Justice delayed must still be justice delivered — Syed Mohammed Idid

The article reflects on the statement by the Malaysian Bar President regarding the alleged miscarriage of justice involving Dato' Syed Ahmad Idid, emphasizing the need for justice to be served irrespective of time.

It draws parallels between judicial and corporate governance, underscoring the importance of integrity and the responsibility to correct historical wrongs.

The discussion extends beyond individual cases, advocating for institutional environments where independent judgment and accountability are upheld, allowing employees to voice concerns without fear.

It concludes with a call for courage in addressing uncomfortable truths to maintain institutional trust and integrity.

SEPTEMBER 12 — The Malaysian Bar President Anand Raj’s statement on the circumstances surrounding my father, Dato’ Syed Ahmad Idid, struck me not merely as a son, but as a communications practitioner and someone increasingly immersed in the responsibilities of governance.

Thirty years is a long time.

But is it ever too late to right a wrong?

I do not believe so.

Justice must not only be seen to be done. Justice must be done — and done well.

Justice may take time. Institutions may change. Governments change. Leaders come and go.

Records gather dust.

But justice must eventually arrive, and when it does, it must be delivered with courage and clarity.

The Malaysian Bar has described what happened to my father as a “miscarriage of justice” and called upon the Government to restore his full pension, including arrears. More importantly, its statement makes a larger point: integrity must not be punished.

That principle travels far beyond the Judiciary.

It belongs equally in the boardroom.

As I deepen my own journey into corporate governance, I increasingly see a powerful parallel between judicial responsibility and fiduciary duty.

A judge carries the enormous responsibility of administering justice independently, without fear or favour.

A director carries a different but similarly solemn responsibility: to exercise independent judgement, act in good faith, discharge fiduciary duties and protect the interests and integrity of the organisation entrusted to his or her stewardship.

The institutions are different. The gravitas of their responsibilities is comparable.

Governance is therefore not simply about compliance, board papers, policies, risk registers and ticking the right boxes.

It is about conscience under pressure.

What happens when speaking up is inconvenient?

What happens when the person raising the uncomfortable question is the lone voice in the room?

What happens when protecting institutional reputation becomes confused with protecting individuals or preserving silence?

These are not theoretical governance questions. They go to the heart of institutional integrity.

Boards should understand this particularly well.

A healthy institution does not punish the person who raises a legitimate concern. It examines the concern. It protects the integrity of the process. It allows independent judgement to operate.

And when an institution discovers that something was wrong, good governance demands the courage to correct it.

Because the passage of time does not automatically convert a wrong into a right.

Nor should correcting an historical wrong be regarded as institutional weakness.

It can be one of the strongest demonstrations of institutional maturity.

That, to me, is the deeper significance of the Malaysian Bar President’s statement.

This is no longer simply about one retired judge, one pension or something that happened three decades ago.

It is about the kind of institutions Malaysia wants to build.

Institutions in which judges can act independently.

Boards can challenge management.

Employees can speak up.

Whistleblowers can raise legitimate concerns without destroying their careers.

And leaders have sufficient confidence in their institutions to acknowledge when something needs to be put right.

There is perhaps a governance lesson here for every director and every leader:

Never fear the uncomfortable truth more than you fear the consequences of ignoring it.

Justice may be delayed.

Accountability may take time.

But neither should carry an expiry date.

Because ultimately, whether in a courtroom or a boardroom, institutional trust rests on something remarkably simple:

Do it without fear or favour.

And when something has gone wrong, have the courage to put it right.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

‘We still have until February 2028’, Pakatan sec-gen says as GE16 chatter grows

Were the 30 Malaysians caught in Indonesia lone scammers, or something bigger? Home Ministry to dig deeper

Anwar to Iran: Keep Hormuz open, choose diplomacy over conflict

After Bandar Tasik Selatan PPR gets RM350,000 makeover, MP asks residents to ‘take good care’ for sake of kids and grandkids

