It was another day of absurdity in the annals of the judiciary when Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, incomprehensibly ruled on 11 March 2009 to deny the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly his right of defence.
His ridiculous decision has given the JUDICIARY a BAD name tarnishing its reputation and ruining its image.
On two previous occasions, on 3 and 5 March he had ruled that the Speaker could not have lawyers of his choice to represent him in the suit brought against him.
And on 11 March, he ruled that the Speaker could not even act for himself.
His bewildering decisions have shocked and stunned the legal fraternity and the man in the street.
These decisions went against the grain of natural justice. They were neither supported by legal precedents nor justified by logical reasoning.
Even the lay man is allowed to represent himself. No court has denied him this right to defend himself. Why then this exception in the case of the Speaker?
Justice has not been served by the following decisions of the judicial commissioner which are startling, confusing and baffling:
- He has refused legal representation of the Speaker’s choice thus going against natural justice;
- He has refused the Speaker the right to represent himself denying him his inalienable human right;
- He has refused to allow the Speaker’s leading lawyer to hold a watching brief with speaking rights, thus refusing to hear the Speaker’s side of the case;
- He has ruled that the Speaker is a public officer when the law does not support his contention;
- He has issued an indefinite restraining order when he does not have the authority to do so;
- He has decided to hear the case against the Speaker when the law does not allow him to do so under the Federal Constitution.
In view of the many discrepancies, Aliran urges the Chief Justice to declare a mistrial and dismiss the case in the interest of justice.
Alternatively, there must be a fresh trial presided by a senior judge who is well versed with the law and who understands the principles of justice.
COMMENTARY
Read here for more
I don't understand and have a lot of questions. Did a judicial commissioner err in a ruling that Perak speaker V Sivakumar must only be represented by the state legal adviser?
If yes, doesn’t this reflect incompetency or lapses in professional judgment or something else? How difficult is it to interpret the related law?
If it is simple enough, why not judge it as it is and not waste taxpayers’ money and create anxiety by having to go all the way to the appeals court and to have that decision overturned.
If every time a judge fails to make an appropriate understanding of the law and gets the appeals court to overturn the decision, then why do we need the high court anyway?
How does one get to be appointed as a judicial commissioner? How does one become a fully- fledged judge? Will erring judicial commissioners get to keep their jobs, get demoted, get a salary cut or what?
We have problems with our pathologists and now judges? What is happening?
-Baiyuenshen
4 comments:
His credentials must be scrutinized and view his qualifications from which school he was from and if necessary send him back to law school and get him to learn which section of the law he is weak and not conversant with.For now,if he is allowed to sit as a judge,in our court of law,he could be a threat to our society for delivering wrong judgments.
Singapore charges Journal editor with contempt
SINGAPORE, March 14 - Singapore is charging a senior editor of the Wall
Street Journal with contempt of court for three articles last year about the
city-state's judiciary, the Straits Times reported today.
High Court Justice Tay Yong Kwang approved an application by the
attorney-general's office to start proceedings against Melanie Kirkpatrick,
deputy editor of the Journal's editorial page, the newspaper said, citing
court documents.
The attorney-general claims the articles, which appeared in the editorials
and opinion section of the Journal's Asia edition, "contained passages that
scandalise the Singapore judiciary," the paper said.
The Journal is published by Dow Jones & Co, which is owned by News Corp. Dow
Jones' spokesman in Asia, Joe Spitzer, did not immediately respond to a
message on his voicemail seeking comment.
Tay found the Journal in contempt of court in November and fined it S$25,000
(RM60,000) for publishing the same articles.
At that time, Attorney-General Walter Woon argued that editorials published
in June and July questioned the judiciary's independence from Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong and the ruling People's Action Party. Not meting out
punishment in the case would undermine the country's rule of law, the court
said.
Woon also objected to a letter to the editor written by Chee Soon Juan, head
of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party.
Singapore's leaders have sued journalists and political opponents several
times in recent years for alleged defamation, winning damages against
Bloomberg, the Economist and the International Herald Tribune.
Human Rights Watch called on Singapore last year to stop using defamation
lawsuits to stifle criticism and bankrupt opposition politicians, citing the
High Court's decision in October to order Chee and his party to pay
US$416,000 (RM1.5 million) to Lee and his father, Lee Kuan Yew, in damages
from a 2006 case.
Government leaders justify suing political opponents, saying it is necessary
to defend their personal and professional reputations since it bears on
their ability to govern properly and command respect from the public. - AP
To
Editor of Malaysians unplugged,
Re : Comments to artice on the dismal performance of J Commissioner Ridswan.
My comments that are stated here will also be the same one that I will fax to 46 Judges, Prosecutors and anti-corruption senior officers.
