Tidak wajar! 28 July 2009

Di dalam catatan bertajuk “Wajarkah?” yang terpapar pada blognya, penasihat undang-undang UMNO, Datuk Hafarizam Harun telah mengadaptasikan emel yang beliau terima (daripada seseorang yang meminta agar identiti beliau tidak dinyatakan), dan menyatakan persetujuannya (100%) dengan kandungan emel tersebut.

Catatan tersebut mempersoalkan mengapa beberapa institusi perbankan dan juga syarikat milik kerajaan (GLC) menggunakan khidmat peguam-peguam yang dikatakan “memberi perkhidmatan undang-undang secara pro bono (percuma) kepada pakatan pembangkang di dalam tindakan undang-undang di Perak.” Beliau telah menyenaraikan peguam-peguam (berserta firma guaman mereka) yang dikatakan memberi khidmat guaman kepada institusi perbankan dan GLC tersebut.

Secara amnya, catatan tersebut menyeru supaya beberapa anakguam institusi supaya tidak lagi memberi kerja-kerja guaman kepada para peguam yang bertindak untuk ahli politik Pakatan Rakyat. Amat sedih melihat seorang penasihat undang-undang untuk parti politik terbesar di negara ini bagaikan tidak memahami langsung tentang kebebasan seseorang peguam itu daripada karenah anakguamnya, dan betapa pentingnya perilaku seorang peguam terutama sekali sebagai seorang pegawai mahkamah.

Saya tidak tahu sejauh mana kebenaran dakwaan Datuk Hafarizam mengenai peguam-peguam tersebut. Perkara itu biarlah dijawab oleh mereka sendiri. Apa yang ingin saya bicarakan di sini adalah berkenaan isu yang ditimbulkan oleh Datuk Hafarizam di dalam blognya.

Kita harus membezakan di antara “kerajaan” dan “parti politik”. Di dalam sistem demokrasi yang digunapakai di Malaysia, kerajaan persekutuan dibentuk oleh parti politik (atau gabungan parti politik) yang telah memenangi majoriti kerusi parlimen di dalam Dewan Rakyat. Bagi setiap pilihanraya umum yang dijalankan sebelum ini, parti Barisan Nasional (atau sebelum itu, Parti Perikatan), telah mendapat mandat rakyat untuk membentuk kerajaan persekutuan. Pada masa ini, Barisan Nasional adalah parti pemerintah kerana ia telah memenangi pilihanraya umum yang ke-12 (dan semua pilihanraya umum sebelum ini). Tetapi ini tidak bermakna bahawa kerajaan Malaysia akan diterajui oleh Barisan Nasional untuk selamanya.

Kita harus ingat bahawa tidak kiralah samada GLC atau institusi perbankan, yang mempunyai kepentingan adalah kerajaan Malaysia dan bukannya Barisan Nasional. Gelaran yang diberikan adalah “syarikat milik kerajaan” dan bukannya “syarikat milik parti politik” atau “syarikat milik Barisan Nasional”. Kerajaan Malaysia masih mempunyai kepentingan di dalam GLC, walaupun kerajaan tersebut bukan lagi kerajaan Barisan Nasional. Oleh itu, saya tidak nampak di mana salahnya jika seorang peguam mewakili GLC atau bank dan juga mewakili parti politik. Kedua-duanya, walaupun kadangkala berkait-rapat, adalah dua entiti yang berbeza.

Saya tidak tahu samada beliau adalah penasihat undang-undang GLC dan bank yang disebut di dalam blognya, tetapi apa yang pasti adalah beliau telah membangkitkan hal ini sebagai penasihat undang-undang UMNO. Jika parti politik dan kerajaan adalah dua entiti berbeza, atas dasar apa Datuk Hafarizam membangkitkan hal ini? Adakah seorang penasihat undang-undang parti politik boleh mempersoalkan kriteria pemilihan GLC dan bank dalam memilih firma guaman?

