The role of lawyers in court

The Sunday Star

THE Aug 27 press statement of the Universiti Malaya Law Society on recent court cases caught my attention because it came from students at the best law school in this country whose alumni include the current Prime Minister, Chief Justice and Attorney General. 

They wrote, “As future rule of law bearers perusing the recent incidents, we believe that much is expected from legal luminaries to set a model of respect, courtesy and dignity. However, what is occurring thus far has been the downfall of such expectations even in the soil’s highest avenue of justice – the Federal Court.” 

It would be a tragedy if these prospective lawyers should feel disillusioned by the alleged conduct of some senior lawyers even before they join the legal profession. As a senior member of the Malaysian Bar, it behoves me to assure these future entrants to the profession that what they have learnt at law school relating to ethics, virtues, values and ideals of the legal profession still apply and will not be easily tossed away. There are still many senior lawyers out there who practise law with the highest standards of professional integrity and honesty, and who possess unblemished character and reputation. 

Dedicated: (From left, anti-clockwise) Lawyers Jaspal Singh, Lee Guan Tong, HR Dipendra, Kevin Wong and Janet Chai with others at the recent extraordinary general meeting of the Malaysian Bar. — Photo provided

These students should also be assured that there is an independent judicial system in this country worth associating with and defending for. Together with an independent Bar, we are in the vanguard of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and upholding the rule of law. Otherwise, it is meaningless if at almost every National Day parade, our leaders and citizens raise hands, pledging aloud to uphold the five fundamental principles of Rukunegara which include the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. 

An independent judiciary saves American democracy

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Image: I Got This by Sousa & Machado

CONGRATULATIONS to Joseph Robinette Biden Jr and Kamala Devi Harris for having been successfully inaugurated as the 46th president and vice-president of the United States respectively. It almost did not happen on Jan 20, or at all, if not for the US judiciary. 

On Jan 6, the losers fomented mobs to storm the US Capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 US presidential election results. To former President Donald Trump and his acolytes, this was perhaps their last hope to get rid of what they called the “rigged result” after American courts, including the US Supreme Court, twice refused to overturn the results in battleground states. Despite five deaths, the incident could have been a calamity had any elected legislator been taken hostage or killed by the insurrectionists. 

For a moment, the 245-year-old American republic almost became a banana republic devoid of the rule of law. On that day of infamy, democracy as the best form of government almost died in a country which has always prided itself on being the world’s greatest democracy. 

In the words of national youth poet laureate Amanda Gorman – who wowed the world at Biden’s inauguration ceremony with her poem – “This effort very nearly succeeded. But while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated.” 

The free world heaved a huge sigh of relief at this irenic victory for democracy, though this embarrassing episode has now diminished America’s moral authority as the keeper or beacon of democracy. 

Before I go on, I need to pause here to say that I have not been watching too much CNN. In fact, I watch the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel too. 

To the world at large, Biden did secure an emphatic victory. The world was just simply astounded to see how Trump, who was unable to accept defeat in an electoral democracy, could lie that the elections were rigged and urge his supporters to “Stop the steal”. It is even more mind boggling to see how some Americans could so easily turn cuckoo overnight, deluded by misinformation into believing in conspiracy theories. 

This reminds me of the tactic employed during World War II by the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels: Turn a lie into the truth just by repeating it often enough. He reportedly said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.... It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.” 

‘Laws grind the poor, rich men rule the law’

The writer with the legendary Lord Denning during his law student days in London. Denning quoted Fuller that ‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you’.

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

WHEN I was young, I would recite the Rukun Negara every morning during the primary school assembly.

When I was older, I would lead in the taking of this pledge as the head prefect of the secondary school every other week. This pledge-taking commenced in late 1970, a year after the May 13, 1969, incident. So this year is the golden jubilee of the Rukun Negara. 

Raising our right hands, we would say these words aloud in Bahasa Malaysia: 

“We, the citizens of Malaysia, pledge to concentrate all our energy and efforts on achieving these ambitions based on the following principles: Belief in God; Loyalty to the King and Country; Supremacy of the Constitution; Rule of Law; Courtesy and Morality.  

