What people are questioning now is not whether justice is served for both the parties on this matter but rather that it is deemed to the public that justice is served in accordance to fairness and proper execution of the law. As mentioned by Reza, he brought up the fact that perhaps it is the interest of the public's opinion is what matters the most, especially with the entire mystery of whether or not the decision made in 1998 can even be trusted. He mentioned, quoting a segment in R v. Sussex that it is perhaps it is not about justice is to be done, but rather be seen done. Perhaps it is time for the courts to view their credibility and find a way to fix that image to the general public. No doubt that I feel that there has been much question by the public about the credibility of the courts, and truthfully the media circus surrounding the case is clearly not helping the situation, however wouldn't anyone would feel that the general public is too quick to judge our judiciary system? At this point, we have only seen the start of the whole court procedure and yet, the public have already come up with a verdict of the case. I understand that there are still sentiments of not being able to trust the courts after the whole 1998 issue but as a mature society, shouldn't we view the 2010 case in a separate view that of the 1998 case?
Enough with the Conspiracy Theory, lets get serious
Also, I understand that there are concerns by the general public. As brought forth by Nimalan, he mentioned that there are too many possibilities of biasness, question on credibility as well as lack of logic information that is brought into this case. If the general public continues to witness issues such as the lack of evidence, questions of impartiality of the judges as well as not allowing the defense council to view their own evidences, how is it possible for the public to trust the courts? True in this matter that as long as we have evidence of unprofessional conduct done by courts, the public would continue to think that there is no justice in this country and as long as a person opposes the government, they would never get justice in courts.
However, as highlighted by Aizat, that the basis of the general public's question is merely on the facts that they read in either the newspaper, news and even blogs. None of this would constitute to the credibility of this information and the public shouldn't be too quick to judge the judiciary and there should be more awareness on the role of the public on how the courts are handling this case. Nevertheless, he also concurred that there is a lack of quality in the judiciary system today, as compared to the "good old days" whereby the older generation of judges proved their worth as a judge to the general public by means of how they precede in cases.In the end, I would think that this would be an opportunity for the judiciary to prove its worth to the public. We now have a high profile case, one that is grabbing the public's attention and it is here where the courts can prove to the public that they still have the credibility to uphold the law in this country. We as Malaysians, we cannot be too quick to judge the courts, and if we continue to try and question or stop the courts from doing their job, how in the world can they show that they have improved? Enough of the public sentiment of previous cases, there is still a saving grace for the Malaysian judiciary as I don't think that all is lost just yet. What I would hope that there is no more "monkeying" around with this matter and the public will be given a clear sight on how the proceedings is made.
Nang if you like the post guys! Thanks!
