2 Chief Justices Divergent Paths In Upholding Constitution

---

 


I would argue that there is really no comparison between the present acting Chief Justice Hasnah Hashim and her predecessor, the recently retired Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
It appears that the government, in general - and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in particular - favoured the appointment of Hasnah rather than granting a short extension to Tengku Maimun.
It is not my intention to determine who is the better judge. Both the current and former chief justices had admirable qualities in handling legal and constitutional matters.
Hasnah’s cautious and non-controversial judgments may have endeared her to the political establishment, particularly to Anwar.
ADSI am not suggesting that there exists one universal criterion to differentiate between effective and ineffective judges. Hasnah may well have delivered decent legal and constitutional rulings over the course of her judicial career.
Whether she consciously sought to remain in the good graces of the government is not something easily determined. But in the judiciary, especially in assessing the performance of judges, perception matters.
Hasnah, by avoiding controversy in her decisions, may have been perceived as a more palatable choice for the top judicial post. Not necessarily because she wanted to please those in power, but because her character naturally inclined her to engage with the Constitution in a more cautious, less adversarial manner compared to more assertive and independent-minded judges like Tengku Maimun.
Hasnah and Tengku Maimun were colleagues who respected each other’s roles. There was no apparent envy or competition for government recognition or favour.
Yet, in comparison to the slightly conservative Hasnah, Tengku Maimun stood out as a more robust judge - one deeply committed to protecting the Constitution and safeguarding the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
These qualities enabled her to strike down laws that threatened the constitutional fabric of the country. Tengku Maimun was neither a conservative nor a liberal. Her paramount concern was always the defence of the Constitution from encroachment by a predatory executive.
Central to her judgments was the goal of liberating the judiciary in line with the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.
Hasnah may have upheld the law and the Constitution, but unlike Tengku Maimun, she did not take the crucial step to assert the supremacy of the Constitution over executive excesses.
Her judgments, though technically sound, often lacked the vigilance required to confront the dangers of an unchecked government.
Hasnah was careful and diligent in fulfilling her judicial responsibilities. But she was not a judicial fighter - unlike Tengku Maimun - when it came to reining in the power of the executive.
Ultimately, due to the differences in their judicial temperaments, Hasnah became the more acceptable candidate to the executive, whereas Tengku Maimun remained steadfastly loyal to the Constitution, often at the risk of upsetting those in power. - Mkini
P RAMASAMY is Urimai chairperson and former deputy Penang chief minister II.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---