“Never accuse the judiciary of bowing to the executive. This is proven by the fact of several cases in our history, not favourable to the executive body,” Zaki (picture) said.
All parties should stop accusing the executive of interfering in the affairs of the country’s judiciary, said former chief justice Tun Zaki Azmi.
He noted that when he was chief justice, beginning 2008, the prime minister or other Cabinet ministers never interfered or enquired about cases in progress in court.
“Contact between me and the prime minister was during the process of appointing judges, budget for the judiciary or other matters as found in the constitution.
He was speaking at the close of the Special Workshop on Formulating Laws in the Country at Parliament here today. Also present was Senate president Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang.
Zaki, who retired from the judiciary on Sept 12, last year gave the example of the case of Opposition Chief Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who was acquitted and discharge of sodomising his former assistant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
“If there were interference, the executive would want Anwar to be convicted in the case to stop him from creating problems to the executive,” he said.
Meanwhile, when met by reporters, Zaki, who is also chairman of the Special Review Commission on Civil Service Transformation, said more than 90 per cent of the 1,000 cases involving feedback received by the commission involved civil servant salary increment and allowances.
“We cannot deny the need for salary increment but what is more important is how we could improve the civil service to give the best for the people.
“Should the civil service be better, faster and more precise, the cost of management undertaken by the government would be reduced. With lower cost, there will be room in the budget to raise salary... this is what the civil servants need to think hard about,” he said
Tun CJ, it is the other way round. Please restore the Judiciary’s Integrity and Independence, and you will earn our respect. You are given this opportunity to remove the stigma of a compromised judiciary after the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 by an all powerful Prime Minister. So, seize the moment and make a difference. –Din Merican
Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria(picture) said in other countries such as England, for example, the people were free to give their opinion because, indirectly, this could bring an improvement to the judicial system.
Tun CJ, it is the other way round. Please restore the Judiciary’s Integrity and Independence, and you will earn our respect. You are given this opportunity to remove the stigma of a compromised judiciary after the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 by an all powerful Prime Minister. So, seize the moment and make a difference. –Din Merican
Everyone can give their opinion on the country’s Judiciary or any judicial decision but not to the extent of insulting the institution.
Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria(picture) said in other countries such as England, for example, the people were free to give their opinion because, indirectly, this could bring an improvement to the judicial system.“It is good to give such opinions and this can assist us to develop our law. You can also write but not to the extent of committing contempt of court, for example.
“We are open and such criticism is normal, and we often hear that there are court decisions that are illogical and so on. Show proof if the judges’ decisions are unfair, biased or if there are elements of bribery involved. Prove it… don’t just talk,” he told reporters after opening the 46th Conference of the Malaysian Judges Council here today.
Also present were Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum.
Arifin said as judges they could not defend themselves against such allegations and this was not fair to the judges.He said the instruction that judges should not forge close relations with politicians and businessmen was to avoid negative perception of the Judiciary.
“Some of the politicians and businessmen are involved in court cases. This instruction aims to prevent such things (biasness),” he said.
Commenting on the statement by former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi that the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet had never given any instruction to the judiciary, Arifin said the statement was true.
On the conference attended by 120 judges throughout the country, the Chief Justice said the objective was to enable the judges to exchange views aimed at improving the Judiciary further.
Andimuthu Raja, former telecom minister, having spent 15 months in jail under trial in the 2G spectrum scam, received a hero’s welcome in Chennai a few weeks ago. The ecstatic crowds burst firecrackers for a man who was largely responsible for his party's defeat in Tamil Nadu’s election, demolishing India’s image in the eyes of the world, and bringing the government of India to its knees. Even bigger celebrations are planned next week when he visits his Nilgiris constituency and his hometown, Perambalur. What explains Raja’s popularity is the ‘rule of life’, which may actually decide who will be Prime Minister in 2014.
Justice V R Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court made a distinction between the ‘rule of law’ and the ‘rule of life’. In a judgment in 1975, he used this distinction to uphold the election of a Muslim candidate who had won supposedly by appealing to his Hindu constituents that his mother was Hindu. It was a sectarian appeal and contrary to the law. But Justice Iyer gave greater weight to the primordial, irrational realities of social relations in day-to-day life. In his mind, this sometimes trumped the higher, rational ideals embodied in the rule of law and the Constitution. To do otherwise, he felt, would mean not listening to the voice of the people.
Justice Iyer was wrong —it is dangerous for a judge not to uphold the rule of law. The judge was articulating, however, the ever-present tension between a universal ‘rule of law’ and an insular ‘rule of life’ at the heart of India’s democracy. The human DNA is imprinted with a natural propensity to favour family, friends and community. These loyalties invite corruption and nepotism in the absence of strong incentives in favour of impartiality. The social anthropologist, Ernest Gellner, labelled it ‘tyranny of cousins’. The historian David Gilmartin equates the ‘rule of life’ to sva-dharma, duties to one’s family, caste and community. In contrast, the rule of law is akin tosadharana dharma, duties which reflect the higher, universal ideals of the Constitution.