Tugas seorang peguam

Datuk Hafarizam juga sudah semestinya arif tentang apa yang dikenali sebagai cab-rank rule. Ia merupakan satu konsep yang diambil dari negara England yang menyatakan bahawa seseorang peguam mempunyai obligasi untuk menerima walauapapun kes yang datang kepadanya, jika peguam itu mempunyai kecekapan atau kemahiran di dalam perkara tersebut. Seorang peguambela atau barrister di England sering diumpamakan sebagai seorang pemandu teksi. Tugas seorang pemandu teksi adalah untuk membawa penumpangnya ke mana sahaja diinginkan, asalkan penumpang itu membayar tambang yang sewajarnya dan destinasi itu adalah di dalam lingkungan tempat kerja pemandu teksi itu.

Seorang barrister pula harus menerima sesiapapun sebagai anakguamnya, asalkan anakguam itu bersedia membayar yuran munasabahnya dan asalkan kerja itu adalah di dalam lingkungan kerja barrister itu. Seorang barrister juga diseru untuk memberi nasihat dan khidmat guaman secara pro bono atau tanpa mengenakan yuran kepada mereka yang dianiaya oleh tindakan kerajaan dan telah dicabuli hak asasi mereka.

Sebagai contoh, sekiranya seseorang yang dituduh meragut datang kepada saya dan memohon saya mewakilinya di mahkamah, mengikut cab-rank rule saya harus menerima kes tersebut walaupun secara peribadi saya benci mereka yang meragut.

Di Malaysia, konsep cab-rank rule ini telah diterapkan ke dalam etika amalan guaman melalui Peraturan (Amalan dan Etika) Profesion Guaman 1978 (bahasa Inggeris: Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978), yang menggariskan peraturan etika dari segi perilaku dan ketrampilan seseorang peguam. Peraturan 2 menyatakan:

An advocate and solicitor shall give advice on or accept any brief in the Courts in which he professes to practise at the proper profesional fee dependent on the length and difficulty of the case, but special circumstances may justify his refusal, at his discretion, to accept a particular brief.

Jelas bahawa peguam-peguam yang disebut oleh Datuk Hafarizam tidak boleh menolak apa-apa kes yang diberikan kepada mereka, tidak kiralah samada kes tersebut melibatkan GLC, kerajaan, bank mahupun parti politik. Peguam-peguam tersebut tidak harus dipersalahkan sekiranya institusi perbankan, GLC dan juga parti politik memohon khidmat mereka.

Penghinaan mahkamah?

Datuk Hafarizam yang juga bertindak sebagai peguambela dan peguamcara untuk ahli politik UMNO, menyokong seruan supaya anakguam peguam-peguam yang menghadapinya di dalam kes di mahkamah menarik balik kerja yang diberikan kepada peguam-peguam tersebut. Tindakan ini nampak bagaikan intimidasi terhadap peguam-peguam yang menentangnya.

Saya berpendapat bahawa Datuk Hafarizam sebagai seorang peguam tidak seharusnya membangkitkan isu ini. Peguam-peguam yang disebut di dalam catatan blog itu adalah lawannya di dalam beberapa kes berkaitan dengan krisis politik di Perak.

Saya ambil contoh, katakanlah saya mewakili A di dalam suatu kes guaman dan X pula mewakili B. Sebagai peguam A, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab saya untuk mempersembahkan kes A kepada mahkamah, termasuklah “menyerang” hujah-hujah X dengan hujah-hujah saya sendiri. Tetapi adakah wajar sekiranya di luar mahkamah, saya masih “menyerang” X dengan menimbulkan isu tentang anakguam X yang lain? Adakah wajar sekiranya saya mempersoalkan siapa anakguam-anakguam X, yang tidak ada kena-mengena dengan kes di antara A dan B?

Datuk Hafarizam seharusnya membezakan dirinya sebagai peguam dan anakguamnya sebagai sebuah parti politik. Benar, kes-kes Perak melibatkan pergelutan dua gabungan parti politik. Benar juga bahawa Datuk Hafarizam adalah penasihat undang-undang UMNO yang terlibat di dalam kes-kes tersebut. Tetapi Datuk Hafarizam tidak seharusnya terpengaruh dengan kes-kes anakguamnya dan menjadikannya sesuatu yang peribadi.

Peraturan (Amalan dan Etika) Profesion Guaman 1978, Peraturan 32:

The feeling existing between clients shall not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct and demeanour towards each other or towards parties and their witnesses in the case.

