Yet, it reflects the truth in many countries.
March 10, 2012
Butch or Bitch?
I am sure you have noticed this phenomenon when travelling on Malaysian highways during festive seasons.
At the male public conveniences or toilets, turnover is very rapid as they used the urinals.
Compare this to the females who have to use the stalls. They waited patiently and more often than not, impatiently too to use the stalls as there are only so few in their facility.
So, looking at this picture, those in line ought more to be bitches, don't you agree?
Forget about that dog doing his business. He is a queer or he is in the wrong toilet!
At the male public conveniences or toilets, turnover is very rapid as they used the urinals.
Compare this to the females who have to use the stalls. They waited patiently and more often than not, impatiently too to use the stalls as there are only so few in their facility.
So, looking at this picture, those in line ought more to be bitches, don't you agree?
Forget about that dog doing his business. He is a queer or he is in the wrong toilet!
The Smart Tunnel and Traffic Management
Malaysia is a country that experiences flood perennially.
With the constant increase of traffic in KL and the flood problem, by now the authorities from the police, City Hall and all allied services that is responsible foe traffic control should already have action master plans and world-class expertise to ensure traffic is well-managed when floods occur in KL. Pre-emptive moves must be initiated after the weather report; just like what they do before the advent of typhoons and hurricanes.
But, what do you know?
The answer as usual is they never learn. It's usual-lah.
So, when the heavy downpour floods KL recently, they closed the Smart Tunnel to divert the overflow, causing massive jams all about the city and in the surrounding suburbs.
As the jams piled up, traffic policemen remained scarce. No additional staff was being mobilized to direct traffic or to disperse it efficiently. No helicopter has been harnessed to help those on the ground.
RELA forces were totally absent. So were Bandaraya traffic staff as well as those toll operators. Teh-tarikking, somewhere?
One word for this: MALAYSIA BOLEH!
God Bless Malaysia-tanah tumpah darah ku
With the constant increase of traffic in KL and the flood problem, by now the authorities from the police, City Hall and all allied services that is responsible foe traffic control should already have action master plans and world-class expertise to ensure traffic is well-managed when floods occur in KL. Pre-emptive moves must be initiated after the weather report; just like what they do before the advent of typhoons and hurricanes.
But, what do you know?
The answer as usual is they never learn. It's usual-lah.
So, when the heavy downpour floods KL recently, they closed the Smart Tunnel to divert the overflow, causing massive jams all about the city and in the surrounding suburbs.
As the jams piled up, traffic policemen remained scarce. No additional staff was being mobilized to direct traffic or to disperse it efficiently. No helicopter has been harnessed to help those on the ground.
RELA forces were totally absent. So were Bandaraya traffic staff as well as those toll operators. Teh-tarikking, somewhere?
One word for this: MALAYSIA BOLEH!
God Bless Malaysia-tanah tumpah darah ku
Has Najib Cast The Net Wide Enough?
If it is to be held in the merry month of May,the question to be asked is: Has Najib cast the net wide enough?
Let us look at some of the goodies he doled out and did it fell rightly in the proper place? Or did he gave it to the converted? Or did he gave them to those who will not ever be converted?
Under these circumstances, the best he could do is not to alienate any voter particularly those who are fence sitters.
The first one to look at is the doling out of RM100 to every school going student. To me, this is a much wider net as many would have school going children.
The next would be the book vouchers to students in Form 6 and in college and universities. Along with the first dole-out to school-going students, this will about cover all those who have children in schools, colleges and universities. A very wide yet, in fact.
Then we have the cash hand-out to the public. This is one which can bring Najib up and also bring him down. Execution is very important here. The sad thing about this scheme is for every one that may get in a deserving family, many will be alienated and they may not like it. Also there has been known cases of non-deserving people who received it. My take is that this is a two-sided sword.
It's well and good that the Merdeka Centre survey has attributed Najib's rising popularity to this particular hand-out but I think this is really on huge red herring because such a survey outcome is loaded and cannot be used as a barometer that is neutral. Merdeka Centre should be more professional!
The removal of half the toll payment in the Cheras-Kajang connurbation seems like one good strategy on the surface, if it is to win over the hard-core DAP voters in that area. However, sadly, these hard-core DAP supporters will never change the spots on their bodies. At best, it may win over some of those drive through drivers, if at all.
The KR1M shops may be successful to an extent for the lower class though I believe the price of most staple items are just too minimal to shout about.
As for 1Menu Malaysia, not many shops operate this programme and it is time-specified. They do not serve such menu all day long and there is a mad rush during such time. Food quality is another thing.
