Friday, July 21, 2017

'Granted visa but denied entry' - HRD Adilur Rahman Khan(Malalysiakini)

Amnesty condemns Putrajaya's trend of deporting human rights activists

(Updated
 
Amnesty International has condemned what it described as a growing trend by Putrajaya to deport human rights activists.

This was after Bangladeshi human rights group Odhikar's secretary Adilur Rahman Khan was detained by immigration at Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 4am and is set to be deported.

"Adilur's detention is the latest in a series of cases where peaceful activists have been barred from entering the country, including Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong, Indonesian human rights defender Mugiyanto Sipin and Singaporean political activist Han Hui Hui," said James Gomez, Amnesty International’s Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.Adilur was to attend the National Conference on Death Penalty tomorrow.

Gomez called for Adilur's immediate release and that he be allowed to remain in Malaysia.

“The Malaysian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Adilur Rahman Khan and allow him to participate in and speak at the conference.

“There is no justification for detaining him whatsoever. It is an outrage that a human rights activist cannot even travel freely to speak on a key human rights issue," he said.

Meanwhile, Suaram project coordinator Dobby Chew said the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) visited Adilur this evening.

"Suhakam visited Adilur and verifies that he is well and was not mistreated.

"But Adilur is to be deported. The reason for denying entry was not given," he said in a statement.
Chew said Adilur's mobile phone and passport were taken away from him while he was under detention.

"They have been returned and Adilur has been in contact with friends and family," he said. Earlier today, Suaram, accompanied by lawyers, had also gone to KLIA to find out about his detention.

'Granted visa but denied entry'

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet), which is participating at the National Conference on Death Penalty, said it was appalled by the "unjustified detention".

"Being a Bangladesh citizen, he did not enjoy a visa on arrival when he arrived in Malaysia. 

"As such, he needed to apply for a visa from the Malaysian High Commission in Bangladesh, before he could leave Bangladesh and come to Malaysia. Such visas are never simply issued as a right, but only after a thorough vetting of the applicant and his reasons for coming to Malaysia.
 As such, the arrest and detention of Adilur Rahman Khan are most unjust and unreasonable. If the Malaysian government did not want Adilur Rahman Khan to enter Malaysia, they should never have issued him the required entry visa in Bangladesh," said Madpet representative Charles Hector.

Hector urged the government to immediately release Adilur and compensate him for the "deprivation" of his rights.

He added if Putrajaya is adamant on deporting him, it should apologise to Adilur for granting him a visa in the first place. - Malaysiakini, 20/7/2017

Bangladeshi activist should be allowed entry — MADPET (Malay Mail, 20/7/2013)

Thursday July 20, 2017
10:13 PM GMT+8
JULY 20 -- Madpet (Against Death Penalty and Torture) is appalled by the unjustifiable detention of human rights defender Adilur Rahman Khan by the Immigration authorities at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport at about 4.00am today(20/7/2017).Commission in Bangladesh, before he could leave Bangladesh and come to Malaysia. . Such visa’s are never simply issued as of right, but only after a thorough vetting of the applicant and his reasons for coming to Malaysia.

As such, the arrest and detention of Adilur Rahman Khan is most unjust and unreasonable. If the Malaysian government did not want Adilur Rahman Khan to enter Malaysia, they should never have issued him the required entry visa in Bangladesh.

In the past, Malaysia have also sadly prevented HR Defenders, like Singaporean human rights defender Han Hui Hui and Indonesian Mugiyanto Sipin from entering Malaysia but they were from countries whose citizens had to get their visa on arrival when they reached Malaysia, whereas Adilur Rahman Khan had to first apply and obtain his visa first from the Malaysian embassy before travelling to this country. As such, this makes his current arrest, detention and possible deportation back to Bangladesh most unjust.

“We detained him over immigration issues. We are checking his documents. Adilur will not be allowed to enter Malaysia. He will be deported,” Malaysian immigration officer Shely was quoted by Bangla Tribune as saying.(Dhaka Tribune, 20/7/2017). This is absurd, as any immigration issues should have been considered before the Malaysian High Commission issued him his visa.
Adilur Rahman Khan, the Secretary of the Bangladeshi Human Rights Organisation, Odhikar, who is a member of the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network(ADPAN), was coming to Malaysia to attend the General Assembly of ADPAN on 20/7/2017, and thereafter the “Abolition of the Death Penalty in Malaysia and in Asia” Malaysia National Conference and Training Workshop 0n 21-22 July 2017. Tan Sri Razali Ismail (Chairperson of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) will be delivering the keynote address at this National Conference. The Minister Dato' Sri Azalina binti Othman Said has also been invited to deliver a keynote address.

 Adilur Rahman Khan is also currently a member of OMCT General Assembly and a FIDH Vice-President. He was also awarded the 2014 Gwangju Prize for Human Rights.

As such, Madpet
  • Calls on the Malaysian government to immediately release Adilur Rahman Khan and allow him to enter Malaysia;
  • Calls on Malaysia to adequately compensate for all the suffering and deprivation of rights suffered by Adilur Rahman Khan, by reason of the detention of him at the KLIA International Airport
  • Calls on Malaysia, in the event that Adilur Rahman Khan is prevented entry and is subsequently deported, to apologize to him for all the suffering and rights violated brought about by most likely the failings of the High Commission of Malaysia in Bangladesh, and to pay him a just compensation
  • Calls on Malaysia to stop denial of entry into Malaysia of Human Rights Defenders, and to abide by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised  Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online - Malay Mail Online, 20/7/2017

See related post

ADPAN and HR groups shocked that Adilur Rahman Khan was detained at KLIA?

