The English common law stands on a solid thousand years of precedent. Over this impressive span it has struggled mightily to be fair to all parties who appear before it. Most of the rules of procedure have been well worked. A major new event is a rarity. Should an inequity be recognised, the law reaches far back to redress any wrongs that may have occurred.

Such an event happened in the United States, when a judge ruled that anyone the police arrested must be read aloud that a right existed to contact an attorney, and that nothing need be said in response to the questioning of the police. The right to remain silent was held to be sacrosanct.

The ruling was necessary to address persistent police brutality in seeking evidence tending to incriminate the accused. The police were found to be over-zealous in their interrogation methods, producing many confessions subsequently retracted. The defendant often stated in open court that the confession was false, obtained by duress, threat or torture.

When the ruling was first made, the courts were suddenly faced with a prospect of releasing every criminal convicted. This involved thousands of defendants. The public did not wish to see those found guilty and sentenced to long prison terms go free on what was considered a technicality. Yet the interests of justice demanded that all should receive fair and impartial treatment.

This ruling established a standard practise for the defense in all criminal cases to ascertain whether the defendant's rights had indeed been read aloud by the police. Where the rights had not been correctly read, the defendants are freed by the courts, though other evidence may point toward guilt. By this means the police are strongly encouraged to observe the basic rights of anyone arrested.

The ruling was a landmark in the law, establishing supremacy of the rights of an accused over the suspicions of the police. The police, once found to have transgressed the rights of their prisoner, must then stand by, powerless, while the judge orders the release. The ruling thus puts a premium on professional behaviour by policemen.

To be "framed" is to have charges brought that are false and manufactured. In some instances it is the police who are responsible, in others it is someone outside the judiciary who has a motive. Sometimes the public prosecutor brings a case in error. As soon as the error is discovered the charges are dropped in the interests of justice. There are few cases indeed where the public prosecutor acts in bad faith, bringing false charges to punish an innocent citizen, whether for revenge or political motive. It is more common to find cases which are dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

It is also rare to hear of a case in which a judge is shown to express bias. It is even more rare to hear of a case in which the judge has been pressured (or bribed) to give a verdict in contravention of the facts presented. In only the most sordid society is the independence of the judge destroyed by supplantation of executive fiat under threat and intimidation. That the judiciary of an entire Commonwealth country should decay under the sway of a decadent and deceitful figure is certainly exceptional in these modern times.

Yet that is what has happened in Malaysia. The deficiency of certain Malaysian judges in their dedication to truth and justice has been widely noted since the present prime minister removed chief justice Tun Salleh Abas in 1989. Yet no judge has had the courage to openly report any specific interference in the findings of a case.

The public prosecutor is still allowed the courtroom as stage to present one fictional drama after another, with the sitting judge giving favorable rulings to prevent any unwelcome interjection of the hallowed English common law from the defence table.

Now, at last, a sitting judge has revealed in a judgement that such pressure came from his superior. He has pronounced his independent judgement, stating that his strength to do so comes from his God. It appears that his telephone call is not unique. In fact, the appearance given is that such calls are a commonplace. There is now on record the fact that an attempt has been made to interfere with a judge in his capacity, and this fact places all justice in Malaysia in the dock.

Justice cries out for redress, affecting all criminal and civil cases which have been heard and decided since 1989. Never in history has such an event occurred. The officers of the Malaysian government, finally exposed to the cleansing light of truth, are attempting to play down the event. Yet the full magnitude of this judicial disaster is coming to be recognised, not only in Malaysia, but throughout the world.

For the past decade the Malaysian judiciary has been under serious scrutiny as a result of high profile cases brought against journalists who have written critically of the many strange rulings made in Malaysia. The exorbitant libel awards to businessmen connected to the prime minister and his political party have attracted worldwide attention.

In one case a judge delivered a verdict supported by grounds that were said to be written by the plaintiff's attorney. The same attorney was photographed on vacation with the then chief justice, who responded to critics by saying it was a chance meeting. Yet a private investigator revealed that the plane tickets of the two parties showed a peculiar correspondence, placing a cloud on the credibility of the chief justice. His statements cannot now be given substance.

One Malaysian criminal court judge, whose son faced a mandatory death sentence for drug dealing, was elevated to a higher court, where any prior judicial competence has subsequently withered. The son's case is suspended, pending future events. Another judge has not provided grounds for an important decision a year after the verdict. Three months is the normal limit. The defendant, meanwhile, suffers physical pain in solitary confinement, patiently awaiting the overdue grounds, that his appeal may be submitted.

The Malaysian police have announced that an investigation into the judge's telephone call is underway. All await the findings. There is a stain over the entire judiciary in Malaysia, and it is a blaring blot that will not go away. All prisoners now incarcerated, for whatever charge, must have their appeals heard anew. All civil cases suffering a taint of executive pressure must be reviewed. This process will occupy the courts of Malaysia for the next decade and beyond.

For Malaysia to present a proper face to the world, a special tribunal must be formed to investigate the full extent of the injustice. Nothing less will suffice before Malaysia can sit again as equal among members of the Commonwealth. This is a time of shame for Malaysia, and it is the prime minister who is to blame.

back to list of articles