded from proferring a view nor from asking for information under Article 40. (Click here to poll: "Should the term of the current Chief Justice which expires on Oct 31 be extended to a period of not more than 6 months?")

It is however unnecessary to enter into this constitutional debate at this stage. There is a much larger issue at stake.

Whenever there is any hint of a scandal that cannot be dismissed as frivolous (as with the video clip incident), involving an institution of high value such as the Judiciary, and given the nature of the allegations and the importance of the position held, it is necessary to take such steps as would best serve the public interest and the interest of that institution. The overriding principle is that, even though a finding has yet to be made in this regard, and we are mindful that it has not been, it is crucial to act in the higher interests of this critical institution, so that the “streams of justice” are kept pure, and public confidence in the institution is restored or maintained. Nothing is more important. Therefore in the case of any doubt or reservation, the course that best serves the institution and the public must be taken. In these circumstances, the best interests of the institution and of the public clearly invite a withdrawal or, failing this, a refusal of the application for extension.

Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar

Comments (8)Add Comment
New Poll
written by Datuk Krishna Kumar, Wednesday, October 17 2007 10:33 pm

The Bar should not interfere with this. The right to appoint CJ vest with the King. Let's have some respect for decorum.

Datuk Krishna Kumar a/l Subramaniam

EXERCISE OF 'PUBLIC' OPINION
written by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng, Thursday, October 18 2007 10:13 am

My dear Krishna

I agree with you that "the RIGHT to appoint the Chief Justice vests with the King" provided the qualification is added that "the POWER to do so vests with the King and His Majesty's brother Rulers in the Council of Rulers."

With respect, the conduct of the poll does not interfere with that right and power. The poll tries to assess the opinion of Malaysian Bar members. The poll's result is not even binding. If your contention is right, then our Malaysian Bar president Ambiga Sreenevasan has usurped that right and power - a contention that is at best untenable.

Reduced to brasstacks, the poll and its assessment of the non-binding opinion of Malaysian Bar members may well affect the EXERCISE of that right and power.

The exercise of such an influence is consonant within any democracy where public opinion - not the manipulated variety - has a definite role to play for the public good or "pro bono publico." Surely, as a lawyer, you would not turn a hair at this legitimate exercise of public opinion in a democracy?

After all, we in the Malaysian Bar must strike a careful balance between the idealism of Marcus Aurelius and the pragmatism of Augustus. And I am speaking as the eternal optimist whose idealism has been smashed on the rocks of reality far too many times!

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Fully agreed
written by Shim Wai Loon, Thursday, October 18 2007 11:26 am

I support Stephen's stand that this poll is merely to express the members' opinion on whether the extension ought to be allowed, there should not be any worries on usurping the King's authority by doing so because our poll is not binding on anyone, it is just a poll amongst the members of the Bar.

However, I think the Bar is duty bound to explain/clarify to the public on the true provisions under the Federal Constitution in respect of what had been referred to by the minister in his statement yesterday. That particular statement, in my view, is absolutely inaccurate even if those relevant provisions are given the simplest interpretation to their ordinary meanings. The public and, more importantly, the King needs to know what is true and what is not before any decision is made.

Shim Wai Loon

New Poll
written by Kasthury a/p Sellappan, Thursday, October 18 2007 11:50 am

I agree with Stephen.

A poll will be a good ground to maintain the respect for decorum while showcasing contrary thoughts. It should assist in any decision that the prime minister is deliberating on. I believe this is called democracy not interference. Having said that i also believe that everyone has a right to thier opinion whether right or wrong.

Being an optimist myself I believe Right will prevail in the end while a little justification will make the rest understand. Isn't this what we have been fighting for all this time? (for the dear minister who thinks we are all crazy, please don't take "fighting" in its literal meaning)

Kasthury Sellappan

Bar Power lies with unity
written by Tan Peek Guat, Thursday, October 18 2007 11:52 am

It is not envy but appreciation and thoughtful thanks for the things - big and small - that Ms Ambiga 'does' for the Malaysian bar.

I am not figuring out when she will get her 'Datuk'ship; but to say the least, putting many Datuks on her chair, I just wonder if so much could have been attempted by any of them for and on behalf of the Bar.

To care for and love the Bar, legal rights and public fairness within our nation - are particularly 'general' issues; but to love and care for oneself is mainly 'particular'. Many have not left this 'particular' sphere to get into being 'general'; and yet, as Generals, they 'command' our Head.

Tan Peek Guat

Proud of you
written by Harjit Singh Pannu, Thursday, October 18 2007 12:09 pm

Madam President,

I am proud of you.

Harjit Singh Pannu

Question of extension should not have arisen
written by Chong Phow Yew, Thursday, October 18 2007 12:10 pm

I totally agree with the views expressed by the President.

However I feel that given the magnitude and seriousness of the allegations against the CJ, the question of extension should not have arisen in the first place. The only right and noble step to take is to step down. I would have thought that there should not be any slightest risk in justice being compromised. The "video-clip" allegations cannot be dismissed outright as mere fanciful allegations. The 'conversations' implicating the CJ are just too serious. His denial to the minister do really look odd to me. I would have thought that his denial should have been made to the whole world and not to the minister. If it were a confession then it would have made sense. Maybe it was we do not know. Anyway, if the CJ has decided, against all conventions, to stay on, his terms should never be extended.

Chong Phow Yew

In any Like Minded and Reasonable Person
written by Kerry Sin Yoong Ming, Thursday, October 18 2007 03:31 pm

In any Like Minded and Reasonable Person, the least they can do is to offer their resignation. Thus, to restore the dignity of the Bench, the CJ ought to know when to hand his letter in without the need to "ask" for it. Maybe he is waiting for his Pension. So, if that is so, what dignity is there left? No need to ask whether his term is to be extended. What for? To cover his tracks while he is able and still in office?

Kerry Sin Yoong Ming


Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]
Username Password
Remember Me | Register | Lost Password?

Still no sign of PAC's Eurocopter report



show last 4hrs - 24hrs