Is it because they were twisting to Chubby Checker’s song with a certain liberal lawyer? Or because other activist lawyers were also there?
Camaraderie between the Bar, the bench and the executive can be an indication of a healthy and strong bond between those involved in the justice system.
But over-socialising and fraternising can negate all that and instead be problematic, bringing into question the issue of independence and integrity especially of the judiciary. That is why you have the famous saying, “Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
The question asked is: how could those who were twisting be said to have compromised the independence and integrity of their offices and position? They are, after all, human and life is to be lived. To quote the great US judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr: “As life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived.”
However, even that US judge acknowledged that a man will be judged by his conduct.
Isn’t it true and relevant that the august offices of the chief justice, the justices and the AG will be judged by how they behave publicly? Was it appropriate that they should be seen dancing away, not only within their own fraternity and with their benchers, but also with various controversial figures including Siti Kasim?
Some are even questioning why Siti Kasim was there at the Sabah and Sarawak legal dinner. She is not a Sabah or Sarawak lawyer. She has no position in the administration of justice. So why was she given such prominence at the centre of the stage?
As someone who challenges religious authorities, her presence there raised concern among the conservatives that the civil benchers and the AG are openly endorsing such personalities as this was an affront to the majority Malay-Muslim population.
Why provoke such thoughts?
No law or rule may have been broken. Lawyers will argue that there is no breach of the Judges Code of Ethics, either. But what is the intention of all these rules or ethics on conduct and behaviour of judges and even certain very senior public office holders?
Isn’t it to instil respect, dignity and confidence? Did their behaviour therefore bring into disrepute their offices?
One can argue till the cows come home but whether we like it or not, judges and the AG are not normal positions in our system and society. They are expected to behave with a certain restraint, dignity and wisdom befitting their role. The issue boils down to appropriateness of conduct.
It did not help that the chairman of the AAS, Ranbhir Singh Sanggha, issued an arrogant statement that next year he will organise a dance competition involving the judges and these other personalities. These are statements to challenge the critics. Where is the wisdom in that?
Is it not better for the organisers, the CJ and AG to just issue a polite apology, not for twisting, but for having caused Malaysians to be divided on this matter?
It was not too long ago that former federal Treasury secretary, Irwan Serigar, was seen in a video prancing on stage. He was severely criticised although he was just trying to connect with the younger audience whom he was trying to inspire at that talk.
The dancing skills of our judges on stage and the AG is another topic altogether.
This episode only reaffirms that the impending vacancies at the Federal Court including the top positions of the CJ, Court of Appeal president, CJ of Malaya, and CJ of Sabah and Sarawak should be filled by newer blood instead of being extended. The vacancies should be filled by newer judges including those from the outside.
There are many prominent candidates like justice Hamid Sultan. There may be more suitable lawyers from within and outside the government, so long as they do not get twisted like these twisting justices.
Mazlan Arif is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.