IF there ever was a survey on questions that get asked most frequently, then "what kind of country do we want Malaysia to be?" must be it. At first sight, it appears to be an odd question to ask as we celebrate 65 years of nationhood today.
Didn't we ask the question when independent Malaya came into being? We did. And answered it, too. Our first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, proclaimed to the infant nation on Aug 31, 1957 thus: "Today a new page is turned, and Malaya steps forward to take her rightful place as a free and independent partner in the great community of nations." And so the fathers of independence would lead the Malayans to dedicate themselves to the service of the nation or, to put it in Tunku's words, "to work and strive with hand and brain to create a new nation, inspired by the ideals of justice and liberty — a beacon of light in a disturbed and distracted world". As it was with Malaya, so it was with Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963.
But the very "ideals of justice and liberty" Tunku talked about are coming under threat, if statements by politicians of late are anything to go by. One terrifying statement was made by Umno president Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi in his speech at the party's convention on Aug 27 (carried live by TV9). He and Umno members of all levels were "sad and disappointed that Datuk Seri Najib had been sentenced before being found guilty".
This is a serious and dangerous allegation, not only against the decision of the High Court which found the former prime minister guilty in 2020 of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering, but also against the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
We are living in dangerous times. The administration of justice in Malaysia has never been attacked like this before.
Small wonder then that lawyers are up in arms. Whether Zahid realises it or not, his statement will undermine the trust that people have in our judiciary. Constitutional law expert Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi says it is permissible "to criticise and comment on judicial decisions", but it must be done "in a responsible and restrained way".
Legal scholars do that all the time. But here is his caveat. "We must not accuse the judge or judges of corruption, personal bias, ill motives or even pre-determining the issue. That is a crime."
Like ignorance of the law is no excuse, so is the ignorance of the law of contempt. Was Zahid's statement anything to do with a leaked draft of the salient points of the case? We do not pretend to know. Shad Faruqi says it is a judicial practice around the world to have a preliminary draft of salient points submitted by both sides.
If issues and doubts arise, he says, they get clarified by subsequent oral hearings. "All judges maintain an open mind and it often happens that with further arguments, they often change or polish their views."
It is always dangerous to comment on something we are unfamiliar with. One thing is clear though. It is meant to raise public anger against the judges. To Shad Faruqi, "this is a sad reflection of the lack of commitment within some quarters to our most sacred constitutional values".