'Any observer would find it strange that judges could decide before having backed up the decision with solid reasons. And they should not be taking so much time writing them out.'
On Nizar appeals, seeks 11-member bench
SH Huang: The Appeals Court gave a five-minute decision while the High Court judge gave a 78-page written judgment on who is the rightful MB of Perak.
I would have thought that, like proving a geometrical theorem, you give the 'grounds’ first and having weighed the evidence, as the chief justice had pointed out, come to a decision.
But giving the decision without first giving the 'grounds' would be tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. In proving a theorem, we give our 'grounds' (reasons) to convince the reader or examiner that we have proven our case.
Then, and only then, do we write Q.E.D which stands for 'quod erat demonstrandum' which means 'that is what I wanted to prove and I have proved it.'.
A good judge will 'prove' his decision by giving all the grounds (reasons). He does not jump to the conclusion without showing why his decision is such and such.
In my view, the High Court judge did a good job. He was meticulous and read out all the authorities.
Backed up by solid evidence, he came to the conclusion that Nizar was the rightful
On the other hand, the
After having given their decision that Zambry was the rightful MB, they said that they needed time – one week – to give the 'grounds' of their decision.
Any right-thinking observer would find it strange that judges could write Q.E.D. first before having backed it up with solid reasons.
If they had the reasons handy, they should not be taking so much time writing them out.
It is 'quod erat demonstrandum'. Not 'Quite Easily Done’.
(Extract from Malaysiakini's VOX POPULI)
+++++
Perakians' legal MB Nizar is asking for 11 judges, Are there 11 "clean" judges? HANTU swears that his uncle is clean but the number of "clean" is negligible. We have a lawless law court. You just got to read the Honorable NH Chan HERE
+++++
IS THE TIME RIGHT
TO BRING BACK
THE JURY SYSTEM?
+++++
Read more HERE
13 comments:
Until I got interested in the 2007/2008 US Presidential Elections, I never paid much attention to our own politics at home.
In fact, I wasn't even aware that we operate on a jury-less system until last year. How pathetic ... both my lack of knowledge and our courts. Such lopsided accordance of power to the judiciary is no justice ... and opens itself to manipulation. So "Yes!", I am all for a jury system.
Can someone please educate me as to why we have no juries? Thanks!
Since this nation is stuffed with majority 'Kangaoo judges'in our kagaroo courts, it is about time to bring back the jury system...the jury will have more grey matter that those, so called 'Dignified judges'!
Will the UMNO bastards, who depend heavily on these a#se licking mongrels to stay in power ever going to consider it?...not until they are wipe out completely in the next GE
If the judge can vote secretly and may be we have a change..
How about a secret ballot of just YES/NO?
Shiok Guy
this is the same UMNO which compromise the judiciary since Mahatir days. of course, so were the fine institutions of ACA, aG and the police force the. And PAS wants to work with them for a unity govt. United for what? To further emasculate the already toothless institutions?
oh, when would the IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT judge retire and meet his maker account fo his sins? And dont ever forget Lingamgate!
Constitutional cases dont use a jury. A jury is usually used only in the context of criminal, civil, defamation cases etc. Abit hard for 12 laymen to grasp the concepts of public law see.
No,its time to bring back the ISA and put all the trouble making opposition in the lock-up forever!Put Anwar and Nizar in ISA and Malaysians will start enjoying peace.
Malaysia is a failed state.
QED
happy father's day zorro
Thanks Beemer9700....to you the same if you are a papa.
No. We don't have enough people who understand the law, language or the concept of fair justice.
It will be easier to clean up the Judiciary!
Hello Uncle Zorro,
First happy father's day to you. Me, I have 2 lovely sons, but still these two "rascals" hasn't wished me a happy father's day yet. Never mind about that, I'll deal with them later.
I think uncle you should have realised by now that we are heading back to the Old Sultanate days where the Mamak Bendahara holds sway.
If I remember my history, the Sultans of long ago are actually minors, put in place by the Mamak Bendahara such as Tun Perak who rules the country (nation?). The sultans are there just to justify the mamak bendahara's actions. He is the sole judge and jury and he metes out the judgement. He hides behind the Sultan to justify his deeds.
Now a days the courts are there only at face value, the judgement has already been made by mamak bendahara. All the judges have to do is spill out somthing and then think out the reasons later. Mamak Bendahara doesn't care so long as he gets his way.
Isn't this like the old sultanate days. The Mamak Bendahara holds the power and that to me is what Ketuanan Melayu is all about.
Oh I forgot to mention, the Mamak Bendahara of course is helped by all sort of "machais" in the nation, your so called sycophants.
So uncle take good care.
MSengal: Happy Fathers Day too.
The injustice meted out by some of the Judges just shocks even the ordinary man in the street. When justice cannot be dispensed by our last bastion of justice, what do we do? Storm the Palace of Justice? Maybe we give them a last chance. We will see how DSAI's sodomy II is played out.
Something that people fail to understand is that juries does not need to understand the law, not to the extend the experts understand it. It is enough for the juries to understand the rudiments of it, basic right and wrong, something which every layman should know. That's the beauty of the system; if the charges are so technical, even the jury does not understand it, do you consider it fair to charge the defendant, who, most of the time is also a laymen? (in legal terms)
We have the judge to explain the intricacies of law. The judge would act as a referee, explaining the finer points in layman terms, guiding the juries, but the final decision is up to the juries themselves.
Think about it, it would be harder to influence (i.e. corrupt) 7 people (minimum number of juries needed to decide a case), than it is to influence 1 judge, however learned that judge may be.
Post a Comment