The Malaysian Bar
link http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/interview_with_the_chief_justice_yaa_tun_dato_seri_zaki_bin_tun_azmi_on_19/11/2009.html
Monday, 23 November 2009 01:33pm
Many members of the Bar, particularly those in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Penang and Johor Bahru, are encountering numerous problems on the ground, arising from (inter alia) the present judicial reform, in particular the introduction of the KPI and the implementation of the Tracking System for the disposal of cases in our courts (especially in the subordinate courts). A newspaper has described the lawyers as being “up in arms” on this issue.
Armed only with a pen, Yeo Yang Poh, a past president of the Malaysian Bar, interviewed the Chief Justice on 19/11/09, in order to discuss with him some of the pressing issues and problems. Also present at the interview were the Chief Judge of Malaya, YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Arifin bin Zakaria, and Christopher Leong.
The following is the interview.
Yeo: Tun, thank you for agreeing to this interview, and Tan Sri as well, and for being always accessible to the Bar. I hope that, through this interview, the Bar can have a better understanding of Tun’s thoughts and intentions concerning some pressing issues in our courts. At the same time, I will also put across some views for Tun or Tan Sri to either give an immediate response or to consider them in due course.
Tun, when I was organizing my thoughts on what questions to ask in this interview, it struck me that the easiest thing for a person in Tun’s position to do is not to introduce any drastic changes. Don’t rock the boat, and have a smooth passage through your tenure in the highest judicial position. But instead, you have chosen to do the opposite – you have chosen the hard way by introducing very drastic changes. It occurs to me that a person who chooses the hard way rather than the easy way must surely have a mission or a vision for doing that. So, I want to start by asking you what your mission or vision is.
CJ: My immediate concern, as I have said so many times in the past, is the backlog of cases. More important of the 2 types of cases, civil and criminal, are the criminal cases because they involve the liberty of individuals. Take for example those who have been charged and are waiting to be tried, or those detained under preventive detention laws and waiting for their habeas corpus to be heard. The instructions now to the High Court Judges are to dispose of habeas corpus applications within a few weeks, or a maximum of a month or so. Previously, I noticed from the records that habeas corpus cases had been postponed over and over again. I have seen records where persons had been detained up to 22 months, i.e. 2 months before their detentions would expire, before the case came up before the Federal Court. That is obviously not justice.
Then there are the cases of those who are detained pending trial. There were in March this year 1,600 capital punishment cases waiting to be tried. Some of these accused have been detained up to 6 – 7 years. Sometimes, after hearing a case, the Judge takes another couple of years to write his judgment. These are basically our concerns. Solving backlog is not as easy as a matter of just adding more judges. For example, we all know that the Criminal Bar is very limited in numbers, particularly when it involves serious crimes. In Penang, because of the heavy backlog of 270 – 280 capital punishment cases in March this year, the CJM decided to increase from 2 to 4 criminal courts there. Unfortunately, the Bar could not cope up with the increased speed, so we had to reduce it to 3 criminal courts.
The prosecution is also facing the problem of producing their witnesses, because it is the same IO who is appearing in many courts. My circular to the Judges is that a Judge should not have more than 10 part-heard cases at any one time and that applies to Sessions Court Judges as well (except for road-accident cases), because when it comes to promotion, we take that into consideration.
Clearing the backlog is not done for me, but for the public. As far as commercial cases are concerned, I am told that, if we can improve our disposal rate, that would attract investors to Malaysia.
Yeo: Members of the Bar may be interested to know what Tun’s style of leadership is. There are Chief Justices who would introduce certain reforms by just saying, “This is what we do. Like it or not, we will implement it.” Other Chief Justices may be more consultative. They would tell the Bar: “This is what I think is a good reform. I will explain to you why. If you have any views or feedback, I will listen to you and consider them.” Members would like to know which leadership style you prefer.
