Media Statement
Ridiculous and Absurd Reasons
Aliran is shocked at the absurdity of retired Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Lamin Yunus' reasoning in responding to Raja Aziz Addruse's remarks regarding the appointment of Justice Fairuz Sheik Abdul Halim as the new Chief Judge of Malaya.
Lamin had claimed that Raja Aziz's view was "tantamount to criticising the ability or inability of the King to appoint a suitable person."
He carries this ridiculous argument further by stating, "If such a criticism in public is allowed to pass, it simply means that the King's integrity can be questioned in public."
We are disturbed beyond belief that Lamin has shown such disrespect to law and logic. We are dumbfounded that he has forgotten his own ruling in the appointment of Judges of the High Court, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Federal Court, who "shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers." (Article 122B (1))
Lamin had stated on March 2, 2000: "The intention of the Article is clear i.e. the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act on the advice of the Prime Minister."
In other words, His Majesty does not choose the candidate or decide on the suitability of the candidate for appointment. The choosing and deciding is the prerogative of the Prime Minister.
His Majesty merely fulfils a constitutional requirement and discharges a constitutional duty that is required of him.
How can Lamin justify his contention that Raja Aziz's view was "tantamount to criticising the ability or inability of the King to appoint a suitable person"? How can he even argue that the King's integrity was being questioned? What is the basis? Where is the logic?
Lamin would have been honest and to the point if he had argued that Raja Aziz'z view questions the Prime Minister's ability in choosing the right candidate and the PM's wisdom in deciding the candidate's suitability. In fact, this is what Raja Aziz's view is tantamount to: It is a criticism directed at the Prime Minister. His Majesty is not part of the controversy or the cause of it.
One wonders what Lamin's purpose was in his apparent attempt to drag the good name of the His Majesty into this controversy by deliberating distorting Raja Aziz's intention in questioning the appointment of the new Chief Judge of Malaya.
What other inference could be drawn when one studies Lamin's judgment of 2 March 2000 concerning Datuk Hj Moktar bin Hj Sidin's eligibility to be part of a quorum to hear Dato' Seri Anwar 's appeal.
Lamin referred to Clause (1A) of Article 40, which states:
Lamin further emphasised the prerogative of the Prime Minister which he contended must be binding: "So in the context of Article 122B (1) of the Constitution, where the Prime Minister has advised that a person be appointed a Judge�, legally the Prime Minister can insist that the appointment be proceeded with."
It is therefore very clear that it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for causing a particular person to be appointed.
If Lamin had intended to defend the newly appointed Chief Judge of Malaya, he should have argued rationally and legally to justify this appointment and not pull a red herring to hit at Raja Aziz. Raja Aziz is entitled to his opinion, which may be different from Lamin's. Freedom of expression, after all, allows and encourages different views.
A holder of public office must be open to scrutiny and debate, and even criticism. Anyone assuming public office should also expect his or her appointment to come under intense public scrutiny, and judges should not be exempted from this process.
In the circumstances, it is in order to demand that Lamin apologises to His Majesty for unnecessarily dragging in his good name. He also owes an apology to Raja Aziz for imputing things that were clearly not meant to be.
P Ramakrishnan
| |||||||||||||||
