Asia has a reputation for doing things backwards, and in the case of Malaysian justice this is well earned. Rather than respected and honoured, the dis-honoured judges are held in contempt by the public, and sometimes described as contemptuous by other, better, judges in their rulings, condemning the contemptuous judges as contemptuous, along with officers of the prosecution who prance before them. It is a contemptuous situation, and makes the societal position of judge in Malaysia less meritorious than it once was during colonial times.

In criminal matters, the police have a peculiar mode of operation, reversing the usual order of events. Instead of the customary investigation, followed by the arrest of a suspect, Malaysian police arrest first, then interrogate the suspect (this passes as 'investigation') at length, and after a period of 60 days or so, announce to the waiting public the charges to be brought. If no charges can be found or invented during the period of interrogation, they mutter, "ISA" three times, then transfer the prisoner from a solitary cell to a cell in a communal "camp" for two years while they attempt to invent a credible story for the outraged public. Surprisingly, it is an efficient system, reducing court time and costs. There is a little paperwork to be done in the office of the minister of home affairs, located inconveniently at the edge of the village of Lilliput. On the downside, it is hard on family life.

It also offers a quaint picture of legal history, in which the power of the ruler to incarcerate is tested against the people's right to a fair trial. The writ of habeas corpus is being re-invented, in parody of the proverbial wheel. This tends to date Malaysia's justice system with the early medieval period of the English common law.

Many observers shrug this off with a, "Ho hum, another failure of democracy-after-independence." Others, however, recalling a prior period of decorum and dignity, are embarrassed to see the depths to which the traditions have dropped. To them we make an appeal. Please speak out for redress. Now is the time.

Family and friends, lawyers and bribes have no leverage in this milieu, as the Special Branch of the police, having orders from "the top," manage to get the cooperation of the Attorney General's office in the avoidance of any accounting, and thus avail themselves of the interminable delay that denies justice. There is a peculiar appetite for opposition figures, journalists and students who object to such high-handed treatment of their friends.

The jury system is inoperative in Malaysia, yea these six or seven years, replaced by a learned counsel elevated to the bench by the dictates of the prime minister's office. There is no forum for considering the ability, experience or aptitude of the candidate for the post. Just about anyone who can take an order will do, and does. Thus the system of justice has been simplified to the more direct political dimension.

The purposes of democracy in Malaysia are met by an election commission which has a titular duty, imposed by the Constitution, to maintain public trust and confidence. The composition of the commission is entrusted to the resident rotating monarchy, the members of which have other things to occupy its time, like cutting ribbons at a fee of RM25,000 an appearance. Cutting a tree brings a similar recompense. The supervision of the electoral commission are left to the prime minister, who has his own idea about how the democratic process should work.

There are, on regular occasions, complaints regarding the electoral processes, generally from losing candidates, and more rarely from losing incumbents. That is because in Malaysia, as in other places, the incumbent rarely loses. In Malaysia, however, the complaint is that the election commission has unfairly shoo-ed the incumbent back in.

These complaints were so well documented in the last general election that the sore winners had to pass a law requiring the losers in the election to pay all costs if they also lost the court case. That, predictably, put paid to most of the challenges placed before the election courts for adjudication.

Enter the contestants in Likas, located in the state of Sabah at the northern tip of Borneo. There Malaysia makes claim to two disparate states, both of mind and ethnic diversity. The election in Likas was challenged by the loser. The judge hearing the case, a smiling pleasant man, is worthy of mention, both for his perspicacity and his courage.

The Very Honorable Muhammad Kamil Awang, sitting for the lower court, found the situation execrable, and after a long and tiring trial, said so. What he wrote in judgement deserves careful consideration, centering as it does on the many failures of the democratic process in Malaysia.