Thursday, July 20, 2017

ADPAN and HR groups shocked that Adilur Rahman Khan was detained at KLIA?

Adilur Rahman Khan from Odhikar, a member of the ADPAN, was detained at the Kuala Lumpur Internationbal Airport(KLIA) by the Malaysian Immigration and prevented entry (he is still being detained at this time). He was supposed to be attending the General Assembly of ADPAN today(20/7/2017), and Malaysian National Conference on 21-22 July. At the ADPAN General Assembly today, Adilur Rahman Khan, was one of 8 who were succesfully voted into the Executive Committee of ADPAN for the 2017-2019 term.

After Malaysian embassy in Bangladesh, had issued the required visa, it is absurd for Adilur Rahman Khan then to be detained at the KLIA International airport, and denied entry.

adpan adilur statementcropped-adpan-national-conference-poster1.jpg


Malaysia: Arbitrary arrest of Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan

20/07/2017
Urgent Appeal
Human Rights Defenders
  • Malaysia
MYS 001 / 0717 / OBS 083
Arbitrary arrest /Harassment
Malaysia

July 20, 2017

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and FIDH, requests your URGENT intervention in the following situation in Malaysia.

Brief description of the information:

The Observatory has been informed with great concern about the arbitrary arrest in Kuala Lumpur of Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary of the human rights non-governmental organisation [1], also a member of OMCT General Assembly and FIDH Vice-President.

According to the information received, on July 20, 2017, at about 4.00 am, Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan was detained by immigration officers upon his arrival at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. No reason was given for his detention.

Mr. Rahman Khan was travelling to Malaysia to attend the National Conference on Death Penalty organised by the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) from July 21 to 22, 2017 in Kuala Lumpur.

The Observatory strongly condemns Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan’s arbitrary arrest, and calls upon the Malaysian authorities to release him immediately and unconditionally, as well as to guarantee in all circumstances his physical and psychological integrity.

Actions requested:

Please write to the authorities in Malaysia, urging them to:

i. Guarantee, in all circumstances, the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan, as well as of all human rights defenders in Malaysia;

ii. Release Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan immediately and unconditionally as his detention is arbitrary since it only aims at sanctioning his human rights activities;

iii. Put an end to any kind of harassment - including at the judicial level - against Mr. Adilur Rahman Khan as well as all human rights defenders in Malaysia;

iv. Ensure in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Malaysia are able to carry out their legitimate activities without any hindrance and fear of reprisals;

v. Conform with the provisions of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1998, especially its Articles 1 and 12.2;

vi. Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and international instruments ratified by Malaysia.

Addresses:
· Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Fax: +60 3 8888 3444, Email: ppm@pmo.gov.my

· Mr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Minister of Home Affairs of Malaysia, Fax: +60 3 8889 1613 / +60 3 8889 1610, Email: ahmadzahid@moha.gov.my
 

· Attorney General of Malaysia, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, Fax: +603 8890 5670 Email: pro@agc.gov.my
 

· Tan Sri Razali Bin Ismail, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), Fax: +60 3 2612 5620, Email: humanrights@suhakam.org.my;

· H.E. Mr. Amran Mohamed Zin, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. Fax: +41 22 710 75 01, Email: malgeneva@kln.gov.my

· Embassy of Malaysia in Brussels, Belgium, Fax: +32 2 762 50 49, Email: malbrussels@kln.gov.my

Please also write to the diplomatic missions or embassies of Malaysia in your respective country as well as to the EU diplomatic missions or embassies in Malaysia.
***
Geneva-Paris, July 20, 2017


The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (the Observatory) was created in 1997 by the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and FIDH. The objective of this programme is to intervene to prevent or remedy situations of repression against human rights defenders. OMCT and FIDH are both members of ProtectDefenders.eu, the European Union Human Rights Defenders Mechanism implemented by international civil society.

 

Bangladesh human rights activist detained at KLIA

 | July 20, 2017

Suaram condemns arrest of Adilur Rahman Khan who arrived this morning to attend a conference in Kuala Lumpur on the abolition of the death penalty.

PETALING JAYA: The arrest of a Bangladeshi human rights activist at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) this morning has been condemned by a local rights group.
Adilur Rahman Khan was detained by immigration officers at KLIA at about 4am today. Khan is the secretary of Odhikar, a human rights NGO based in Bangladesh.
He had travelled to Malaysia to attend a conference on the topic of “Abolition of the death penalty”.
“Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) condemns the detention of Adilur Rahman Khan.
"As of 10am, no reason has been given by immigration officers as to why he was detained. However, Suaram was informed that Khan has now been moved to the immigration lock-up,” Suaram executive director Sevan Doraisamy said in a statement.
The NGO urged the authority to release Khan and called for an end to the “persistent harassment against human rights defenders visiting Malaysia”.
This is the latest action taken against foreign human rights activists by the Malaysian government.
Earlier this month, Amnesty International (AI) said it was concerned over the barring of Singapore human rights defender Han Hui Hui from entering Malaysia last month.
Han had been blocked from entering the country after having been labelled an “undesirable immigrant” by the home minister.
“AI notes that this is not the first time the government has barred peaceful activists from entering Malaysia.
“In recent years, Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong and Indonesian human rights defender Mugiyanto Sipin have been prevented from visiting the country, as well”. - FMT News, 20/7/2017FMT News, 20/7/2017

