Tuesday, June 10th, 2008
Borneo Post
High Court judge makes explosive judicial disclosures
By Danny Wong
SIBU: A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.
The Barisan Nasional candidate, Ding Kuong Hing, won the seat with a slim majority of 51 votes.
Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.
He said complaints had been made against him in an earlier case that he had failed to disclose the detention of his father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970.
Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.
He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.
“I take this course also because I am smarting over the complaint that the detention of my father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970 should have been but not disclosed. (See Sabah Foundation & 2 Ors vs Datuk Syed Kechik & Anor, Kota Kinabalu High Court at http://kkhighcourt.com/Completed Civil Matters/SabahFoundation.doc)
“What I am going to disclose relate to what happened after two of my judgements were handed down. One was the judgment in a libel case which I handed down on February 5 1997 (see Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon & Ors at http://kkhighcourt.com/Completed Civil Trials/RaveychandranNST.pdf) by which I distinguished MGG Pillai V Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases,” he said.
Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.
“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24 1997.
The then prime minister was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.
“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”
Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.
Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.
“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.
“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.
“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.
“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”
Chin went on to say that to commemorate his “dialogue” with the judges a group picture was taken (which can be viewed by going to http://www/kkhighcourt.com/ JudgesnMahathir.htm).
To rub it in, he said, Bernama circulated a press release with one appearing in a Sabah newspaper (The Daily Express May 25 1997) which “was far from stating the truth”. A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.
He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.
“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.
“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?
“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.
“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.
“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.
Chin told the court that he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure by the Chief Justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter making a decision based on the law and evidence.
The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.
He said he had also heard other election petitions, namely Yusuf Abdul Rahman v Abdul Ajis & Ors and Lee Hie Kui v Song Swee Guan & Darrell Tsen.
“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.
“The petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of a party to which he belongs.
” So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they (counsel or parties) in this case entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.
“After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgment that I had handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.
“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”
Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties digest what he had said and to consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.
However, they expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.

#1 by cemerlang on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 9:44 pm
God stands on the side of the righteous. Hell can wait. Let these people answer before God and before men while still living.
You are absolutely, perfectly right. Entertainment allowances should be slashed. In fact, they should be stopped. You are supposed to be working for the people who elect you. Why do you need to entertain others and also yourself ? May be there are too many political posts ? Then, slash these political posts if it serves nothing but goyang kaki only. If you have what it takes, you do not need entertainment allowances to seduce others into making a deal. What has taken another country a couple of years to become industralized will take Malaysia another 50 years or may be more to be in their shoes.
#2 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 9:58 pm
Ian HN Chin’s revelations have put the former premier in an untenable position.
If judge’s revelations were true, they reveal a situtation perilously close to the abuse of power charge by which DSAI was convicted. All that need to be proved for an offence of abuse of power is that (1) the accused was member of the administration and (2) used his position for either (a) pecuniary advantage or (b) other advantage.
The use of position is the part about expressing unhappiness with ‘the Borneo Case’ followed by the “thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done” – and of course the other part asking “whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”
The more difficult is the expression “other advantage” and whether intimidating by veiled threats in order to make judges subservient to government of the day is included within that expression.
Here we talking of strictly whether there is basis for police/AG to investigate and deliberate on issue whether an offence has been committed. It is as much a function whether the present administration has the political will to look in this direction.
This is a thing apart – and entirely separate – from the other independent question of whether there is now a fit and proper case for present government to institute a Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1950 to enquire into the larger issue of Judiciary independence/corruption and the narrower issue of the former premier’s role in respect of it.
Regarding this second question of RCI, I think there is in light of the recommendations of the earlier Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip coupled now corroborated by Judge Ian HN Chin’s startling revelations.
Likely in the days to come the Bar Council, NGOs and the Opposition Parties will call and press the present administration for a RCI.
[I would like to hear Dr Bakri Musa has to comment about Judge Ian HN Chin’s startling revelations].
In response to oknyua posting Today at 14: 50.38 (5 hours ago), YB Lim Guan Eng’s case should by right be reviewed.
In respect of what happened in the “boot camp” Judge Ian HN Chin said that “the then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions.
The deputy was then present Pakatan Rakyat’s defacto leader Anwar. He is lucky he is not implicated, which he otherwise might be had he chosen to address and talk to the judges instead of cleverly inviting questions!
#3 by Jong on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 10:03 pm
Mr Irrelevant is exceptionally quiet.
#4 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 10:09 pm
Typo correction ///..they reveal a “situation” perilously close…///
#5 by philip vyti on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 10:37 pm
I am speechless.How many more of these happenings are going to come out. What about the judge, I forget his name…. he received a call when he was hearing a case in east Malaysia then wrote a letter on the corruption in the judicary and later had to resign. Poor chap now at least people will see the truth in his statements
LKS can you remember this case?
#6 by carboncopy on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 10:40 pm
Ian Chin Upright?
Maybe we should revisit the Ritz Hotel Casino vs Osu Sukam case.
http://www.kkhighcourt.com/Completed_Civil_Matters/CasinovOsu.doc
#7 by lopez on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 10:47 pm
another act of lousy losers exercising sticky acts of preventions,
the happiness of the governed and governor are distinctively divided
but hey who gave them the mandate in the first place and now sat too long and refuse to come down form the pedestal.
Why cant those bloodies idiots go sit in the toilet for everybody sake, and he can enjoy himself there piece and quiet to the musical droppings of his desire.
shut the damn door and stay inside….
