Public Perception in Legal matters

The public's opinion can be far removed from the actual legal situation. Among lawyers, even specialists, we can find different opinions on any given matter. Amid such differences in opinions, we have our mainstream media doing the work of the ruling party to further confuse us.

The following two headlines show the difference of a party owned newspaper (former) and a relatively independent one (latter):
New Straits Times: MB concedes appointment is legitimate
http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/2stmate7turn/Article/

The Sun: Choice of state sec up to S'gor, say experts
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=55888
Shown on television (TV3): A picture of Umno lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun was shown after the late night news on the controversial appointment, as an expert on constitutional law, giving the impression that he is the final authority on such matters. But we have read criticisms of his past views by his peers, and as a layman, my impression of his success thus far, seems to derive more from a biased judiciary than actual legal prowess.

NH Chan (well respected retired Court of Appeal Judge) as reported in Malaysian Insider:

“As you can see, Section 5(1) is definitive, it says specifically that the appointment of the State Secretary shall be made by the appropriate service commission from amongst members of the relevant public services....

If they sue the wrong service commission, they will lose 100 per cent. Their case will be dismissed immediately.”
(To be fair, he was asked over the phone without access to relevant books to check on relevant statutes and case law.)

Edmond Bon did some research as posted in Loyarburok, and he stands to be corrected:
http://www.loyarburok.com/the-system/bolehland/k-point-constitutional-tort-by-the-selangor-state-service-commission/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Loyarburok+(LoyarBurok)

"III. Interpreting Article 52(1) SSC
Article 52(1) SSC states that there shall be constituted the offices of State Secretary, State Legal Adviser and State Financial Officer; and the appointments thereto shall be made by the appropriate Service Commission from amongst members of any of the relevant public services. Discourse on which is the proper appointing body under the SSC (in respect of the SS) has centred on the words "appropriate Service Commission". I agree with my learned friend, Tommy Thomas,that the words are ambiguous. But I humbly differ from his view that one should refer to "constitutional conventions" to then assume the appropriate appointing body would be the PSC.

In this particular case, one should consider the Interpretation Acts 1948 & 1967 (IA) which has expressly defined the words "appropriate Service Commission" like this:

"appropriate Service Commission" in relation to any public officer means such Service Commission as under the [Federal] Constitution has jurisdiction over such officer or in the case of a public officer in the employment of the Government of a State who is not under the jurisdiction of any of such Commission means the public Service Commission of such State having jurisdiction over such officer or if there is no such Commission means the Menteri Besar of such State.

Based on my reading of the law detailed above, PSC has no jurisdiction over the appointment of the SS in Selangor, and taking the IA definition, the "appropriate Service Commission" in Article 52(1) SSC must be the Selangor State Service Commission."

In other words, nothing is clear cut and our perception of the law seems to be that the decision at the end might possibly be tailor-made to suit the powers that be! The public do not have sufficient attention span nor ability to read into who is right or wrong. Many are influenced by hearsay and most are interested in some basic arguments. It would not be wrong to say that public opinions are mainly based on common sense.
Link