Immigration detained activist from Bangladesh, claims Suaram

  •    Published     Updated

The human rights group Suaram has condemned the Immigration Department for supposedly detaining a human rights activist from Bangladesh.
"Suaram calls for his immediate release and demand that the Immigration Department stop its persistent harassment against human rights defenders visiting Malaysia," it said in a statement today.
Suaram claimed that Odhikar secretary Adilur Rahman Khan was detained at about 4am today at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport, and as of 10am, he was not told the reason for his detention.
He was supposed to attend a conference on the abolition of the death penalty that would take place in Kuala Lumpur this evening until Saturday.
Malaysiakini has contacted the Immigration director-general Mustafar Ali and is waiting for a response. - Malaysiakini, 20/7/2017



Malaysia detains prominent Bangladeshi rights activist Adilur Rahman Khan

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - Malaysia has detained a prominent Bangladesh activist, civil groups said on Thursday (July 20), describing the government action as "harassment" against human rights defenders.
Adilur Rahman Khan, secretary of the rights group Odhikar, was detained after arriving at Kuala Lumpur International Airport early Thursday, activists said.
He was due to speak at a two-day conference organised by the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
Rights group Voice of the Malaysian People (Suaram) said Khan was being kept incommunicado at the airport's immigration lock-up and appealed for his release.
"Suaram calls for his immediate release and demand that the immigration department stop its persistent harassment against human rights defenders visiting Malaysia," it said in a statement.
Immigration authorities could not be reached for comment.
Malaysia often denies foreign pro-democracy activists entry into the country without giving explanation.

The Asian Human Rights Commission urged the international human rights community "to immediately intervene in this case, and secure Khan's release from arbitrary detention".
The commission said it was worried that the detention of Khan, his country's former deputy attorney general, "is the result of collusion between governments in Bangladesh and Malaysia".
In the past, Khan's group has been critical of human rights violations allegedly committed by Bangladeshi security forces, including torture and extra judicial killings.
Malaysia has also denied Khan a lawyer and the right to speak to anyone, the group said.
In 2015, student activist Joshua Wong, who helped organise the 2014 Hong Kong protests, was denied entry by immigration authorities. - The Straits Times, 20/7/2017


Malaysia sends back Odhikar Secretary Adilur

Malaysia sends back Odhikar Secretary Adilur
File photo of Adilur RahmanDhaka Tribune

The high commission will take steps to resolve the matter as soon as possible, says Bangladesh high commissioner to Malaysia

Immigration police at a Malaysia airport on early Thursday barred Bangladesh-based human rights organisation Odhikar’s Secretary Adilur Rahman Khan from entering the country and sent him back to Bangladesh.

On Thursday evening,  Odhikar Director Nasiruddin Elan said that Adilur is expected to land at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport at 10pm.

“We barred him over immigration issues. We are checking his documents. Adilur will not be allowed to enter Malaysia. He will be deported,” Malaysian immigration officer Shely had said as quoted by the Bangla Tribune.

Earlier in the morning, an official of Odhikar, asking to remain anonymous, told the Dhaka Tribune that Adilur had travelled to Malaysia to join a conference on the death penalty, organised by the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), scheduled to be held from July 21-22.

“He [Adilur] was not detained. He was barred from entering the country,” said the official.
Odhikar Director Nasiruddin told Bangla Tribune: “Malaysia has been accused of violating human rights and Adilur might have been barred from entering the country for this reason.”

Also Read- ASK protests Malaysia’s barring of Adilur

Md Shahidul Islam, Bangladesh high commissioner to Malaysia, told the Dhaka Tribune that he was not aware of the incident.

“Immigration police can bar anyone from entering the country. If he is obstructed by the immigration police without a valid reason, the high commission will take steps to resolve the matter as soon as possible,” he said.

Condemning the incident, Malaysian rights group Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) demanded the immediate release of Adilur and called for an end to the harassment of human rights activists in Malaysia.
Bangla Tribune has contributed to this story - Dhaka Tribune, 20/7/2017

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Malaysia - 16 hanged to death, Death Row -1,122 (2014 - Feb 2017)

Malaysia has been telling us that Malaysia will abolish the death penalty, especially the mandatory death penalty. At the last Universal Periodic Review(2013-2014), Malaysia said, “…The research arm of the Attorney-General’s Chambers is currently undertaking a comprehensive study to examine the legal and policy frameworks related to the application of the death penalty in Malaysia, scheduled for completion by end 2014. The findings and recommendations of the study will subsequently be presented to the Government for policy consideration and decision…” In fact, it has been more than a decade that Malaysia have been looking at this matter...but still no effective implementation yet. Let the judges decide on the appropriate sentence, after considering all the relevant circumstances of particular convicts....

When Malaysia is 'studying' - considering the abolition - then reasonably there must be a moratorium on all execution until after the government decides, and the laws amended. 

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman, the new de facto Law Minister, during the Parliamentary session on 2/11/2016 clarified that Malaysia was not just looking at the mandatory death penalty, but all death penalty. They were considering possibly replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. - MALAYSIA’S CABINET’S DELAY IN TABLING LAWS ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY RISKS UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LIFE -Immediate Moratorium On ALL Executions -

It is shocking to learn that since 2014 (after the last UPR), Malaysia has executed 16 persons until February 2017. It is shocking to hear that Malaysia also voted against the United Nations General Assembly Resolution calling for a moratorium on execution in December 2016 - when Malaysia should really have just ABSTAINED given the fact an of an ongoing review of the death penalty.

Worse still is the fact that many of these executions are being carried out in 'secret'. To be able to use that argument that reason for keeping the death penalty is 'deterrence', means Malaysia must actively publicize death sentences and executions - if not, how is Malaysia trying to scare people from committing the said crimes?