What are these ambitions? They are: 

> Achieving and fostering better unity amongst the society; 

> Preserving a democratic way of life; > Creating a just society where the prosperity of the country can be enjoyed together in a fair and equitable manner; 

> Ensuring a liberal approach towards the rich and varied cultural traditions; and 

> Building a progressive society that will make use of science and modern technology. 

Of course, we would often spend most of our time memorising the five principles, overlooking the importance of the five national ambitions. 

Then, we were also too young to know the significance of these principles, particularly supremacy of the Constitution and rule of law. 

It was only when I began as a lawyer that I realised the true significance of these third and fourth fundamental principles. 

The supremacy of the Constitution means our Parliament is not supreme, unlike the British Parliament, because our Federal Constitution is the supreme law in that even our Parliament cannot make, amend or unmake any law as it pleases. Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law passed which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void. 

The principle of the rule of law, in simple terms, means no one is above or immune from the law. Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution also declares that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. As Sultan Azlan Shah once said in a case when sentencing a prince, “This equality of all in the eyes of law minimises tyranny”. 

It then behoves the public prosecutor and the judiciary to ensure that this nation is governed by the rule of law and not rule the law. Hence, the Attorney General is often called the independent guardian of public interest and protector of public rights; and the judiciary, the fountain of justice and the bulwark of our liberties. 

This is obviously the ideal and a grandiloquent optimism. But in practice, a lot depends on the person who sits at these institutions. 

Is our Covid-19 Bill the panacea?

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

   

Hit hard: Covid-19 has left a wide swathe of destruction in its wake in Malaysia too. Banners of property for sale in front of a row of closed shops in Kuala Lumpur.

This Bill does not appear to be fulfilling its real purpose, which is to suspend, for a specified period, enforcement of contractual obligations against a defaulting party, who is usually the weaker party and does not have an equal bargaining strength with the other contractual party.

FINALLY. Malaysia’s much awaited version of the Covid-19 Bill (“the Bill”), entitled the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Bill was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday.

The Bill comprises 19 parts and 59 clauses. It seeks to modify 16 written laws. The modifications will have retrospective effect with most of the main provisions coming into effect on 18 March 2020, the day when the movement control order first came into operation. If passed, this law will prevail over any other written law in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between them.

The Bill is not expected to come into force until probably after September 2020, that is, after it has been passed by Senate; royal assent has been obtained and it is published in the Gazette. Singapore was able to pass her COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020, all on the same day on April 7,2020, primarily because her Parliament is unicameral.

The following are some of the statutory modifications proposed by the Bill:

> A one-time extension to 31 December 2020 is given to any limitation period which falls between 18 March 2020 to 31 August 2020 under the Limitation Act, 1953, Sabah Limitation Ordinance, Sarawak Limitation Ordinance and the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1948. The limitation period for a homebuyer to file his claim at the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims is also extended from 4 May 2020 to 31 December 2020 if it has expired during the period from 18 March 2020 to 9 June 2020.

> The monetary threshold to take bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings against individuals is increased to RM100,000 from RM50,000 until 31 August 2021, unless further extended by the Minister.

> An owner’s right to repossess goods under a hire-purchase agreement due to non-payment of instalments during the period from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020 is suspended until 31 December 2020, unless further extended by the Minister. However, this does not apply to a case where the owner has already exercised his power of repossession before this law comes into force.

> Before 31 December 2020, a landlord cannot recover the arrears of rent by a warrant of distress for the period from 18 March 2020 to 31 August 2020 unless the warrant has already been executed before coming into force of this law.

> The calculation of the period for according recognition of a trade union or otherwise making of a report or filing of representation on dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 shall exclude the period from 18 March 2020 to 9 June 2020.

However, I am more concerned with two main parts: Part 2 which deals with inability by parties in performing contractual obligations and Part 11 which deals with modifications to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing Act, 1966 (Act 118).

Of the Bench and the Bar

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Allyna Ng with her proud parents, Datuk & Datin Ng Kong Peng at the 2015 JPA Presentation Ceremony.

