Set up a judicial commission on appointments and promotion of judges to bring transparency and confidence back into the system.

This was the unified response when malaysiakini spoke to Malaysian Bar presidents past and present in light of past and current controversies that have surfaced in the country.

The 1988 judicial crisis which saw the executive's interference resulting in the sacking of three Supreme Court judges has been earmarked as the turning point for the plummet in public faith in the judiciary.

Recent allegations that Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had promoted incompetent judges who have bypassed more senior judges have made the situation worse.

Despite all this, can a judicial commission on appointments and promotions restore public confidence in the judiciary once again? Here are their views:

Param Cumaraswamy (Malaysian Bar president 1986-1988) - The Chief Justice (Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim) in the past has been defensive when calling for an independent mechanism for judicial recommendations and promotions. He was quite protective of the powers vested in him to recommend judges for appointments and promotions. We know the calibre of some of those judges promoted (by him).

We lawyers know that there are better or equally good judges not considered for judicial promotions. Judges can not longer sit on their laurels and seek protection because they are insulated from being questioned about their conduct. Judges must remember that they are also accountable to the public.

Who does the CJ consult and what's the criteria, nobody knows. Judicial appointments are left in the hand of one person where as other countries have moved on to set up judicial commission. No matter how imminent a CJ can be, he would have his cronies lobbying (for a particular candidate). This is what we need to avoid. The public has a right to know the procedure in public appointments.

S Theivanthiran (1989-1991) - I agree that we should have a judicial commission, unlike those days where judges and lawyers were few and consultation was easier. Now we have 12,000 lawyers in the country. The selection can be more transparent. We may have judges writing 100 judgments but are not behaving properly. That's not fair for the lawyers. The CJ doesn't know how the judges are behaving and this frustrates the lawyers.

I was the Bar president when Salleh Abas (left) was sacked with Wan Suleiman and George Seah. The overlap between the executive and judiciary has been present ever since the Salleh Abas issue. I believe the public's confidence in the judiciary will return if respectable judges are appointed into the Chief Justice, President and Chief Judge positions.

The relationship between the Bar and the CJ used to be very good. We could share and exchange views over a cup of tea. Anytime we had a problem, we would sit down and talk but now there is no access and communication. You can't help but wonder what went wrong.

Zainur Zakaria (1993-1995) - Public confidence in the judiciary is not too good. In fact, the confidence in the entire government is very low. Just look at the newspaper reports about the government's shortcomings, indecisions and slow action to address corruption and mismanagement.

(It is because) the current appointments and promotions system is shrouded in secrecy that people are not happy and they doubt the system because their expectations are not met. If you have a system that displays a degree of transparency, it would satisfy all criticisms. That's why we need a judicial commission.

A judicial commission would act as a check and balance. At the moment we don't know how it is done. There is no reason why the judiciary shouldn't look into this possibility (of having a judicial commission). It is because we don't know the reason for these appointments that we're speculating (on the criteria on appointment and promotion).

RR Chelvarajah (1999-2000) - The current system is not transparent and those deserve to be promoted based on their input in the judiciary is not reflected in the judicial appointments. An independent judicial commission would repose confidence in the judiciary after the great slide in 1987. The confidence of lawyers and the public are reflected in articles and editorials written in newspapers. The judiciary must be repackaged to make it acceptable again.

Even if a good judge was promoted, he can be tarnished with just one brush. This is where we need a commission, then members of the commission or the Bar would be able to freely express their views.

Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari (2003-2005) - It is high time for a commission to be set up on the appointment and promotion of judges. Although our constitution is based on the British model, other Commonwealth countries following them have moved on (to set up a judicial commission). What we need is transparency and accountability and it would be good for the institution to have this commission.

I would say one just has to look at the law reports and see the absence of written judgments and the standard of written judgments, the fact will speak for themselves. Back then when I was the Bar president, we saw so many judges bypassed (by less senior judges) and it wasn't fair for them. The Bar Council has always looked at seniority as a indicator because we don't know their criteria.

I don't think the judiciary has recovered from the 1988 crisis because the perception of the judiciary's independence in those days was high. People would look at the list of judges and think it was quite independent but after the judicial crisis, the public perception has indeed taken a bashing.

Yeo Yang Poh (2005-2007) - It is certain that the criteria is not made known and it appears to be subjective and not transparent. Judicial appointments should be made by a group of people and not by one person. One person can be infallible because of prejudices but a decision made by a group can balance that out. However, if we don't know the criteria and mechanisms, then seniority becomes the best yardstick.

When things are done in an undisclosed manner, the real reasons are never known. The real reason can be good or bad because we do not know so this gives rise to perception. Some decisions in cases may not be all we think it is. Confidence is all about perception. The perception caused by leapfrogging and non-transparent process breeds speculation.

Until there is a judicial commission, there is no other way but to look at their judgements and listen to statements how judges giving delayed judgements are being promoted. A judge's temperament should be based on the Bar's finding as we deal with these judges everyday but because the Bar is not consulted on this matter makes it a joke.

Ambiga Sreenevasan (current Bar president) - Having a Judicial commission is absolutely the way to go as seen being done in other jurisdictions. I believe the judiciary is not adverse to this idea. This commission will most certainly remove the mystery that surrounds the current appointment and promotion system. In particular there would be clear guidelines and greater transparency - I can't see one single objection that the judiciary may have about the formation of a judicial commission.

The CJ has said they will look into setting up such a commission and I think the judiciary would be responsive. I can tell you that there has been changes. There has been dialogue and positive developments in the past three weeks to a month. One of the positively development was when the CJ invited us to Sarawak to see the digital courts. It was very encouraging.

We are lawyers and we are consumers of the system. We know the good judges from the bad. We have not been consulted about appointments and promotions for a long time. We are the best persons to know if a judge is hardworking. Like when it comes to judicial temperament - there are cases where judges treat lawyers badly. Yes they have a right to tick off an unprepared lawyer but sometimes they are downright rude.