Judges and courts can make mistakes, and persons can be wrongly convicted and sentenced - That is what the Pakatan Harapan (DAP, PKR and Pribumi-BERSATU) is saying. Anwar is only serving a few years in jail and then he will be released...but what about the people who are being hanged to death? Or is these people really saying that Malaysian courts made no mistakes except for Anwar's case... Why is PKR,Pribumi-BERSATU, DAP, PAS, ...not coming out and publicly declaring that the are against the death penalty. Will their election manifesto clearly state that they will abolish the death penalty, and commute the sentence of all those on death row to imprisonment...Take a stand...

 


Monday, 27 March 2017 | MYT 3:40 PM

More than 1,100 people have received death sentence in Malaysia


KUALA LUMPUR: More than 1,100 people have been convicted and sentenced to death by the courts up to Feb 21 this year, said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

"Based on statistics from the Prison Department, as of Feb 21 this year, a total of 1,122 prisoners have been found guilty and sentenced to death by court," said Dr Ahmad Zahid, who is also the Home Minster in a written parliamentary reply.

His reply did not state from when these convictions took place.

He was responding to a question from Kasthuri Patto (DAP-Batu Kawan), who asked the Ministry to reveal the statistics of prisoners who have been sentenced to death according to background and cases as of Feb this year.

Ahmad Zahid said a total of 16 inmates - 14 Malaysian and two foreigners - had been executed between 2014 and Feb 21 this year.

"From the total, a total of 15 prisoners have been sentenced to death for murder while the other one was due to a crime involving firearms," said Dr Ahmad Zahid.

Last week, The Cabinet agreed to review the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to allow judges to use their discretion in sentencing offenders instead of imposing the mandatory death sentence.
 
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said the review will enable judges to mete suitable sentences in marginal cases where offenders could be given jail sentences.

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/27/total-death-penalty-1100-zahid/#jcrU7qTtExW6TZ8Z.99

Monday, July 17, 2017

Chief Justice, even after retirement, for 3 more years? Wrong or Right?



Suddenly, Malaysians were informed that the current Chief Justice  and the President of the Court of Appeal, even before their retirement, were made 'additional judges' of the Federal Court sometime in March by the previous Chief Justice? - and we were all not told about this at that time. Now, we read that the term of these 2 judges have been extended by 3 years and 2 years... We are all 'shocked' because this disclosure was made now....

THE ISSUE REALLY IS ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG - not simply whether it is legal or illegal..

Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif will remain as Chief Justice for a period of three years commencing August 4 this year after his appointment as an additional judge in the Federal Court from the date and for the same period....Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin who was appointed as an additional judge for the Federal Court for a term of two years commencing from September 28, 2017 will continue to hold the position of the President of the Court of Appeal from the date and for the same period....On April 1, 2017, Md Raus, was appointed as the 14th Chief Justice of Malaysia, replacing Arifin who retired after reaching the age of 66 years and six months, on March 31, 2017, and Zulkefli had been appointed as Court of Appeal President to succeed Md Raus.
It must be pointed out that in Malaysia, the Prime Minister is the one that decides on who will be the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts - They may be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister....Clearly, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act upon the advice of the Prime Minister. 


122B  Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts
(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and (subject to Article 122c) the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

What is the meaning of ' acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, etc ...'? Yang di-Pertuan Agong has no choice but to act as advised.

40  Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice.(Federal Constitution)
(1A) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di- Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.

HOWEVER, when it comes to 'additional judge' of  the Federal Court, the Prime Minister seems to have no role or power "... the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court..." - it looks like here it is the Chief Justice of the Federal Court only who has the power...interesting.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution contained, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court may appoint for such purposes or for such period of time as he may specify any person who has held high judicial office in Malaysia to be an additional judge of the Federal Court:...
Then, the question then would be - "Which Chief Justice...". Reasonably, it must be the present sitting Chief Justice...

WHEN - When should this advice be tendered and the appointment be made? Reasonably, it should be done just before the judge reaches his retirement age of 66, or if an extension of 6 months had been approved by the Yang Di Pertuan Agung - it should be just before the expiration of this extension of tenure...

Talking about the 6 months extension, it seems that this is that 'any other case mentioned in this Constitution'..., where the Yang Di Pertuan Agung is free to act in his discretion. There is no provision here for him to act in accordance of anyone - Prime Minister, Chief Justice or some other. But then the words, 'may approve' - so who really applied? Or maybe, this 'may approve' really means 'may decide'?
125  Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Federal Court.
(1) Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve...
So, back to the question of 'additional judges' - where the power seems to vest only on the Chief Justice. Now, we here that the former Chief Justice alleges that he was the one that made that 'advice' on his last day of office - 30 March 2017. On 1 April, we had our new current Chief Justice. 

“The appointment of Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as additional judges in the Federal Court after each of them reach the age of 66 years and six months is on the respectful suggestion and advice of the Chief Justice at the material time, Tun Arifin Zakaria to his Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on March 30, 2017 before Yang Amat Arif retired,” said the statement.
So, should the Yang Di Pertuan Agung act on the advice of a former Chief Justice on his last days, when we already have a new Chief Justice. 

If yes, then Najib Tun Razak, our Prime Minister, before dissolving Parliament and calling for the next General Elections can simply 'advice' the Yang Di Pertuan Agung to appoint many judges, and the Yang Di Pertuan Agung will do so...?  Remember that, once appointed, it is not easy to remove judges...Personally, the validity of any such 'advice' is no more after the Prime Minister or Chief Justice resigns, despite the fact that it was given before he left office...and the Yang Di Pertuan Agung is no longer bound by such advice...

Now, the current Chief Justice Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif had the power to advice the Yang Di Pertuan Agung to appoint additional judges beyond the age of retirements, and that means he too can 'extend' his own time in office. He can also extend Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin's tenure and hence the term of the office he holds. Well, that is my reading of our current Constitutional provisions.