Para peguam tidak boleh membiarkan perasaan di antara anakguam mereka mempengaruhi tingkahlaku mereka antara satu sama yang lain. Dengan membangkitkan isu mengenai anakguam peguam-peguam tersebut, Datuk Hafarizam telah sedikit sebanyak menjadikan kes-kes UMNO dan Barisan Nasional di Perak sebagai sesuatu yang peribadi. Beliau telah terbawa-bawa dengan pergelutan politik di antara kedua-dua belah pihak.

Saya bukanlah ahli mana-mana parti politik, apatah lagi menjadi penasihat undang-undang bagi mana-mana parti politik. Saya hanyalah seorang peguam muda yang masih mentah dari segi umur dan juga pengalaman. Tetapi saya memegang teguh pada kepercayaan bahawa profesion guaman itu adalah profesion yang murni dan terhormat. Walau sehebat mana persaingan di antara anakguam yang kami wakili, saya sentiasa percaya bahawa peguam seharusnya mementingkan profesionalisme dalam apa jua tindakan, apatah lagi sesama peguam.

Peraturan 18 menyatakan:

The conduct of an advocate and solicitor before the Court and in relation to other advocates and solicitors shall be characterised by candour, courtesy and fairness.

Atas dasar ini, saya berpendapat bahawa tindakan Datuk Hafarizam menyokong kandungan emel tersebut adalah sangat tidak wajar.

*This article was first published in Loyarburok and also reproduced in the Malaysian Insider.

Seksyen 377A, 377B dan 377C Kanun Keseksaan 8 August 2008

Posting saya pada kali ini mempunyai unsur-unsur yang mungkin tidak disenangi oleh sesetengah orang. Oleh itu, sekiranya anda tidak selesa dengan perkara-perkara yang sebegini, saya syorkon supaya anda berhenti membaca.

Saya juga ingin memohon maaf sekiranya saya ada menyinggung mana-mana pihak yang telah terbaca posting saya secara tidak sengaja.

***

Saya ingin menyentuh sedikit tentang beberapa seksyen di dalam undang-undang Kanun Keseksaan atau ‘Penal Code‘ (“KK”) berkenaan dengan kesalahan melakukan hubungan seks di luar tabii atau carnal intercourse against the order of nature (“kesalahan tersebut”).

Seksyen 377A KK memberikan definisi kesalahan tersebut:

“Any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature.“

Kesalah tersebut termaktub di dalam dua seksyen yang berbeza.

Seksyen 377B KK menyatakan:

“Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.“

Manakala Seksyen 377C KK menyatakan:

“Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature on another person without the consent, or against the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.“

Perbezaan di antara kedua-dua seksyen di atas adalah:

1. Seksyen 377B adalah kesalahan yang dilakukan secara sukerala tanpa paksaan, atau dipanggil consensual.

2. Seksyen 377C pula adalah kesalahan yang dilakukan tanpa keralaan, secara paksa atau dengan ugutan.

Seksyen 377B yang dilakukan secara sukarela bermakna terdapat sekurang-kurangnya dua orang pesalah yang secara sesama boleh didakwa di Mahkamah. Di dalam jenayah-jenayah consensual atau dengan kerelaan, tidak ada victim atau mangsa yang terlibat. Hanyalah pesalah, seperti kes-kes rasuah di mana terdapat dua pihak bersalah, si pemberi dan si penerima.

Oleh itu, sekiranya seseorang itu mengadu sebagai mangsa kesalahan tersebut, maka orang yang telah melakukan kesalahan ke atasnya haruslah didakwa mengikut Seksyen 377C dan bukan Seksyen 377B.

Amatlah menghairankan sekiranya orang yang disuspek membuat kesalahan tersebut ke atas orang yang membuat aduan sebagai mangsa didakwa mengikut Seksyen 377B dan bukannya Seksyen 377C.

A Royal Commission for the sodomy allegation 29 July 2008

By now, most of us have read and probably seen the purpoted medical report by a certain Burmese doctor that supposedly proves that Mr. Saiful Bukhari Azlan was not sodomized by Mr. Anwar Ibrahim or by anyone at all.

However, by now I think everyone has made their mind up in relation to the sodomy claim by Mr. Saiful. To those that do not believe it in the first place, the leaked report will reinforce their suspicions that this is all a political conspiracy. To those who believe Mr. Saiful, this report will be dismissed either as fabrication or inconclusive evidence.

