My unlikely mentor in social justice and rule of law

 

Who is a mentor?

He is someone who supports, advises, and guides you in your personal or professional development, who helps you achieve your goals, learn new skills, overcome challenges, and expands your horizons.

He does this by sharing his experience, knowledge and wisdom, and by providing you with feedback and encouragement.

As a judge first in the High Court and later the Court of Appeal, I presided over innumerable cases and delivered numerous written judgments. To do this, I relied on the vast amount of knowledge I had acquired over the years. I also applied skills I had honed, and practical experience I had gained, all through my life.

That allowed me the ability to dispose cases speedily, but also fairly and in accordance with the rule of law and social justice.

I owe much of that to an unlikely mentor I had from my childhood days.

That man was none other than Abdul Munaf, a relative and employee in my father’s restaurant. It was he who inculcated in me the courage to dissent in favour of social justice.

Uncle Munaf only had primary education at my village at Thopputhurai in Tamil Nadu, India, but he was one of very few in the restaurant who could read and write in Tamil. In fact, that skill made him the in-house newsreader to all employees just before bedtime.

Munaf’s reading imbued him with an unusually vast amount of knowledge in social justice. He abhorred oppression and advocated for the public to go against their oppressors, however mighty they may be, without fear of repercussions. He said that is the price the man-in-the-street must pay for democracy and rule of law to survive.

His oratory skills were par excellence and, had he stayed in India, I am sure he would have gone on to study law and eventually retire as a great social justice leader.

Munaf’s favourite leaders were Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. He would often say that a person with knowledge who dedicates his life to working for the poor and the oppressed is one of this world, and a good candidate for the hereafter.

He added that the dissemination of knowledge is key to self-esteem, and one should strive to achieve the status of Maha Guru (supreme teacher).

Munaf held a strong belief that only a barrister-at-law could help the oppressed get justice. This was probably on account of the great number of barristers India had at her disposal during the time of independence, including her first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

He also said anyone with the will to do so could read law, and its pursuit could be funded by doing odd jobs. He would often remind me that the great American statesman, Abraham Lincoln, studied under streetlights to become a lawyer and eventually rose to become the 16th president of the United States.

Indeed, it was Uncle Munaf’s inspirational words over the years that led me to abandon my position as a businessman and master cook at the age of 28 in favour of legal studies.

With his words of wisdom ringing in my head, I chose a life journey of social justice at the expense of accumulating wealth, a decision I am even more proud of today given the present atmosphere of unethical practices.

Following Munaf’s advice, I only took two thousand pounds to London and returned as a qualified barrister with the exact same sum of money.

Over the years, I proceeded to secure many more qualifications without the necessity of studying as a full-time scholar in any university, even going on to develop a simple and cost-effective measure to strengthen the rule of law and prevent abuse of power by removing the trying of facts from the judiciary as per the Magna Carta guarantee 1215 given by the King of England.

Yes, Munaf was right: a law degree is an easy qualification to acquire. For that reason, anyone who has a passion for the rule of law must, apart from a basic qualification, hold as evidence a string of advanced qualifications in law and related subjects.

In the present era, parading a single law degree only equates to having a secondary school qualification from yesteryear. It will not enable one to practice the rule of law, with the exception of senior practitioners who have acquired specialist legal knowledge and skills through many years of practice.

Based on my experience as a serving judge, I can say in all honesty that, in modern Malaysia, the claim that there is a separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the courts is nothing but a myth.

For rule of law to be restored and for it to function effectively to eradicate corruption, abuse of power and oppression by the executive and its agencies, the separation of powers between the three branches of government must be reinstated and reinforced.

Also critical is meritocracy in the legal industry. It can no longer remain a paradise for single degree holders.

It took more than 60 years for the legal industry to establish that, in Malaysia, the rule of law is premised, not on parliamentary, but on constitutional supremacy.

Prior to the Federal Court’s decision in the Indira Gandhi case, ignorance of the right version of the rule of law allowed corruption and abuse of power to flourish, as witnessed on multiple occasions, going as far back as to Operation Lalang in 1987 and the dismissal of then Lord President Salleh Abas the following year.

Those two episodes marked the beginning of the destruction of social justice and the rule of law in this country.

In my view, that breakdown also left lasting marks on the nation’s economy, which began its long decline in that era to where it is now.

The decision in the Indira Gandhi case indirectly means most of the old cases which had relied on the principles of parliamentary supremacy have been overruled.

In my view, that means the courts must, when granting relief sought by the rakyat, adopt and develop the oath of office jurisprudence to sustain the supremacy of the constitution.

But Malaysia cannot continue to rely solely on the courts to intervene and preserve the rule of law through ad hoc intervention on a case-by-case basis. This will only allow those in power to continue violating it with impunity through kleptocracy, abuse of power and corrupt practices.

The time has come for jurists and politicians to seek the setting up of a royal commission to help restore the separation of powers, and arrest corruption, abuse of power and other forms of oppression on the rakyat.

Like the Reid Commission which put together the nation’s original constitution, this new royal commission should also include jurists from England and other leading proponents of the rule of law but must exclude seat warmers.

Our Malay rulers, through the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Al-Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, has done well over the last five years to steady the country at a time of political instability and despite the debilitating Covid-19 pandemic.

I have full confidence that his successor, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, will act with the same conviction and intensity to protect  the rakyat by taking all necessary measures to restore the rule of law.

Daulat Tuanku! - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.