Is it right for Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif to extend his own 'tenure' and his own term as Chief Justice of the Federal Court? Well, personally, I would say that it is wrong ...

It is right for the Chief Justice to act to extend the tenure of other judges, beyond the retirement age? Again, I would say that it is wrong - save for very exceptional circumstances - like not wanting to lose a competent good judge but event that .... 

It is wrong to extend the tenure of any any judge because it impacts on the 'independence of the judiciary', and one of the safeguards in place is 'security of tenure', and there must be certainty of the last day as a judge. Note, removing a sitting judges is very very difficult

If the power to appoint additional judges(which, in fact extends tenure) to any one, be it the Chief Justice of the Federal Court (as it is) or the Prime Minister or Parliament or some other body... it will definitely have serious impact on the 'independence of the judiciary'Would judges now be 'loyal' or listening to the 'instructions' of these persons with the power to extend their tenure or 'term in office'? They may not be, and may be still independent judges - but alas what will be the 'public perception' be?

As it is, there is already problems when it comes to appointment of judges and also their transfer/promotions/even decisions on who sits on the coram of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court for particular cases. There is just too much power given to the Prime Minister (and in some cases the Chief Justice of the Federal Court as in the case of 'additional judges') - 

In fact, I believe, that the people(rakyat Malaysia) should be involved in these decisions especially when it comes to choosing of Chief Justice of the Federal Court, President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judges of the 2 High Courts, and maybe even Court of Appeal and Federal Court Judges. Parliament should also have to give their approval. The proposed Independent Committee is also a good idea.

Security of Tenure is a key factor to safeguarding the Independence of the Judiciary  

A judge, when appointed know that his tenure is secured until his retirement age, and he cannot be easily removed by the Prime Minister or anyone. He has no worries of being sacked, even if he makes decisions in court against the Prime Minister or the State/government or powerful people. That is why there must be a fixed retirement age - 66 years now.

As such, the provision that the term may be extended for a further 6 months, after he reaches 66 years, is problematic...Not a problem if the retirement age of the Federal Court judge was made 66 years and 6 months - but when some will be given and some not based on the approval of the Yang Di Pertuan Agung, problems arise. Remember the Prime Minister do have much influence on the decision of the king.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve.
Now, the other problem that impacts 'security of tenure' is the appointment of 'additional judges' - so. will judges be 'friendly' or 'obedient' to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court in the hope tenure be extended? 

Look at the recent happenings - 3 years for Raus, and 2 years for Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin? Why the difference? Could it be 10 years? or 20 years? Was Raus a 'more complient' or 'more friendly' judge, compared  to Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court who advised the Yang Di Pertuan Agung? So, the possibility of extending tenure for any possible period also seems wrong?

'Short term contract Judges' - the Judicial Commissioners(JC) - this too is an affront to 'security of tenure', a safeguard to ensure independence of judges. If Judicial Commissioners are making decisions, not in favour of the powers that have a say in deciding whether these JCs will be confirmed as Judges. then maybe they may never be made Judges. JC - 'probationary judges'? Whilst many JCs may be good people who will uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour - there may be some who may be concerned about the impact of their judgement on their chances of becoming judges. This undermines the assurance required for an independent judge. Just appoint them as Judges - no more Judicial Commissioners.

Independence of the Malaysian judiciary suffered especially after the 1987-88 Judicial Crisis. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution and new laws has attempted to undermine the Judiciary, as a necessary third branch of the Judiciary serving as a check and balance against the Executive and/or the Legislature. 

Much reforms are needed, and now this 'questionable' extension of the tenure of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and the President of the Court of Appeal only may make matters worse. 

The best option, is maybe for Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin to simply resign now, or on their reaching 66 years (or 66 years and 6 month). They should best announce this right now...


(2) A judge of the Federal Court may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong...
PM Najib Razak and the current government has been plagued by many issues, including matters concerning 1MDB, etc  - one cannot help but wonder as to whether this issue, concerning the heads of the Malaysian judiciary, when the next General Elections is just round the corner, may be simply an attempt to distract Malaysians ...Maybe yes..maybe not?

It is very sad that good men like Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin may now are made into 'targets' of public attention which may result in tarnishing their good name...

Some may say, why don't we just leave it to the courts to decide - well, in this case involving the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and the President of the Court of Appeal, one wonders whether too much pressure will be on judges...and whether justice will prevail...

See below the provisions of our Federal Constitution concerning the Judiciary.. (best if you could also look at the Constitution itself, just in case there may be some inadvertent mistakes below

____

Side matter - we know when 'advised', the Yang Di Pertuan Agung must follow that advice, what about when there provision about 'consult'...The quote from a court judgment, explains this matter succinctly 

So in the matter of the appointment of judges, when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong consults the Conference of Rulers, he does not seek its "consent". He merely consults. So when the Conference of Rulers gives its advice, opinion or views, the question is, is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong bound to accept. Clearly he is not. He may consider the advice or opinion given but he is not bound by it.So in the matter of the appointment of judges, when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong consults the Conference of Rulers, he does not seek its "consent". He merely consults. So when the Conference of Rulers gives its advice, opinion or views, the question is, is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong bound to accept. Clearly he is not. He may consider the advice or opinion given but he is not bound by it.

PMO confirms Raus Sharif to stay Chief Justice for three more years


KUALA LUMPUR, July 7 ― Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif will remain as Chief Justice for a period of three years commencing August 4 this year after his appointment as an additional judge in the Federal Court from the date and for the same period.

The Prime Minister’s Office in a statement today said Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin who was appointed as an additional judge for the Federal Court for a term of two years commencing from September 28, 2017 will continue to hold the position of the President of the Court of Appeal from the date and for the same period.

