Justice is the concept of moral fairness, based on the principles of ethics, integrity, independence, dignity, wisdom, patience, courage, and truth. This is the theoretical and utopian precept that guides the administration of justice.
However, the application of justice differs in every culture, and its concept is encapsulated in the traditions, beliefs, the structure, and organisation of the respective communities.
As such, its interpretation varies according to the nature of the society.
Primitive and tribal societies have their own customary laws, which could be a blend of mercy and retribution, based on their traditional norms.
Justice is usually meted out summarily without any long deliberations, for such a system is required to maintain order in those societies. Unlike in the modern, so-called civilised society.
In organised and structured societies, justice is meted out differently, based on the ideology of the society, whether it is feudal, fascist, a dictatorship, an oligarchy, or a democracy.
In theory, in the first three systems (feudal, fascism and dictatorship) a single person, or a select group, dictates the nature and application of justice.
In absolute monarchy (autocracy), the judiciary is subservient to the dictates of the king, who is above the law.
Likewise, in fascist and communist countries, the judiciary and all other enforcement agencies are subservient to the dictates of the ruling cohort. Myanmar is an example of a fascist state where justice is administered according to the whims and fancies of the ruling generals.
In a democracy, theoretically, it is the people, through their elected representatives, who determine the nature, and implementation of justice.
In theory, the rule of law in democratic countries, applies to everyone. However, it is not so in practice, as there are variations of democratic practices, ranging from liberal to guided democracy, and constitutional monarchy.
Britain is a classic example of a constitutional monarchy based on the principles of liberal democracy.
Likewise, Malaysia has a constitutional monarchy, but with nine, instead of one king, and it is more akin to an aristocracy.
Except for the royalty, all Malaysian citizens are of equal standing in the eyes of the law, as enshrined in the Constitution, but not so in practice, for Malaysian society is divided into a kind of a “caste system” based on lineage, political affiliation, and economic status.
At the top are the Rajas and Sultans who are above the law, although there is a token special court instituted to address any misdemeanours on their part.
The next caste consists of the ruling politicians, who sometimes appear almost as untouchable as the royals.
Slightly lower down the politicians are the third-level echelon, comprising the corporate class, who are either political appointees, or bona fide businessmen who support the top politicians. They have much leeway on the question of the rule of law.
Following this are the professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. The next category is the working-class civil servants, small- and medium-enterprise businessmen, while the last class consists of farmers, fishermen, and manual labourers.
At times, questions have been raised, whether justice is administered selectively according to these different caste-like categories of people.
A glaring example is the special privileges extended to a former prime minister who, despite being convicted of seven counts related to the misappropriation of RM42 million of SRC International’s funds, is free to roam around with police escorts and bodyguards, visit foreign countries, and even has the audacity to proffer advice on good governance.
Compare this to a mother of four who stole two packets of Milo to feed her youngest children and who was sentenced to 14 months in jail. Another recent case involves a mother who changed the dates of her ex-husband’s visiting rights, and was sentenced to seven days jail by the Syariah Court.
There have also been instances of allegedly corrupt politicians having their court cases dropped, while many more currently face graft charges.
There is a lingering fear that external pressures could be applied to affect the justice system.
For example, the executive could still exert its influence, through the Attorney-General, who is at the behest of the executive as the government’s legal advisor, and has the sole prerogative of deciding to prosecute, or drop cases.
To ensure justice is meted out, there is a need to separate the functions of the Attorney-General as the government’s legal advisor and as a prosecutor. He should be answerable to Parliament.
Except for some blemishes, the Malaysian judiciary has proven to be a bastion of redress for its citizens, as the judges have sworn to adjudicate, without fear or favour, based on the principles of independence, integrity, dignity, and wisdom.
This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Twentytwo13.
