COMMENT | Missing the point in judicial intimidation, interference

COMMENT | I came across an opinion piece by former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad dated May 7, 2022, bearing the title ‘Judiciary intimidated: The other view’, on the controversies surrounding the MACC’s announced investigation of a sitting judge.

The article appears to group together the views expressed thus far by the current Chief Justice, the Chief Registrar, the Bar Council, two DAP leaders, newspaper The Edge, and constitutional expert Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi (whom I will, for convenience, refer to as “the six parties”), into what its author terms “a one-sided view on the issue”. The article queries and rebuts some of the views publicly expressed by one or more of the six parties.

I obviously do not speak for any of the six parties. Nor is it the case that my views and my reasoning on these matters will necessarily or perfectly coincide with theirs. I also do not regard all of their views to be homogenous or “one-sided”.

In the article, the former CJ seems to suggest, or imply, that one or more of the six parties have taken certain positions, or have made certain arguments. Again, it is not my place to speak on their behalf as to whether those are truly their positions.

What I am able to say is...