The 1Malaysia Home is still-born and no one is benefiting from this. Until the banks can get an assurance, this scheme will be kept frozen in permafrost. So graduate employees,best to forget it for the time being.
The RM300 million EPF loan for the purchase of City hall Kuala Lumpur flats is another negative for Najib as it is now almost a no-go because of its sub-prime nature.
The U-turn on the civil service salary may have some positive effects. Some of those in the lower salary rungs may be persuaded to support BN again because of the 13% pay-rise and the additional RM50 COLA. Good move,Najib.
As for the other things doled out from ETP and EPP projects, these continue to be nebulous numbers which the man in the street cannot relate to.
In conclusion, the net seems to be cast quite widely but its impact may not be there politically.
There is just too many dissatisfied voters out there primarily because runaway inflation is eating into their hard earned ringgits too quickly.
Get inflation down and BN can get more fence-sitters to its side.
Otherwise, expect hostile voters as well as low voter turn out on Election Day.
A Red Herring for Najib
The Editor of Malaysian Insider has today thrown in the remotest possibility of BN abandoning its time honoured formula of seat sharing for the coming GE with its component parties.
He may have got his sources right,though.
As much as I want to believe him, I think if Najib takes on this 360 degree turn, he might as well step down and let someone else lead the BN campaign.
If pure strategy dictates where only the best candidate stands, irrespective of whichever party they hail from, the likelihood of winning additional seats is still unlikely for mixed seats.
Even though, UMNO warlords would like UMNO to take over seats where 55 or 60% Malays form the electrorate, there is just no definite certainty that they will win given the current political mood when PR continue to nip at the heels of UMNO.
Where non-Malays form the majority of voters and in mixed seats, putting in MCA candidates is already dicey. That the incumbent MCA or Gerakan will actually win confidently this time around with the swirling tsunami still in strength is far-fetched.
You cannot deny MIC any seat just because they do not have a majority in many areas. That would have killed all of Najib's initiatives to win back the Indian voter who has voted against the government since HINDRAF created havoc in the 2008 General elections.
Najib must hold on to this golden goose that he has just reclaimed!
My take:
There could be a possibility that some seats could be swapped between component parties if there is agreement without any arm twisting. I do not believe MCA or Gerakan will ever give their seats to UMNO. Period.
The likelihood of MCA or Gerakan winning any seats in Penang and even Perak is now equally remote,incumbent Ministers or otherwise, if DAP is the opposing candidate.
MIC may possibly win some loyal constituencies but with much reduced majority but at best,I expect they will win very much fewer seats this time around. The possibility of being sent almost totally into political limbo is there, given the current weak political leadership in the party.
As for PPP, it will fully depart from the political scene once more riding into the twilight zone.
As for UMNO, its candidates standing in mixed seats may lose marginally, if there is but a weak tsunami in operation.
The best scenario I can see for UMNO is that this time around, it is personalities in UNMO that will win the day and the UMNO platform they stand on, will only be 'incidental'.
If fairer administration is seen in this forthcoming GE, BN will lose more seats.
If BN is fortunate, they will still hold on to Putrajaya but a hung Parliament is imminent.
In management, there is this truism.
"If you know the creature, then you can manage it."
I do not know anyone who knows closely 'what is the creature' of the current political situation in the country. It is one of shifting sands in the desert and you just cannot read it like tea leaves until the sand settles down.And the sand would not settle down because politics is dynamic.
One false step and you will sink and be buried alive in the deep,deep dunes.
I think currently, BN can have about half the support of FELDA settlers;perhaps more than half of the public service incumbents. The rest is anybody's guess.
This is one dangerous position to be in for BN.
In conclusion, knowing what Najib has been grappling with this far with all the political fumbles and controversies, I am quite sure being the person he is, he will not take this step of abandoning the time-tested formula of seat sharing. It's just not the nature of the man. Najib is not truly Machiavellian.
Doing so, will be the straw that breaks the BN camel's back and really put them out of Putrajaya.
March 09, 2012
An Impending General Election Looms Ahead
It's murky out there. Foggy and hazy.
Not many can put a finger to what lies ahead. Like looking through pea-soup,everyone is speculating when the 13 GE will be held.
The Merdeka Centre has done a survey showing Najib's popularity has soared 10% to 69%. Most attributed this to his hand-outs from BR1M, school book coupons to student ang-pows.
I think both PM and DPM have crisscrossed the whole country sufficiently enough and collected the latest report cards.