If J. Commissioner Ridswan can be sacked for such obvious lack of knowledge of the law as a judge then will this call for the sacking of any such similar cases of judges who have demonstrated a similar gross lack of learning of the law be also sacked for the same reason ?
It does not take an Einstein to appreciate that a judge of any high court of any nation has to be a person who is well versed in the law and that only such learned lawyer deserves to serve at the highest level of the judiciary. In Malaysia, judges who have just a mere and very elementary knowledge of the law do get appointed to the bench at the highest level and in most of these cases, it is more acceptable to their ego to be known to be corrupt than to be discovered to be fools on the bench. It is not too difficult to understand why cases in our courts take on an average 10 years to 15 years to end and in most of the cases there is found to be miscarriage of justice and the law. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IF THE LAW IS MISAPPLIED !
Judges upon appointment to the bench TAKE AN OATH of office and affirm that they shall carry out the enforcement of the law without fear or favour; and by the oath if they are discovered to be acting with intention to pervert the course of the law, then by their oath they must be found to be in breach and therefore must by law be dismissed ! Why has the contract of this errant judge been extended ? Do the oath of a judge to observe and enforce the law not mean anything to the Chief Justice ? This is what the state of the law has become, even the Chief Justice can aid and abet the abuse of power of one of his judges and be rewarded for acting with obvious disrespect for the law and to serve both a narrow and partisan interests. This is not an honest to goodness administration of the law; this is in fact a joke !
I too have the misfortune to be the victim of another errant judge of the High Court of Malaysia and now she sits on the bench of the Court of Appeal; her name is Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Court of Appeal. She too like this judge Ridsawn, had disrespected the law and abused her powers as a judge.
She approved to the respondents of my wife’s Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001;Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (M)Sdn. Bhd. A order for security for costs and when my wife had paid the sum of RM.60,000 into the hands of respondents’ lawyers as pursuant to her order for security; JUDGE Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went promptly on further to approve to respondents a 2nd and conflicting order to strike out petition. This 2nd order for striking out was made even without a preceding order to set aside the 1st order for security for costs. Therefore, as a consequence the RESPONDENTS RETAINED MY WIFE’S RM. 80,000 (being original Rm.60,000 plus at 5% interests accruing to reach now at Rm.80,000). Money which I borrowed from my daughters at 30% interest per year compound.
Here is another case of a judge who is an illiterate in the law because approving both na order for security for costs and then to follow up with another order for striking out (without having cancelled the 1st order for security for costs) is like HAVING THE CAKE AND EATING IT TOO. A judge at the highest level of judicial office who does not know the simple mechanics of the judicial process IS NOW SITTING ON THE BENCH OF THE MALAYSIAN COURT OF APPEAL, is this not SCARRY to you ?
I will come to the High Courtthe respondents to my wife’s Originating Petition, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has committed the several offences : (1) conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, (2)Malfeasance in office (3)co-conspirator to respondents OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES (4)Abuse of judicial powers and many others; anyway these few should by law put Judge Zainon away in prison for a very long time.
I have on many occasion tried to provoke Judge to sue me in Perth but that is not going to happen because our judges in Perth are honourable men of impeccable learning and ethical beyond question. I fear to take action against Judge Zainon in Malaysia because the judges there are of questionable ethical standing and learning of the law; I will be most likely be thrown into jail under a detention order under the ISA. NOT WISE !
However I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali if I can be assured by Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff, to whom I had on 3 occasions discussed my case against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and I find that Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff a reasonable and accommodating man. I TOLD JUDGE MOHD. DARIUS SHARIFF that it is absolute nonsense that my wife’s case should be struck out, when the process had reached the stage when our counsel Mr David Hoh had attended 2 appointments for CASE MANAGEMENT ! HOW COULD JUDGE STRIKE OUT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES; and in addition other more damaging issues against her striking out exist as well.
As I said I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon IF JUDGE MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF WILL ASSURE ME THAT NO SUCH DETENTION UNDER THE ISA WILL ISSUE AGAINNST ME FOR DISPARAGEMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON. I will come to KL and repeat my criminal charges against Judge Zainon and the Judge will have cause to charge me under the criminal defamation law and we will then fight it out in court. NO ISA DETENTION PLEASE !
was another day of absurdity in the annals of the judiciary when Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, incomprehensibly ruled on 11 March 2009 to deny the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly his right of defence.
His ridiculous decision has given the JUDICI
It is dangerous to let men of this ilk sit on the Bench and make judgment on our fellow men and women.
Is this what BN has finally brought this country to.
Having persons who are illetarate perhaps serves the interests of UMNO best. Here lies the answer as to who our Judiciary stands in utter ridicule.
Post a Comment