[Thaksin, Gus Dur dan Estrada sedang disiasat oleh pihak berkenaan di negara mereka. Tetapi Mahathir enggan datang walaupun sebagai saksi pembela. Sebaliknya dia mengkritik hakim pula kerana tidak menyebelahi kerajaan. Malah menangkap lagi melalui ISA sedangkan hakim baru sahaja memutuskan ia tidak adil kerana perlembagaan lebih tinggi dari akta.

Kita hairan mengapa Rais yang belajar undang-undang itu pun tidak faham falsafah undang-undang:

'Dalam sejarah purba Yunani, keadilan digambarkan oleh satu tugu berbentuk seorang wanita yang ditutup kedua matanya sedang membawa satuneraca penimbang. Balutan pada matanya itu AMAT penting kerana ia mengingatkan kita keadilan itu perlu dilaksanakan dengan penuh tanggungjawab seadil-adilnya tanpa memilih bulu atau memihak kepada sesiapa.' - Karim Raslan.

Rakyat Malaysia sudah cukup matang untuk menilai sikap kerajaan yang langsung tidak menghormati keputusan hakim serta mengekang kebebasan bersuara. Tangkapan tanpa perbicaraan untuk mendiamkan kritik itu akan mengundang kebencian dan kekecewaan yang mungkin meledak satu ketika nanti. Itu termasuk pelabur luar yang sudah sangsi untuk datang kemari.

- Editor]

Straits Times of Singapore
11th July 2001

Malaysian courts' chance to regain respect

By Karim Raslan

THE Malaysian courts, mirroring developments across the region, have been busy. There have been three dramatic judicial decisions in recent weeks, and the likelihood of more to follow.

Firstly, on May 30, in an emotionally charged judgment, Justice Hishamudin Yunus granted a habeas corpus application in the Shah Alam High Court for two Keadilan activists detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Secondly, on June 8, the Kota Kinabalu High Court declared the state election for the Likas constituency held on March 13, 1999 null and void.

Finally, on June 28, the Federal Court allowed lawyer Zainur Zakaria to appeal against conviction for contempt of court.

While the immediate impact of the rulings was obvious enough - the detainees released, a by-election in Sabah and a lawyer saved from imprisonment - the long-term implications need to be spelt out.

Certainly, a demonstration of judicial independence and integrity is long overdue. Following a decade during which the reputation of the Malaysian judiciary plummeted to execrable lows amid allegations of sleaze, corruption and incompetence, the recent decisions represent a breath of fresh air.

Interestingly, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are now critical to South-east Asia's future.

As the region attempts to come to terms with transition politics, accountability and the ramifications of the civil-society agenda, the integrity of the courts becomes increasingly moot.

To my mind, there are five key issues linked to the rulings.

Firstly, the judges are not practising judicial activism. They are neither making the law, nor are they playing politics. They are merely returning to the status quo ante - the situation that existed in the 1960s and 1970s, when there were consistent flashes of judicial independence.

Under the leadership of the current Chief Justice, Tan Sri Dzaiddin Abdullah, the judges are, once again, endeavouring to be scrupulous and fair - deciding the cases before them on the basis of the law and the facts they are presented with: nothing more, nothing less.

Connected with this point is the fact that the members of the Malaysian judiciary are generally conservative by inclination.

Given their ages, education and income (most High Court judges are over the age of 40), they will have become de facto members of the country's elite.

This does not mean they reject change, far from it. However, they will be advocates of evolution, not revolution. Moreover, after more than a decade of hanging their heads in shame, many of the country's judges intend to restore the community's confidence in their calling.

And as honourable men and women they will want to do the right thing, irrespective of the consequences. They recognise that mere expedience will condemn the Bench to ignominy for another decade.

Secondly, the recent decisions have shown that the common-law legal system is responsive to change, and that it is not inherently corrupt or unjust.

This is an important point because Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) has argued persuasively, citing the Anwar Ibrahim debacle, that the only means of overcoming persistent injustice is to jettison the entire common-law system and replace it with Syariah law.

Thirdly, the sense of excitement in the courts is merely the beginning of a long battle to revive the reliability, respectability and credibility of the legal system as a whole.

These are early days. A few high-profile decisions do not constitute an overhaul. You cannot wave a magic wand when it comes to institution-building: You have to be patient.

While the Malaysian legal system has been weakened, it has not been destroyed. In fact, having survived the depredations of the past decade, both the Bench and the Bar recognise the need to restore the system to its former vitality.

The same cannot be said of either Thailand or Indonesia.

Both countries suffer from a severe shortage of trained lawyers and credible individuals. After 30 years under the Suharto New Order government, there are very few Indonesians who are untainted by corruption or collusion.

Nonetheless, this struggle is vital to any nation's long-term economic prospects, because both local and foreign businessmen place a great deal of importance on the efficacy and integrity of a legal system.

Put frankly, the legal system's drastic decline during the 1990s damaged Malaysia's international standing severely.

Fourthly, as Justice Hishamudin argued in his judgment, there has to be more public debate about the ISA.

Most younger Malaysians are very unhappy with the ISA and want it to be reviewed, if not repealed. In fact, since the events of 1998, the entire security apparatus has come under increased public scrutiny.

Are the tactics and mindset of the Cold War era still applicable in today's Malaysia?

The police and the courts have to respond to the public's growing restiveness and dissatisfaction. People want to know how and why national security is being endangered.

Young Malaysians feel they are mature enough and educated enough to draw their own conclusions. If their aspirations are not met the resentment and frustration will lead to further trouble.

Finally, the judiciary can flourish only in an environment where the rich and powerful are willing to accept the rule of law.

Charismatic and popular figures across South-east Asia have tried to undermine the primacy of the courts. In this respect, Malaysia is better placed than its neighbours, albeit only marginally so.

In ancient Greece, justice was represented by the figure of a blindfolded woman carrying a set of weighing scales. The blindfold is all-important because it reminds us that justice must be applied even-handedly.

In an ideal world, status, wealth and influence are of no consequence.

In the Philippines, former president Joseph Estrada has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the charges proffered against him.