The statement said the appointment of the Chief Justice and the President of Court of Appeal, who are appointees as additional judges in the Federal Court, is pursuant to Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

It said pursuant to Article 122B(1) of the Federal Constitution, His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the advice of the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers convened on May 24 and 25 this year, is pleased to announce both appointments.

“The appointment of Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as additional judges in the Federal Court after each of them reach the age of 66 years and six months is on the respectful suggestion and advice of the Chief Justice at the material time, Tun Arifin Zakaria to his Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on March 30, 2017 before Yang Amat Arif retired,” said the statement.

The statement said the proposal and advice were accepted by the yang di-Pertuan Agong in accordance with Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

The statement also said the above decisions and procedure were consonant with the provisions of the Federal Constitution now.
“The Malaysian Government is however contemplating tabling a proposal in the Parliament for the amendment of  Article 125 of the Federal Constitution to raise the  retirement age of Apex Court judges  to 70 years. This is consonant with the Commonwealth and international practice and jurisprudence,” said the statement.
 On April 1, 2017, Md Raus, was appointed as the 14th Chief Justice of Malaysia, replacing Arifin who retired after reaching the age of 66 years and six months, on March 31, 2017, and Zulkefli had been appointed as Court of Appeal President to succeed Md Raus.
The retirement age for judges is 66.
 As a background,  the services of Arifin as Chief Justice, Md Raus as Court of Appeal President and Zulkefli as Chief Judge of Malaya had earlier been extended for six months.
Md Raus' service in the judiciary has been extended from February 4 to August 3 this year, while Zulkefli’s  from March 28 until Sept 27 this year. ― Bernama - Malay Mail, 7/7/2017




FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS ABOUT JUDICIARY

121  Judicial power of the Federation.

(1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely -
(a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Malaya as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; and[Am. Act A1260]
(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may determine;
(c)(Repealed),
and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law and the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.

(1B) There shall be a court which shall be known as the Mahkamah Rayuan (Court of Appeal) and shall have its principal registry at such place as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine, and the Court of Appeal shall have the following jurisdiction, that is to say:[Am. Act A1260]
(a) jurisdiction to determine appeals from decisions of a High Court or a judge thereof (except decisions of a High Court given by a registrar or other officer of the Court and appealable under federal law to a judge of the Court); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(2) There shall be a court which shall be known as the Mahkamah Persekutuan (Federal Court) and shall have its principal registry at such place as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine, and the Federal Court shall have the following jurisdiction, that is to say:[Am. Act 1260]
(a) jurisdiction to determine appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal, of the High Court or a judge thereof;
(b) such original or consultative jurisdiction as is specified in Articles 128 and 130; and
(c) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred by or under federal law.

(3) Subject to any limitations imposed by or under federal law, any order, decree, judgment or process of the courts referred to in Clause (1) or of any judge thereof shall (so far as its nature permits) have full force and effect according to its tenor throughout the Federation, and may be executed or enforced in any part of the Federation accordingly; and federal law may provide for courts in one part of the Federation or their officers to act in aid of courts in another part.

(4) In determining where the principal registry of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak is to be, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister, who shall consult the Chief Ministers of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the Chief Judge of the High Court.

122  Constitution of Federal Court.

(1) The Federal Court shall consist of a president of the Court (to be styled "the Chief Justice of the Federal Court"), of the President of the Court of Appeal, of the Chief Judges of the High Courts and, until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order otherwise provides, of * four other judges and such additional judges as may be appointed pursuant to Clause (1A).

(1A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution contained, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court may appoint for such purposes or for such period of time as he may specify any person who has held high judicial office in Malaysia to be an additional judge of the Federal Court:


Provided that no such additional judge shall be ineligible to hold office by reason of having attained the age of sixty-six years.[Am. Act A1239]

(2) A judge of the Court of Appeal other than the President of the Court of Appeal may sit as a judge of the Federal Court where the Chief Justice considers that the interests of justice so require, and the judge shall be nominated for the purpose (as occasion requires) by the Chief Justice.

122A  Constitution of Court of Appeal.

(1) The Court of Appeal shall consist of a chairman (to be styled the "President of the Court of Appeal") and, until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order otherwise provides, of ten other judges.

(2) A judge of a High Court may sit as a judge of the Court of Appeal where the President of the Court of Appeal considers that the interests of justice so require, and the judge shall be nominated for the purpose (as occasion requires) by the President of the Court of Appeal after consulting the Chief Judge of that High Court.

122AA  Constitution of the High Courts.

(1) Each of the High Courts shall consist of a Chief Judge and not less than four other judges; but the number of other judges shall not, until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order otherwise provides, exceed -
(a) in the High Court in Malaya, forty-seven; and
(b) in the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, ten.

(2) Any person qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court may sit as a judge of that Court if designated for the purpose (as occasion requires) in accordance with Article 122B.

122AB  Appointment of judicial commissioner.

(1) For the despatch of business of the High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, may by order appoint to be judicial commissioner for such period or such purpose as may be specified in the order any person qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court; and the person so appointed shall have power to perform such functions of a judge of the High Court as appear to him to require to be performed; and anything done by him when acting in accordance with his appointment shall have the same validity and effect as if done by a judge of that Court, and in respect thereof he shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a judge of that Court.

(2) The provisions of Clauses (2) and (5) of Article 124 shall apply to a judicial commissioner as they apply to a judge of a High Court.

122B  Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts.

(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and (subject to Article 122c) the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

(2) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of a judge other than the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice.

