Two decades after Johor Baru MP Shahrir Abdul Samad put up a one-man protest in Parliament over the sacking of Lord President Salleh Abas, has the judiciary gone backwards?

He shares his take in the first of a three-part interview.

Malaysiakini: You feel very strongly about the judiciary - so strongly that you refused to take the oath as MP in 1988 before the Dewan Rakyat Speaker Mohamed Zahir Ismail because he had sat on the tribunal that recommended the sacking of Salleh Abas as lord president. You were asked to leave the House because of that.

Shahrir: I feel very strongly about the judiciary. I don't think it was a right thing to do (to sack Salleh). To impeach the man for what? So I didn't get up to take my oath before Tun Zahir because he was a member of the tribunal, I did my part. When they called my name, I didn't get up, then they told me to go home - okay-lah, it was a protest.

But you did take the oath 16 days later.

I had to or I would have lost the (Johor Baru) seat and (let down) my voters.

What has changed since then, in relation to the judiciary? Some say things have become worse.

The (move to) impeach Salleh, to me, was a very serious step. To do it without having all the necessary strong reasons to make that move, that's the failure of the system - because once you damage it, it's not easy to get it back...

I believe there are some judges who think they still have to be over-conservative or over-protective of the government, rather than justice. This repercussion is unfortunate but I supposed we have to wait and see whether (there will be) changes after this.

Maybe judges don't know what's happening because by the nature of the judiciary, they don't get involved (with other matters) and just look into the law, so they think they are still in 1988. [Laughs]

How can this problem be fixed apart from appointing the right people to the Bench?

It's not very easy - (how do we do this) without executive interference, without parliamentary interference... How do we fix it? [Laughs]

Does it all boil down to the prime minister being too powerful?

Not, the prime minister is trying not to interfere, I blame him for not interfering sometimes.

What is your view on setting up a judicial commission to deal with appointment of judges?

(The problem is) who will get on the judicial commission?

Would you support the idea?

Maybe it will not be a permanent path but it's (a way) to get the system back [...] It's really more of a problem of culture and personality, which has caused the judiciary to be held in a position of some disrepute.

I hope that this culture can be dismantled if the personalities who are now occupying the judiciary understand that things have to change and try to go back (to how it used to be).

It's imperative (to have) an independent and strong judiciary. It's something necessary for the country, particularly (to have a body) that is clean and fearless in making decisions - because it has come to a quite ridiculous stage where people can predict the decisions that are being made.

Are you surprised to hear about the video clip on alleged fixing of judicial appointments?

I would like to see the matter being investigated (to find out) what actually happened. Nobody knows - it may just be a little 'show' by the lawyer in the clip. The Bar Council needs to call the concerned lawyer and get his explanation to check on what happened, this is what the council can do.

If (mentions of) fixing cases are bad enough, fixing appointments will be worse.

You are saying everything in the judiciary has gone wrong since the sacking of Salleh?

Yes, once the system is tampered with for some frivolous reason, the repairs may take a long time to happen. You will need another generation (to see the effects).


Related report: Judicial hangover from 1988 crisis