Screenshots

We are witnessing chapters of Malaysian history unfolding on its rotting Judiciary and the Executive, so brace yourselves for the imminent storm. It won't blow over so soon as the Judiciary and Executive are both engaged on retreat mode.

Your may like to refresh your memory of developments thus far before reading on.

1 ) ANWAR GIVEN ULTIMATUM TO SURRENDER ORIGINAL TAPE. On Monday (October 22), Anwar Ibrahim, the person who exposed the Lingam Tape on September 19, was served a notice by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) compelling him to surrender the original Lingam video clip or risk going to jail.

The ACA invoked the 1997 Anti-Corruption Act to get Anwar to comply, failing which the opposition leader will be liable to a fine up to RM10,000 or a maximum two-year jail term, or both.

According to the ACA, Anwar has only three days to comply with the notice, which expires on October 25.

This is Anwar's statement, via Malaysiakini.tv:

Anwar said he will provided the ACA a copy of the tape which he will get pre-authenticated before submission on Thursday. This time, it will be in the form of a thimb-drive and not on CD-ROM.

2 ) JUDICIAL ROT. On the same day Anwar was served the ACA ultimatum, the Wall Street Journal published an Op-Ed written by the former deputy prime minister on the issue, titled: Judicial Rot.

Anwar invited WSJ's international readers to view the Lingam Tape on his website -- www.anwaribrahim.com. He said he could vouch for its authenticity.

In the article, Anwar said the two men best able to explain the tape, the "prominent lawyer" and the incumbent Chief Justice, have remained silent, "apparently hoping that a combination of public apathy and the absence of an independent media will soon kill the story".

Anwar explained that teh rotting judiciary has also prompted multinational corporations operating in the country to now seek redress of their grievances in overseas courts, in Singapore or Hong Kong, rather than take their chances with the Malaysian judicial system.

"Other potential investors opt to steer clear of Malaysia altogether, planting themselves in neighboring countries that offer greater transparency, accountability and assurance of the rule of law," he said.

He quoted observations from two eminent chief judges to drive home the fact that Malaysia's judiciary has indeed been suffocated.

The late former Lord President Tun Suffian, in a speech in 2000: "When I am asked what I thought, my usual reply is that I wouldn't like to be tried by today's judges, especially if I am innocent."

Sultan Azlan Shah, another former Lord President: "The erosion of public confidence in the judiciary's independence would ultimately lead to instability and it would certainly take a long time and would be an arduous task to restore it."

In summary, Anwar gave a pessimistic view of the possibility of judicial reform.

"A government so complicit in the abuse of power and the destruction of the judiciary can hardly be expected to follow through on the structural reforms that are now required -- namely, a complete overhaul of the process of judicial appointments, including the creation of an independent council with oversight powers and autonomy," he said.

"The executive must be kept out of this process," he added. "The Conference of Rulers, a council comprising the nine rulers of the Malay states, must assert its authority and play its constitutional role as the people's guardian against arbitrary action of the powers that be."

3 ) PEOPLE'S PETITION TO THE AGONG. October looks set to be an important day not only for Anwar, but also the proponents of People's Parliament. The civil society grouping will be making arrangements to have a petition and the list of over 4,000 signatories delivered to the palace on Thursday, October 25.

The rationale is plain simple:

Fairuz’s term as CJ ends on 31/10/2007.

He has requested an extension.

...Fairuz should properly have taken a leave of absence or have been suspended pending such an inquiry.

Instead, we are confronted with the audacious prospect of an extension of his term!

The Conference of Rulers meets next week.

The matter of the extension or otherwise of Fairuz’s term is almost certain to be on the agenda before their Royal Highnesses.

If you have not out down your signatory, please do so via People's Parliament blog

Meanwhile, People's Parliament will be hosting Malam Bangsa Malaysia, Penang at 8pm, November 3. Details here, and I hope all the Malaysia-caring Penangites will turn up in support.