Except for a few serious bugbears, Najib is ready to chance an early election soon.
Even though his solutions to most of the problems from the aborted civil-service salary scheme to the Lynas rare earth plant and others are just 'filler' solutions,and band aid in nature, it has to do.
To wait too long will not help BN.
Najib can do nothing for the emasculated MCA, the almost ineffectual Gerakan and a rather weak MIC.
As the PKRZ corruption case goes to court,all Najib needs to do now is not to renew Sharizat's senatorship thus showing the end may be near for the NFC problem too.
The Christian issue for labelling God, FELDA listing issue,the MAS financial fallout and the still-born 1M Housing Scheme remains unresolved.
As for the Pakatan Rakyat,the Kedah issue is yet thorny as the MB thinks he is untouchable. If rumours are to be believed, he can be seen as a potential ally to BN indirectly which bodes well for Najib.
As Daim speculates a hung parliament is in store, a confused voting public can vote either way.
What I can see is the potential erosion of seats for the BN in Sarawak as well as the loss of more urban seats in Peninsular Malaysia. I can also visualise Keadilan may win in some FELDA constituencies and in some working class suburban areas too.
That PR can capture more state government is anybody's guess. A status quo plus the return of Perak under PR is a near possibility.
For now, let us see what new measures will be in place as the Election Commission gears itself to do its duty.
Will the administration of the election be less unfair?
Not many can put a finger to what lies ahead. Like looking through pea-soup,everyone is speculating when the 13 GE will be held.
The Merdeka Centre has done a survey showing Najib's popularity has soared 10% to 69%. Most attributed this to his hand-outs from BR1M, school book coupons to student ang-pows.
I think both PM and DPM have crisscrossed the whole country sufficiently enough and collected the latest report cards.
Except for a few serious bugbears, Najib is ready to chance an early election soon.
Even though his solutions to most of the problems from the aborted civil-service salary scheme to the Lynas rare earth plant and others are just 'filler' solutions,and band aid in nature, it has to do.
To wait too long will not help BN.
Najib can do nothing for the emasculated MCA, the almost ineffectual Gerakan and a rather weak MIC.
As the PKRZ corruption case goes to court,all Najib needs to do now is not to renew Sharizat's senatorship thus showing the end may be near for the NFC problem too.
The Christian issue for labelling God, FELDA listing issue,the MAS financial fallout and the still-born 1M Housing Scheme remains unresolved.
As for the Pakatan Rakyat,the Kedah issue is yet thorny as the MB thinks he is untouchable. If rumours are to be believed, he can be seen as a potential ally to BN indirectly which bodes well for Najib.
As Daim speculates a hung parliament is in store, a confused voting public can vote either way.
What I can see is the potential erosion of seats for the BN in Sarawak as well as the loss of more urban seats in Peninsular Malaysia. I can also visualise Keadilan may win in some FELDA constituencies and in some working class suburban areas too.
That PR can capture more state government is anybody's guess. A status quo plus the return of Perak under PR is a near possibility.
For now, let us see what new measures will be in place as the Election Commission gears itself to do its duty.
Will the administration of the election be less unfair?
March 08, 2012
For Want of A Nail,a Shoe.........
As a student of law, I must say, I truly enjoyed this article written by Art Harun.
It truly provides the legal background for the issue of contempt of court and how it should be interpreted in this age and time.
Bravo to Art.
In the follow-up of the shoe throwing incident in court in Malaysia and the recent sitting judges' sentencing for the shoe-thrower,one wonders where enlightenment and wisdom stand these days.
I attached in toto, Art''s article from the Internet Media, The Malaysian Insider.
It's fantastic in its arguments and one comes away with a greater sense of how justice should really be meted including the proper procedural aspects of administering justice.
" For want of a nail, a shoe was lost… — Art Harun
March 09, 2012
MARCH 9 — In his book, “The Due Process of Law”, at page 6, the great Lord Denning, recounts a delightful story.
“On every Monday morning we hear litigants in person. Miss Stone was often there. She made an application before us. We refused it. She was sitting in the front row with a bookcase within her reach. She picked up one of Butterworth’s ‘Workmen’s Compensation Cases’ and threw it at us. It passed between Lord Justice Diplock and me. She picked up another. That went wide too. She said, ‘I am running out of ammunition’. We took little notice. She had hoped we would commit her for contempt of court — just to draw more attention to herself. As we took no notice, she went towards the door. She left saying: ‘I congratulate your Lordships on your coolness under fire’.”