#8 by liu on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 11:04 pm
To philip vyti:
Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang was instructed by the ex-CJ by phone to strike out an election petition, Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid wrote a letter to the same ex-CJ on corruption in the Judiciary implicating some 12 judges including the ex-CJ. Now can someone post that 32 page letter by Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid or would the same step forward and reveal all for the sake of this country?
#9 by jameselva on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 11:16 pm
Mahathir will say: I don’t ingat anything lah.
The judge lobby for promotion lah and he did not get it. Very angry lah with me.
#10 by donng55 on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 11:31 pm
“… The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?”
YB LIM
We want to know if the then Deputy PM, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, was aware of the purpose of the “boot camp” and the reason why he was there?
Surely, Mahathir qua Mahathir, he would not send someone in whom he had no complete trust or someone who was not in sync with his thoughts on the case to attend to such sensitive matter. Right?
#11 by Anak Malaysia on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 11:37 pm
Another sandiwara in judiciary of East Malaysia after Lingam case. -What a shame ?
Nobody to trust in the judiciary system in Malaysia since judges are easily sway away and unindependent in their judgements. – What a shameful system ?
Prices of all goods and services are skyrockecting daily after BLACK 8 June 08 caused a mockery of the judiciary decision to allow drastic increase petrol and electricitiy prices without public opinion survey to cease such prices hike. – Shame is the best word.
No words to describe the meaning of “SHAME” !!
IN GOD WE TRUST
#12 by dawsheng on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 - 11:55 pm
Is this a revelation or is this a confession? 20 years later he suddenly found two ballz in his pant?
#13 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 8:27 am
/// dawsheng Says:
Yesterday at 23: 55.09
Is this a revelation or is this a confession? 20 years later he suddenly found two ballz in his pant? ///
Easy for us to sit here and pontificate. Try going against a tyrant and a despot when he is in power. See what happened to Anwar.
#14 by k1980 on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 10:42 am
Malaysia should change its name to “Mugabeland”
#15 by passerby on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 10:49 am
Now that Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin has disclosed justice is not blind but directed by someone above, can we not ask Parliament to declare there is a miscarriage of justice and declare all judgement null and void. If the wrongful dismissed judges can be compensated, then those who have suffered miscarriage of justice should also be compensated and apologized.
Malaysia stand in the world is very low because this scandal and no one will trust the country judicial system in the event of any dispute. I am sure foreigners are view the country no better than those 3rd world countries in Africa and this is one of the reasons why foreign companies are staying away. If the gov is not prepared to right the injustice and keep the judiciary independent, Malaysia dream of 2020 will be just a dream.
#16 by shortie kiasu on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 11:28 am
Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin is a brave man of impeccable integrity and we congratulate such judges in the judiciary. He puts judges involved in the “Lingam Tape” case, and those involved in the sacking of Tun Saleh Abbas and other judges into utter shame!
He is the beacon of hope in the Malaysian judiciary now. We certain congratulate him and some of fellow judges who stood by evidence and law and not political threat from the PM or the Chief Justice, or the President of Court of Appeal!
#17 by philip vyti on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 12:13 pm
To liu thanks for the name of the judge who spoke up but no one believed him. AG says no case lah probably after consulting mamak.What a shame.Are we now going to pay conpensation to this brave judge. I think its only fair as he stuck his neck out and had it chopped.
To dawsheng… please justice datuk Chin had no choice.Its easy for us on the side lines to say that he had no balls. Think what would have happened if he told all during mamaks time. For what he has done now I salute him.
#18 by k1980 on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 5:23 pm
The then prime minister answers: “Looks like me, sounds like me, smells like me but it isn’t me. “
#19 by bernadette on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 6:28 am
asking for another RCI on the former PM is naive and stupid! thinking that that will solve all our problems could only come from the mind of a retard!
#20 by PHUAKL on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 8:00 am
I think there is more than meets the eye here.
Perhaps the poor judges are being used as a weapon against the
former PM (who is currently heavily criticising the current PM)?
Another example of Machiavellian politics at work!
Nevertheless, the more disclosures by both camps (by the former PM in his blog and by the present PM through the mainstream media and other mouth pieces), the better for the citizens of Malaysia.
#21 by Tickler on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 12:42 pm
Matthias Chang has called for justice Ian Chin to be sacked. The former AG Abu Talib has also had an outburst.
What is this former AG afraid of. He should immediately step down from SUHAKAM.
Justice Ian Chin was acting in proper manner when he talked in this matter in showing `openness` by revealing to both parties to decide if he should be recused in a matter before him.
I only infer from the former AG`s outburst that he too was party to previous misdemeanors, and that he should be investigated further.
Also the AG should start proceedings against the former AG and Mathias Chang along the similar lines that Mr. Lim Guan Eng, (current Chief minister, Penang) was sent to prison on a somewhat similar matter.
I`m not sure if a police report against Mathias Chang and Abu Talib should be made as well.
#22 by Tickler on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 12:44 pm
Former AG Slams Justice Chin
News Headline 2008-06-11 17:41
PETALING JAYA: Former Attorney General Abu Talib Othman today slammed High Court Judge Ian H.C. Chin claiming that former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had threatened judges during his premiership.
Abu Talib who is also Human Rights Commissioin (Suhakam) chairman said the judge, “should not talk about this outside the court, his action was inappropriate because his allegation was not related with the cases which he is handling now,” Abu Talib told Sin Chew Daily when contacted in Petaling Jaya Wednesday (11 June).