Politicians biggest threat to judiciary, says Tengku Maimun
Speaking at the Allianz Centre for Governance's (ACG) Distinguished Speaker Series here, Tengku Maimun said she did not encounter political interference during her years as a High Court and Court of Appeal judge.
However, she said there was "a semblance of attempted interference" towards the end of her career.
"During my tenure in the High Court — never. During my tenure in the Court of Appeal — never. Unfortunately, towards the end of my tenure as CJ, there was a bit of a semblance of attempted interference," she said.
"Personally, the biggest threat would be the politicians," she said, drawing laughter from the crowd.
She was responding to a question from the audience on threats to the judiciary.
Tengku Maimun added that attempts to influence judicial decisions would succeed only if judges allowed themselves to be swayed.
"There may be interference left, right and centre, but if you ignore them, nothing will happen — the judiciary will remain intact and judicial independence will be upheld," she said.
Tengku Maimun is the first woman to serve as Malaysia's chief justice. She took office in May 2019 and retired on July 1 this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malaysiakini
34 minutes ago
- Malaysiakini
Politicians the biggest threat to Constitution, says ex-CJ
Former chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat has opined that politicians pose the greatest threat to the Federal Constitution, reaffirming her stance that the prime minister should stay out of judicial appointments. Addressing a query from an audience member at an Allianz Centre for Governance (ACG) event in Kuala Lumpur today, Tengku Maimun briefly remarked that it is politicians themselves who endanger the sanctity and supremacy of the Constitution.
Free Malaysia Today
3 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Unconstitutional to criminalise offensive speech made online, rules court
The Court of Appeal ruled that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the CMA violates the Federal Constitution. PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), which criminalises the online transmission of offensive comments. Justice Lee Swee Seng said the words violated Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, read together with Article 8. He also said that a charge of offending and annoying a third party could not be construed as going against public order. 'We find that the impugned words of 'offensive' and 'annoy' are not a permissible restriction to the freedom of expression under our Federal Constitution. 'We therefore strike down that particular provision as constituting an offence (against the constitution),' he said in partly allowing the appeal by activist Heidy Quah to nullify the previous version of Section 233. Also on the panel hearing the appeal were Justices Hashim Hamzah and Azman Abdullah. The bench made no order as to costs as the issue at hand was a constitutional matter. Lee, who is now a Federal Court judge, said today's decision would have a prospective effect, meaning that parties in ongoing criminal proceedings under the old law could leave it to the trial judge to decide. The government passed an amendment to the CMA last year, adding the words 'grossly offensive' in constituting an offence. The amendment came into effect this February. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the government, while lawyers Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, A Surendra and New Sin Yew represented Quah. Counsel Lim Wei Jiet held a watching brief for the Clooney Foundation for Justice and Suaram. The bench also directed Liew to file a formal application to stay the decision pending the government's filing of an appeal to the Federal Court. Lee said that in a society like Malaysia's, citizens are supposed to 'give space to one another' by appreciating and accommodating their views, thoughts and ideas on a range of topics. The judge said some might use loud and lambastic language to express their views, while others might take a more scholarly and subdued tone in agreeing to disagree. 'The virtual community has a way of restoring equilibrium and even equanimity when the line has been crossed. 'To create more offences in the virtual space would be a retrogressive step bordering on needless censorship just because some people's ideas may not be so palatable,' he said. He also said that Section 233 of the CMA provided no standards as to what amounted to offensive or what would amount to an intent to annoy. 'When all types of speech could potentially be offensive if a single person finds it so, then freedom of speech has become illusory and enforcement becomes arbitrary.' Lee added that free speech would be deterred as the offence under Section 233 carried a fine of up to RM50,000, a maximum one-year jail term, or both, upon conviction. He said that would be disproportionate to the legislative aim of the CMA. 'To silence speech that is true just because some may find it offensive and annoying would be akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.' Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA had made it an offence for a person to make, create, solicit or initiate the transmission of any online comment which was 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with the 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person'. The civil action by Quah, the founder of Refuge for Refugees, challenged the validity of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision. In July 2021, Quah was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court with posting offensive online comments on Facebook highlighting the alleged mistreatment of refugees at immigration detention centres. In April 2022, the sessions court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal from a charge of improper use of network facilities. This was after the trial judge accepted a preliminary objection that the charge was defective as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 233 of the CMA. She then filed a civil action for a declaration that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision were invalid and contravened two fundamental human rights safeguarded by the constitution. Her suit was, however, dismissed by the High Court.
Free Malaysia Today
3 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Review cases under old CMA section, AG urged after landmark ruling
DAP vice-chairman Syahredzan Johan hailed the appellate court's decision as a long-awaited victory after years of campaigning against the previous iteration of the CMA's Section 233. PETALING JAYA : The attorney-general has been urged to review all ongoing cases involving the previous iteration of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), which criminalised the online transmission of 'offensive' comments with the intention of 'annoying' a person. The Court of Appeal earlier delivered a landmark decision, ruling that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the section were unconstitutional. DAP vice-chairman Syahredzan Johan hailed the appellate court's decision as a long-awaited victory after years of activists and human rights lawyers campaigning against the provision. He said this was because the previous section was too general, criminalising social media postings while allowing the misuse of the provision for political purposes. 'The AG must review all charges under the pre-2024 amendment to Section 233 that are still before the court to determine the best way to give meaning to the Court of Appeal's decision,' he said in a statement. The Bangi MP also said today's decision proved that the unity government was right to amend Section 233 of the CMA in December last year to overcome weaknesses in the law. The amendment, which came into effect in February, added the words 'grossly offensive' in constituting an offence. Syahredzan, a lawyer by profession, said however that the government should look into further improving the provision by removing the 'offensive' and 'annoy' element as a whole. 'This consideration should be made after obtaining feedback from the AG's Chambers,' he added.
