kkitsam was in court this morning on Day Three of the RPK trial and sends us this report:
I was there this morning. First time to court. Arrived there very early at 7.45am, wearing the uniform “I am with RPK”. The crowd grew bigger by the minute. From my chat with Marina, she said the cards sent to RPK on which were written “No to ISA” would not be passed to him. So from now on, I’m going to avoid that.
Our hero RPK arrived at around 8.30am. The crowd was happy to see him; some even said it’s better for him to be in court rather than in the Kamunting cell. I got to squeeze into the court room, and by 8.40am, the room was full, with many others standing at the back.
The trial started a bit late, at around 9.15am. In between, many people wished RPK, and Marina got to hold him as well. Of all the journalists there, only one reporter interviewed RPK (the only one foreign reporter) while the rest of them just sat there waiting for the trial to start. A few MPs came today – Ronnie Liu, followed by Lau Weng San – and surprisingly at 10.10am, Anwar and Azizah came in as well, much to the delight of RPK.
The trial took a break for 15mins at 10.25am, and I called it a day, went to work! Forgot to mention, during the trial, people were going out and others were coming in, non-stop. I guess there must have been around a hundred people, with 50 squeezed in the small room and others waiting outside for their turn to support RPK. A good show of support from all. Thank you everyone, a great day.
During the break, blogger Surind got a chance to meet RPK up close:
Meeting him today… for the first time after he had been ISAed… was enough to make tears come to my eyes and for me to drop my guard… for a while.
I had to step to the side after hugging him and looking him in the eye because I did not want him to see me emotional and to see my teary eyes and weakened facial expression. I could not speak for a while because I knew my voice would give away what was going on inside me.
Rakyat@Work takes up the story after the break:
Arrived at 10.30am. A crowd surged out of the court, cameras clickling away and I saw a journalist trip over. Something’s happening!
My word, the man himself – it was Anwar! He was rushing. A thought flashed through my mind: he’s supposed to be at Duta, right? I say, that’s why he’s rushing off.
It sure was a morale boster. I hope Anwar’s presence satisfies some queries about his support for RPK. Despite Anwar’s own tight schedule and a court case at Duta, he still made it a point to visit RPK; what more can one ask of him? Have faith, people. Be patient, and more importantly, don’t let anyone shake your commitment.
While the hearing is on, due to the packed court room, some other supporters were sitting out on benches in the compound. From a distance, it looked as if a group of people was waiting for some kind of cruise ship. I called it a “Cruise to A New Nation”. Shared that thought with two other ladies, and we jokingly agreed – just like searching for new freedom in a new nation.
“POWER! People’s Power!” said Marina, as she emerged from the court house at about 12.15pm today. She spoke with conviction and no doubt, she meant it. She is more determined than ever to secure not only the freedom of RPK but she knows in her heart, it also means freedom for the rakyat (that’s my own personal impression).
More energy and vibes could be felt around the compound today. Marina’s family and close friends ended the day with an interview carried out by a foreign media station.
Surind rounds off the day:
After the proceedings were over for the day, we said our goodbyes… and as the police were taking Raja Petra back in the van, RPK’s supporters and I stood by the gate with our two large banners, shouting “Free Raja Petra!” and words of encouragement and support. We could not see inside the van because of the tinted windows, but I knew he would have been smiling and waving to us
Related posts:
21st Oct 2008
JUDICIAL INDEPDENCE – BRIBERTY, CORRUPTION
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
I forward herewith Press briefing by Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, President of Transparency International Malaysia (TI-Malaysia), on the judicial independence survey done in Malaysia.
Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) is an independent, non-governmental and non-partisan organisation committed to the fight against corruption. The organisation is committed to the achievement of a socially just and equitable society within a sustainable, plural democracy that is free of corruption. TI-M will, as the lead national anti-corruption organisation, promote the culture of zero corruption in public service, the private sector and civil society through advocacy, education, information and research.
INTRODUCTION
A RECENT survey by Transparency International Malaysia (TI-Malaysia) conducted among the members of the Malaysian Bar Council revealed that the Malaysian judiciary has yet to see the beginning of the end to the popularly-held opinion that influence from outside plays a key role in the operations and decisions of the Courts.
The survey found that the overall perception is quite negative and unforgiving.
The Malaysian judiciary came under harsh criticism from among the 339 respondents, with only 1% of the interviewees holding the judiciary in high esteem. The majority of between 209 and 317 (between 62% and 96%) held a very low opinion of the judiciary.
The survey was done between March and April 2008. A questionnaire was prepared and distributed to the Malaysian Bar Council members via e-mail. The members printed out the questionnaire, answered it and sent it back to TI-Malaysia.
Below are the 10 questions asked during the survey to gauge the current situation in the Malaysian judiciary.
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Q: In your opinion, is the judicial process in the High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in Malaysia (the superior courts) free from influence from the executive or legislative branches of government?
