YOURSAY | ‘Art, your writing to the court was a shameful act made only worse by your attempts at justifying it.’

Speaker defends writing to court asking for Najib trial to end early

Annonymous: House speaker Azhar Azizan ‘Art’ Harun said: "In the UK, Parliament is supreme, but in Malaysia the powers (judiciary, legislature and executive) are equal.”

Exactly, Azhar. When you are "equal", why would you write to Judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah trying to "request" or impress on him the "importance" of Parliament and interfere in the court process involving a critical case that has great public and global interest?

In future, can the court also rightfully write to the speaker of Parliament to "request" to postpone or end Parliament sitting earlier so that it would not interfere in the court process or clash with the dates of a critical criminal trial that has been unnecessarily delayed and disrupted many times by the defendant?

Where is your priority, Azhar - pandering to the whims and fancies of the defendant or to ensure justice is served at all costs and uphold the independence and dignity of the courts?

Vijay47: Even if some recent occupants had sullied the office, Parliament’s speaker is meant to be a holy responsibility in a sacred environment.

A few have achieved it, others have failed miserably. Whichever category you believe you fall into, Azhar, you have succeeded in lightning speed.

Until almost yesterday, you were the fervent defender of the public’s honour while also one of the nation’s greatest critics of the rancid politicians who would grievously stray from the high road.

And today, you actually come out with a puerile “I was not ordering, I was simply requesting”. Is the relationship among the courts, Parliament and the executive, to be given form in cosy little love letters exchanging “requests”?

Your writing to the courts, a fellow equal as you claim, was a shameful act made only worse by your pathetic attempts at justifying it. Let others mind their cattle, Azhar, you tend to your own flock.

Your immature bravado has set the judiciary against the legislature, and in case you have not realised it, the more entrenched public perception would now be that “it runs in the family”.

In the realm of the all-embracing institution of parliamentary democracy, one mere man’s presence or absence is a triviality you should not have indulged in; in doing so, you have reduced Parliament to crude politics even if you are indifferent to how society and history will henceforth regard you.

However, Judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah will emerge from this sorry episode with honour intact, flag flying high.

His displeasure at your interference is readily evident from the fact that he granted the very minimum latitude you prayed for - he allowed the accused, Najib Abdul Razak, to fly the roost with only 15 minutes to spare.

Until recently, Pandikar Amin Mulia was the towering monument to his own brand of administering Parliament. The only surprise, Azhar, is the speed with which you have outdone him.

Kim Quek: Speaker Azhar, the issue is not whether you have the discretion, but whether it is right and proper for you to ask the judge to suspend a trial so that the accused could deliver a speech in Parliament.

More so, when the former prime minister is on a high-profile trial for a most serious crime - the greatest theft of public funds in the nation’s history, and in fact, the world’s most sensational financial crime in recent memory.

Was Najib’s attendance in Parliament so vital that it could not proceed without his presence? It is most definitely not. Then, why accorded Najib such VVIP treatment?

Azhar’s unjustified move to favour Najib, which casts doubt over his impartiality, has only vindicated widespread public cynicism over his appointment which was rammed through a process widely perceived as illegal.

Shovelnose: Wow, Art. That's strike two in your first week. Why have you felt the urgent need to make that request to the courts for one of the MPs? Was his contribution to the debate so crucial that the criminal case involving him have to give way to his attendance in Parliament?

You've previously been vociferous in electoral and political reform, throwing daily sarcasm on the cartoonish antics of the political players of the day, but you've become the star of your own cartoon show.

Some were quick to defend you, asking critics not to judge you too quickly or too severely, but you choose the part and the script.

Heron: ‘Supreme’ and ‘equal’ are informative and pertinent words in describing the stature and status of the three institutions in question. And perhaps ‘independence’ is exclusively sacrosanct to the judiciary.

Obviously, the speaker is knowledgeable on these matters and that his letter was purely an appeal for consideration in the interests of a parliamentary debate and the participation of a distinguished MP. Surely, there is no interference intended for any misperception about contempt towards court proceedings.

BlueShark1548: Was Najib's participation necessary? Najib is not a cabinet member, just an MP who is facing criminal charges and whose trial had taken many months. Justice should not be delayed just to have an MP in Parliament.

If an MP keeps using his attendance in Parliament and asking to be excused from attending court or attending for only half-day, imagine how long the trial would take?

Obviously, the speaker had not considered this factor properly and it was no excuse for him to state that he merely asked the court. What is happening to our country?

Kutan: Where is the discretion in this particular case? Where is it contained? Care to tell us? Already it looks so bad that a former leader charged with multiple offences against the very country that he led could be facing a jail term.

In countries that cherish democratic principles such as accountability and good governance, the person would have resigned or vacated his/her seat, not giving speeches in Parliament.

To add insult to the injury, you make it look like it is paramount that such a character be present in Parliament. Please do not even mention the UK; you did them a great disservice.

PurpleHawk0187: There exists a clear distinction between the legislative and judiciary arms in governance. No matter how the speaker tries to justify, he interfered in due process by writing to the judge.

What was of national importance in Parliament that the trial of an alleged thief and fraudster be cut short?

Mr Speaker, you have shown that alleged criminality takes importance. Welcome to the "new" Malaysia. The country's reverse gear is in effect and gathering pace.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 500,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.