CJ: You can see that from what we have been doing. It is definitely the second one [the consultative style]. There is no doubt about that. First, let us talk about the tracking system. I must confess that it was the idea of the CJM together with Dato' James Foong and Dato’ Md Raus Sharif who had some experience in it during Tun Dzaiddin’s time. When he came up with the idea, I said, “Try it, let us see how it works”. If at that time you had asked us how it was going to work out in detail, I can tell you that what we had pictured was different from the way it is functioning today. This is because we change and modify as we go along.
Secondly, as far as the Bar is concerned, before we do or implement anything, we will call up the Chairman and tell him what we want to do. For example, I forewarned the Bar President and Chairman of the Selangor Bar that: “I’m going to increase the number of Judges in Shah Alam in 3 months’ time. Be ready”. Or I would say: “Tell your members we are going to increase the Judges in Penang, or Johor Bahru, by a certain number. Be ready”. Whenever the Bar President calls or messages me, “CJ, can we meet you?” I always say, “Yes, can we meet tomorrow?” We want to improve the system. In the process of implementation, I do not deny that there are difficulties. Handling human beings is the most difficult. The CJM and I may have certain ideas at the top here, but when these are passed down, the ideas or intentions may be misconstrued and misinterpreted. In fact, the Bar is now coming back to us giving specific examples about what has happened in some cases. That enables us to check and definitely correct all those misunderstandings by individual Judges and Magistrates. I think the problem is not so much with the system, but with individuals who are implementing the system.
Yeo: From what Tun has just said, both Tun and Tan Sri are very agreeable to refining the implementation process as we go along, and receiving feedback from the Bar. Therefore I take it that you would be agreeable to sit down with the Malaysian Bar and the State Bars on a very regular basis to review ongoing matters and to speedily correct obvious injustices?
CJ: Yes, in fact we’re doing this. We have already planned to go to the North and the South regionally. At first we wanted to call all the Magistrates to come to KL. But then I thought this might not work. Instead, let us see them in smaller groups. Then we can discuss specific cases. So our plan is to go to Ipoh, Johor Bahru, Penang, and meet small groups of Magistrates, Sessions Court Judges and Registrars, maybe 30-40 of them in a group so that we can discuss with them specific cases as examples. There are so many other things we want to look at, e.g. how the Registry is functioning, what difficulties the staff are facing. One Magistrate may not have enough cases, while another is overloaded.
We are looking into the dissatisfaction raised by the Bar. As I have said before, we must achieve justice. Justice is our end, not the KPI, not the clearing of backlog. If clearing backlog has to be slowed down in order to maintain justice, we have to do that. But what is happening in KL has proven that we can go for speed without sacrificing justice.
Yeo: I would like to move on to discuss specific issues. The Bar is certainly aware that in the past, cases took too long to be heard and disposed of. That is not acceptable. The Bar does not want to go back to that state of affairs. But it seems that, from that previous extreme we are jumping to the opposite extreme, which is that now cases must go on, no matter what. I must emphasize the words “no matter what”. This is the root of many problems faced by members of the Bar. Is it your intention that, no matter what, adjournments are not to be granted, even if a person is sick, even if he comes to court in a wheelchair, or if he has some other good reason?
CJM: There was a circular on postponements issued during the former CJ, Tun Hamid Omar’s time. Tun Zaki’s circular and letter must be read in the light of that earlier circular.
CJ: Not only that. At the end of the day, postponement is a matter of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion means that your decision must bring about justice. Judicial discretion means that you look into all aspects of a matter and then decide. If you simply apply one standard rule that cases must go on, then I don’t need a Magistrate to do that. I can put a clerk or a computer to make the decision.
Yeo: It is good that Tun is clarifying this issue. The Bar wishes to inform Tun and Tan Sri that what is happening on the ground everyday can be very different from what is originally intended by you. And I can see another problem. The previous situation, especially in the lower courts, was brought about because judicial discretions were sometimes exercised in the wrong fashion, i.e. postpone cases at every slight excuse. However, it is virtually the same judicial officers who are now tasked to exercise their discretion in the opposite direction, i.e. to be strict on postponements. Is there not a danger that these officers, who previously were erring in their discretion by being too relaxed, may be prone to equally err in the opposite direction now, therefore causing genuine problems on the ground?
