Cabinet Ministers cannot continue to  act with "eyes that see not and ears that hear not" and should act immediately to  redeem Malaysia’s honour and repute by setting up a Commission of Inquiry into "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000"

---

Media Statement
by Lim Kit Siang 

---

The four international legal organisations which jointly sponsored the report, the International Bar Association (IBA), the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers of the International Commission of Jurists (CIJL), the Commonwealth Lawyers’  Association (CLA) and the Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA) never received any reply from the Malaysian Government and it published its report, which was a damning indictment on the system of justice in Malaysia, without any comments by the Malaysian authorities.

More than two months have passed since the publication world-wide of the report and more than two weeks have passed since the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim had promised the Second Australia-Malaysia Conference in Canberra that he would be presenting the report to the Cabinet, but to date, there has been no proper official response to the latest international indictment of the system of justice in Malaysia.

Cabinet Ministers cannot continue to  act with "eyes that see not and ears that hear not" pretending to be  blissfully unaware of the damning indictment of the system of justice in "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000" and the Cabinet should on Wednesday  redeem Malaysia’s honour and repute by setting up a Commission of Inquiry into the whole question of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the system of justice in Malaysia.

The Cabinet should not be unmindful of the fact that lack of national and international confidence in the system of justice in Malaysia would be a major factor retarding Malaysia’s development process by  undermining Malaysia as an international investment centre as well as the country’s plan to be an IT power, as borne out in the latest report of the  Hong Kong-based Political Economic And Risk Consultancy(PERC), which  ranked  Malaysia as amongst the five  countries with the worst legal system in Asia.

The PERC survey, released  during the weekend, were based on polling of more than 1,000 respondents, mostly in the countries assessed.

The legal systems of Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong are ranked as the best in Asia by expatriate businessmen, followed by Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand and South Korea. Malaysia headed the worst list followed by India, Vietnam, China and Indonesia.

PERC Survey(0 is the best possible score and 10 the worst)
 

1. Singapore --  2.57
2. Japan --  3.00
3. Hong Kong -- 3.76
4. Taiwan -- 6.00
5. Philippines -- 6.50
6. Thailand -- 6.67
7. South Korea -- 6.83
8. Malaysia -- 7.43
9. India -- 8.40
10. Vietnam -- 9.00
11. China -- 9.33
12. Indonesia -- 9.38

"In Malaysia, the legal system is suffering from a ‘public relations problem’ following the saga of jailed former Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim, who was beaten while in police custody prior to his trial for corruption and sexual offences.

"Asian governments can argue that the foreigners are wrong and that their legal systems are much better than  our survey grades indicate. As in so many things, however, perception can be just as important as reality."

The emergency general meeting of the Bar Council on June 23, 2000 on the conduct of Chief Justice, Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin, calling for  his suspension pending the outcome of a Judicial Tribunal or a Royal Commission of Inquiry, should be broadened to include consideration of  "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000".

There should in fact be a full-fledged nation-wide debate instead of a conspiracy of silence on the latest international condemnation of the system of justice in Malaysia, focussing in particular on the findings and recommendations of the "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000".

Part III of the report on  "Relationship between the Judiciary and executive" said:
 

"In the vast majority of cases which come before the courts, at whatever level, in Malaysia there is no complaint about the independence of the judiciary. However, in cases which are considered of political or economic importance to the executive, there are serious concerns that the Judiciary is not independent either because it is leaned on directly or indirectly by the government or because it knows what the government wants and is simply too cowed in the light of past experiences.  This perception is also held by members of the general public."

• "That all parties involved - the executive, the judiciary and the legal profession - should recognise that the problem is a genuine one. As is often the case, recognition that a problem exists is in itself a major step towards solving it. In particular the executive must recognise that the root causes of the problem were and continue to be namely a blatant assault upon the Judiciary by the executive in 1987-88 and a continuing perception that the executive ontinue either directly or indirectly to influence the judiciary."
• "That the executive should recognise the independent constitutional position of the judiciary and have a proper understanding of what that involves. It is the failure to understand that by a very powerful executive that has been by far the single most important factor in bringing about the present unsatisfactory position."
• "The executive should conduct its business in such a way so as to not interfere with the independence of the judiciary in any way. Equally important, it should be careful to conduct its business in such a way as not to be seen by the reasonable observer to be interfering in the independence of the judiciary. Reasonable perception is every bit as important as the truth in a matter of this kind."
• "The judiciary should act and be seen to act with complete independence from the executive.  The decision making and reasoning of the judiciary in the recent cases of Lim Guan Eng and Anwar Ibrahim have quite understandably given real cause for concern in this regard."
• "Senior members of the judiciary should be astute to protect the more junior judges from anything that is or appears to be executive interference in their independence."
• "The judiciary does all in its power in the wider interests of justice to counter the harshness of repressive legislation and overbearing actions on the part of the executive.  That is the role of the judiciary when faced with repression no matter where it comes from.  The burden will fall mainly on senior members of the judiciary who must take the lead. In the present situation and in light of the experiences of 1988 this will require great courage.  Even still we consider it essential if the reputation of the judicial system in Malaysia is to be restored to what it was and what it should be."
• "The choice of judges for high profile cases should be carefully considered."
• "A Judicial Services Commission should be established with the function of recommending judicial appointments.  Representatives from the legal profession should be invited to participate as full members in this commission."
• "There should be a significantly greater recruitment to the Judiciary from the Bar the members of which should be prepared to accept posts in the Judiciary."
• "(a) The  inter-changeability of lawyers and judges under the combined Judicial and Legal Service should come to an end to ensure the separation of powers and  independence of the judiciary.  (b) An independent prosecution system should be established."
• "Members of different branches of the establishment should be very careful about how they are seen in public and by the public."
• "An international conference on the independence of the judiciary be held and training sessions on human rights law be organised for its members."

(12/6/2000)