The term ‘trial by media’ is a phrase used when the media coverage impacts upon a person’s reputation and creates a perception of guilt or innocence regardless of the verdict of any court of law (source:Wikipedia). In relation to this latest round of sodomy allegations, the ‘trial by media’ is conducted by two differing entities: the mainstream media and the alternative media (i.e. the internet). It seems to me that there is a battle between the two to win the perception of the people.

Yes, it’s all about ‘perception’. This whole episode has not been about evidence and due process of the law, but about perceptions. The perception being created by these two ‘medias’ will negate any court decision and any due process of law.

If Mr. Anwar is charged and sentenced, there will be people who still believe in his innocence and believe that there is a conspiracy. If Mr. Anwar the charges are dropped or if Mr. Anwar is pronounced ‘not guilty’, there will be people who believe that he had sodomized his former aide.

How then, is due process of the law going to prevail?

By removing any doubts and suspicion on that due process.

The police force and the AG’s chambers cannot be said to be independent in this matter. I do not need to expound to you the reasons why, but I think it’s quite clear that there are more than enough reasons to suspect that justice may be hindered if the police and the AG’s chambers are involved. I’m not saying that the police and the AG are co-conspirators or anything to that effect, what I’m saying is that public perception of these institutions have been tainted. Even the possibility of anything less than a just investigation and prosecution is enough to rule these two institutions out.

Similarly, the revealations made by the infamous ‘Linggam’ tapes have also tainted the integrety of the judiciary. The courtroom facade during the first round of sodomy allegations have not helped matters; there are too many questionable actions in Mr. Anwar’s first trial for anyone to safely say that it is in accordance with justice.

So if we rule out the police as investigators, and we rule out the AG’s chambers as prosecutors and we rule out the courts as deciders, how will the trial, if any, be conducted?

That is why I am proposing that if Mr. Anwar is to be charged for the alleged sodomy, it must be conducted by a Royal Commission.

A ‘Royal Commission’, you may ask? For what is essentially a matter between the accused and his accuser?

But this is no mere ‘private’ matter. This has so many elements to it, so many interested parties, so much hanging on the line. I’d even go far enough to say that the future of the nation will be at stake should Mr. Anwar be charged in court. It’s not about Anwar Ibrahim and Saiful Bukhari Azlan anymore.

My personal take on the whole issue can be found elsewhere. What I’m proposing is what I see as a fair solution to to tackle this issue as fairly and as justly as possible should it be decided that Mr. Anwar will be charged with the alleged crime.

If the government is sincere about wanting justice to be done, then it must think along these lines. If due process of the law is of the paramount importance, then the matter must be investigated by an independent body, free from the shackles of political influence and undue considerations.

Let’s Not Get Distracted 4 July 2008

In less than 7 days, the battles lines have been drawn.

Najib versus Anwar. Anwar versus Najib.

No holds barred. All the gloves are off.

When the dust settles, only one man will be left standing. And he will claim to be the successor to the premiership of Malaysia.

Pak Lah’s days are numbered. For him the question is ‘when?’. For Malaysians, the questions is ‘who?’.

Recent events have raised more questions than answers. The end is no clearer, the victor is far from apparent.

It’s all very confusing for us.

But let’s not get distracted.

This nation is not about Anwar. It’s not about Najib. It’s not about Pak Lah, or KJ or Ku Li or Mahathir or Samy Velu or Lim Kit Siang or whoever.

This nation is about us, Malaysians.

So let us not get distracted.

Politics shape the country, but the country is not all about politics. Let us not forget the real issues here.

It’s not Saiful or Bala or Altantuya or Barisan or Pakatan.

It’s about the prevalent corruption. It’s about the blatant abuse of human and constitutional rights. It’s about media freedom. It’s about a credible judiciary. It’s about lack of proper administration. It’s about inflation and stagnating economy. It’s about a flawed education system. It’s about racism and racial prejudice.

It’s about striving to create the new Malaysia.

Let elephants fight each other to death. Whoever the victor, we, the rakyat will demand from them what we have always demanded.

A better Malaysia.

My brothers and sisters, let’s not get distracted.

Why can’t we protest? 30 June 2008

I noticed that a lot of people are very unhappy with the government these days.

Be it corruption, be it indecision, be it insensitiveness, be it because of the fuel hike or because of Anwar Ibrahim.

