Why Tengku Maimun matters

Not enough has been written about Tengku Maimun (above) - her appointment as Chief Justice of Malaysia is a big deal.

When Lady Hale was appointed as President of the UK Supreme Court 2 years ago, the unanimous reaction from the UK public was “Finally!”

The UK is our favourite country of reference for astounding developments, mature values, and exemplary governance. Even then, it took the UK hundreds of years before they had their first female judge to helm the highest court of the land.

Lady Hale used to attribute the lack of female judges to an “awful lot of unconscious assumptions and judgments”. The years of denying women’s rights in politics, judiciary, government, and society convinced the mind that it is unnatural to see a woman appointed to great power.

Universities, columnists, and activists have highlighted the issue of gender diversity in the judiciary for a long time. My former law lecturer was one of them. When she heard that the prominent millionaire Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption asked women to “not rush” gender diversity at the judicial bench, my lecturer was so infuriated she couldn’t teach the whole day. She brought out argument after argument to show why Lord Sumption’s resistance against gender diversity was flawed, myopic, and regressive, and she wrote several journal articles criticising such backward thinking.

My point: the UK took hundreds of years with tonnes of debates and a lot of public pressure before they had their first female judge sitting at the highest level. And it took a person like Lady Hale — a Cambridge-educated, academic-barrister-law reformer, an intellectual and behavioural superior, a repeated glass ceiling breaker (first female Supreme Court judge, first family judge in Supreme Court, first ever female law lord in the House of Lords) — to do so. This struggle for a progressive gender diversity agenda is surprisingly common in developed countries.

If we contrast that to Malaysia, we have skipped many years ahead compared to others. We have elevated a traditionally disenfranchised group and that is bound to have a positive impact on the cultural values of our society as a whole.

Awesome power

This is why Tengku Maimun’s appointment matters.

First, although a first female CJ will not strike as loud a public chord as a first female PM, the power of a CJ mustn’t be underestimated.

The judiciary is one of the three main branches of government, besides the executive and the legislature. Some in the legal circle would even argue that the judiciary yields the greatest power in bringing changes to society because changes in the law could be done without the vagaries and fluctuation of politics and elections.

As CJ, a woman will now be primarily involved in the appointment and dismissal of judges - ensuring at least any residual gender discrimination in the appointment and dismissal process is removed. This, and many other functions that a female CJ holds, will have a ripple effect on how our culture sees equality.

A system that is deprived of cultural bias will encourage people within the system to make fairer decisions. 

The existence of a female CJ will also have a symbolic effect in inspiring other key decision-making roles to also be fairer in treating minorities of all kinds.

The democratic value of the country would then make sense. Democracy would only thrive if it actively considers the place of minorities.

The dark clouds of 1988

Two, we can’t ignore the elephant in the room. The public perception of the judiciary has never recovered since 1988. In fact, it has worsened in many respects - no one truly believes the Palace of Justice dispenses justice anymore.

The appointment of a female CJ has a positive effect in partially retrieving the lost reputation of the judiciary by proving that it’s fair, egalitarian, and progressive.

The best thing about Tengku Maimun’s appointment is that she was appointed not because she was a woman. Unlike the UK, there was no public pressure or call from within to appoint a female judge to solve the problem of diversity. Tengku Maimun was selected on her own merits. 

If that’s the case, it shows the system for selection is not biased. That will positively impact how the people see the judiciary.

Besides that, Tengku Maimun is also in a powerful position to mitigate the remnants of 1988. Past CJs had all stated their goal of instilling judicial independence and reinstating public confidence, but they had all fallen short. In the end, most of them had simply pushed for administrative achievements and procedures in their rush to leave some kind of legacy.

The head of judiciary in other countries had always taken the opportunity to implant their judicial philosophy throughout their tenure. They set judicial direction with progressive decisions, influenced their bench, and promoted certain constitutional principles as central to the system. 

Tengku Maimun has the power to make such big gestures that would be a quicker route to inspire confidence in the masses — to feel that the judiciary is moving upwards.

Pockets of hope

Three, Tengku Maimun’s appointment matters because it proves that positive changes can be made and many things are worth fighting for.

I’m impressed by how there was an absence of violent opposition against her appointment.

Of course, this may be due to a lack of knowledge of the powerful position a CJ holds; but I want to believe there was a general acceptance in our community for a first female CJ.

These are the pockets of hope. Amidst backwardness and disappointments, amidst the rise of ethno-populism in this country, we still managed to make progress faster than other countries. The quiet progress that pushes our conscience forward is not worth any less than the louder ones.

If we are reminded of the progress that’s possible in these little pockets of hope, then this Malaysian project may be worth it.

---

JAMES CHAI works at a law firm. E-mail him at jameschai.mpuk@gmail.com - Mkini