Corruption And The Judiciary That corruption, as broadly defined, exists in the judiciary under the about-to-retire chief justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, goes without saying. How could it not when he lies about his holiday with his favourite lawyer, Dato' V.K. Lingam, and sits to ensure Dato' Lingam gets the judgement he wants. And after this is public, he writes the unanimous decision in a high profile case involving Dato' Lingam and his high profile client; yet, when he reserved judgement 28 months earlier he promised individual judgements. The fish, as the judiciary, rots first in the head. Once the rot starts in the chief justice's chambers, it is a fair bet that rot would extend to the chambers of the other judges. When the anti-corruption agency investigates the chief justice, as Tun Eusoff has been, any self-respecting judge, if he values the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, would have resigned forthwith. But not Tun Eusoff. When a litigant totes out a litany of corruption involving Tun Eusoff and requests him to recuse in a federal court appeal, he refuses, and the man refuses to proceed with an appeal before a coram he is uncomfortable with. Tun Eusoff has not rebutted any of the allegations, so it is safe to say that all, if not most, of what was said is true. He singlehanded reduced the judiciary to the appalling levels it is now in. So, when Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah succeeds Tun Eusoff on 20 December 00, he inherits a judiciary fallen on bad times by its own efforts. Justice is for sale. Business men get the decisions they want by the right choice of lawyers, those like Dato' Lingam, whose friendship with Tun Eusoff is a high blown scandal. The Vincent Tan case is but one example. But could Tan Sri Dzaiddin clear the judicial Augean stables? No. It is beyond him in the less than two years he would be in office. All he can hope to do, and if he succeeds he would have the eternal gratitude of all who seeks justice in the Malaysian courts, is to begin to set matters right. For Tun Eusoff gathered around him judges not for their erudition, judicial temperament or knowledge of the law but for their personal loyalty to him. One is appointed a judge because he was master to one V.K. Lingam, when he was chambering. It is fair to say that several believed they could get merit by wallowing in the corruption the chief did. So, the High Court judge, Dato' Mokhtar Sidin, allows a lawyer to write the judgement to favour his client, is immediately promoted to the court of appeal and, but for the principled refusal of the conference of rulers, would be in the federal court and, possibly, chief justice now. That justice can be bought is an open secret. That justice is denied is another. One need not look far. What happened to the former deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, is a judicial scandal that can stand up with the worst in the Commonwealth. He cannot expect justice so long as the Prime Minister is prime minister. He fails in every judicial attempt to seek justice. Three cases involving large sums of money ordered released by the simple expedient of refusing stay pending appeal ensures the judiciary cannot be fair, just and impartial. The simple expedient, in land acquisition, is to award higher compensation than offered for compulsory acquisition. The additional sum, I am told, is shared by client, lawyer, and whoever else that need to be greased. The judge in charge of land acquisition matters is one Dato' Mokhtar Sidin, who remain even after he is promoted to the court of appeal. As he is the judge in charge of disciplinary matters involving lawyers, his principle presence to ensure that the Bar is put in a strait jacket, and Bar would never succeed should it decide to discipline a lawyer close to the judicial establishment who flouts legal decorum, convention and practice. In one case, the Penang state government was horrified at the court's refusal to stay pending appeal that the state legal adviser asked the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, to step in. He refused. The chief minister, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon, brought political pressure to bear pending further appeals. In another case, an insurance company repudiated liability for RM30 million because it suspected arson caused the damage. The judge refused to accept the actuarial reasons for denying liability, and ordered it to pay. Stay was refused. The money is paid, with no hope of ever being recovered should it win on appeal. In a third case, now wending its way through the courts, the defaulter is ordered to pay the sum loaned, and interest, amounting to RM100 million. The "right" lawyers are brought in. The sum in question -- RM67 million -- was ordered paid immediately, the company allowed a stay only for the interest. Meanwhile, the company which gave the loan is in receivership, so the money was paid to the liquidator. Steps are now taken to ensure that the company is rescued from foreclosure under the Companies Act, the liquidator is dismissed, and the same distribution would take place. Businesses now cannot depend on the court to be fair. Ordering payment pending appeals for such large sums, often to plaintiffs who would could not return if ordered to by the higher courts. It is this uncertainty and judicial capriciousness which frightens business men and companies investing in this country. Indeed, despite the proud statements of the minister of international trade and industry that foreign investments find there is no better place to invest in Southeast Asia than Malaysia, the reality is far different. Every potential foreign investor I meet mentions cases like this to give Malaysia a wide berth. "Any idiot with money can invest in any country, but the success of the investment comes only by calculating the risks involved and, more important, how quickly can you recover your investment should you decide to quit because the odds are against you succeeding," said one German business man considering a sizeable investment here a few months ago. He believes he would get a better deal in Indonesia or Thailand for, indeed, Kelantan and Trengganu, for