CJM: We have to look at both sides – officers and lawyers. Lawyers have to play their part. Some of them are misleading the court and not telling the truth, e.g. not bringing their witnesses to court and giving excuses. If all lawyers are honest, we can accept their word. That was the honour of our profession in the old days. Gone are those days.
Yeo: But surely there are ways of dealing with lawyers who are not honest. When one is on the Bench or at the Bar long enough, one will be able to tell the genuine cases from the not-genuine ones. What is happening on the ground now is that discretion is frequently being erred in the other direction.
CJ: We understand that. But some lawyers “double-park” or “multiple-park”, expecting that only 1 case will go on. The courts on the other hand, also do the same. When I get daily reports, I notice Magistrates fixing 4–6 or even 10 hearings per day. Why do they do that? One Judge said that if he did not do that, his next available hearing dates would go over to the following year. I said, “So what?” Why give a hearing date knowing full well that 90% of the time the case on that day will not go on? I appreciate this, because I was in practice before.
Yeo: This is important information for the Bar. Do I summarize it correctly by saying that lawyers should not double-park, and, equally importantly, the courts should also not double-park?
CJM: Oh, yes.
CJ: As far as the courts are concerned, if we only fix (say) 2 cases, and the 2 do not go on, then the court’s time that day will be wasted. So, we have to put a bit extra. For example, for road-accident matters, the court may fix 5 cases; on that day 2 might have been settled, the others can be heard or part-heard.
CJM: In doing that, we go by the previous experience in the locality.
Yeo: The Bar would like to see the courts going in the direction where there will not be any double-parking by the courts at all. We appreciate that judicial time should be fully utilized. But we feel that, if cases are settled or vacated for the day, that day is not wasted. It can be spent by the judge writing judgments, or keeping up with the law, which are important things to do as well. Can this suggestion be considered?
CJ: That is good in theory, so long as we do not go back to what it was before, when there were very few sittings in the courts in the afternoon, despite the “multiple-parking”. It can happen once in a while. But if it happens 3 or 4 days a week, then we are going back to square one. Now the waves are shaking, like water in a cup. The water will come to a settled level, where the Bar understands the changes in the courts’ mindset, and the Bar also changes its mindset. Why is it that there is no such problem in other countries like Hong Kong? There, if you double-park, you’ll get disciplinary action immediately.
Yeo: Will Tun discuss with the Bar on how to minimise double-parking by the courts?
CJ: That is what we are doing now. We are discussing and continuing the process. But in order to do that, we have to take specific cases. We cannot just go on theory.
Yeo: Members of the Bar are not objecting to the change of mindset itself. If the courts want us to be ready for every hearing, then the courts must be able to go on with every hearing fixed. If lawyers are ready, go to the court, wait until 4:30 pm only to be told that their case cannot go on that day; that is also a waste of valuable time and resources.
CJM: We are trying to minimize that kind of situation as much as we can, by tracking. In KL now, only 1 case is fixed per Judge per day in T-track. In cases involving witnesses, 2 or 3 cases are fixed per week at the most. There is no postponement [by the court]. This will also be done in the Sessions Courts and Magistrate's Courts in due course.
CJ: In KL this has been working successfully. If it is not 100%, it is 90%. It is working well in KL. We are moving to Shah Alam, and then to Penang and Johor Bahru. Basically, it is a matter of case management. KL will be the benchmark. We can supervise the Judges easier from Putrajaya. Whatever difficulties encountered, we can iron them out so that when we move to Shah Alam, Penang and Johor Bahru, the system should be working well already. Now is the testing period.
Yeo: I would like to move on to ask Tun some questions in relation to specific scenarios.
CJ: Before you do that, I wish to stress that we’re grateful to the Bar for bringing to our attention the specific instances where the courts have not been exercising their judicial discretion properly with regard to the granting or refusal of adjournments. My circular dated 20th July 2009 must have been misconstrued by some judicial officers. The clearing of backlog of cases and the achievement of KPI cannot be at the expense of justice. Justice is fundamental. People come to court to seek justice. Each case must therefore be considered on its own merits. It is not possible to spell out in detail and individually how a Judge or judicial officer should exercise his judicial discretion. But a mature and reasonable person should know how to exercise it. I think some judicial officers have gone overboard. We will go down to the ground and discuss this issue with them.
