Screenshots

Folks

The appointment of Ahmad Fairuz over that of Abdul Malik as early as 2002 was already seen by the legal profession as "worrying".

There was much talk in the media then when Ahmad Fairuz who is less qualified and experienced was promoted over others.

Lawyer Raja Aziz Addruse said in 2001 in his article entitled "ONE STEP BACK FOR THE JUDICIARY"

"...That Justice Ahmad Fairuz has been chosen over justice Abdul Malik in spite of the implications of those decisions is WORRRYING.

With the appointment of (Justice Ahmad Fairuz as) the new Chief Judge of Malaya, the apprehension felt by many members of the Bar that the improvement in the judiciary was to be short-lived appears justified...."

Malaysianunplug posted Raja Aziz Addruse's concern and that of the legal profession way back in 2001.

Nobody listened and the country is now paying a heavy price for it.

Read here: http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2007/09/update-judgment-fixing-scandal.html

Most of readers here are obviously furious about this whole episode but if you really think about how key positions are appointed be it in a political party, a religious organisation or even large corporations, I believe there isn't any significant difference.

Would anyone here seriously think that appointing people in high places is strictly done on merits, truth, fairness, honesty, professionalism, impartiality and nothing else? Historically, be it the appointment of kings, princes, judges, popes, presidents etc. most appointment will be tainted with a high degree of bias and choice has been in favour of those that work well and serve the interest of groups in power; not necessarily the common good!

The only difference in this case is it was exposed!

I don't think any of us believe we live in any Utopian State do we?

I disagree with clk. While he is correct in saying that political appointments have in history frequently been on the basis expediency, it is that nature of appointment that has lead to a corruption of civil governmance, and eventually, dictatorships, and other forms of repressive and eventually failed states.

To callously expect the same, is to accept that we will decent into chaos.

Implicit in what he wrote, he knows what it takes to make civil society, and government works.

Countries that works throughout history recognises the same, and institutionalise these principles, so that civil society will continue, and on facing deviations from these principles, corrects the defects immediately.

Now we have someone who says, "sail on, we do not live in an utopian world", and gleefully with masochistic relish, accepts being shafted.

No sir, I do NOT want to be shafted. We must make effort to steer the ship back on the correct coordinates.

clk

Your generalisation is too simplistic.

We are dealing with a profession that deals with life and death. Dealing with individuals with the vested powers of the Constitution to put you to death or incarcerate you.

A profession that determines your freedom and your liberties.

The vested powers of the Constitution comes from the people.

And for those in charge of protecting the sanctity of the that profession vested by the Constitution, it must be seen overboard.

Yes it was exposed. You will never know if it is not exposed.

Democracy and rights are protected by citizen's revulsions of abuse of powers of the three estates: Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary.

There is the expectation each is to check the excesses of the other.

In Malaysia, the Judiciary was made a slave of the Executive while the Legislative exists only in name.

Your argument does not lead to any better understanding of the issues here at all.

This is a very serious matter and I hope more and more NGOs, parties, etc will urge the govnt to take this seriously and be transparent about the handling.