(3) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of the Chief Judge of a High Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Judge of each of the High Courts and, if the appointment is to the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the Chief Minister of each of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(4) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of a judge other than the Chief Justice, President or a Chief Judge, the Prime Minister shall consult, if the appointment is to the Federal Court, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, if the appointment is to the Court of Appeal, the President of the Court of Appeal and, if the appointment is to one of the High Courts, the Chief Judge of that Court.

(5) This Article shall apply to the designation of a person to sit as judge of a High Court under Clause (2) of Article 122AA as it applies to the appointment of a judge of that court other than the Chief Judge
.
(6) Notwithstanding the dates of their respective appointments as judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal or of the High Courts, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister given after consulting the Chief Justice, may determine the order of precedence of the judges among themselves.

122C  Transfer of judge of one High Court to another.

Article 122B shall not apply to the transfer to a High Court, otherwise than as Chief Judge, of a judge of another High Court other than the Chief Judge; and such a transfer may be made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, after consulting the Chief Judges of the two High Courts.

123  Qualifications of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts.

A person is qualified for appointment under Article 122B as a judge of the Federal Court, as a judge of the Court of Appeal or as a judge of any of the High Courts if -

(a) he is a citizen; and
(b) for the ten years preceding his appointment he has been an advocate of those courts or any of them or a member of the judicial and legal service of the Federation or of the legal service of a State, or sometimes one and sometimes another.

124  Oath of office of judges.

(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court shall before exercising the functions of his office take and subscribe the oath of office and allegiance set out in the Sixth Schedule, and shall do so in the presence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

(2) A judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court, other than the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, shall before exercising the functions of a judge take and subscribe the oath of office and allegiance set out in the Sixth Schedule in relation to his judicial duties in whatever office.

(2A) A person taking the oath on becoming the President of the Court of Appeal shall do so in the presence of the senior judge available of the Court of Appeal.[Ins. Act A1260]

(3) A person taking the oath on becoming Chief Judge of a High Court shall do so in the presence of the senior judge available of that High Court.

(4) A person taking the oath on becoming a judge of the Federal Court shall do so in the presence of the Chief Justice or, in his absence, the next senior judge available of the Federal Court.[Am. Act A1260]

(4A) A person taking the oath on becoming a judge of the Court of Appeal shall do so in the presence of the President of the Court of Appeal or, in his absence, the next senior judge available of the Court of Appeal.[Ins. Act A1260]

(5) A person taking the oath on becoming a judge of a High Court (but not Chief Judge) shall do so in the presence of the Chief Judge of that Court or, in his absence, the next senior judge available of that Court.[Am. Act A1260]

125  Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Federal Court.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Clauses (2) to (5), a judge of the Federal Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age, as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may approve.[Am. Act A1239]

(2) A judge of the Federal Court may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong but shall not be removed from office except in accordance with the following provisions of this Article.

(3) If the Prime Minister, or the Chief Justice after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that a judge of the Federal Court ought to be removed on the ground of any breach of any provision of the code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3B) or on the ground of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with Clause (4) and refer the representation to it; and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.[Am. Act A1260]

(3A) Where a judge has committed a breach of any provisions of the code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3B) but the Chief Justice is of the opinion that the breach does not warrant the judge being referred to a tribunal appointed under Clause (4), the Chief Justice may refer the judge to a body constituted under federal law to deal with such breach.[Ins. Act A1260]

(3B) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts may, after consulting the Prime Minister, prescribe in writing a code of ethics which shall also include provisions on the procedure to be followed and sanctions which can be imposed other than the removal of a judge from office under Clause (3), in relation to a breach of any provision of the code of ethics.[Ins. Act A1260]


(3C) The code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3B) shall be observed by every judge of the Federal Court and every judicial commissioner.[Ins. Act A1260]



(4) The tribunal appointed under Clause (3) shall consist of not less than five persons who hold or have held office as judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court or, if it appears to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong expedient to make such appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any other part of the Commonwealth, and shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President and the Chief Judges according to their precedence among themselves, and other members according to the order of their appointment to an office qualifying them for membership (the older coming before the younger of two members with appointments of the same date).[Am. Act A1260]


(5) Pending any reference and report under Clause (3) the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and, in the case of any other judge after consulting the Chief Justice, suspend a judge of the Federal Court from the exercise of his functions.
(6) Parliament shall by law provide for the remuneration of the judges of the Federal Court, and the remuneration so provided shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund.

(6A) Subject to the provisions of this Article, Parliament may by law provide for the terms of office of the judges of the Federal Court other than their remuneration.

(7) The remuneration and other terms of office (including pension rights) of a judge of the Federal Court shall not be altered to his disadvantage after his appointment.

(8) Notwithstanding Clause (1), the validity of anything done by a judge of the Federal Court shall not be questioned on the ground that he had attained the age at which he was required to retire.

(9) This Article shall apply to a judge of the Court of Appeal and to a judge of a High Court as it applies to a judge of the Federal Court, except that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong before suspending under Clause (5) a judge of the Court of Appeal or a judge of a High Court other than the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of a High Court shall consult the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of that High Court instead of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court.

(10) The President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts shall be responsible to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court.




125A  Exercise of powers by judges.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, it is hereby declared that -
(a) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and a judge of the Federal Court may exercise all or any of the powers of a judge of the Court of Appeal and of a judge of a High Court;
(aa) the President of the Court of Appeal and a judge of the Court of Appeal may exercise all or any of the powers of a judge of a High Court; and
(b) a judge of the High Court in Malaya may exercise all or any of the powers of a judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, and vice versa.

(2) The provisions of this Article shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Constitution as from Malaysia Day.