There’s a multitude of reasons why people are sick and tired of this present administration.

But what do we do to show our displeasure?

Well of course, we can vote against the party in power. But the elections have just recently been concluded. Some of us voted against this government, yet we still have to live with it. Such is democracy.

Does that mean that in these 4-5 years time, all we do is wait for the next elections? If so, we might as well live under a monarchical system in the past: take it all in until the present ruler whom we despise dies or the country is taken over by enemies.

But we live in a democracy. And democracy guarantees certain rights to the citizens.

Article 10 of our Federal Constitution states that every citizen has the right to freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms.

Yes, regardless of what the authorities say, we have the right to peaceful assembly. Most of the time, we’re told that demonstrations and protests jeopardizes public security. We’re also told that such demonstrations are ‘not our culture’. This is especially true when the demonstrations are anti-government.

Of course, whenever it’s someone from the ruling party, it’s quite alright to demonstrate. They are supposedly a peaceful lot, and would never create any trouble.

But back to our enshrined rights. So we do have a right to demonstrate peacefully, don’t we?

Because it gives our country a bad image? Well unless we start burning effigies and start rioting, a peaceful assembly is normal and would not be frowned upon by the international community. They have protests all the time in the West.

So what’s the problem? Why can’t we protest?

Do we sit quietly, resigned to our fate as nobodies in our own nation?

Or do we exercise our constitutional rights?

“Muhibbah” unity: VK Lingam & friends 17 May 2008

Taken from the Star, May 17 edition:

Cabinet wants Dr M and five others investigated

PUTRAJAYA: The Cabinet has agreed that investigations be conducted into all allegations against former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and five others identified in the Royal Commission of Inquiry report on the V.K. Lingam video clip.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim said the five others were lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former Chief Justices Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said he would go through the report before announcing whether he would be ordering a probe.

“I will study the recommendations in the report very carefully, after which I will issue a statement at the appropriate time.

“Please give us time to do our job properly,” he said.

Zaid said the six would be investigated for offences under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and the Penal Code, which included obstruction of justice.

“All the recommendations in the report are advisory in nature so we have to have another investigation,” he said, adding that the Government had taken note of the recommendations for judicial reform and the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission.

“The Government is in the process of finalising the relevant laws to set up this commission and it will be made known soon,” he said, adding that the Government also proposed to include the recognition of “judicial power” as proposed by the Commission.

He said these moves were vital to help restore the people’s confidence in the judiciary.

The Cabinet, he said, had urged the public, including the media, to allow uninterrupted investigations without undue pressure and prejudice against any individual identified in the report.

“It must be reiterated that in our legal system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law,” he told reporters at the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department here yesterday.

The Royal Commission was formed to verify the authenticity of the video clip purportedly showing prominent lawyer Lingam on the phone brokering judicial appointments with a senior judge. Twenty-one witnesses testified at the 17-day inquiry which began on Jan 14.

Zaid also said that the Cabinet had agreed for the contents of the report to be released and sold to the public.

The report, which comes in four volumes comprising 2,889 pages, will cost RM541.60; of which the main report costs RM161.40 while the notes of proceedings, statutory declaration and lists of exhibits are priced at RM123.30, RM120 and RM136.90 respectively.

The public can buy the report at the Legal Affairs Division from Tuesday afternoon.

In its report, the commission said that the video clip, made by businessman Loh Gwo Burne, was indeed recorded at Lingam’s house in December 2001.

It said it had no hesitation in finding that the clip to be genuine, real, reliable and trustworthy and its contents true in substance and material particulars.

In examining Lingam and Fairuz’s testimonies, which they described as bare denials, against the direct evidence elicited from the phone conversation as well as the evidence of Gwo Burne and his businessman father Loh Mui Fah, the commission found that it was none other than Fairuz that Lingam was speaking to on the telephone.

The panel also said the evidence showed that Lingam was not intoxicated during the conversations, as he had suggested.

It added that the evidence also militates against Lingam’s other suggestion that he could have been “bullshitting” or bragging.

The commission said that, in the final analysis, there was conceivably an insidious movement by Lingam with the covert assistance of his close friends Tan and Tengku Adnan to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular that of Fairuz as Chief judge of Malaya and later Court of Appeal president.