Let us progress towards correcting and improving as we go along. Changing people’s culture and practice is surely most difficult. But once a system is implemented and found to be good, it will be accepted.
Yeo: Thank you for the assurances given. It would help if certain information are quickly disseminated to the Bar, so that members are aware of the thinking of the Judiciary. I would like to describe a few scenarios and seek your views on them. First scenario: a Judge, Magistrate or Timbalan Pendaftar is fixing a hearing date that one of the parties says is not suitable to him. That party is able to suggest other suitable dates within a reasonable time, say 2 weeks or a month from that date. In those circumstances, should a Magistrate or judicial officer still insist on fixing that unsuitable date, and say, e.g., “No, I don’t care. You must come on that day”?
CJM: I am going to the dentist at 9:00 am. I get his free date, not my free date. It is impossible for the dentist to suit everybody’s time, but as far as possible the dentist will try to accommodate your date. That is all. The court’s calendar is not determined by one counsel. We have to accommodate everybody.
Yeo: Tan Sri, I have been to dentists and doctors. I’ve always managed to get dates suitable to me.
CJ: At the end of the day, we have to get dates that are acceptable. It depends on the circumstances. If a person says it is not suitable because he has a wedding to attend; that is not a good reason. But if it is not suitable because the lawyer already has another case fixed on the same day, then it is different. You should also look at it from the courts’ perspective of wanting to sit at optimum pace. For example, last November when the Federal Court was fixing dates, many lawyers did not want a date in December because of the holidays. They also did not want a date in February, because of Chinese New Year. At the High Court I think you have to be more accommodating. If the lawyer definitely cannot come, then I think it is wrong for the Judge to fix that unsuitable date.
Yeo: The feedback we get is that this kind of problems is more serious in the lower courts. High Court Judges are more accommodating.
CJ: It is more in criminal cases. Am I right?
Yeo: Civil cases as well. We’ve got a lot of complaints about fixing of dates in civil cases too. I feel that the Bar’s request is reasonable. In the scenario I described, I did qualify it by saying that the lawyer is able to suggest alternative dates in the near future. It would be different if the lawyer comes to court and says that his next available date is 18 months later.
CJ: Let us go to the ground and explain to the Registrars on this issue.
Yeo: Can I take it that this is something that Tun and Tan Sri will go to the ground and speak to the judicial officers about, to advise them to exercise their discretion reasonably, and to avoid the fixing of dates unsuitable to the lawyers?
CJ: Yes, but not to the extent that we would be reverting to the old ways.
Yeo: We are not talking about a situation where a date had been fixed well in advance, and a lawyer on that day wants an adjournment because it is not suitable to him. We are concerned with the point of time of fixing of a hearing date for a matter. If a lawyer informs the court that the date will not be suitable, then the court should not insist on fixing that unsuitable date.
CJM: How often is this happening?
Yeo: They are more than isolated incidents, Tan Sri.
CJ: It is not right to force dates on lawyers. But there are also instances where the lawyers could be persuaded to change their other engagements. Then the lawyers should be accommodative too. Sometimes, when I ask a Registrar about such a matter, the Registrar might tell me that the date was in the end accepted by the lawyer.
Yeo: The second scenario I want to ask Tun about is this. Trial dates have been fixed, say, from 10 – 12 December. Suddenly, the Registrar calls up and asks the lawyers to come on the 8th or 9th, when those earlier dates are not suitable to the lawyers or to one of them. The lawyers are not asking for a postponement of the original dates fixed. They just cannot have the dates brought forward like that. Should not this kind of things be avoided?
CJM: That [position of the lawyer] is fair.
CJ: Those cases should be called up on a voluntary basis, because this is what we are encouraging. Assuming a Judge has finished his work for the week; he can ask the Registrar to call up the parties to come earlier.
