Malay language.is not important in Malaysian Courts, Kangaroo Court!!!

By G Vinod - Free Malaysia Today,

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today dismissed Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's preliminary points that court judgments written in English were invalid.
In dismissing the…

More ► More ▼

By G Vinod - Free Malaysia Today,

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today dismissed Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's preliminary points that court judgments written in English were invalid.
In dismissing the appeal, the apex court also ordered Anwar to pay the respondent, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, RM70,000 in costs citing the seriousness of the case.
A livid Anwar then exclaimed, “This is a heavy load. Where am I to find the money?”
Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice of Malaya Ariffin Zakaria said judgments written in English do not contravene Article 152 of the Federal Constitution and Section 8 of the National Language Act though the court understood the importance of the Malay language.
“Plus, provisor of Section 8 allows application by either party to use the national language or English in the interest of justice. However, the court does view the national language seriously,” he said, citing a circular in 1990 by then chief justice of Malaya Hashim Yeop Sani calling for at least one judgment to be written in the national language.
Ariffin said that while judgments were delivered in English, all the necessary paperwork filed in court was done in the national language.
The three-member bench also ruled that all parties must understand the difference between judgments and grounds of judgments.
“All parties can appeal against the court's judgment but not on the grounds of judgment,” said Ariffin, who was flanked by Federal Court judges James Foong and Suriyadi Halim Omar.
In September, Anwar's lead counsel, Karpal Singh, raised a preliminary point on the judgment made by the Court of Appeal on the opposition leader's RM100 million defamation suit against Mahathir.
Speaking to reporters later, Karpal said the Federal Court's judgment had far reaching legal implications.
“The judge made a distinction between judgment and grounds of judgment. He also relied on provisor Section 8 of the National Language Act for his judgment.
“We will think about (filing for) a review,” he added.