In the process, the panel added that Dr Mahathir was also entangled.

While noting that the group’s ultimate aim could not be ascertained, given the limitation of the terms of reference, the commission said it was reasonable to suggest that it could not be anything but self-serving.

The panel said the collective and cumulative actions of the main characters concerned had the effect of seriously undermining the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole.

At long last, that elusive unity that we Malaysians we were looking for has indeed been found. In fact, it has been around for a long time. We just never knew it existed. But this has proven to us that indeed, Malays, Chinese and Indians can work together without prejudice, without racism and without discrimination.

One Malay politician, one Chinese businessman and one Indian lawyer sets the example to all Malaysians on the ‘power’ of unity. In the spirit of the nation they have set aside their racial and religious differences for a common goal: the fixing of the appointment of judges.

Jalur gemilang di bawah naunganmu
Jalur gemilang kami semua bersatu
Perpaduan ketaatan
Amalan murni rakyat Malaysia

Used: The Sedition Charge? 6 May 2008

The sedition charge against blogger Raja Petra today left a bad taste in my mouth.

I’m not a fan of RPK, I don’t really follow his ‘Malaysia-Today’ blog. In fact, I think RPK is a ’sensationalist’ writer, who uses bits and pieces of facts that he obtains and fills in the gaps to connect those facts. An entertaining blogger, to say the least. And a wildly popular one.

But regardless how much credibility I attach to RPK, I still respect his right to freedom of expression. His freedom of speech. If he wants to put forth his views, let him do so. Whether you agree with his views or not is a different matter altogether.

So to charge RPK with the Sedition Act goes against everything that I believe in. There is no justification for doing so. His post, “Let’s Send the Altantuya Murderers to Hell”, does not incite racial hatred. It will not cause an uprising. It does not threaten the security of the country.

What it does is implicate a certain senior leader of our country and his wife in the Altantuya case.

I doubt if he has any proof for what he implied in his post. RPK is again being RPK, writing straight from the hip. He doesn’t care about being politically correct. He will air his views whether you like it or not.

But of course, he must not be allowed a free reign, to write whatever he wishes, be it the truth or not. No one should be allowed to do so. One must be accountable for what one says.

Everyone has a right to clear his/her name. If someone has written lies about you or has defamed you, then you have the right to bring legal action against the person. Similarly, if what RPK has written was libelous, then the concerned persons should seek legal redress in civil law. That is why we have defamation laws.

But RPK was not sued because of his Altantuya post. RPK was charged for a crime because of the said post. A criminal offence is an offence committed against the state. A civil matter, between two private parties, has now become a criminal one.

Can we be blamed if we think that the AG’s Chambers has been used to ‘retaliate’ against RPK for his post? In the absence of contrary evidence, people tend to connect the obvious. And what is obvious is this: RPK blogged about Altantuya, implicating a certain leader and his wife and now RPK is charged with sedition.

This time, we won’t need RPK to fill in the gaps for us.

The First Step Towards Judicial Reform 18 April 2008

On Thursday, our PM, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced the government’s intention to set up a judicial commission to help the PM on the appointment of judges. He also announced ex-gratia payments to the six judges at the centre of the controversy in 1988.

I was only about 5 years old in 1988. What I know of the crisis at that time was what I hear and read from the various commentaries on the issue. Yet every lawyer, young and old, junior or senior, carries with them the ‘disappointment’ of what had happened then. And the rakyat, either directly or indirectly, has suffered much because of it. If we were to ever achieve our dream to be a truly democratic nation, the independence and integrity of the judiciary must be restored.

I have written before on the judicial crisis in my post entitled ‘Judicial crisis?’.

As such, I applaud this move by the government.

True, cynics may question whether Pak Lah truly has it to implement such reforms. After all, he is known to be the man who makes policies but is not able to carry them out. Remember national integrity? Remember ‘PEMUDAH’? Remember freedom of speech and expression?

But let us give him the benefit of doubt here. If he has truly learned his lessons from the March 8 Tsunami, then he would ensure that at least this particular reform is implemented. And if the de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim truly wants to restore the independance of the judiciary, he must do all in his power to ensure that this latest ‘reform’ announcement is carried out.

The announcements on Thursday was definitely a step towards the right direction. Let us give credit where credit is due.