Of course, in our Federal Court recently, shoes went a-flying towards the Bench rather than books.
When I first read about the shoe-throwing incident in our Federal Court, my first reaction was to think, why wasn’t the shoe-thrower arrested and made to answer a contempt charge? To my mind, the act of throwing shoes at the judges was surely contemptuous. And for the court to let it be, without taking any action against him, scandalises the Federal Court. Even worse than that, other people, including some disgruntled lawyers in the future might choose to do the same after having seen a precedent being set where the culprit was left scot free. Frankly, I myself have had the discomforting thought of throwing my bags at some judges before.
Later I read that a police report was lodged against the Jimmy Shoe. Then yesterday, I read that Mr Shoe-go-lucky was summoned to the court to answer a contempt charge. The same judges sat to hear the contempt proceeding, found him guilty and sentenced him to 12 months’ jail.
In passing the sentence, Federal Court Justice Suriyadi was reported to have said:
“You hold a religious position which is held in high esteem by the public. However, you showed characteristics of being barbaric and violent.
“You showed disrespect to the court.”
(Full report is here.)
The power of the court to punish contemptuous acts was first laid out by Wilmot J in R vs Almon in 1765. Such power, according to Wilmot J, was necessary to vindicate the authority of the court. It was a power which forms the foundation of the court as an institution.
It was therefore thought that the power to commit people for contempt of court was an incidental power of the court in order to protect the dignity and authority of the court.
In a modern democracy, it has been argued that such view is obsolete. It is now argued that the necessity to protect the dignity and authority of the court as stated in R vs Almon rested on the premise that in the olden days, the court was an appurtenance of the King, from whom the court derived its powers. Thus, protecting the dignity and authority of the court was anomalous to protecting the King’s dignity and authority.
This position, in a modern democracy, is of course not applicable anymore as in a democracy, the court, just like any other machinations of the state, derives its dignity and authority from the people.
Being so, it is now argued thus:
“In a democracy, on the other hand, it is the people who are supreme, and therefore they are the superior entity, while all State authorities (including Judges) are inferior entities, being the servants of the people. Hence in a democracy there is no need for Judges to vindicate their authority or display majesty or pomp. Their authority will come from the public confidence, and this in turn will be an outcome of their own conduct, their integrity, impartiality, learning and simplicity. No other vindication is required in a democracy by Judges, and there is no need for them to display majesty and authority.” (“Contempt of Court: The need for a fresh look” — Justice Markandey Katju, Judge, Supreme Court of India.)
The whole premise of the power to punish for contempt of court in modern times has therefore been substantially changed. While the power was said to exist for the vindication of the court and protection of its dignity and authority before, currently the power is held to protect the administration of justice instead.
In AG vs BBB (1980) 3 All ER 161 (170), Lord Salmon said:
“The description ‘Contempt of Court’ no doubt has a historical basis, but it is nonetheless misleading. Its object is not to protect the dignity of the Courts but to protect the administration of justice.”
Even as early as 1968, in R vs Commissioner of Police (1968) 2 QB 150 Lord Denning found it necessary for the court to break away from the notion that it was protecting its own dignity or authority. His Lordship stated:
“Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.”
The most telling part of Lord Denning’s judgment in that case, however, is this:
“All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.” (emphasis is mine).
Many of us will remember the Spycatcher case. Its official name is Attorney-General vs Guardian Newspaper 1987(3) All.E.R. 316. What happened there was Peter Wright, a former spy, wrote a book entitled “The Spycatcher”, chronicling his days as a British spy. The government took an injunction against the book. The case went up right to the highest court in Britain, the House of Lords. In a 3-2 majority decision, the House of Lords granted an injunction against the publication of the book for national security reason.
The next day, some newspapers published pictures of the three majority judges upside down with the caption “YOU FOOLS”.
One of the three judges in the majority decision, Lord Templeman, was asked why contempt proceeding was not initiated against the newspapers. He just smiled and was quoted as saying:
“Judges in England did not take notice of personal insults. Though he believed he was not a fool, others were entitled to their opinion.”
It is quite obvious that now the power to punish contemptuous acts is not utilised to either vindicate the court or to protect its authority. Nor is it used to instil respect to the court.
In current days, the court vindicates itself by being independent, by coming up with highly stimulating and intellectual analysis of the facts and the laws in cases before it and by determining cases judiciously, far from being bias and without fear or favour. Respect and awe for the courts are no more foisted unto the people by exercising the might of judicial power such as imposing a 12-month imprisonment on a layperson who appeared in court without any legal counsel fighting against counsel for various government agencies. In fact that might work negatively.
