“Mahathir’s Cancer”

By Pakac Luteb

Few Malaysians disagree that Mahathir was both a destroyer and a creator.

During Mahathir's time the economy expanded and Malaysians now spend their leisure time in enormous gleaming shopping complexes eating all manner of foods.

Mahathir also gave Malaysia a terrible cancer that to this day has not been cured.

Worse still, Mahathir did so deliberately.

Mahathir wanted power beyond what the law allowed. Mahathir changed the law.

Mahathir is very intelligent. He knew that he had to make changes stepwise, a little at a time, to avoid strong objections that would block him from his goal of attaining more power.

He removed the independence of the Judiciary, bringing it under the control of the Executive.

He removed judges whose decisions did not favour himself or his cronies.

For the coup de gras he eliminated trial by jury.

Since then, judges, not juries, reached verdicts in trials.

As Malaysians are well aware, judges can be bribed or threatened into rendering biased decisions that favour the Executive, government or their cronies.

Judges also sometimes don't render a decision, they merely keep quiet! Preposterous, but true, in BolehLand.

Juries are a valuable asset in a democracy. They listen to and evaluate testimony and reach a verdict. The lawyers present evidence (testimony & exhibits) to the jury and create a tale about the evidence. The judge sits as a referee, to ensure that everyone follows court procedures and the relevant laws regarding evidence.

After the trial concludes the jury meets to discuss the case and arrive at a verdict of guilt or innocence, or as sometimes happens, they can't decide and there is a "hung" jury, meaning no decision was reached.

The jury then announces it's verdict (or failure to reach a verdict) in a hearing with all parties present.

If no verdict was reached the prosecution may decide to appeal.

There cannot be a second trial on the same charge of a person declared innocent (no "double jeopardy"), thus no rearresting someone the moment they step outside the court.

The above process ensures as much objectivity and fairness as possible in making decisions, which is only fair, considering the serious consequences court decisions have for the parties concerned.

Sentencing a convicted person, or deciding a penalty in a civil trial, may involve a separate hearing, perhaps under a different jury, to help ensure fairness and objectivity. The sentencing hearing considers what sentence is appropriate to the offence.

The details of the offence are presented to the parties at the hearing, with a judge as referee and lawyers for and against the defendant arguing for different penalties.

The jury considers the facts of the case and the penalties permitted by the relevant laws. The jury then delivers it's verdict to the court hearing.

Juries have a very heavy responsibility, as their decisions have enormous impact on people's lives and on society. Juries are normally given leave from work and kept in isolation from outside sources of information that may bias them.

If, as often happens, a juror needs clarification regarding a law or fact of the case, they are permitted to ask the judge or refer to the transcript of the testimony.

Jurors are normally expected to serve on a jury not more than once, because of the heavy burden they bear. Being available to serve on a jury is considered the responsibility of
every citizen of a democracy who is of sound mind and above the age of majority.

Jurors are typically chosen from lists of registered voters. There are exemptions possible from jury duty, being the sole caretaker of young children, being ill, being related to a defendant, etc.

Jurors who are called to serve and who can't claim an exemption are questioned by attorneys for the case. The potential jurors are asked a series of questions to determine
their objectivity. For example, if the defendant is Chinese, the potential juror may be asked how they feel about Chinese people.

If the potential juror replies that the Chinese are OK but 10 years ago some devious Chinaman cheated them out of a lot of money in a business deal, chances are the attorney for the defendant will raise an objection, the judge will allow the objection and the potential
juror will be dismissed (although they may be recalled for a different case).

Although it's a complex process and people may lie, trial by jury is a very important safeguard for civil society & democracy.

Trial by jury, I think most people would agree, is preferable to trial by a judge.

Which would YOU choose, if given the choice, should you unfortunately find yourself the defendant in a court case? I would choose trial by jury if I were tried.

Just in case my point is not yet 100% clear, Malaysia urgently needs a return to trial by jury. Nothing, including trial by jury, can 100% ensure a fair court process but trial by jury gives the greatest possible chance that a court case will be handled fairly.

Malaysia also urgently needs the Judiciary to independent of the Executive. That independence is absolutely required for a democracy to be a democracy in more than name only.

The Judiciary must be able to oversee the other branches of government, including the Executive, to prevent those other branches becoming too powerful and behaving in ways harmful to the rakyat.

Judges must be chosen from people who are knowledgeable, objective and wise, particularly for positions in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The judges must have a high level of personal and professional integrity.

Malaysia is now at a very low point, but it's at the critical point from which it can improve and reach it's potential of a prosperous harmonious society or sink further and become a failed state, a hell on earth for most of it's citizens, a paradise for an elite few who are parasites upon the majority.

How the Judiciary is (or is not) reformed will play a crucial role, as will various repressive acts, the ISA, Police Act, OSA, etc.

You, the rakyat, now decide what society you want to live in.

It's YOUR country, YOUR life, so YOU decide.

Do you want to live in a true democracy or a fake democracy? I won't try to dictate which choice you make. You are fortunate to have many sources of information. I'm confident
that you will use your intelligence to think about the information and I'm confident that you will make wise decisions.