这篇文章反思了马来西亚律师公会主席就拿督赛义德·艾哈迈德·伊迪德涉嫌司法不公一事发表的声明，强调无论何时都必须伸张正义。

它将司法和公司治理进行类比，强调了诚信的重要性以及纠正历史错误的责任。

讨论的范围不仅限于个案，还提倡建立维护独立判断和问责制的制度环境，让员工能够无所畏惧地表达担忧。

最后呼吁大家鼓起勇气面对令人不安的真相，以维护机构的信任和诚信。

9 月 12 日——马来西亚律师公会主席阿南德·拉杰就我父亲拿督赛义德·艾哈迈德·伊迪德的情况发表的声明，不仅让我作为儿子，也让我作为传播从业者和日益承担治理责任的人感到震惊。

三十年是很长一段时间。

但是，纠正错误是否为时已晚？

我不这么认为。

正义不仅要体现在表面上，更要体现在实际执行中。正义必须得到伸张，而且要彻底实现。

正义的实现或许需要时间。制度可能会改变。政府会更迭。领导人会来来去去。

唱片都积灰了。

但正义终将到来，而当正义到来时，必须以勇气和清晰的思路来伸张。

马来西亚律师公会称我父亲的遭遇是“司法不公”，并呼吁政府恢复其全部养老金，包括拖欠的金额。更重要的是，该公会的声明阐明了一个更重要的观点：正直不应受到惩罚。

这一原则的适用范围远远超出了司法领域。

它同样适用于董事会会议。

随着我对公司治理的深入了解，我越来越发现司法责任和信托责任之间存在着强烈的相似之处。

法官肩负着独立公正地行使司法权的重大责任，不畏强权，不徇私情。

董事肩负着不同的但同样庄严的责任：行使独立判断，诚信行事，履行信托义务，保护受托管理的组织的利益和完整性。

这两个机构性质不同，但它们肩负的责任却同样重大。

因此，公司治理不仅仅是合规、董事会文件、政策、风险登记册和勾选正确的选项。

这是关于压力下的良知问题。

当表达意见不方便时会发生什么？

当提出令人尴尬的问题的人是房间里唯一一个发声的人时，会发生什么？

当保护机构声誉与保护个人或维护沉默混淆时，会发生什么？

这些并非理论上的治理问题，而是关乎制度诚信的核心问题。

董事会尤其应该充分理解这一点。

一个健康的机构不会惩罚提出合理关切的人，而是会调查这些关切，维护流程的公正性，并允许独立判断发挥作用。

当一个机构发现出了问题时，良好的治理要求有勇气去纠正它。

因为时间的流逝并不会自动将错误变成正确。

纠正历史错误也不应被视为制度缺陷。

这可能是衡量制度成熟度的最有力证明之一。

在我看来，这才是马来西亚律师公会主席声明的更深层意义。

这不再仅仅关乎一位退休法官、一份养老金或三十年前发生的事情。

这关乎马来西亚想要建立什么样的机构。

法官可以独立行事的机构。

董事会可以对管理层提出质疑。

员工可以畅所欲言。

举报人可以提出合理的担忧，而不会毁掉自己的职业生涯。

领导者们对自己的机构有足够的信心，能够意识到何时需要纠正某些问题。

或许，这对于每位董事和每位领导者来说，都蕴含着一些公司治理方面的启示：

永远不要因为害怕令人不舒服的真相而害怕它，而应该害怕忽视它的后果。

正义或许会迟到。

问责可能需要时间。

但两者都不应该设定有效期。

因为归根结底，无论是在法庭上还是在董事会上，机构信任都建立在极其简单的事情之上：

做事要不畏惧，不偏袒。

当事情出错时，要有勇气去纠正它。

* 这是作者或刊物的个人观点，并不一定代表《马来邮报》的观点。

“我们还有时间，直到2028年2月”，希望联盟秘书长表示，随着第16届全国大选的讨论日益增多。

在印尼落网的30名马来西亚人是孤立诈骗犯，还是另有图谋？内政部将深入调查。

安瓦尔致伊朗：保持霍尔木兹海峡开放，选择外交途径而非冲突

Bandar Tasik Selatan 人民组屋区耗资 35 万令吉翻新后，国会议员呼吁居民为了子孙后代“好好爱护”房屋。