Yeo: Surely only if the parties agree?
CJ: They involve interlocutory applications?
Yeo: Trials as well.
CJ: This is what we are encouraging in KL. Some Judges say that they are free, and have written all their judgments, so they can hear other cases.
Yeo: I will come to the next scenario. A case is fixed for, say, 3 days. By 3:00 pm of the second day, the case had proceeded faster than the parties expected. There is another witness who would be appearing on the next day, and is not in court that afternoon of the 2nd day. Should the Judge or Magistrate be saying to the lawyer that, since your next witness is not here, you must close your case now?
CJ: Unless it has been agreed upon from the beginning that you have all your witnesses from the first day itself. It depends on what the agreement is between the parties.
Yeo: Let us say that there is no agreement that all witnesses have to come on the first day and wait.
CJ: To me, if a Judge has done a good part of the job for the day, he can go and read up the MLJ and catch up with his writing of judgments.
Yeo: So, I take it that this scenario I have described should not happen?
CJ: General speaking. But again, it depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
Yeo: I understand that. To every general statement there are exceptions. But generally, that should not happen.
CJM: For example, the lawyer brings only 1 or 2 witnesses when he knows it’s not going to take the whole day. A lawyer should know how long his witness will take.
Yeo: Tan Sri, the best estimate is still an estimate. Nobody can be right on the dot about an estimate. It will also depend on how long one’s opponent takes to cross-examine a witness.
Yeo: Let me move on. We are given to understand that judicial officers have to regularly explain why they grant postponements. This, coupled with their not having to explain why they refuse postponements, gives the strong message that granting postponements is problematic for judicial officers, but refusing postponements is not. So, they become very strict, sometimes unreasonably strict.
CJ: I don’t agree that we only ask questions why they granted postponements, and not why they did not grant postponements. There are instances where we discovered that there has been unfair refusal of postponement. The CJM has stepped in, in one or two cases. What I have been doing is this. They give me daily reports. I only go into the extreme cases. I ask for feedback as to why certain cases were postponed. That is done after the event. I intend it as guidance for future exercise of discretion.
Yeo: Tun, if a member of the Bar feels that, on a particular morning, his request for postponement has been unreasonably refused, what kind of speedy remedy does he have? Filing an appeal against postponement can work satisfactorily only in an ideal world.
CJ: I am against interfering with Judges’ decisions summarily. The CJM has intervened only in 1 or 2 rare instances.
CJM: Those were criminal cases. I asked the Judge to call up the file and see if there was a need for a revision.
Yeo: What if it is a civil case?
CJM: You can appeal.
Yeo: That sounds good only in theory. Tun, some would say that what Tun is doing, although done after the event, is also an indirect way of interfering and telling or putting pressure on the judicial officer as to how to exercise his discretion next time.
CJ: It is just as a guidance, because they are not exercising their discretion properly.
Yeo: Is there any speedy mechanism that we can provide for lawyers facing unreasonable refusals of postponements?
CJ: We will be having regional meetings with Magistrates and Sessions Court Judges. These issues will be brought up and discussed. Hopefully the situation will improve.
Yeo: I would like to move on to the KPI issue. The impression given to the Bar is that the predominant factor now is the KPI, even though it is not the only factor. But the other relevant factors are more difficult to quantify. For example, you regard judicial temperament and quality of judgment as important; but it is very difficult to quantify them, unlike the giving of statistics on the number of cases disposed of. So, invariably what is left is that KPI becomes in practice the determining factor, whether so intended or not. The Bar feels that this has many drawbacks. Judges and lawyers are rushed. Careful deliberations become rushed decisions. Good Judges can also feel pressured to make hasty decisions. Judicial mindset is changed, from the desire to do justice in each and every case, to the desire to dispose of as many cases as possible. Your comments on this, please.
CJ: I think that is more of a perception. If that is what Magistrates and Sessions Court Judges are thinking, that in order to get promotion they have to clear a large number of cases, or that those who clear the most cases will be promoted, then we will go down and correct that misperception. This sort of thing cannot be done by way of circular. We have to meet them and explain to them that KPI is not the only criterion.