The Report on JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE referred to two Judicial sectors: (i) the Superior Courts comprising the High Court, Court of Appeals and the Federal Court; and (ii) the Inferior Courts or the Sessions Courts and Magistrates’ Courts.
The Superior Courts were, according to survey participants, often subjected to undue influence (48%); mostly subjected to undue influence (25%); or always subjected to undue influence (18%) from the Government or any other sources.
The respondents seemed to have a better opinion of the Inferior Courts. (i) 40% – often subjected to undue influence; (ii) 20% – mostly subjected to undue influence; and (iii) 14% – always subjected to undue influence.
91% of the respondents rated that the Superior Courts were subjected to “undue influence”, whereas only 74% were of the same opinion about the Inferior Courts.
What could have held back the 17% in the Inferior Courts from succumbing to the undue influence?
Perhaps many of the respondents, being young and still instilled by honour and enthusiasm to do their duty to King and Country, have resisted, or that they had not tasted the fruits of undue influence.
BRIBERY and CORRUPTION
Q: In your opinion, is the judicial process in the subordinate courts in Malaysia free from undue influence?
The perception on BRIBERY and CORRUPTION, according to the poll, was that many opined that the Courts (both Superior and Inferior) were susceptible to bribes that could secure favourable judgments.
46% thought the judiciary was:
(i) often subjected to such influence; while
(ii) 33% thought it was mostly subjected to such influence; and
(iii) another 15% thought the judiciary was always subjected to such influence.
1% and 5% of the respondents felt that the judiciary was being very free and being mostly free from such influence, respectively.
With regards to clients asking if judges would accept bribes, the response was as follows:
26% of the respondents had never been asked such a question by their clients.
Those who were asked: (i) very rarely, 12%; (ii) sometimes, 40% (iii) often, 14%.
8% said the majority of their clients asked such a question.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCIPLINE
Q: In your view, is there effective accountability and oversight of the judiciary?
Concerning ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCIPLINE, one can feel rather uncomfortable as there was no indication whether both were conjunctive or disjunctive.
(i) Are there systems in place for judges to be accountable for their conduct?
(ii) Are there mechanisms to deal with judiciary misconduct?
1% (4 respondents) believed there were effective mechanisms and 3% (9 respondents) thought adequate mechanisms were in place.
27% (93 respondents) of those who responded said the mechanisms needed improvement.
2%, or 6 respondents, held no opinion.
But 67%, or 227 respondents, felt that there was a serious problem which should be addressed.
Still, the answers could not be taken literally that judges were accountable for their (mis)conduct. Reforms are suggested for this part on accountability and discipline.
Q: The final question was asked to further gauge the perception on the Malaysian judiciary, especially when compared with other countries.
The judiciary was further put in bad light when it was compared with better judiciaries in other countries.
There was the 1% (4 respondents), who believed our judiciary was comparable with the best in other countries.
They were supported by 11 persons (slightly more than 3% of respondents), who thought our judiciary was ‘sufficiently qualified given our state of development’.
2 respondents held no opinion.
96 people (28%) considered that the judiciary was in need of improvement.
A huge majority of 226 respondents (67%) said the judiciary was facing serious problems, which need to be addressed.
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
Q: Do you feel there are effective mechanisms in place to deal with judicial misconduct?
Roughly 1% (3 respondents) was of the view that the APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES was very independent, while 3% (9 respondents) believed that the appointment of judges was mostly independent.
The others, comprising 70 (20%) and 93 (28%) respondents, differed in their opinion that the process was: (i) often subjected to undue influence; and (ii) mostly subjected to undue influence.
In addition, there were 162 (48%) who held the view that the process was always influenced and, therefore, not independent.
It can be assumed that perception(s) may or may not be real and those who responded may or may not have had direct contacts with the judges.
It can also be assumed that many could have obtained their information from the Main Stream Media (MSM) and the Alternative Media (AM) and, therefore, could have been influenced by the blogs or complaints published in the newspapers.
CONCLUSION
The results of the survey clearly reflect the negative view of the legal fraternity on the integrity of the judiciary. Therefore, to eliminate any weaknesses and restore confidence in the judiciary, significant measures to reform the judiciary need to be carried out, and TI-Malaysia welcomes the Prime Minister’s commitment to reform the judiciary before he leaves office in March 2009 and calls on civil society to also support the PM on this measure.
These findings will also encourage further research into the impact of corruption on the Malaysian judiciary.
** Analysis done based on the premised statistics supplied.
** The survey was facilitated by the Malaysian Bar Council.
Dr. Hamid Ibrahim
xxx
see also: JUDGES AND JUDICIAL ACCUNTABILITY – Edited by Dr.
Cyrus Dass and K Chandra
Published by Printworks: email: zimolen@yahoo.com
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0