his money. he puts judiciary's capriciousness high on his list of why he would not invest here. Add to this lackadaiscal case management. Judges no longer write judgements. They do not want to hear complicated arguments on important points of law. The more likely reasons for this is they cannot follow the legal arguments. They would rather deliver judgements as customs officers look up their handbook to decide how much duty or excise must be imposed. They look upon their role as judges to harrass lawyers and those seeking justice and bask in the deference business men pay them. Other than a few sterling examples, few bother to write judgements that stick or would be remembered. One judge believes that if his judgements run to 30 prages and more, even for minor appeals which could be decided by a few judicious sentences, it shows his legal erudicition, which, if truth be told, would half-fill a thimble. The Malaysian judiciary deliberately ignores the principle of justice. The inherent powers of the court is removed from them. To not put a fine point to it, their status in the Malaysian heirarchy is no higher or lower than of a customs officer. All that remains, after the intemperate constitutional amendments after the dismissal of the Lord President (chief justice), Tun Saleh Abas, in 1988, is the pomp and circumstances. And this, as Shakespeare tells us, in "MacBeth" signifies nothing. The judges are bluntly told, and accept without complaint, where their bread is buttered. Most give up the ghost and decide upon discretion as the better of valour and fall in line to dispense the justice higher officials want. Nothing unfortunately would change in the judiciary with this state of affairs. All Tan Sri Dzaiddin can hope to do is to right some of the blatant misuse of the judiciary so that litigants can go away feeling justice is done. Today that is not the case. Worse, the public believes justice cannot be got from the judiciary. They point to the horrendous injustice Dato' Seri Anwar faces. The judiciary ensured that he could not get justice so long as his nemesis is the Prime Minister. When an institution of government is reduced to one the Prime Minister and his administration with impunity for his and their sole use, this is what would happen. Since Tun Saleh was removed in 1988, the quality of judges have declined. The federal court still has a handful who could be good judges, but elsewhere the mediocrity horrifies. Tun Dzaiddin would earn the nation's undying gratitude should he go back to basics in his short tenure to reverse the trend that all but destroyed the judiciary. The man responsible for helped destroy the judiciary's independence is Tun Eusoff's predecessor, Tun Hamid Omar. He remains still an influential figure behind the scenes. Tun Eusoff is his handyman. Tun Hamid's influence disappears with Tan Sri Dzaiddin's appointment as chief justice. No one today remembers Tun Hamid as a former Lord President, as people reveres his predecessors, Tun Salleh, Tun Suffian, the Sultan of Perak, and other outstanding judges since independence. Tun Eusoff would disappear into anonymity but remembered for his infamy. But corruption is set to stay, unless the government has the moral courage to charge high court judges in court. M.G.G. Pillai pillai@mgg.pc.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Retired Lord President Tun Hamid Omar's name was mentioned yesterday in the starlet sex-for-hire ring trial. A prosecution witness, an 18-year-old actress, said during cross-examination she knew Hamid but denied having any intimate relations with him. Hamid's name came up when defence counsel Radzuan Ibrahim contended that she bore a grudge against the defendant Mohamed Amin Jamadi, a financial consultant, because he kept harping on her relationship with a "Tun." Earlier during examination, the girl testified that she had had an intimate relationship with Mohamed Amin and that she had told him of her intimate relations with others. Radzuan: "Did you tell Amin about your intimate relationship with a Tun? Girl: I'm not sure. When pressed by Karpal Singh, counsel for co-defendant Haslinda Merican M.A. Merican, the girl replied again she was unsure whether she had told Amin about her relationship with the "Tun." "I do know the Tun but there was no intimate relations between us," she added. When Karpal Singh asked her to identify the Tun, DPP Kamarulzaman Abdul Jalil objected to the relevancy of the question. Sessions Court judge Zura Yahya, however, allowed the question. The girl answered that the Tun was Tun Hamid Omar. "The former Lord President?" asked Karpal Singh. The girl nodded. The girl is the seventh witness to testify against Mohamed Amin, 27, and production house manager Haslinda, 30, who are jointly charged with acting as intermediaries to prostitute four female artistes at the Ming Court Hotel here between 8pm and 10.30pm on June 27 last year. The girl said she had helped Mohamed Amin as he was in urgent need of a few women to entertain his customers from Penang and denied co-operating with the police to trap Mohamed Amin and Haslinda. After the testimony of another girl, who had starred in more than 20 dramas and a movie, DPP Kamarulzaman applied to impeach her evidence citing five material contradictions between her testimony and her statement to the police. The girl, 20, had testified that Haslinda asked her if she wanted to assist in a quiz programme and to meet at Ming Court on June 27 to discuss the matter. She said Haslinda had asked her to have dinner at the hotel and go for a karaoke session later. DPP Kamarulzaman said the girl contradicted herself because she had earlier told the police that on June 26, a day before her arrest, Haslinda had called her and told her that she had a "show" where she would be paid RM2,000 or RM3,000. She had told the police that "show" meant "sex scenes with men." She said Haslinda had called her on June 27 asking her to entertain customers at the hotel and that she understood this to mean providing sex services and not just to entertain men. Judge Zura ruled there were material contradictions in the girl's evidence and that she would list them out today before asking her to give an explanation.