Malaysia’s rule of law can only be upheld if these twin pillars remain independent and fearless. And for that to happen, we need to eradicate one of their main threats — the mass production of lawyers who are ill-equipped and incompetent due to poor legal training and education. 

IT is always a proud moment for the nation whenever we learn of our young Malaysian students excelling in their legal studies overseas. 

On July 21, Allyna Ng Ming Yi obtained a first class honours in BA Jurisprudence (Law) from Oxford University. She was also the recipient of the Crystal Prize for best overall performance in Law; the Farthing Prize for best performance in Constitutional Law and the Monk Prize for best performance in Criminal Law. 

Allyna, the younger daughter of lawyer couple, Datuk Ng Kong Peng and Datin Amy Yeo of Melaka (pic), is a Public Services Department (JPA) scholar. An alumna from SMK Infant Jesus Convent, she was also in the top 20 of 2014 SPM candidates in Malaysia. 

In fact, this is not the first time a Malaysian youngster has done our country proud with their law studies overseas. In October 2010, an ex-Muar High School boy, Tan Zhongshan emerged as the overall best law student in the entire Cambridge University – an academic feat said to have surpassed even that of the university’s luminary alumni, Singapore’s former Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew and his wife. 

A son of a retired Federal Court judge and a holder of Singapore’s Asean scholarship, Zhongshan later graduated with a Master of Law degree from the prestigious Harvard Law School and is now reportedly a deputy public prosecutor in Singapore. 

I always marvel at such academic achievements by others, wondering how they could have done it with such ease. I have nothing much to boast about my own academic achievement, except perhaps being in the top 15 among Commonwealth students in the 1988 English Bar Finals. I must unashamedly confess that I chose law because I was hopeless in Mathematics and Science, having failed both in my Form 5 Malaysian Certificate of Education examinations! 

But it must be stressed that having a good academic result will not guarantee a successful career at the Bar in this dog-eat-dog world meant only for the survival of the fittest. Take for example, the late Karpal Singh only obtained a third-class honours law degree from the University of Singapore but he later became one of the most outstanding criminal lawyers this country has ever produced. 

On a more serious note, more than 1000 law graduates enter the legal profession every year, but there is no common system to evaluate, ascertain and ensure their levels of competence. Today, there are about 21,000 lawyers practising in Peninsular Malaysia, and the number of lawyers in Klang Valley alone will exceed the total number of lawyers in Singapore. 

Let justice be seen to be done

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Cousins Piya (left) and Prithep Sosothikul with a picture of their late grandmother Boonsom Boonyanit. — Filepic

I JUST recently learnt from an international arbitration news site that the Malaysian government had reached an amicable settlement with the estate of Boonsom Boonyanit, a Thai national, some time in October 2018. 

This news hitherto is not known to the Malaysian public. Neither is there any information available to the public on the exact settlement sum and whether the same has been paid. 

Be that as it may, the Malaysian taxpayers have obviously ended up once again having to fork out a sum probably in millions of ringgit to compensate for the criminal acts of the perpetrators who are still at large. There may be a requirement for confidentiality in the settlement agreement, hence the non-disclosure. 

Apparently, the October 2018 settlement had been reached with the Pakatan government after the estate issued a notice on July 31,2017 addressed to the then Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister and Attorney General, accusing Malaysia of contravening her treaty obligations under the 1987 Asean Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments in not according fair and equitable treatment and providing full protection for Boonsom’s investments. 

The treaty has been signed by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Under the treaty, if any dispute cannot be settled within six months after its being raised, then the affected party can choose to submit the same for conciliation or arbitration. 

But has justice been done or rather has justice been seen to be done to Boonsom? To quote the oft-repeated 100-year-old words of Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] that “it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” 

Sadly, Boonsom had already passed away on May 23,2000. She was a victim of land scam in 1989. All in, three generations of her family had carried on with this fight for justice with sheer grit and tenacity. But this long and arduous journey has also taken them some 30 years. 