One striking aspect of yesterday’s proceeding is the fact that all three judges, at whom the shoes were thrown, sat to hear the contempt charge and proceeded to sentence the contemnor.
Admittedly, the act was contemptuous. And admittedly too, the three judges have the power to hear the contempt case and sentence the contemnor.
Justice must not only be done, but also must be seen to be done. This judicial pronouncement has been so frequently mentioned so much so that it has become a legal maxim of sorts.
In my humble opinion, and I say this with the greatest of respect to Federal Court Justices Zulkifli Makinudin, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Zaleha Zahari (for whom I have the greatest of respect), it would have served the above maxim far better in the public eye if her Ladyship and their Lordship had recused themselves from sentencing the contemnor or even from hearing the contempt charge by themselves.
The shoes were thrown at their Ladyship and Lordships personally. It is not only the court or the Bench which was insulted (and perhaps attacked) by the contemnor. Their Ladyship and Lordships themselves, personally and individually, were attacked and insulted. Surely, in the eyes of the people, the judges involved cannot say with an amount of credibility that no emotion or personal feeling was involved in the conviction and subsequent sentencing of the contemnor.
Perhaps Lord Denning’s story at the beginning of this article could serve all of us with some food for thought.
Just perhaps.
By the way, the title to this article is part of an old English proverb which goes like this:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
Wikipedia explains that the proverb “describes a situation where permitting some small undesirable situation will allow gradual and inexorable worsening.”
Can we learn something from this proverb?
Perhaps we can. — art-harun.blogspot.com
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified."
It truly provides the legal background for the issue of contempt of court and how it should be interpreted in this age and time.
Bravo to Art.
In the follow-up of the shoe throwing incident in court in Malaysia and the recent sitting judges' sentencing for the shoe-thrower,one wonders where enlightenment and wisdom stand these days.
I attached in toto, Art''s article from the Internet Media, The Malaysian Insider.
It's fantastic in its arguments and one comes away with a greater sense of how justice should really be meted including the proper procedural aspects of administering justice.
" For want of a nail, a shoe was lost… — Art Harun
March 09, 2012
MARCH 9 — In his book, “The Due Process of Law”, at page 6, the great Lord Denning, recounts a delightful story.
“On every Monday morning we hear litigants in person. Miss Stone was often there. She made an application before us. We refused it. She was sitting in the front row with a bookcase within her reach. She picked up one of Butterworth’s ‘Workmen’s Compensation Cases’ and threw it at us. It passed between Lord Justice Diplock and me. She picked up another. That went wide too. She said, ‘I am running out of ammunition’. We took little notice. She had hoped we would commit her for contempt of court — just to draw more attention to herself. As we took no notice, she went towards the door. She left saying: ‘I congratulate your Lordships on your coolness under fire’.”
Of course, in our Federal Court recently, shoes went a-flying towards the Bench rather than books.
When I first read about the shoe-throwing incident in our Federal Court, my first reaction was to think, why wasn’t the shoe-thrower arrested and made to answer a contempt charge? To my mind, the act of throwing shoes at the judges was surely contemptuous. And for the court to let it be, without taking any action against him, scandalises the Federal Court. Even worse than that, other people, including some disgruntled lawyers in the future might choose to do the same after having seen a precedent being set where the culprit was left scot free. Frankly, I myself have had the discomforting thought of throwing my bags at some judges before.
Later I read that a police report was lodged against the Jimmy Shoe. Then yesterday, I read that Mr Shoe-go-lucky was summoned to the court to answer a contempt charge. The same judges sat to hear the contempt proceeding, found him guilty and sentenced him to 12 months’ jail.
In passing the sentence, Federal Court Justice Suriyadi was reported to have said:
“You hold a religious position which is held in high esteem by the public. However, you showed characteristics of being barbaric and violent.
“You showed disrespect to the court.”
(Full report is here.)
The power of the court to punish contemptuous acts was first laid out by Wilmot J in R vs Almon in 1765. Such power, according to Wilmot J, was necessary to vindicate the authority of the court. It was a power which forms the foundation of the court as an institution.
It was therefore thought that the power to commit people for contempt of court was an incidental power of the court in order to protect the dignity and authority of the court.
In a modern democracy, it has been argued that such view is obsolete. It is now argued that the necessity to protect the dignity and authority of the court as stated in R vs Almon rested on the premise that in the olden days, the court was an appurtenance of the King, from whom the court derived its powers. Thus, protecting the dignity and authority of the court was anomalous to protecting the King’s dignity and authority.
