Bullshitting over separation of powers

I actually didn't really mind it when Anwar the other day said the MACC's investigation against CoA judge Nazlan was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Anwar is after all a politician and because of that he should be allowed to bullshit, every now and then.

But when the Malaysian Bar said the same thing, I was like, what the fuck is wrong with them.

You can read their statement by clicking on its extracts here;

The Malaysian Bar further states that the MACC investigation violates the doctrine of separation of power and also undermine the independence of the judiciary, and is unconstitutional. 

I'm appalled because this is a statement made by people who were supposed to know the law and practicing it.

Even a student who took up constitutional law as his/her A-Level subject should know what separation of powers is really all about.

You all can even read it at Wikipedia here;

Separation of powers

and realise that there is no absolute separation of powers in any democratic system.

The whole point was for the executive, legislature and judiciary to check on each others so there would be no abuse of power by any of them.

And in doing so they could not avoid crossing each other's paths.

You can see that happening in the US, UK or any other countries claiming themselves as being democratic.

Now, MACC is a branch of the executive and the Bar is saying that it's interfering with the judiciary for initiating an investigation on a report that a judge has over RM1 million in his account, suspected to be derived from corrupt practices before he became a judge.

Is that really interfering with the judiciary?

Honestly, I don't think so because MACC is not even investigating the judge over an allegation of how he conducted himself as a member of judiciary.

Even if MACC is doing that, why not? All judges are incorruptible, is it?

Anyway, being investigated doesn't mean one is guilty. 

The Bar should know that....unless it believes otherwise because it has in the past deemed some people were guilty of something before those people were even convicted.

Yup, like what happened before and after the 2018 general election.

I didn't see the Bar going all out trying to convince Malaysians back then that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe that's why they are now talking about trial by media and public opinion.

Yeah right. Only now.

Okay, let's try putting it like this - if someone lodged a report saying that a judge had murdered someone before he was appointed as a judge, should the police investigate or should they let the judiciary handle the allegation on their own?

Bear in mind ya that the police is another branch of the executive. 

What if the judge that was being accused of the murder turned out to be the one who presided over the trial of the very same case and convicted someone else for the crime?

Should the guy that he found guilty be hung to death without the allegation even being investigated?

Again as far as separation of powers is concerned, should the MACC or the police, which are branches of the executive be allowed to investigate a member of parliament, which is the legislature if there is a report of him being involved in corruption or other crime?

Or is that yet another form of an interference over the sanctity of separation of powers doctrine?

I suggest you all ask those questions to any law student who have passed his/her constitutional law exam.

No need to ask those leaders of the Malaysian Bar as I think they would give you a political rather than  legal answer.