It all started when Boonsom’s two beachfront lots in Tanjung Bungah, Penang (the said lands) were fraudulently transferred by an impostor claiming to be Boonsom to Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd, then known as Calget Sdn Bhd (‘Adorna”), on May 24,1989 for RM1,865,798. 

It's time to end the death penalty

Anti-death penalty campaigners staging a demonstration in Los Angeles. Even in other countries, people are protesting against the death penalty. AFP pic

New Straits Times
By Datuk Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah 

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: Malaysia should rethink holistically and practically and take the lead and be the proponent in Asean countries to implement this.

THE death penalty is prescribed for several offences, ie murder and waging war against the King (offences under the Penal Code), kidnapping for ransom (an offence under The Kidnapping Act 1960 as opposed to simple kidnapping under the Penal Code), drug trafficking (offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and other related drug statutes), certain scheduled offences for activities in relation to possession of firearms and ammunition or explosives [offences under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971(FIPA)] and under the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) the latter of which was repealed recently.

Most of the death penalties are mandatory upon finding of guilt. This means the trial judge has no discretion in sentencing to consider a range of possible sentences such as life imprisonment or a prescribed jail sentence which could run up to the maximum sentence, being the death penalty, which of those is most suited to be handed down on a convicted person after considering the myriad circumstances in relation to the commission of the offence and/or the offender.

The Malaysian legislature used to entrust judges with this important discretionary function. For instance, we used to give this sort of discretion to the High Court judges in drug trafficking matters. But a previous attorney-general was frustrated with the fact that judges were opting to sentence certain drug trafficking convicted offenders to life imprisonment rather than mete out the death penalty.

Those judges had good reasons in most cases for opting out of the death penalty. In any case, if the judges were wrong there was always the appellate process which the prosecution could resort to press their point for the capital sentence.

But immaturity and myopic considerations seemed to have prevailed then. We have been stuck with this knee-jerk culture of our legislature, a legislature that is not well advised by the parliamentary draftsman and other relevant authorities. As a result amendments made were jaundiced and lack cohesion with the general scheme of the system.

Nefarious act of betrayal

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

Party-hopping is a potent threat to parliamentary democracy and it is hoped that politicians will come to grips with this issue in a bipartisan manner.

THE great Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was known for party-hopping. In 1904, he changed parties from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party, and was made Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1905. He officially returned to the Tories in 1925 after he failed in two successive attempts to win a seat as an independent.

On record, his reasons for defecting to the Liberals were the Conservatives' reluctance to undertake social reform and their protectionist policy of favouring trade with the British Empire. But on the other hand, the Liberals were then an up-and-coming party, and his calculated move obviously did catapult him to high office at the rather young age of 31.

Of course, admirers and detractors of Churchill would respectively describe his act as one of political conscience and opportunism. But that is immaterial as until today, the British parliamentary system still does not proscribe party-hopping which also has different nomenclatures such as party-crossing, party-switching, party-leaping, floor-crossing and waka-jumping.

Like any democracy, regardless of it being an established or an incipient one, Malaysia too faces this perennial problem of party-hopping and elected representatives resigning from their political parties to become an independent.

Hence, we are not short of inveterate party-hoppers. One of them is Sabah State Reform Party (Star) chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan. Prior to this, he had joined Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), the Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS), Angkatan Keadilan Rakyat (now defunct Akar), United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Organisation (Upko) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

It is, therefore, not surprising for such politicians to be given various undignified names such as political frogs, traitors, lepers and chameleons.

Bar must be apolitical

The Star
by Roger Tan

I KNEW this was coming because as I said it would be painful for some lawyers to read what I wrote in “Unswayed by fear or favour” (Sunday Star, May 20).

I am indeed not wrong with my prognostication.

However, I am surprised that it was even necessary for the eight Loyarburoks to come together to give a 2,700-word response to something they felt were just mere fallacies being spun by me.

In a tweet sent out early yesterday morning, one of the eight, K. Shanmuga tweeted that their joint statement, “Bar’s resolution proper”, (The Star, May 23) was issued because my aforesaid article had got all of them so annoyed.

