YOURSAY ‘That the CJ has to justify this means that there has been manipulation.’
CJ: Courts do not always rule in favour of gov't
Desperate for Change: It is strange how a chief justice has to come to a conference and try to convince the attendees that the court system we have now is fair.
This should not even arise in the first place. The fact that he has to justify this clearly means that there has been manipulation.
Sorry, Arifin Zakaria, we do not believe you. So many have said what I have said, but who is listening? Life goes on, but I believe in karma and my advice to you is - do your job well, otherwise quit.
RR: It is not a question of court decisions "not always in favour of government". It is that jurisprudence should be blind to race, religion, politics, status, etc. This is the key attribute of an impartial judge. Are they?
Malaccan: Perhaps not always, but very often the court will find for the government. And the trend is the higher the profile and the more important the case, then the preponderance towards the government seems to increase exponentially.
Malaysia is where the perception is very strong that if one faces the government in court, one is severely disadvantaged.
Peacemaker: The people do not want the courts to rule in favour of the government or any other litigant appearing before the court.
What the citizenry of Malaysia want and rightly demand and are entitled to are judicial decisions that are in concert with good conscience, equity, fairness and fair play with careful attention given to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done not only in the country but before the eyes of the whole world.
In short, a judiciary that passes muster before the conscience of the people and find approval before the divine court. Failing this, decisions will always be seen as crony decisions and the judiciary will always be under a cloud of suspicion of bias.
Hplooi: Anecdotally that may be so (“not all judgments are in favour of the government”), but some “judgments” (especially key cases) cannot even pass scrutiny of “reasonableness” or standards of competency in regards to principles of case-law.
Quigonbond: In a constitutional democracy, judges are supposed to uphold the constitution and rule of law. Throughout half a century, we've seen judicial pronouncements on politically sensitive matters, especially those threatening Umno, that puts the nation to shame and our Commonwealth brethren shaking their heads in utter disbelief.
We only need to see no further than the Court of Appeal decision on ‘Allah’, Federal Court decision on Lina Joy, and Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II so far.
The CJ is right that the courts don't always side with Umno. But they only need to do so at the most critical times like the Perak coup, and that's all that matters.
Kim Quek: I quote the CJ: "It is far from truth to say that the decisions of the courts are in favour of the government of the day.”
By saying that, CJ Arifin tried to convince his audience that the Malaysian judiciary does not, on the whole, favour the government. To substantiate his view, he even quoted the case of Nik Nazmi Nik Mat who was acquitted recently, which judgment is known to all as a rare exception rather than the norm.
I put it to you, CJ Arifin, that this is a blatant dishonest assertion and a disgraceful attempt to mislead the audience and to cover up the prevailing manipulation of the Malaysian judiciary by the incumbent ruling power.
The truth is: on average, over 90 percent of cases were ruled in favour of the ruling power where its interests are at stake, with no regards for law or constitution. And the greater the stake, the higher that percentage.
Also, the chance of receiving justices for such cases reduces as they go up the judiciary hierarchy. If the CJ is unhappy with this view, would he care to accept a proposal to set up an independent body to study on this subject?
Armageddon: Those cases that the government lost could be the ones that should not have gone for trial in the first place.
Lionheart: The gravity of the case where politicians interfere and pressurise the judiciary speaks for itself. Yes, there were judgments in favour of both sides but in matters of great public interest, did the judges acted honourably?
The rakyat applaud the many judges who stand on the grounds of justice and this gives much hope to the nation. But then again, there are some who cave in.
A crack in a dam causes more damage than any other. The rakyat have hope that in the judiciary there are many who uphold humanity and the constitution. Blessed is Malaysia because of the few who stand against all odds and inspire many to do so.
Pemerhati: The stark reality in Malaysia is that Umno, which wields dictatorial powers, can get the judges to give any outrageous verdict it wants and the royalty to act unconstitutionally.
In the Perak constitutional crisis cases, retired Justice NH Chan and constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari pointed out several instances where the judges came up with ridiculous verdicts. Chan even named three bad judges and Aziz Bari said the judges turned the law upside down.
A few days ago, the Selangor sultan allegedly acted unconstitutionally when he appointed Azmin Ali as the MB even though his name was not even proposed and Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, whose name was proposed and who had the majority support was sidelined.
So why do these people in high office behave in such a disgraceful manner? Umno uses greed and fear to control them.
The judges who do whatever crooked things Umno wants them to do, get rapid promotions and even contracts when they retire but those who do not may get sacked.
Onyourtoes: Have you seen a biased football referee in action?
It works like this - he will blow the whistle on the team he favours on minor and insignificant offences (for example in midfield) but he will blow the whistle on the team he is against on one or two crucial ones (for example in the penalty box) even though the team does not deserve such harsh punishment, got it?