126  Power to punish for contempt.

The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court shall have power to punish any contempt of itself.

127  Restriction on Parliamentary discussion of conduct of judge.

The conduct of a judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court shall not be discussed in either House of Parliament except on a substantive motion of which notice has been given by not less than one quarter of the total number of members of that House, and shall not be discussed in the Legislative Assembly of any State.

128  Jurisdiction of Federal Court.

(1) The Federal Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have jurisdiction to determine in accordance with any rules of court regulating the exercise of such jurisdiction -
(a) any question whether a law made by Parliament or by the Legislature of a State is invalid on the ground that it makes provision with respect to a matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws; and
(b) disputes on any other question between States or between the Federation and any State.

(2) Without prejudice to any appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, where in any proceedings before another court a question arises as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution, the Federal Court shall have jurisdiction (subject to any rules of court regulating the exercise of that jurisdiction) to determine the question and remit the case to the other court to be disposed of in accordance with the determination.

(3) The jurisdiction of the Federal Court to determine appeals from the Court of Appeal, a High Court or a judge thereof shall be such as may be provided by federal law.

129  (Special jurisdiction of Supreme Court as to the interpretation of Constitution - Repealed).

130  Advisory jurisdiction of Federal Court.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may refer to the Federal Court for its opinion any question as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution which has arisen or appears to him likely to arise, and the Federal Court shall pronounce in open court its opinion on any question so referred to it.

131  (Appeals from Federal Court - Repealed).

131A  Provision for incapacity, etc. of Chief Justice, President or Chief Judge.

(1) Any provision made by federal law for the functions of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of a High Court to be performed, in the event of a vacancy in the office or of his inability to act, by another judge of the Federal Court may extend to his functions under this Constitution.

(2) Any provision made by federal law for the functions of the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge of a High Court to be performed, in the event of a vacancy in the office or of his inability to act, by another judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court, as the case may be, may extend to his functions under this Constitution other than functions as judge of the Federal Court.

SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND BENEFITS  OF MALAYSIAN JUDGES 



JUDGES' REMUNERATION ACT 1971
FIRST SCHEDULE

[Subsection 2(1)]

(1) Judges
(2) Salary (pensionable)
(3) Effective date
1.
Chief Justice
RM36,000.00 per month
1-7-2015
2.
President of the Court of Appeal
RM31,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
3.
Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya
RM30,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
4.
Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak
RM30,000.00 per month
1-7-2015
5.
Judges of the Federal Court
RM28,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
6.
Judges of the Court of Appeal
RM27,500.00 per month
1-7-2015
7.
Judges of the High Courts in Malaya and Sabah and Sarawak


RM26,500.00 per month
1-7-2015

ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS- all in Schedule 2 - There is a lot, but let us look at some samples

SPECIAL JUDICIAL ALLOWANCE:

1. Chief Justice  - RM15,000.00 per month
2. President of the Court of Appeal - RM12,000.00 per month
3. Chief Judges of the High Court in Malaya - RM10,000.00 per month
4. Chief Judges of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak  - RM10,000.00 per month
5. Judges of the Federal Court - RM8,000.00 per month
6. Judges of the Court of Appeal - RM7,000.00 per month
7. Judges of the High Courts in Malaya and Sabah and Sarawak RM6,000.00 per month

There are many different allowances for judges. Below we just look at the Chief Justices, but all other judges also do receive in slightly lesser amounts

 SECOND SCHEDULE [Subsection 2(2)] 

ACCOMMODATION:
1. Chief Justice- (i) free fully furnished institutional quarters which (including the compound) shall be maintained free of charge, or in lieu thereof a house rent subsidy of RM 5,000.00 per month;

(ii) a provision of RM 3,000.00 per month for domestic help; and  

(iii) a provision of RM 4,100.00 per annum for house and garden upkeep. …


ENTERTAINMENT ALLOWANCE:
Chief Justice - RM6,000.00 per month

 Other allowances and benefits include Regional Allowance, Disturbance Allowance, Moving Allowance, Annual Leave, Medical Benefits, Car, Clothing Allowance, Lodging Expenses, Subsistence Allowance, Utility Bills(paid for), Internet/Communication Reimbursements, sports and recreational club membership, overseas travel...(look these up yourself...as there are a lot)


Notes from past posts

a) Judges pay & pensions

There really is a need to increase the monthly wages of judges - and to re-look at the pension scheme. The current pension scheme for judges is really bad - for not only does a Judge lose all his 'allowances' and benefits, but he also not even assured of 50% of his last drawn salary. WHY? Because judge's pensions are determined and calculated by a odd formula that looks at the number of months that the judge has sat on the Bench. Hence, the worry about the future ...how will I survive after my retirement?...


 b) Get rid of that 'contract Judge system' or probation judge system - the Judicial Commissioners. Just appoint them straight as judges...so they enjoy all that as been put in place to ensure independence. Remember security of tenure is one such safeguard....PR Nizar -v- BN Zambry : Many expected that decision...and that is BAD

...Judges should NEVER join law firms and/or Private Companies immediately after retirement. They should also not be accepting offers from the Government to become Chairpersons and/or sit in some Commissions and/or Government bodies/agencies. Is the government "rewarding" 'good' judges who "listened" and/or who "behaved"? We must not forget that the Government is also many a time made a party in suits before the court - and JUDGES who sit and hear these cases must never (and also never be seen to be) Pro-Government and/or Anti-Government but must mete out Justice as an INDEPENDENT JUDGE.

Judges must be independent - be seen to be independent when they are sitting on the bench and therefore what they do after retirement also matters.... - Post-retirement conduct of judges will affect public perception on the independence of judiciary