Hence, because I emphatise with them, I would oblige them in the best tradition of the Bar with a short reply which should suffice.

Firstly, my concern on the independence of the 80 monitors from the Bar is not totally unfounded. Of the 80 monitors, I personally know at least one whom I follow on Twitter.

Fallacies spun by critics of the Bar — LoyarBurokkers (loyarburok.com)

MAY 22 — The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-opposition. This is because of the Bar’s press statements and its extraordinary general meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally. The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan’s article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in the Sunday Star on May 20, 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.

2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.

3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan’s article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

Unswayed by fear or favour

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

As much as we do not like the judiciary to be perceived as pro-government, we also do not want the Bar to be perceived as pro-opposition.

ON May 11, the Malaysian Bar passed a motion containing 12 resolutions related to the April 28 Bersih 3.0 public assembly by an overwhelming majority. The decision of the House with 939 votes in favour and 16 against is to be respected. The argument that it is not representative of the 14,000-member Bar has no basis whatsoever as Section 66 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 (LPA) is clear, that is, a motion is carried if a majority votes in favour of it.

With that above overriding principle in mind, let me, however, put on record the reasons, whether rightly or wrongly, why I could not support the motion.

First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that Resolution (12) was amended to include, inter alia, that (1) the Bar is concerned by and does not countenance any acts of violence in a public rally and that such action by participants is not an appropriate response to the police; and (2) the Bar is equally concerned by reports that certain persons had crossed through the police barriers to Dataran Merdeka.

But this is a complete opposite of the language used to condemn police brutality and the manner in which the assembly was handled by the police on that day. I felt that merely expressing concern against the other law breakers is not strong enough. The Bar, in my view, must be seen in the forefront in upholding the rule of law regardless of whether they were police or protesters who had broken the law. If the Bar wanted to inveigh and condemn police brutality, the Bar must also do likewise against actions of those protesters who had behaved more like rioters and anarchists in assaulting policemen and jumping on and damaging police vehicles.

Secondly, I did not want the Bar to prejudge the issues. The way Resolution (1) was worded, it appears that the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police. On the other hand, Resolution (12) was worded very carefully to state that the breach of police barriers was based on reports.

As lawyers, we are trained that even if we have witnessed someone shoot another person, it does not mean the former is automatically guilty of murder. There could be other extenuating factors that require further investigation.

Police warn protesters against stepping out of line

The Sunday Star

KUALA LUMPUR: Organisers of tomorrow's Free Anwar 901 rally must ensure that none of their supporters gather outside the designated area or police will be forced to disperse them, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said.

“I wish to stress that the approval for the rally outside the court house is not a blanket approval for people to gather anywhere else in the city or the country,” he said.

He said the designated parking area outside the court complex could accommodate about 5,000 people and no more than that.

Otherwise, it would lead to traffic congestion and inconvenience others, he said.

Civil disobedience cannot rule the law

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

Street Protest: Civil disobedience is becoming a popular tactical weapon used by politicians and civil rights movements to justify their violation of laws.

IN 1996, when my clients and I were negotiating with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, led by its then head of the advisory and international division Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, I warned that too high a rate might cause the public to refuse payment to privatised entities out of civil disobedience.

Then, both my learned friends across the table and my own clients were rather amused by my argument.

Today, this term “civil disobedience” appears to be the “in-thing” among politicians, particularly those from the opposition, backed by non-governmental organisations and civil rights and liberties movements.

It is becoming a popular tactical weapon used by them to justify their violation of laws which, in their view, are “unjust”, apart from indulging in some polemics.

Hence, we saw various street protests being held without a police permit in contravention of the Police Act (1967).

So, what is civil disobedience? I would define it as an open and deliberate law-breaking or infringement of rights to get public attention that is often politically motivated, and normally is carried out because the civil disobedients conscientiously feel, whether sincerely or otherwise, that they are morally obliged to do so.

Pressure groups around the world have, over the years, resorted to this means to secure their desired legal and social changes. But for an act to be considered civil disobedience, the disobedients must also be prepared to accept punishment for infracting the laws.

