Malaysia news! (r)

[hag2@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear Netters,

Malaysians are lucky enough to have an independent organization like Bar
council but in Burma we do not have such an organization who can defend the
oppositon party NLD.  It is time to promote civil society in Burma.

Htun Aung Gyaw 



Subject: Re: Malaysian Bar Council cites 'disquiet'

>From The Singapore ST
April 23, 1999

Bar Council expresses 'deep concern' over Anwar trial 

The Bar Council, which represents 8,000 lawyers in Malaysia, has
expressed disquiet over the conduct of the trial leading to the
conviction and sentencing of sacked Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim to
six years' jail for corruption. Below is the full statement by its
chairman made last Saturday

THE Bar Council views with deep concern that events that have unfolded
in the past seven months and during the trial of the former Deputy
Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which has resulted in his
conviction on 14th April 1999 and sentence of six years on each of the
four amended charges to run concurrently from the date of conviction
without taking into account the seven months remand of his arrest. 

The Bar Council subscribes to the principle of the Rule of Law and it
is mindful of the fact that there are provisions enabling an accused
person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the court of first
instance to appeal to the higher court. This is a matter entirely
between the accused and his Legal Advisers. 

The Bar Council notes the concerns voiced by numerous members of the
Bar, members of the public and various organisations. 

This whole episode has caused grave disquiet in the administration of
justice in our country. 

The manner of arrest of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, his subsequent
assault while in police custody, the lack of immediate medical
treatment, the finding of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that the
then Inspector-General of Police was responsible for assaulting Datuk
Seri Anwar and the Royal Commission's finding of fact that a normal
detention was converted to an ISA detention so as not to expose him to
public view, are serious matters of profound concern to the citizenry.


Of public concern is how a case of such importance and public interest
involving the former Deputy Prime Minister, the highest public officer
to have ever been tried in Malaysia, was heard by a junior High Court
judge, elevated just months before and transferred to the Criminal
Division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court a mere few weeks before the
trial. 

This was an unprecedented step when one compares with two previous
cases of senior politicians who held high offices in Government who
had been tried by two very senior judges. 

The unusual manner in which the trial itself was conducted, for
example, the refusal of bail; the expunging of evidence given on oath;
preventing the accused from raising every possible and conceivable
defence and limiting him to particular defence; compelling the defence
to state beforehand what evidence the defence sought to adduce through
various witnesses; disallowing witnesses from testifying and making
rulings as to their relevancy without first hearing their testimony;
citing and threatening defence lawyers with contempt proceedings
including sentencing a defence lawyer to three months' imprisonment
for contempt while in the exercise of their legal duties, raise
questions impinging on the administration of justice. 

The Bar Council also notes with concern the use of intemperate
language by the judge in the course of the trial. 

The Bar Council was deprived of holding a watching brief during the
trial and in the subsequent applications and was therefore unable to
perform and fulfil its statutory duties in the interest of justice
under the Legal Profession Act, 1976. 

The Bar Council further notes that this trial which, according to law,
must be held in public was not at all times public as there were
repeated prohibitions on the publication of crucial evidence given in
open court in various instances. 

Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. 

Several questions including that of substantive law, practice and
procedure and the administration of justice have been brought to the
fore which need to be addressed in the context of fundamental rights
and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.

Dated: 17th April 1999
R. R. Chelvarajah
Chairman
Bar Council
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/