“The fiasco of our judiciary needs no lengthy introduction. Linggam tape shuts up anyone who even dare claim that our judiciary is fair. Judges can be bought. Lawyers fix the judges they want to preside over their cases. Heck, lawyers can even fix the Chief Judge.”
Did you follow the case? It does not question if the judiciary were corrupted by the appointment of high level judges but exposed that it was open to lobbying. MP’s were the ones who quickly to put in the label ‘corrupted’. Should the enquiry prove like the Ian Chin allegation the treat of corruption to be empty then what? Linggam was in this instance and many more instances I presumed was engaged in lobbying for high court judges. These judges are important to the executive because they are those who would help in the formation of new laws or any amendment in acts to allow the government to pass laws allowing it to function. The chief Judge advices the government on what it can and cannot do within the law. The issue is not the petty cases (even if involves millions) but the flow of the formation of act and laws of the country. The bar council wants the judiciary to be independent of the executive and for the most part it is but in the respect of laws that will be passed by the government, you cannot have a system where the government say one thing yet the law say another.
Passing judgment and upholding the law is the major part of the judiciary but the creation of laws as an enabler of change is also within the area of the executive. It stands therefore these people are picked by the head of state much like the US or UK and Malaysia.
“lawyers can even fix the Chief Judge.”
Anwar went through the “corrupt” justice system and found his break in technicalities his first time around with a defense dream team that would make even judges be more cautious in delivering their judgment. Most DAP MPs are also from this “corrupt” system so what type of corruption are you focused on? The issues that were debated extensively were the poor performance of judges in completing their task; cases held up for years or accused getting off because judgments were not written on time. I don’t pretend to know more then those who are within this system therefore I would not think to out perform BN opposition leaders who themselves are lawyers who most often take on these high profile cases. In such a vocal society now, where are the cases where treatment of the case was found to be bias. I am sure there will be a lot as all accused found to be guilty are going to find fault in their accuser (i.e. the police) or the justice system. Wait what about Ian Chin!
It is not easy to come up with a bias judgment even if you say the judiciaries are corrupted. Unlike US courts where jurors can be influence by bias judges, our judges have to write their judgment and record their train of thought that brought them into their judgment. They then have to defend this written judgment against other judges form lower to upper courts and can be even referred to a court in the UK. Their judgments are also closely scrutinized by the defense lawyers who in high profile cases can number in hundreds. This process is open to abuse especially with cases where judges delay their written judgments and a defense cannot be mounted. This is the subject of much debate but high profile cases such as Anwar’s, this would not be a problem because the case would be in much scrutiny and of public concern.
On the mattress, it would be a funny way to investigate a case by charging a person first then finding proof the he is guilty. There should be no question that the mattress being found before charges were brought. Only thing in question is the bugling way that evidence was handled that got it thrown out. Such technicalities gave rise to the reasonable doubt in Anwar’s case that got him off. Otherwise all the judges had said that they believe he was guilty. Even murderers get away on technicalities like no search warrants that exclude the bloody irrefutable evidence of the murder.
“…the safest route for the Malaysian layman is to assume that whenever a member of the opposition is charged with something, give him a HUGE benefit of doubt”
I would not want to have pre-conceived judgment as you have on Anwar guilt or innocence but note that justice must not be hampered by preconceived notions just because the alternative does not suit your purpose; that victim have the same amount of right as the accused.
Did you follow the case? It does not question if the judiciary were corrupted by the appointment of high level judges but exposed that it was open to lobbying. MP’s were the ones who quickly to put in the label ‘corrupted’. Should the enquiry prove like the Ian Chin allegation the treat of corruption to be empty then what? Linggam was in this instance and many more instances I presumed was engaged in lobbying for high court judges. These judges are important to the executive because they are those who would help in the formation of new laws or any amendment in acts to allow the government to pass laws allowing it to function. The chief Judge advices the government on what it can and cannot do within the law. The issue is not the petty cases (even if involves millions) but the flow of the formation of act and laws of the country. The bar council wants the judiciary to be independent of the executive and for the most part it is but in the respect of laws that will be passed by the government, you cannot have a system where the government say one thing yet the law say another.
Passing judgment and upholding the law is the major part of the judiciary but the creation of laws as an enabler of change is also within the area of the executive. It stands therefore these people are picked by the head of state much like the US or UK and Malaysia.
“lawyers can even fix the Chief Judge.”
Anwar went through the “corrupt” justice system and found his break in technicalities his first time around with a defense dream team that would make even judges be more cautious in delivering their judgment. Most DAP MPs are also from this “corrupt” system so what type of corruption are you focused on? The issues that were debated extensively were the poor performance of judges in completing their task; cases held up for years or accused getting off because judgments were not written on time. I don’t pretend to know more then those who are within this system therefore I would not think to out perform BN opposition leaders who themselves are lawyers who most often take on these high profile cases. In such a vocal society now, where are the cases where treatment of the case was found to be bias. I am sure there will be a lot as all accused found to be guilty are going to find fault in their accuser (i.e. the police) or the justice system. Wait what about Ian Chin!
It is not easy to come up with a bias judgment even if you say the judiciaries are corrupted. Unlike US courts where jurors can be influence by bias judges, our judges have to write their judgment and record their train of thought that brought them into their judgment. They then have to defend this written judgment against other judges form lower to upper courts and can be even referred to a court in the UK. Their judgments are also closely scrutinized by the defense lawyers who in high profile cases can number in hundreds. This process is open to abuse especially with cases where judges delay their written judgments and a defense cannot be mounted. This is the subject of much debate but high profile cases such as Anwar’s, this would not be a problem because the case would be in much scrutiny and of public concern.
On the mattress, it would be a funny way to investigate a case by charging a person first then finding proof the he is guilty. There should be no question that the mattress being found before charges were brought. Only thing in question is the bugling way that evidence was handled that got it thrown out. Such technicalities gave rise to the reasonable doubt in Anwar’s case that got him off. Otherwise all the judges had said that they believe he was guilty. Even murderers get away on technicalities like no search warrants that exclude the bloody irrefutable evidence of the murder.
“…the safest route for the Malaysian layman is to assume that whenever a member of the opposition is charged with something, give him a HUGE benefit of doubt”
I would not want to have pre-conceived judgment as you have on Anwar guilt or innocence but note that justice must not be hampered by preconceived notions just because the alternative does not suit your purpose; that victim have the same amount of right as the accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment