I read about Mohtar Abdullah's appointment as a Federal Court judge with a potent mixture of helplessness and sorrow, but not shock or surprise because I knew chief justice Mohd Dzaiddin's appointment did not come without strings attached. And Mohtar's appointment now confirms my initial suspicions that Dzaiddin's appointment might merely be a public relations exercise just like the Human Rights Commission.

I am not doubting Dzaiddin's capabilities as I am sure that he is all we think he is - clean, dependable, reasonably independent and intelligent. But he only has two years to carry out the necessary reforms to "rejuvenate the judiciary". He is lucky if he manages to reset the foundations right again, but it is just as crucial to oversee these reforms.

Mohtar's appointment is a breach of the Rule of Law (which really is fiction in this country). The Attorney-General is a position in the executive (and a very powerful position at that) and for the man who until recently held the position to be appointed in the highest court of the judiciary is just wrong. With his appointment at such a young age compared with the rest of the Federal Court bench, it would appear that he might be on the road to becoming the next Chief Justice.

Secondly, there is a question of "protocol". A judge must follow the proper path. Therefore, he must first be a very senior judicial and legal officer or reputable lawyer of senior standing before being appointed as a High Court judge (it goes without saying that he must be of a very high moral and intellectual standing). After a few years he can then be elevated to the Court of Appeal and finally to the Federal Court. He may be elevated quickly but must not be allowed to "jump" from one court to the other as it will give rise to a perceived favouritism (even if none is present).

An example of this would be Haidar who was elevated quickly probably because of his judicial abilities. However, Mohtar was last a High Court judge (a retired one at that). I think his appointment is highly inappropriate especially in light of the fact when there were so many other more capable judges that should have been elevated, the most outstanding one being KC Vohrah who is also one of the most senior and capable judges in the country, but remains a High Court judge.

Thirdly, a judge, I was told by a former Federal Court judge in the "old days", as they so fondly like to refer to the pre-1988 crisis, had to be like Caesar's wife, i.e., "above suspicion". Judges were rigorously investigated for any impropriety, and opinions from various people and bodies were canvassed before they were even considered. They cannot be controversial or even be perceived to be improper. I think that's why we had such great judges, in the "old days", like Abdoolcader, Hashim Yeop Sani, Tun Suffian, Tun Azmi, Raja Azlan, Chang Min Tat, Wan Suleiman, Ajaib Singh ... Mohtar Abdullah was controversial in his service as Attorney-General and there is widespread perception (rightly or wrongly) that he is not like Caesar's wife. And on that score alone, I think he should not have been appointed.

These three factors add up to show that in appointing Mohtar, the government was not serious about rejuvenating the judiciary and, therefore, this country.

What the government has shown is that it is getting slightly better at the public relations game for the more uncritical and unthinking public (which I hope are decreasing) and also has the unfortunate effect of widening the yawning chasm of cynicism and deepening the distrust that the more critical and thinking public have of the present government.