Courtiers, satraps cosy under the Law’s skirt CHIAROSCURO MGG Pillai 3:10pm, Thu: Murder is not a bailable offence. Any one arrested, even on suspicion, must be in remand until the trial is over. The grandson of a former finance minister is on trial for murder and he has been behind bars since his arrest. But the son of a motorcar dealer is not. He was arrested six weeks ago outside a pub in Seremban where he allegedly shot dead a worker of a car spare parts shop. The suspect’s father is a well-known man but that is no excuse to break the law. He was allowed bail at express instructions of a senior officer in the Attorney-General's Chambers. The Inspector-General of Police, Norian Mai, in apportioning blame, did not explain why the police did not object. The government promises an investigation, but that is neither here nor there. There should already have been several parallel investigations, at every branch of government involved in it, and steps taken to ensure it would not happen again. This is serious enough for punishment. Saying they obeyed orders did not prevent the conviction of those in Nazi Germany and wartime Japan in the war crimes trials that followed the end of World War II. In the political context, these events in Malaysia take on a confrontational tinge between government and people. Did the police not know the rules about bail and murder suspects? Why did not the court staff, well-versed in these nitty-gritty matters, alert the magistrate? Did not the lawyers involved in the case know that? As officers of the court, they had the bounden duty to point this out when bail was asked for. Did they? What frightens is not that bail was granted but that they were carried out without realising it was forbidden and that none bothered to question it. The police cannot blame higher authority for its acts of commission and omission. The courts cannot hide behind the fiction that the Attorney- General's Chambers had ordered that bail be granted. That should have been questioned. All but forgotten That several agencies of the law break the law is what we have unfortunately come to expect. Murders are left unsolved. Promises made are quickly forgotten. We not only do not know who killed the Methodist Girls School student in a tunnel within sight of the police headquarters at Bukit Aman in Kuala Lumpur, but the tunnel is now back as the haunt of drug addicts and ne'er do wells that one walks through the tunnel at one's peril. The police promised to bring whoever shot dead the then state assemblyman for Lunas last year ‘soon’, but it is all but forgotten. It is not confined to murders. Try and report a burglary or a motor accident. The runaround you get at the police station is worse when at the end of it all you are told they can do nothing. But the law requires you have to report if you want to claim on your insurance, and so it becomes yet another form one goes through with no belief the culprit would ever be brought to book. No authority bothers about following the law. When it was pointed out to a former mayor of Kuala Lumpur that parking meters were illegal because it had not been gazetted, he famously replied that he did not care, and those who were issued summonses would be charged. If traffic offences are not paid, vehicles licences would not be renewed; the courts have said clearly this should not be. The Road Transport Department cares not a hoot. The list is endless. The laws of defamation is turned on its head. Last month, TV3 did not file a defence in a RM100 million defamation suit, and the plaintiff was given judgment in default by an assistant registrar. Why the TV3 lawyers, from the largest law firm in the country, did not file a defence is anyone’s guess. But it is appealed, and justice R K Nathan, before him the case came, wants the plaintiff to explain his demand for this huge amount. Yet the same judge established the principle that the plaintiff need not, in the cases for defamation involving the lawyer, Tommy Thomas. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge, and is now law. For him now to demand what he did not allow does raise the distinct and frightening suggestion that the law is used capriciously against those the establishment is unhappy with. Gone wrong It should not. The government, which did not object to the high defamation damages when it was the rage because those benefitting from that were its cronies, siblings and courtiers, now find its satraps and followers paying the price. Why has this come about? When the institutions of state are allowed full licence to harass and constrain the public, an administrative and political gridlock ensues. Reversing it to status quo ante is both painful and fraught with political and administrative pressures. As the government finds to reverse the trend of the past 20 years. Too much has gone wrong for that to be easy. The de facto law minister, Rais Yatim, says it should be left to the judges to curtail the high defamation damages. That is how it should be. Few can pay what is demanded. So, it is used to frighten comment and dissent. For a decade and a half, judges were selected not for their erudition and judicial temperament but for their loyalty primarily to the chief justice. So, law and justice are debased. Which is why I am not surprised at bail granted to a murder suspect. But is anyone in authority bothered about it enough to punish those responsible. I doubt they are.