This position, in a modern democracy, is of course not applicable anymore as in a democracy, the court, just like any other machinations of the state, derives its dignity and authority from the people.
Being so, it is now argued thus:
“In a democracy, on the other hand, it is the people who are supreme, and therefore they are the superior entity, while all State authorities (including Judges) are inferior entities, being the servants of the people. Hence in a democracy there is no need for Judges to vindicate their authority or display majesty or pomp. Their authority will come from the public confidence, and this in turn will be an outcome of their own conduct, their integrity, impartiality, learning and simplicity. No other vindication is required in a democracy by Judges, and there is no need for them to display majesty and authority.” (“Contempt of Court: The need for a fresh look” — Justice Markandey Katju, Judge, Supreme Court of India.)
The whole premise of the power to punish for contempt of court in modern times has therefore been substantially changed. While the power was said to exist for the vindication of the court and protection of its dignity and authority before, currently the power is held to protect the administration of justice instead.
In AG vs BBB (1980) 3 All ER 161 (170), Lord Salmon said:
“The description ‘Contempt of Court’ no doubt has a historical basis, but it is nonetheless misleading. Its object is not to protect the dignity of the Courts but to protect the administration of justice.”
Even as early as 1968, in R vs Commissioner of Police (1968) 2 QB 150 Lord Denning found it necessary for the court to break away from the notion that it was protecting its own dignity or authority. His Lordship stated:
“Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.”
The most telling part of Lord Denning’s judgment in that case, however, is this:
“All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.” (emphasis is mine).
Many of us will remember the Spycatcher case. Its official name is Attorney-General vs Guardian Newspaper 1987(3) All.E.R. 316. What happened there was Peter Wright, a former spy, wrote a book entitled “The Spycatcher”, chronicling his days as a British spy. The government took an injunction against the book. The case went up right to the highest court in Britain, the House of Lords. In a 3-2 majority decision, the House of Lords granted an injunction against the publication of the book for national security reason.
The next day, some newspapers published pictures of the three majority judges upside down with the caption “YOU FOOLS”.
One of the three judges in the majority decision, Lord Templeman, was asked why contempt proceeding was not initiated against the newspapers. He just smiled and was quoted as saying:
“Judges in England did not take notice of personal insults. Though he believed he was not a fool, others were entitled to their opinion.”
It is quite obvious that now the power to punish contemptuous acts is not utilised to either vindicate the court or to protect its authority. Nor is it used to instil respect to the court.
In current days, the court vindicates itself by being independent, by coming up with highly stimulating and intellectual analysis of the facts and the laws in cases before it and by determining cases judiciously, far from being bias and without fear or favour. Respect and awe for the courts are no more foisted unto the people by exercising the might of judicial power such as imposing a 12-month imprisonment on a layperson who appeared in court without any legal counsel fighting against counsel for various government agencies. In fact that might work negatively.
One striking aspect of yesterday’s proceeding is the fact that all three judges, at whom the shoes were thrown, sat to hear the contempt charge and proceeded to sentence the contemnor.
Admittedly, the act was contemptuous. And admittedly too, the three judges have the power to hear the contempt case and sentence the contemnor.
Justice must not only be done, but also must be seen to be done. This judicial pronouncement has been so frequently mentioned so much so that it has become a legal maxim of sorts.
In my humble opinion, and I say this with the greatest of respect to Federal Court Justices Zulkifli Makinudin, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Zaleha Zahari (for whom I have the greatest of respect), it would have served the above maxim far better in the public eye if her Ladyship and their Lordship had recused themselves from sentencing the contemnor or even from hearing the contempt charge by themselves.
The shoes were thrown at their Ladyship and Lordships personally. It is not only the court or the Bench which was insulted (and perhaps attacked) by the contemnor. Their Ladyship and Lordships themselves, personally and individually, were attacked and insulted. Surely, in the eyes of the people, the judges involved cannot say with an amount of credibility that no emotion or personal feeling was involved in the conviction and subsequent sentencing of the contemnor.
Perhaps Lord Denning’s story at the beginning of this article could serve all of us with some food for thought.
Just perhaps.
By the way, the title to this article is part of an old English proverb which goes like this:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
Wikipedia explains that the proverb “describes a situation where permitting some small undesirable situation will allow gradual and inexorable worsening.”
Can we learn something from this proverb?
Perhaps we can. — art-harun.blogspot.com
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