This is, in fact, fine with them as the courtroom will give them the publicity they seek for the causes and issues which they are advancing.

The father of the modern concept of civil disobedience is said to be American Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862). For six years, he refused to pay taxes because of his opposition to slavery and the Mexican-American War. For that, he was thrown into jail in July 1846, but he only spent one night in jail because the next day, his aunt, against his wishes, paid his taxes.

We are undoubtedly more acquainted with celebrated modern-day civil disobedients such as Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Martin Luther King (1929-1968) and Rosa Parks (1913-2005).

Parks was fined for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger but Gandhi and King were jailed for disobeying the law. There is no denying that Gandhi’s Satyagraha and King’s civil rights movements brought immense legal and social changes to India and the United States respectively.

These civil disobedients were much inspired by the words of St Augustine (354-430) that an unjust law is no law at all (lex iniusta non est lex). So, one is under a moral obligation to disobey such a law. King also added that “sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application”.

The story told by Professor Charles Lund Black (1915-2001) of Yale Law School, an outspoken critic of the death penalty, about one Pawnee Indian brave named Peshwataro, best illustrates the operation and benefits of civil disobedience:

“The law of the Pawnee commanded that on the summer solstice there take place the sacrifice of the star maiden. A girl was each year captured from a neighbouring tribe and bound to a stake. At dawn, the Pawnee braves would ride in a circle about her and shoot their arrows into her.

Judicial diversity creates confidence

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

Judicial diversity and meritocracy should go hand in hand. A judiciary that does not reflect society’s diversity will ultimately lose the confidence of that society.

ENGLAND’S senior judiciary has often been described as “pale, male and stale” – that is a white, male-dominated bench.

This is understandable because despite many calls over the years for more diversity in judicial appointments, women and ethnic minorities are still sorely under-represented in the highest echelons of England’s judiciary.

Today, Lady Brenda Hale still remains the sole woman justice out of 12 places in the highest court of the United Kingdom, now known as the Supreme Court. First appointed to the House of Lords as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lord) on Jan 12, 2004, she was reappointed to the new Supreme Court when it replaced the House of Lords in 2009.

In October this year, Rabinder Singh became the first Sikh, a non-white, to be appointed a High Court judge of England and Wales. There is no law lord from an ethnic minority. This year two more white men, Jonathan Sumption, QC and Lord Justice Wilson, were appointed to the Supreme Court.

The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, did remark recently that he would like the Supreme Court to be 50/50 men and women from the point of perception, but he stressed that it was more important to consider judicial selections based on merit.

Lord Hope, the Deputy President, was not so hopeful, however. “It’s a great mistake to rush it forward and say that diversity must prevail over merit. The system depends on skilled people who can actually do the job and we can’t afford to have passengers here, just in the name of diversity,” he said.

But is this insistence on merit reasonable when actually it is a non-issue? Or is it simply an excuse not to effect judicial diversity speedily? If so, then perhaps the very definition of what is merit should be re-examined.

In fact, leading the call for more women and ethnic minority judges in the courts is none other than Hale herself. She said she was rather tired of being repeatedly told that change was “a matter of time”, but change never came.

Recently, Hale told the House of Lords constitution committee that “the lack of diversity on the bench is a constitutional issue”.

Making the case for preventive detention

The Sunday Star 

by Roger Tan

In the proposed laws to replace the ISA, the government must balance, and balance it well, the state’s duty to protect national security with a citizen’s cherished liberty and human right of access to courts.

I JUST turned half a century old yesterday. But the Internal Security Act, 1960 (ISA) is older still.

In fact, the original preventive detention provision was contained in Regulation 17 of the Emergency Regulations 1948 which allowed the chief secretary to detain, by order, any person for a period not exceeding one year. Interestingly, it was made notwithstanding Section 4 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance of 1948 which stated that the British high commissioner could make any regulations he considered desirable in the public interest provided that “no such regulation shall confer any right to punish by death, fine or imprisonment without trial…”

When the Emergency Regulations 1948 ceased after the proclamation of emergency ended on July 29, 1960, Regulation 17 was transplanted into a new statute, called the ISA which came into force on August 1, 1960.