Senior: If I write a critique of the cases, will it be sedition? -Mkini
CJ: Courts do not always rule in favour of gov't
Desperate for Change: It is strange how a chief justice has to come to a conference and try to convince the attendees that the court system we have now is fair.This should not even arise in the first place. The fact that he has to justify this clearly means that there has been manipulation.
Sorry, Arifin Zakaria, we do not believe you. So many have said what I have said, but who is listening? Life goes on, but I believe in karma and my advice to you is - do your job well, otherwise quit.
RR: It is not a question of court decisions "not always in favour of government". It is that jurisprudence should be blind to race, religion, politics, status, etc. This is the key attribute of an impartial judge. Are they?
Malaccan: Perhaps not always, but very often the court will find for the government. And the trend is the higher the profile and the more important the case, then the preponderance towards the government seems to increase exponentially.
Malaysia is where the perception is very strong that if one faces the government in court, one is severely disadvantaged.
Peacemaker: The people do not want the courts to rule in favour of the government or any other litigant appearing before the court.
What the citizenry of Malaysia want and rightly demand and are entitled to are judicial decisions that are in concert with good conscience, equity, fairness and fair play with careful attention given to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done not only in the country but before the eyes of the whole world.
In short, a judiciary that passes muster before the conscience of the people and find approval before the divine court. Failing this, decisions will always be seen as crony decisions and the judiciary will always be under a cloud of suspicion of bias.
Hplooi: Anecdotally that may be so (“not all judgments are in favour of the government”), but some “judgments” (especially key cases) cannot even pass scrutiny of “reasonableness” or standards of competency in regards to principles of case-law.
Quigonbond: In a constitutional democracy, judges are supposed to uphold the constitution and rule of law. Throughout half a century, we've seen judicial pronouncements on politically sensitive matters, especially those threatening Umno, that puts the nation to shame and our Commonwealth brethren shaking their heads in utter disbelief.
We only need to see no further than the Court of Appeal decision on ‘Allah’, Federal Court decision on Lina Joy, and Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II so far.
The CJ is right that the courts don't always side with Umno. But they only need to do so at the most critical times like the Perak coup, and that's all that matters.
Kim Quek: I quote the CJ: "It is far from truth to say that the decisions of the courts are in favour of the government of the day.”
By saying that, CJ Arifin tried to convince his audience that the Malaysian judiciary does not, on the whole, favour the government. To substantiate his view, he even quoted the case of Nik Nazmi Nik Mat who was acquitted recently, which judgment is known to all as a rare exception rather than the norm.
I put it to you, CJ Arifin, that this is a blatant dishonest assertion and a disgraceful attempt to mislead the audience and to cover up the prevailing manipulation of the Malaysian judiciary by the incumbent ruling power.
The truth is: on average, over 90 percent of cases were ruled in favour of the ruling power where its interests are at stake, with no regards for law or constitution. And the greater the stake, the higher that percentage.
Also, the chance of receiving justices for such cases reduces as they go up the judiciary hierarchy. If the CJ is unhappy with this view, would he care to accept a proposal to set up an independent body to study on this subject?
Armageddon: Those cases that the government lost could be the ones that should not have gone for trial in the first place.
Lionheart: The gravity of the case where politicians interfere and pressurise the judiciary speaks for itself. Yes, there were judgments in favour of both sides but in matters of great public interest, did the judges acted honourably?
The rakyat applaud the many judges who stand on the grounds of justice and this gives much hope to the nation. But then again, there are some who cave in.
A crack in a dam causes more damage than any other. The rakyat have hope that in the judiciary there are many who uphold humanity and the constitution. Blessed is Malaysia because of the few who stand against all odds and inspire many to do so.
Pemerhati: The stark reality in Malaysia is that Umno, which wields dictatorial powers, can get the judges to give any outrageous verdict it wants and the royalty to act unconstitutionally.
In the Perak constitutional crisis cases, retired Justice NH Chan and constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari pointed out several instances where the judges came up with ridiculous verdicts. Chan even named three bad judges and Aziz Bari said the judges turned the law upside down.
A few days ago, the Selangor sultan allegedly acted unconstitutionally when he appointed Azmin Ali as the MB even though his name was not even proposed and Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, whose name was proposed and who had the majority support was sidelined.
So why do these people in high office behave in such a disgraceful manner? Umno uses greed and fear to control them.
The judges who do whatever crooked things Umno wants them to do, get rapid promotions and even contracts when they retire but those who do not may get sacked.
Onyourtoes: Have you seen a biased football referee in action?
It works like this - he will blow the whistle on the team he favours on minor and insignificant offences (for example in midfield) but he will blow the whistle on the team he is against on one or two crucial ones (for example in the penalty box) even though the team does not deserve such harsh punishment, got it?
Senior: If I write a critique of the cases, will it be sedition? -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.