I believe Zaid is sincere in trying to reform our judiciary. The reason for belief is based on his public advocacy in media (NST) and public forum (eg debate between him and Nazri organized by Bar Council) for such reform during the time before 12th GE, when he was just a BN MP for Kota Bharu and when he knew or ought to know that such activism to reform the judiciary would be viewed with suspicion and disapproval by the warlords and power brokers within the ruling coalition and his party. Then he had nothing to gain from such outspokenness. He risked his prospects of rising within UMNO’s hierarchy by such public advocacy of judicial reform. At that he had absolutely nothing to gain and much to lose from such public advocacy of judicial reform. After all he was then doing quite well from patronage of being an UMNO lieutenant in PAS territory. Indeed he was dropped from BN’s candidate list in the last GE without knowing why. The situation is quite different as regards premier AAB. Although credit ought to be given for his appointment of Zaid, fact remains it was an appointment was after – and not be – the debacle of 12th GE. So the issue of whether there was real commitment to judicial reform, in his case, is open to question whether, there were real commitment evinced in appointing Zaid or just a mere cosmetic gesture to assuage public disapproval evident from the recent results to salvage BN’s changing political fortunes for the worse.

Zaid’s first proposal of an apology by the government for the 1988 judicial crisis has been criticized by United Nations special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy has being “not sufficient to induce real reform”. Param said Zaid must understand that punitive measures must be taken against the perpetrators. “Glossing over the events of 1988 by a mere apology from the present government will be seen as subscribing to impunity of people in high places thereby defeating the very essence of accountability in public administration,” he added.

In Zaid’s defence I would say that whilst it is true that mere apology is “not sufficient to induce real reform”, there is also nothing to suggest that a mere apology is the last and only step Zaid would do.

It is after all just the beginning, and for starters it is necessary to get the present administration to admit and apologise for the wrong that had been done to Salleh Abbas and other judges in 1988 before other measures such as instituting an independent judicial commission for the appointment of judges can be proceeded upon. It is first things first. How does one expect Zaid to immediately do more when even the first token gesture of apology is already resisted by his cabinet colleagues as hinted by Zaid’s remarks, “I am afraid the view has yet to be considered. “There are many people who are more experienced and who are wiser than me. So we have to wait.”

Now Zaid can’t push his agenda (of judicial reform) through unless his patron the premier could give him strong backing relative to detractors.

Right now the patron himself is fighting for political survival. He could not prevail on Terengganu’s Ruler to accept Idris Jusoh as Terengganu’s MB, indeed it was the other way around he had to accept palace-backed Ahmad Said as MB; he also could not prevail on UMNO Supreme Council to agree deferring party polls (seen as offering avenues of leadership challenge by Ku Li) to next year, and further he could not control certain cabinet appointees like Ghapur Salleh from taking deputy ministerially positions, apparently for real reasons undisclosed.

However to the “many people”, who according to Zaid, “are more experienced and who are wiser than me. So we have to wait”, the question is whether there is “time to wait”.

Politicians do not turn down ministerial positions for nothing. Something is evidently brewing and afoot especially when main protagonist DSAI has been uncharacteristically quiet of late.

If there were going to occur a significant crossing over by BN’s MPs that causes the BN to lose command of majority in Dewan Rakyat in a time not too long from now, and ensuing from that, an Opposition backed vote of no confidence is successfully passed against the PM representing the BN government, what would be the scenario then?

One scenario is that the King could dissolve parliament the second to usher in the next 13th General Election.

The BN showing no will to reform after the 12th GE would, in line with the momentum of decline of popularity evinced in the 12th GE, llikely be trounced even more this time around, returning to parliament as a full fledged opposition coalition.

This is not something many within BN would relish or could afford because of vested interests and existing crony deals yet uncompleted and inchoate and the dire prospects of witch hunt when BR comes to power!

The real issue now is no more just whether the present cabinet has “taken well or not the point made” by voters during the 12th General Election.

The real issue is, if there were no immediate genuine reform, whether there is really still this same cabinet a few months down road for any point to be well taken, if at all! :)

For the first time, time is of the essence running against an imploding incumbent ruling coalition.

///Zaid Ibrahim has to explain why he supported the tribunal and the sacking of the Lord President and the Judges then, as alleged by Mahathir in his article appearing in theSun newspaper on 28/3/08!/// – shortie kiasu.

Don’t know what Mathathir is talking about. Zaid Ibrahim wasn’t a cabinet minister in 1988 when sacking of the Lord President and the Judges took place. In fact Zaid became active in politics after he joined Umno in 2000 way after the judicial crisis in 1988….

That in 1988 he enjoyed patronage from UMNO (Tun Daim) is not disputed though. His firm was the first Malaysian firm to get into privatisation work back in 1988 with its involvement in the North South Expressway.

Zaid is well known for his dissenting views from the government on various issues. Well before the last election, he was not afraid to speak his mind.

He couldn’t convince his colleagues in the new cabinet of Abdullah because some of his colleaques might be with Mahathir in 1988.

///Zaid was at the time the President of the National Muslim Lawyers’ Association, and according to Mahathir, supported the establishment of the Tribunal against Tun Salleh and the others/// – Godfather.

So we note from what Mahathir said. I don’t recall or have any record of this other than and independent of what the Tun selectively remembers, amongst many things that he had apparently forgotten if you believe what he said in the Lingam’s Enquiry!

Yet I won’t discount what Mahathir said as a figment of his imagination.

It is well nigh possible, if not probable, that Zaid then in 1988 supported the establishment of the Tribunal against Tun Salleh and the others for reasons of self interest. If his firm was the first Malaysian firm to get into privatisation work in 1988 for North South Expressway, it would require Tun Daim’s patronage – and Daim being Mahathir’s crony, would imply Mahathir need to be ingratiated, which accounts why Mahathir remembers this so vividly!

However, I won’t hold this (point of inconsistency) against Zaid if by subsequent conduct and speeches he had “reformed” for the better to argue for an independent Judiciary.

If we were to use a person’s errant actions of the past as a bench mark to judge, doubt and discredit his present good deeds, we can’t move forward. We would also have to doubt Anwar Ibrahim and Khalid Ibrahim who at that time (1988) also supported and ingratiated supreme Mahathir.

On the cause of fighting for restoration of judiciary’s independence which Zaid, Anwar Ibrahim and Khalid Ibrahim all subscribe, the difference is that Zaid is prepared to advocate it publicly whilst still within UMNO’s firmament contrary to comfort of his party whilst the other two are outside the circle of power.