But the ISA is not the only preventive law in Malaysia. The other two laws are the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (EO) and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (DDA).

The EO, which came into force on May 16, 1969 after the May 13, 1969 riots, allowed the minister to detain without trial any person for up to two years in the interest of public order or in order to suppress violence or prevent crime. Currently, there are few hundreds of detainees placed under the EO.

On the other hand, the DDA, which came into force on May 30, 1985, allowed the minister to detain without trial any person involved in drug trafficking for up to two years.

The reason why these preventive laws still exist today and have not been invalidated by our courts is simply because they are permitted under Articles 149 and 150 of the Federal Constitution even though they are inconsistent with the fundamental liberties provisions stated in Articles 5, 9, 10 and 13 of the Constitution.

In this respect, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak should be commended for his bold move to repeal the ISA and the EO.

Najib delivers promise on political transformation

The Borneo Post

KUALA LUMPUR: When Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak took over as the sixth prime minister on April 3, 2009, he set his sights on resolving domestic economic issues and tackling political reform.

In his maiden speech over television as the nation’s premier, Najib even pledged to conduct a comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allowed for the indefinite detention of people without trial, and even announced the release of 13 people held under the draconian act.

He then unveiled the Government Transformation Programme (GTP), Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) and Political Transformation Plan (PTP), a reflection of his integrated and visionary push to transform Malaysia into a truly developed nation by 2020.

For political transformation, Najib even suggested that the Barisan Nasional (BN) charter be amended to allow direct membership into the ruling coalition through four new kinds of membership in BN — affiliate membership, associate membership, Friends of BN and fourth, the BN Rakan Muda club.

But the biggest transformation since he took over and regarded as Najib’s boldest step in political reform was the repealing of the ISA.

In other words, the prime minister has delivered on his promise.

According to MIC secretary-general S Murugessan, the prime minister would be remembered as one who was willing to make such a bold decision.

“It would be a lasting legacy of Datuk Seri Najib. As a lawyer, I feel relieved (about the repealing of the ISA),” he said.

Senior lawyer Roger Tan said Najib’s courageous decision to repeal the ISA was the right thing to do and it showed that the government was receptive to the feelings on the ground.

Church leaders slam raid by state Islamic department

The Star 

PETALING JAYA: Church leaders have come out to strongly condemn the raid by Jais.

Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) senior pastor Dr Daniel Ho, who heads the church at the Dream Centre in Petaling Jaya, said the trespassers had subjected the dinner guests to undue harassment.

The event was organised by non-governmental organisation Harapan Komuniti on Wednesday as an appreciation for its volunteers, leaders, supporters and members of the community who have benefited from its work.

The NGO assists the poor and the needy, including women, children, and victims of HIV/AIDS and natural disasters, regardless of race or religion.

DUMC is among the bigger churches in the Klang Valley, with its membership numbering in the thousands.

“At 10pm on the same night, a large group of between 20 and 30 Jais and police officers entered the premises of Dream Centre.

“They entered the hall where the dinner was taking place and started taking videos and photographs,” Dr Ho said in a statement yesterday.

The officers, who took down details of the Muslim guests, had entered the private property without a warrant.

“When asked by the organisers why they were there, Jais replied that they received a complaint, but they were unable to produce a copy when asked,” Dr Ho said.

Council of Churches Malaysia general secretary Reverend Dr Hermen Shastri said the act had made a mockery of the sanctity of religious places.

Raja Aziz Addruse: A gentleman who believed in honesty and fair play

The Star

 by Roger Tan

THE social media was quickly overwhelmed with tributes and accolades for one of our nation's most renowned lawyers, Raja Aziz Addruse the moment news came in that he had passed away yesterday afternoon.

Ungku, as he was fondly known within the legal fraternity, was indubitably a legal luminary and a doyen of the Malaysian Bar.

His unequivocal commitment to the independence of the Bar and the independence of the judiciary - which are two essentials of the rule of law - is legendary. It is, therefore, not surprising that his departure is deeply felt by many lawyers, young and old, as Ungku could always be depended upon to speak up courageously for the Bar, and fairness and justice without fear and favour.