4 ) HANIF OMAR: 'KARPAL BOLEH!' In his Sunday column in The Star, former Inspector-General of Police Hanif Omar applauded senior lawyer Karpal Singh when he referred to CJ Ahmad Fairuz's attempt to seek extension of his service and said The Agong has the right to decide. Quote:

When we interpret law according to the Common Law tradition, we must go by one of the four rules of interpretation: the literal, golden, mischief and purposive rules. Here, only the literal or purposive rule seems applicable.

Thus, whether we go by the literal or purposive rule of interpretation, the extension of the chief justice’s tenure of office is clearly the sole prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

To the layman, it is as good as saying that the Agong shouldn't be regarded as the Prime Minister's office boy. Full-stop.

5 ) LAWYERS PRESS ON FOR ROYAL COMMISSION. Despite the no-progress score-sheet displayed by the 3-member Panel of Inquiry over month after its inception, lawyers are pushing on for a royal commission to investigate the state of the judiciary.

The Young Lawyers Committee of the Kuala Lumpur Bar, held a public forum, titled '‘Walk for Justice Part 2 - The Walk is Over, Now It's Time to Talk’ last night, October 23.

The forum is a follow up to the monumental Walk for Justice by 2,000 lawyers in Putrajaya on September 26.

6 ) POLICE TRIED QUESTIONING BAR LEADERSHIP, RETURNED EMPTY-HANDED. October 23, three police officers from the Putrajaya district police went to the Bar Council to question three office-bearers about the ‘Walk for Justice’.

They were instead quizzed on procedural aspects of their mission and went off empty-handed - they failed to record statements from their targets.

Earlier, the police had informed the Bar Council that they planned to question council president Ambiga Sreenevasan, vice-president Ragunath Kesavan and secretary Lim Chee Wee, based on a complaint lodged in relation to the protest march on September 26. The complaint was reportedly lodged by a police officer that day.

At a press conference yeaterday, Ambiga explained that lawyers for the office-bearers had requested details of the First Information Report (FIR) - including the serial number of the police report against the council, the date and the complainant’s name - at the onset of today’s meeting.

“This request was made so that our lawyers could properly advise us as to our rights under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which was invoked by the police to attempt to take statements from us,” she said.

According to her, the police declined to accede to their request.

“They wanted to proceed to record our statement. However our lawyers took the position to advise us that without the information requested, we will not be in the position to give any statement,” she added.

Ambiga said the police had merely informed the office-bearers that the probe was being carried out under the Police Act. They did not specify which section of the Act was being invoked or what the offence was.

Following that, the three police officers left, saying they would be in touch but without indicating a date for the next meeting.

Here's the Bar Council's statement, via Malaysiakini.tv:

7 ) 'DENY LINK TO VIDEOTAPE, CJ & LAWYER TOLD. At the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, Member of Parliament Karpal Singh (DAP - Bukit Glugor), a senior lawyer, challenged CJ Ahmad Fairuz and lawyer Lingam to publicly deny that they are in the alleged “judge-brokering” videotape.

Karpal alleged that the tape was of a seditious nature and questioned why no action had been taken against the person who was shown allegedly brokering the deal.

“I challenge him (the Chief Justice) to deny (it) himself and not through Nazri (Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz) that he is the one at the other end of the phone.

“Why did he (Ahmad Fairuz) deny (the allegation) through the executive and not the judiciary? Where is the separation of powers?” he said when debating the Supply Bill 2008.

Karpal Singh went back to the core subject matter and questioned why a royal commission of inquiry was not set up to investigate the video clip instead of having a three-member panel.

Karpal Singh claimed that the judiciary had not recovered since the 1988 judicial crisis and “is now worse.”

8 ) AHMAD FAIRUZ WROTE 7 JUDGMENTS IN 7 LONG YEARS. Recently a group of lawyers got together to undertake a comparative study into the number of reported judgments written by the current Chief Justice, Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato' Sheikh Abdul Halim and his three predecessors, namely Salleh Abas, Raja Azlan Shah (as HRH then was) and Mohamed Suffian when they sat at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the apex court.

The results were published on the Bar Council website. Ahmad Fairuz produced a total of seven written judgments in his seven years sitting on the federal Court from 2000 to 2007.

The plot thickens further...