In the present drama, the lawyers of Malaysia, encouraged by the minister for law and justice, Rais Yatim, to be more pro-active in their efforts to improve the low standing of the Malaysian judiciary in the world arena.

In a recent Australian radio interview with Di Martin, Rais Yatim said, "The system placed on the judiciary of Malaysia needs certain re-examination, and for Malaysia now, [to say that it needs] to be inculcated with a new sense of values ... it is putting it lightly.

"We have to re-examine the recent developments in Malaysia with a view to launching Malaysia as a developed nation by the year 2020, and for that to happen there are certain homework I think we have to do. And I believe with the sense at hand we could embark upon certain rejuvenations within the judiciary. But what [these are] ... has to be left for further study and for further verification.

"Even what I wrote in 1988 I think still prevails, but the segments for attention must be concrete, and there must be a political will within the larger group of Malaysian politic for the moment."

MARTIN: You were talking about faults and shortcomings. Perhaps you can let us know what Malaysia's perspective is of its faults and shortcomings?

"Like a fish in water it does not know when it is out of water until it is taken out, but to go along with the criticism that the judiciary needs some new things, I agree. But this has to be made by the people, and by the better segment of the law practicing community, ie. the lawyers, and I would urge that the lawyers of Malaysia be more forthright from now on, and form formulative committees to inform the government as to what is best suited for the future of Malaysia" (Full text of Radio Australia's interview with Rais Yatim, May 30).

The Bar Council called a meeting in response to the urging of the justice minister, who has been empowered by the Cabinet to provide polish to a tarnished international and local image of the judiciary in Malaysia. "I don't intend to just sit around," he said.

Before the date of the announced meeting, a request was brought before the court for an injunction to delay or prohibit the meeting.

Ordinarily an injunction provides "injunctive relief" as a means to prevent an impending harm or injustice, where timeliness is of the essence, preventing any harmful action until formal procedures may be followed in a joining of the issues. It holds the parties in their unchanged state to allow a period of time to properly form the issues to be brought before the court for full adjudication and review. It is not a venue for full consideration of the merits of the case at hand.

In the instant case its use could abuse the right of peaceful assembly guaranteed by the Constitution. This is a right guaranteed, and is to be upheld by the court, not contravened by it. For a judge to overrule the highest law in the land is a serious matter.

Thus the party seeking injunctive relief for himself has the burden to show what harm he is expected to suffer. He must show a proper cause of action. However, we see a deviation from customary use of the law, in which relief is granted not to the party seeking relief for himself nor a named client, nor for others.

He seeks relief from an imagined harm to befall another party, the Bar Council, that they may be prevented from violating the law. Asking the court to intervene to prevent an association of lawyers in anticipation that they will break the law is usually considered a proper cause of action.

In a matter involving insanity, or suicide, or some incapacity requiring restraint to prevent harm, this type of injunction is acceptable. But to seek relief from some harm anticipated by the holding of a peaceful meeting, that harm will come to members of the Bar Council, named in the injunction, is novel. The only harm in view is the threat of legal action (with costs) to be suffered if this written threat fails to deter. A lawyer who uses threats of legal action to force his will on another faces discipline.

The present injunction, now granted, provides relief not to the requesting party, but indirectly to a second party, the direct superior of the judge sitting. Specifically, it provides a form of extended relief from an examination into the Chief Justice's veracity and ethics.

Judge Nathan's reasoning is that he acts to protect Rais Yatim should he choose to deny his statements. He thus grants a temporary injunction to ascertain the facts. But judge Nathan intends the injunction to be a permanent one. This is seen in the award of costs.

A permanent injunction to protect the interests of Rais Yatim or Chief Justice Eusoff Chin is not among the grounds of the injunction sought. Giving relief to parties not named is unique. Is this to be offered as a precedent in Commonwealth law, or is this another instance of the separate path necessary in Malaysia?

The interests of his immediate superior, Chief Justice Eusoff Chin, are very germane. While the emphasis is shifted to Rais Yatim, it is primarily the Chief Justice whose rights are being protected. Specifically it is his "right to speak". The judge thus gives to the Chief Justice a time in which he is to speak in defense of himself. Has there not been ample time?

How long is this time to be? Is it to be a permanent injunction on the grounds that the Chief Justice need not respond hastily, and must therefore be given reasonable time. The award of costs suggests that is the judges intent. If that is the case, the injunction is clearly a cloak to prevent an investigation of his ethics by the Bar Council to occur. This blatant misuse of the justice system to shield itself from the gaze of the public is now an issue.

How can Rais Yatim deny his statements, which have been reiterated several times in public, and to the Cabinet in explanation of his views? And why should he, given his instructions from them?

It is not Rais Yatim, in his words and actions, that the Bar Council seeks to examine. The good minister's veracity and integrity are not in question. It is Chief Justice Eusoff Chin, immediate superior to the honorable judge Nathan, Eusoff Chin, whose veracity and ethics place the public interest at risk.

In the M.G.G. Pillai case the lawyer V.K. Lingam was alleged to have written the judgement for judge Mokhtar Sidin, and that Lingam's secretaries then sent it in final form to the judge, who then introduced it as entirely his own work. A statutory declaration to this effect was filed by Raphael Pura of the Asian Wall Street Journal to this effect. Lingam sued for defamation. Lingam is a tangential party in the present case. The public naturally seeks assurance that the events of the previous case have not been repeated.

BN today confronts public outrage over a litany of corruption and arrogance. A new policy of folksiness reminds the ministers to sit among the rakyat at public meetings, presenting a more people-friendly approach to deceit and hypocrisy. It is a late attempt to salvage respectability.

The PM has extended for six months the services of the tainted Chief Justice, who now serves as both target inviting vituperation and red flag taunting a respectful bull. Fear mounts such behaviour may enrage, and the disdain of the bullfighter, having secured a moment's grace by a distracting swirl of his rhetorical cape, turns and struts proudly away.

If BN ministers are sincere, desiring to restore honour and morality in government, let them answer the numerous charges gazetted. The failure of the A-G's office to prosecute errant leaders is foremost, followed closely by the persecution by prosecution of the innocent. Only through an honest effort are they welcome at the table of the ummah. Further transgression but seals their eventual fate.