Rise of corporate crimes tarnishes Malaysian judiciary

By David Chew

SINGAPORE (JP): The judiciary is one of the three branches of government in Malaysia, the other two being the Executive and the Legislative. Judges operate independently of cabinet ministers and parliament to present Malaysia as a democracy along the lines of Westminster in Britain. Judges act according to their interpretations of the law and how this is encased within the norms of justice.

Sometimes their decisions are seen to be in line with the those of executive. The rejection of habeas corpus applications by opposition party members who were detained by the government in the 1987 crackdown on troublemakers called "Operation Lallang" is a case in point.

On other occasions they have acted contrary to government interests, such as Justice Harun Hashim's ruling on Feb. 4, 1988 that the United Malays National Organization, the leader of the ruling National Front coalition government, was an illegal party. This was because some branch members had voted in the party elections the previous year without paying their subscriptions, which had meant they were ineligible to vote.

Whatever decisions the judiciary make, whether for or against the government, they are binding and are perceived to reflect the judiciary's independence. Malaysians have grown confident of their judiciary's integrity.

Recently, however, the image of Malaysian judges has been tarnished. Although the pubic has yet to completely lose confidence in its judiciary, as may be happening in some neighboring countries, the morals and integrity of some judges has been questioned.

There had been so many unresolved criminal and civil cases that the accumulated backlog is enormous. Judges fail to use their discretion to dispense with the bureaucracy that makes the judicial process cumbersome and ineffective. The result was that straightforward cases, like creditors suing defaulting debtors, have taken more than 10 years to be heard. Seen by many as judicial incompetence.

S Cheong wrote to the Malaysian daily, The New Straits Times, to complain that the defense lawyers for the debtors he was suing deliberately applied for several postponements. The judge complied, placing priority on his own expediency than the urgency of the case. After a considerable delay owing to the numerous postponements, the judge ruled against plaintiff on the grounds that his lawyers "lacked authority" to act.

Similar cases have been brought to the attention of politicians to decry that "justice delayed is justice denied". Judges who absent themselves when they should be hearing cases were blamed and the government now requires judges to "clock in", humiliating them and making many unhappy.

The delay in meting out justice in straightforward cases was bad enough for the judges, without the large number of boardroom tussles of public companies which had landed in court. These could irreparably damage the judges' reputation.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad mentioned this possibility in his address to the annual judges conference in Kuching, Sarawak, in mid-March. He pointed out that Malaysia's booming economy had resulted in the rise of commercial crime and certain quarters were trying to make use of the courts to win their boardroom battles by seeking injunctions.

"I am confident the judges realize this trend and are careful not to be taken advantage of, but sometimes the courts are exploited," he said.

A newspaper columnist had earlier wrote that the court actions of the certain corporate figures give the impression that they were capitalizing on the ease with which temporary injunctions could be obtained to stifle their opponents' moves and to earn for themselves time to maneuver.

"Judging from the recent events, the parties involved seemed to be using the courts not as arbiters of last resort, but more as an expedient means to protect their interests," the columnist wrote.

Any discerning member of the public could conclude that judges had been manipulated by rich and powerful corporate figures into making decisions which did not reflect their integrity, but favored the interest of vested parties.

A 30-page poison pen letter, purportedly written by some judges actually did more harm than good to the reputation of the judiciary -- in explaining the position of the judges involved in an attempt to absolve them from blame -- or at least to mitigate their guilt.

Widely circulated during the conference of judges in Kuching, it alleged that some judges were corrupt, and there had been favoritism in the appointment and promotion of judges. Names of Appeal Court, Federal Court and High Court judges were mentioned.

What caused the judiciary's image of integrity to fall to an image of unscrupulousness?

Part of the answer lies in the booming economy which Mahathir earlier pointed out had led to a spate of commercial crimes. This ties in with allegations in the poison pen letter that some judges were corrupt. They purportedly accepted kickbacks for the dispensation of favors. Judges as government servants receive salaries commensurable with their status to maintain a certain dignified lifestyle. They are not allowed to seek other jobs.

Though these salaries may be sufficiently high, being human, they can be tempted to accept to lavish kickbacks, many times their official salaries, from corporate figures seeking favors. Coupled with the frustration of being bogged down with too much work and humiliated by having to "clock in" when coming to work, some resorted to accepting bribes.

The increasingly tarnished image of the judiciary is causing serious concern to the Malaysian government. While Mahathir has advised them not to be manipulated by corporate figures in the course of their work, his deputy Anwar Ibrahim, dwelt on ''the growing concern of the public as regards the increasing incidence of judicial indiscretions'' and that ''this is not a matter to be taken lightly or viewed negatively.''

Close on the heels of Mahathir and Anwar calling on the judges to demonstrate the highest standards of integrity in discharging their duties, the attorney-general has directed the police to investigate who is behind the poison pen letter.

Denying criticisms from certain MPs that he was conducting a witch hunt, Datuk Mohtar Abdullah explained that the probe was not aimed against the judiciary, but to try to save it from elements out to destroy it or from elements within the judiciary itself who might discredit it.

"So the investigations will go both ways -- not only to find the source of the letter but also cover some of the basic allegations in the letter," the attorney-general was quoted as saying in The New Straits Times recently.

It will take a long time for Malaysia's judiciary to redeem their once dignified image -- if ever.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Singapore.