Yeo: The Bar observes that, on a daily basis, even good Judges who were patient and efficient now become more rushed. Good judges are pressured by KPI.
CJM: The KPI is just to set a target. Previously, we were wanderers with no target. That is all we want of the KPI.
CJ: Yes, KPI is only a target. But it does not mean that you can breach everything else in order to achieve the target.
[Yeo thanked the CJM, who left at this stage for a prior engagement]
Yeo: Tun, it really boils down to what the main objective is, doesn’t it? If the main objective is just to reduce backlog, I have no doubt it will be achieved. But the question is at what cost, or what is the sacrifice? I know Tun has said many times that justice cannot be sacrificed in the wish to reduce the statistical numbers of backlog cases. That is well and good. Unfortunately, when this message is translated everyday on the ground, it does not get correctly carried some of the times.
I get the feeling that there is an underlying sentiment that, if something works 90% of the time, and will improve in future, then it should be acceptable. In many types of reform, this is the case. Temporary, short-term inconvenience is an acceptable price for the longer-term benefits. Unfortunately, the same cannot apply to a justice system. Allow me to illustrate using an analogy. Say, there is a road construction or repair that will go on for 2 years. I suffer the resultant traffic jams for 2 years, but I know that, along with many others, I will benefit from the highway in time to come. A justice system is different. Most people who come to seek justice in court have only one case in their entire lifetime. It will not help him if, 5 years later, everything is tip-top. If injustice is done to his case because of the “repair period”, that’s it for him. The harm will not be compensated later, even if everything is up and running in a near-perfect fashion.
That being the case, can Tun please drive home the point to all Judges and Magistrates, that although clearing the backlog is a very noble and important priority, it is not as important as, and it must come second to, doing justice to each and every case?
CJ: Yes, we are going to have regional meetings. The CJM will go to Penang on Friday. Dato' James Foong is going to Johor Bahru on Monday or Tuesday next week. On top of that, we will have other regional meetings and continue this part of the education. Maybe it is because there is a sudden change from one mode to another. In any organisation or system, when you suddenly change the system, it takes some time for people to accept the changes.
Chris: Tun mentioned that the KPI is not the sole criterion. For the record, what are the other criteria?
CJ: Quality of work, quality of judgments, judicial temperament. If a judge keeps on scolding people, making wrong decisions, or refusing postponements on the wrong grounds, then he is not suited to be a Judge or a judicial officer.
Chris: The present perception is that KPI is everything, that the whole system is driven by KPI.
CJ: We’ll go down and explain. Also, the KPI is a reasonable target. It is not as if the target is 5 hearings per day. There has been some misunderstanding along the line.
Yeo: I hope Tun would be able to publish the KPI figures.
CJ: We can do that. The KPI is not an unreasonable target. It was set at the meeting in Langkawi, and everybody agreed that it was a reasonable KPI. It also does not mean that if a Judge cannot meet his KPI, he will be sacked tomorrow. We will look into other things.
Yeo: What happens to a Judge who is good in many ways, who is fair, who is patient in listening, who is thorough and takes a bit more time to go into the law and the facts of every case, but who as a result does not complete as many cases as the KPI would like; will he be considered less efficient than, or not as good as, other Judges who make it their top priority to meet their KPI?
CJ: We look at other factors as well, like whether a judge is trying his best, his integrity, and so on. It is not just the KPI.
Yeo: I would like to move to the next topic: managing the justice system. Tun, you bring with you very valuable experience from the corporate sector. However, would you agree with me that there are important differences between managing a corporation and managing the justice system? For example, a lot of strong corporate leaders are very tough drivers and taskmasters. A CEO who says, “This is the target. I don’t care how you do it, but you must do it”, may be considered a good CEO. Can the same method be appropriate in managing a justice system?
CJ: I cannot do that, and I don’t do that. But I do make changes. For example, if I ask a Managing Judge how many cases he has in his court, and he cannot give me the answer, or gives a totally wrong answer, then I will change the Managing Judge.
