In memory of Datuk George Seah – Tun Salleh Abas

Much as I wish to attend this solemn ceremony to honour my stout and good colleague, many causes prevent me from being present at this memorable occasion (held at the Kuching court complex in Petrajaya on Friday, April 25, 2014, in conjunction with the first anniversary of Datuk George Seah's passing).

I hope that this short message from me should be read and formed as part of the records of this morning court's proceedings.

I recollect that I first met the late Datuk George Seah (herein referred as the late judge) when we were students at Inns of Court back in the early 1950s. I used to come down to London from Aberystwyth in Wales, where I studied to eat dinners at my Inn.

This was then a requirement for anyone to be called to the English bar, i.e. to eat sufficient number of dinners. lt was then that we met many Malaysian students who were reading law at the bar.

Some of them were the late Datuk George Seah from Kuching, Sarawak, the late Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusof, who later became the first Malaysian Attorney General, and the late Tan Sri Sulaiman, my dear friend who later became a judge of the Supreme Court.

I came to know the late Datuk George Seah better when he moved from Kuching to Kuala Lumpur after he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court at the instance of our beloved and well-respect Lord President - the late Tun Suffian Mohamad Hashim.

It was sheer joy and an enlightening erperience for me to preside over penals of appeal when the late Datuk George Seah was a member ofthe panel.

The late judge worked hard on cases requiring our decisions. He is not a mere concurring judge when he agreed with the opinion of the majority.

He invariably wrote separate judgments. His independent mind and strong belief in the system of judicial precedent as the life and blood of law led him to write a number of dissenting opinions if he disagreed with the majority.

I have no cases on hand to illustrate what I said here, but if one reads the law report, one would discover decisions, in which the late judge either concurred with separate judgments or simply disagreed but supported by dissenting opinions.

Whatever decisions, whether right or wrong, there can be no doubt that written judgments make the law move forward and become important source of law for future litigation.

However, after the judicial crisis in 1988, the procedure changed. Oral advocacy is kept to a minimum. Written submissions which are as long as academic thesis for PhD and LLM degrees replace oral advocacy, which may be short but cogent. However, because of the length, we wonder whether a judge can have sufficient time to read and study these submissions.

Until the 1988 judicial crisis, the Malaysian judiciary enjoyed such high prestige and respect as second to none east of India. Our written judgments may not be as long and as pedantic as those of the Indian Supreme court, in any case our court was highly respected. All is not the same anymore.

The late judge was one of the six Judges who were interdicted in this infamous incident which resulted in the dismissal of three top judges.

These three were myself, the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the late Datuk George Seah. Of the six judges who were suspended, now only Tan Sri Wan Hamzah and I are still alive.

I believe Tan Sri Wan Hamzah is no longer enjoying a robust health. We all grow old and become physically weak somehow.

The bad episode in the Malaysian judiciary was caused by the executive to tame the judiciary which was perceived by the executive as interfering with its freedom of action.

The result of this action was that the public began to realise how important it is to them to have an important institution like the judiciary to protect their right from executive encroachment.

Thus, the issue of judicial independence becomes topical, being discussed by common man even in such place as coffee shops.

Although there are many requests requiring me to make comments on judicial independence, I decline because everyone has eyes to see and ears to hear. No comments from a victim of the 1988 episode is necessary as nothing can change.

As a step to move forward, we must put off the 1988 judicial episode behind us despite the fact that it keeps on haunting us from time to time. We must look for a bright future.

One lesson we learn from this is that when judicial independence is lost, it takes more than a generation (perhaps generations after generations) to restore it to its former glory. Let us not despair. We hope that the restoration would come some day..

* Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas is the former Lord President of the Federal (later Supreme) Court of Malaysia.