It is no wonder that by popular request he became the president of the Bar three times between 1976-1978, 1988-1989 and 1992-1993. He was also a member of the Bar Council intermittently for 21 years.

Born in Chemor, Perak on Feb 10, 1936, Ungku left for England in 1954 to read law at the University of Bristol.

He was called to the English Bar by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn in 1960. He returned to Malaya the same year to join the Federal Judicial and Legal Services as a deputy public prosecutor and later a Deputy Parliamentary Draftsman.

Six years later, he resigned and entered private practice after having been admitted to the Malaysian Bar on Jan 8, 1966.

When he became the president of the Bar in March 1988, it was also one of the most tumultuous periods of the Bar with the dismissal of the then Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas and two senior judges of the Supreme Court as well as the suspension of three others.

He not only represented Tun Salleh but stuck to his principle by refusing to appear in the Supreme Court when Tun Hamid Omar was Tun Salleh's successor albeit he was a senior counsel often sought after by many for major cases at the apex court.

Though small in built, he was a giant of a man both in personality and character. He was always able to bring across his points of arguments forcefully and effectively but in a soft-spoken and courteous manner.

What a mockery

Unmasked: Giggs obtained a super injunction to keep his alleged six-month extra-marital affair with reality TV star Thomas a secret but it soon became the world's most revealed secret. - AFP

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

The Ryan Giggs’ drama goes to show that rights to privacy and free press have to keep up with technological changes in this age of social media.

It had been a hell of a week for one of Manchester United’s most celebrated players, Ryan Giggs. Hitherto often portrayed as a family man, Giggs had earlier obtained a super injunction to keep his alleged six-month extra-marital affair with 28-year-old reality TV star Imogen Thomas secret. Of course, last week saw it become the world’s most revealed secret.

With the super injunction in force, neither Thomas nor the media could reveal or even mention the Premier League star’s name. (A super injunction is a temporary injunction which restrains a person from publishing private or confidential information concerning the applicant or informing others of the existence of such injunction and the court proceedings.)

But this had not impressed the Wild West of social media because by May 21, tens of thousands of Twitter users had already tweeted and re-tweeted Giggs’ name. This is by far the biggest act of mass civil disobedience on the Internet, making a mockery of the court order.

Needless to say, Britain’s feral and sanctimonious media were not amused at all, as it did not make sense to them that they could still be gagged from publishing something which is already an open secret on Twitter.

Even British Prime Minister David Cameron weighed in, describing the privacy law of Britain as no longer sustainable in this age of social media since everybody already knew the footballer’s identity.

Then May 22 in Scotland, which has a different legal system, saw The Sunday Herald emblazoning a large picture of Giggs on its front page. The next day, British MP John Hemming finally used parliamentary privilege, in clear defiance of the court order, to unmask Giggs as the subject footballer.

“With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all,” argued Hemming in Parliament.

Shortly after that on the same day, the News Group Newspapers (NGN) asked the High Court to lift the anonymised injunction in the wake of Hemming’s revelation. Senior media judge Justice Michael Tugendhat again rejected NGN’s attempt, arguing that while it was obvious that the purpose of the injunction to protect a secret had failed, it had not, however, failed in so far as its purpose was to prevent intrusion or harassment.

No access to information in three categories

The Star

SHAH ALAM: The public will not be allowed access to three categories of information despite the Freedom of Information Enactment being passed at the state assembly.

Under Section 14, information classified as confidential and secret under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) is exempted from the enactment.

The second exemption refers to trade secrets obtained from a third party and to communicate it would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. The third exemption applies to information, if disclosed, causes serious prejudice to the effective formulation or development of state government policy.

Including sub-clauses, the exemptions in the enactment passed yesterday had been reduced from 11 to five. There are, however, three scenarios where the exemptions can be overruled and information could be made available under Section 15.

Section 15 states that regardless of Section 14, a department must grant access to the applicant if the information's disclosure is of public interest.