JULY 9 — I respectfully disagree with former Economy Minister Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli who said the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) had inadvertently confirmed key concerns raised by nine PKR MPs regarding recent judicial appointments, adding that the matter warranted a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).
In a statement, Rafizi said the AGC’s response to a press conference by the PKR lawmakers appeared to validate claims of procedural lapses and unresolved allegations involving a Federal Court judge.
“The AGC’s own statement confirms three things: that there were delays in appointments, that some Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) nominees were not acted upon, and that a JAC meeting was convened without the required 10-day notice,” he said.
On the other hand, I agree with the AGC that “discrepancies in timing or procedure related to appointments” are part of the process itself and do not automatically amount to a crisis, let alone a Constitutional one.
On the allegation that some nominees were not acted upon, one has to be mindful of Sections 26 and 27 of the JAC Act 2009.
Section 26(2) says that after submitting its report on who has been selected by the JAC to be recommended for the appointment to the judicial office concerned, the JAC shall provide any further information as may be required by the prime minister.
Section 27 allows the prime minister after receiving the report under Section 26, to request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration with respect to any vacancy to the office of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya, the Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, judges of the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, and the JAC shall, as soon as may be practicable, comply with the request in accordance with the selection process as prescribed in the regulations made under the Act.
Clearly, the selection of judges is a process that can take time.
Lastly, on the allegation that a JAC meeting was convened without the required 10-day notice, I have explained this in “Procedural flaw in JAC proceedings?”
The calls for a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) or a parliamentary select committee to investigate judicial appointments are respectfully misplaced and rightly rejected by the AGC.
On a parting note, I thought Rafizi would serve the cause that he has now undertaken if he had stayed in the Cabinet.
He could have been the Goh Keng Swee in the Madani Cabinet.
Born in Malacca in 1918, Goh Keng Swee (Dr) was an economist who served as the second deputy to Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew between 1973 and 1985 and widely recognised as one of the founding fathers of Singapore.
In his eulogy at the state funeral service for the late Goh Keng Swee, Lee Kuan Yew said:
“It was my good fortune to have strong men around me. Of all my Cabinet colleagues, it was Goh Keng Swee who made the greatest difference to the outcome for Singapore.
“He had a capacious mind and a strong character. When he held a contrary view, he would challenge my decisions and make me re-examine the premises on which they were made. As a result, we reached better decisions for Singapore.
“In the middle of a crisis, his analysis was always sharp, with an academic detachment and objectivity that reassured me. His robust approach to problems encouraged me to press on against seemingly impossible odds.”
Rafizi could have done the same to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to reach better decisions for the country.
But alas, there is only one Goh Keng Swee.
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
