Why a simple review would not be enough.
The Bar Council has called for a review of the 1988 judicial crisis. And former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas today came out in support of the review. The Government (if Nazri Aziz's stance is reflective of the government) is firmly against it.
What's the big deal about the judicial crisis? Simply put, it was interference with the judiciary by the government of the day at its worst. The highest-ranking judge of the country was sacked pursuant to a tribunal many would regard as being unfair and unlawful. This was done because there were vested interests involved in various decisions that had to be decided by the judiciary, not least of which a decision regarding UMNO, and by implication the Premiership of the country.
Undoubtedly, 1988 was a sordid affair. But is a simple review sufficient? We've had ample reviews and royal commissions in the past. What happened, for instance, to the royal commission inquiring into the workings of the police force, which called for an independent commission to regulate the police? Nothing seemed to have come out of that. It is difficult enough to get the government of the day to agree to set up a royal commission of inquiry, then in most cases there must be a further struggle to have the commission's findings made public. Even then, there must be a further struggle to have the commission's findings to be earmarked for implementation. And even when the government has agreed to implement the commission's findings, there is need for a further struggle to translate that agreement into action.
All in all, it's a tremendous waste of time and resources to get the government machinery to move. So, what's the use of a review? Especially in this case where there does not seem to be any interest on the part of the government to do so?
Perhaps the government will be more receptive if the former Lord President would gather together with the other sacked judges, form a consortium of private companies, and propose to be given 20-year monopoly rights on the renewal of Sijil Annual for all lawyers annually. After all, the various local councils have shown that this is the way forward as far as dealing with the government is concerned.
The Bar Council has called for a review of the 1988 judicial crisis. And former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas today came out in support of the review. The Government (if Nazri Aziz's stance is reflective of the government) is firmly against it.
What's the big deal about the judicial crisis? Simply put, it was interference with the judiciary by the government of the day at its worst. The highest-ranking judge of the country was sacked pursuant to a tribunal many would regard as being unfair and unlawful. This was done because there were vested interests involved in various decisions that had to be decided by the judiciary, not least of which a decision regarding UMNO, and by implication the Premiership of the country.
Undoubtedly, 1988 was a sordid affair. But is a simple review sufficient? We've had ample reviews and royal commissions in the past. What happened, for instance, to the royal commission inquiring into the workings of the police force, which called for an independent commission to regulate the police? Nothing seemed to have come out of that. It is difficult enough to get the government of the day to agree to set up a royal commission of inquiry, then in most cases there must be a further struggle to have the commission's findings made public. Even then, there must be a further struggle to have the commission's findings to be earmarked for implementation. And even when the government has agreed to implement the commission's findings, there is need for a further struggle to translate that agreement into action.
All in all, it's a tremendous waste of time and resources to get the government machinery to move. So, what's the use of a review? Especially in this case where there does not seem to be any interest on the part of the government to do so?
Perhaps the government will be more receptive if the former Lord President would gather together with the other sacked judges, form a consortium of private companies, and propose to be given 20-year monopoly rights on the renewal of Sijil Annual for all lawyers annually. After all, the various local councils have shown that this is the way forward as far as dealing with the government is concerned.
posted by Kheng Hoe at 5:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home