Yeo: The success of a corporation is easy to measure. If you provide services or goods, and your business improves, turnover is higher, more people prefer your products, then your corporation is successful. Similarly, the success of a justice system must depend on the opinions of its consumers. A justice system has 2 types of consumers. The direct consumers are the lawyers, prosecutors, etc. The ultimate consumers are the people. Therefore, would Tun agree that it is very important that whatever reform is introduced, it must be guided by the feedback of the people? For example, the people may agree that clearing backlog is good, but they may not want it if the price is that they are not getting justice in the process of change. If this happens, the reform, or its implementation, would be counter-productive.
CJ: Yes, I know. I’m fully aware of that.
Yeo: Then, Tun, would you gear your reforms with that constantly in mind, i.e. bearing in mind that the more important task is how to make sure that all your judicial officers understand perfectly that meting out justice in every case is more important?
CJ: That is why we have regular meetings and conferences. I totally agree. I keep telling my Judges and officers that we are working for the Rakyat. Without the Rakyat, they won’t get their salaries or their jobs. I tell them that they must strive to be part of an organization that the people will respect. Don’t make bad decisions.
Yeo: That being the case, would you agree to have regular and constant feedback from the Bar, including on things like judicial temperament and good judgments, about which members of the Bar collectively can give the best assessment? Would you be happy to meet the Bar on a very regular basis for these purposes?
CJ: Yes, I don’t mind meeting the Bar regularly, say, every other month. All you need to do is to message me or call my Secretary. Meetings would probably have to be in the evenings or towards the end of the week. I look forward to meeting the Bar to sort out problems that may arise from time to time, as we have been doing. Your Chairman can assure you of this. I can also assure the Bar that I am not an unreasonable person and neither is the CJM. I’m always ready to hear the Bar’s grievances. There is no need for an EGM to draw my attention. A meeting is more beneficial.
Yeo: Can Tun encourage the Judges in the States to do that as well?
CJ: State Bar Committees are most welcome to meet me at any time. All they need to do is to call my Secretary, and I’ll fix a date. I’ll bring along the PCA and CJM as well. As far as the local Judges are concerned, I also encourage the Managing Judge to meet the State Bar Committee to iron out problems before they get blown out of proportion.
Yeo: About getting feedback from members of the Bar; sometimes there is a real problem that members encounter when they are required to identify and reveal particulars of specific cases or incidents. They fear that, after that, they might be victimised by the officer involved.
CJ: If they don’t identify the case or incident, how do I investigate? If I get one side of the story, I have to investigate and hear the other side as well. That is why I need the particulars. Take for example the incident brought to my attention yesterday.
Yeo: Yes, that serves as a good example. How do you protect a person who is victimized as a result of bringing a matter or an incident to your attention?
CJ: We will take the necessary action.
Yeo: It has to be very strong action, Tun. Otherwise members of the Bar will not be willing to come forward in future. In my view, taking retaliatory action against someone who has made a complaint is judicial misconduct. When found to be the case, the officer deserves the strongest disciplinary action. For example, a mere transfer to another place is ineffective. He can continue the same kind of conduct there. A member of the Bar places his trust on you, Tun, when he provides the particulars. If only something mild or ineffective is done, not only will he not come forward in future, other members will not as well.
CJ: I have told Magistrates publicly at the Raja Chulan meeting last April that, if somebody complains against them and I check on them, and then they go after that person or complainant, I’ll come after them.
Yeo: If effective action is taken, everybody will come to know about it. Then more people will be prepared to come forward and cooperate. The system will be improved. Good measures will not be tarnished because of bad implementation.
Chris: And lawyers will have more confidence in the system.
CJ: I will take stern action.
Yeo: Thank you very much, Tun, for this interview. Because of time constraints, we have to end here. There are in fact other questions and matters which we would love to have been able to discuss and explore with you; perhaps another time. We welcome Tun’s assurance of a consultative approach, and we hope the process will continue and intensify