idiotic justice

Thursday March 1 Rectify past wrongs: KL Bar Leong Kar Yen 6:19pm, Thu: The process of restoring confidence in the administration of justice begins with redressing the wrongs of the past, the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (KLBC) has said in a memorandum sent Chief Justice Mohamad Dzaiddin Abdullah. The memorandum, made available to malaysiakini today, said towards this purpose, an independent commission should be set up to investigate all allegations of wrongdoing in the administration of justice in the country. The KLBC memorandum stressed that the proposed commission should demonstrate “that no one is above the law and convince the public that wrongdoings will no longer be allowed to go unpunished”. “This will also vindicate in the eyes public all those involved in the administration of justice, including members of the judiciary who may have been unfairly accused,” it added. KLBC chairperson M Puravalen, when contacted, said a copy of the 22-page memorandum had also been sent to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dr Rais Yatim. The KLBC represents about 5,000 lawyers, which made up almost half of the Malaysian Bar. Judicial misconduct The Malaysian Bar has had strained relations with the judiciary since the late 1980s when former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas was forced to relinquish his position and more so recently when former Chief Justice Eusoff Chin was accused of alleged judicial misconduct. Photos of Eusoff and corporate lawyer VK Lingam holidaying in New Zealand seven years ago were posted on the Internet. Eusoff said that the meeting was a “coincidence” and that he had paid for his trip. “The administration of justice in Malaysia is in its darkest hour since Independence. Never before have the generally conservative population been confronted with such harsh examples of abuse, incompetence and corruption,” the KLBC memorandum said. The memorandum further stated that the judiciary should be free and independent in order to perform its duties properly. “The judiciary must be allowed to perform its function in the correct environment and with adequate support, free from interference by the executive. In particular, there must be removed encroachments on judicial independence such as fear of repercussions,” it said. Freedom curtailed The memorandum also stated that a country afflicted by inefficient, unjust and corrupt enforcement of the law would be unable to realise “its full potential in nation building”. “A nation with aspirations in its Multimedia Super Corridor and the K-economy must expect its people to have enquiring minds. To inspire the confidence of such a public in the administration of justice, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done,” it said. In terms of the present trend in defamation suits’ awards, the KLBC memorandum said that the large damages awarded had served to curtail press freedom. And the public’s freedom of expression. “The mega-defamation suits and the wielding of the power to punish for contempt in recent years has been perceived by the public as means to stifle fair comment and free speech,” it said. Protect rights Last week local television station TV3 was ordered by the Kuala Lumpur High Court to pay damages of RM100 million to businessman Badrul Zaman PS Md Zakariah after the latter sued over a news broadcast which allegedly depicted visuals of him in handcuffs while he was in remand for allegedly not operating a genuine employment agency. Badrul is also suing nine local dailies and the government for a total sum of RM1.3 billion. The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) was also mentioned in the memorandum, with the KLBC calling on it to look into the rights of Orang Asli affairs, environmental issues, women, children and migrant rights as well as other marginalised communities. Meanwhile, the KLBC has postponed their annual general meeting today due to inability to obtain a quorum.

Friday November 17 No case against CJ in 'controversial' NZ holiday Leong Kar Yen 6:00pm, Fri: Attorney-General Mohtar Abdullah said today that investigations into reports with implications of alleged judicial misconduct of Chief Justice Eusoff Chin while on vacation in New Zealand where he met lawyer VK Lingam, also on holiday, "have been closed for the time being". He told reporters in Putrajaya that there was no case to warrant further proceedings as investigations carried out to date did not indicate any wrongdoing by the CJ, who is due to retire next month. The CJ's purported meeting Lingam "by concidence" in New Zealand became a controversy, as reported by malaysiakini in the Bowman Papers, compiled by a private investigation agency in UK, also later publicised widely by other media (Eusoff, Lingam face new allegations, June 4). Malaysiakini reported that Eusoff and Lingam flew together with their families for their Christmas holiday in New Zealand in 1994. Copies of Eusoff's itinerary and Lingam's counterfoil air tickets, which Bowman's team of investigators said they obtained, allegedly show that both took the same flight from Singapore to Auckland, and within New Zealand. "I thought this issue is closed as far as we are concerned. All the allegations in respect of all the persons who are named (in the alleged reports) have been thoroughly investigated by the relevant agencies, principally the Anti-Corruption Agency and the police," said Mohtar. So as far as the AG's Chambers is concerned, the whole process of investigation and assessment of the investigation submitted to it is complete. When asked if the case is closed, Mohtar said that "not only this case, any case, if you look at the prosecution policies, every case is thoroughly investigated If there is any evidence to review the case, we will review (it)". "There is no such thing as a closed case as far as a criminal case is concerned. It is closed for the time being unless we come up with something,"he stressed. Mohtar was speaking to reporters after delivering his keynote address at a conference for legal officers of the AG's Chamber and the launch of the AG Chamber's website. Asked when the results of the investigation would be revealed, Mohtar merely said, "Soon." Rise in legal action Earlier, Mohtar stated that there was a rise in cases of legal action against government agencies, administrative officers and civil servants. "This year, after the 1999 general elections, the civil division handled many cases of election petitions all over the country to defend the decisions of the Election Commission," he said. Mohtar added that with the formation of the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), the public is now more aware on issues of their rights as enshrined in Article 2 of the Federal Constitution. "There is also a rise in cases being filed, challenging the authorities and administrative officers on issues of civil liberties, equality, the right to free speech, assembly and association as mentioned in the Federal Constitution," he added.