The great achievement of our Constitution was to create strong incentives to behave impersonally in public life. But India’s political parties have become family firms. They are overflowing with relatives and cronies, thus undermining the impartial principle. This is at a time, ironically, when our best companies are managed by professionals from outside the family. Almost a third of India's parliamentarians in 2009 had a hereditary connection, according to Patrick French in India: A Portrait. Every MP under the age of 30 had inherited a seat; more than twothirds of the 66 MPs under age 40 were hereditary; every Congress MP under the age of 35 was hereditary. Because of the ‘tyranny of cousins’ merit does not prevail. Since there is no democracy inside any party, the inheritors often behave like feudal lords. Napoleon would have called these mediocrities “hereditary asses, imbeciles, and this curse of the nation.” This is why it is so difficult to come up with a leader for 2014.
The hope for the 2014 election may, however, lie with some of our best performing states (such as Bihar) whose leaders did not inherit the mantle and came up through merit. But Sukhbir Badal, heir to the Akali Dal, put up a spirited defence of dynastic leaders. Soon after his party retained power in February 2012, he said, “I have lineage and this is a huge plus, but the post is not hereditary. If I fail to deliver, I will be voted out the next time.” Yes, the distinction between legacy and dynasty is useful, but it’s not enough consolation. India’s “tyranny of cousins” has drastically reduced our options for merit-based leadership in 2014.
Raja was asked if he was surprised by the hero’s welcome he received in Chennai. “No”, he replied, “It was natural”. As natural, perhaps, as passing along hundreds of crores of ill-gotten money allegedly to the Karunanidhi family. Katherine Hepburn’s advice in The African Queen was really meant for Raja rather than Humphrey Bogart. "Nature is what we are put in this world to rise above," she said. Leaders of all our political family firms might ponder over it.
Justice V R Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court made a distinction between the ‘rule of law’ and the ‘rule of life’. In a judgment in 1975, he used this distinction to uphold the election of a Muslim candidate who had won supposedly by appealing to his Hindu constituents that his mother was Hindu. It was a sectarian appeal and contrary to the law. But Justice Iyer gave greater weight to the primordial, irrational realities of social relations in day-to-day life. In his mind, this sometimes trumped the higher, rational ideals embodied in the rule of law and the Constitution. To do otherwise, he felt, would mean not listening to the voice of the people.
Justice Iyer was wrong —it is dangerous for a judge not to uphold the rule of law. The judge was articulating, however, the ever-present tension between a universal ‘rule of law’ and an insular ‘rule of life’ at the heart of India’s democracy. The human DNA is imprinted with a natural propensity to favour family, friends and community. These loyalties invite corruption and nepotism in the absence of strong incentives in favour of impartiality. The social anthropologist, Ernest Gellner, labelled it ‘tyranny of cousins’. The historian David Gilmartin equates the ‘rule of life’ to sva-dharma, duties to one’s family, caste and community. In contrast, the rule of law is akin tosadharana dharma, duties which reflect the higher, universal ideals of the Constitution.
The great achievement of our Constitution was to create strong incentives to behave impersonally in public life. But India’s political parties have become family firms. They are overflowing with relatives and cronies, thus undermining the impartial principle. This is at a time, ironically, when our best companies are managed by professionals from outside the family. Almost a third of India's parliamentarians in 2009 had a hereditary connection, according to Patrick French in India: A Portrait. Every MP under the age of 30 had inherited a seat; more than twothirds of the 66 MPs under age 40 were hereditary; every Congress MP under the age of 35 was hereditary. Because of the ‘tyranny of cousins’ merit does not prevail. Since there is no democracy inside any party, the inheritors often behave like feudal lords. Napoleon would have called these mediocrities “hereditary asses, imbeciles, and this curse of the nation.” This is why it is so difficult to come up with a leader for 2014.
The hope for the 2014 election may, however, lie with some of our best performing states (such as Bihar) whose leaders did not inherit the mantle and came up through merit. But Sukhbir Badal, heir to the Akali Dal, put up a spirited defence of dynastic leaders. Soon after his party retained power in February 2012, he said, “I have lineage and this is a huge plus, but the post is not hereditary. If I fail to deliver, I will be voted out the next time.” Yes, the distinction between legacy and dynasty is useful, but it’s not enough consolation. India’s “tyranny of cousins” has drastically reduced our options for merit-based leadership in 2014.
Raja was asked if he was surprised by the hero’s welcome he received in Chennai. “No”, he replied, “It was natural”. As natural, perhaps, as passing along hundreds of crores of ill-gotten money allegedly to the Karunanidhi family. Katherine Hepburn’s advice in The African Queen was really meant for Raja rather than Humphrey Bogart. "Nature is what we are put in this world to rise above," she said. Leaders of all our political family firms might ponder over it.
No comments:
Post a Comment