Disbelief, shock and outrage — these three feelings sum up the general reaction to news of the announcement by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak of the three-man independent panel set up by the government to investigate the authenticity of the Lingam Tape of a telephone conversation between a senior lawyer V.K. Lingam and Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002 on fixing of judicial appointments and perversion of the course of justice.
Najib said the panel would be headed by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, with former Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar and social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye as members.
The three-man independent panel into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape is unsatisfactory and unacceptable as it falls far short of what should be done — a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the alleged perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, integrity, impartiality and integrity.
The establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation is particularly urgent and imperative to restore public confidence in the system of justice as up to now, Ahmad Fairuz has been conspicuously silent in failing to personally issue a statement on the Lingam Tape — five days after its expose by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
The denial which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had made on Ahmad Fairuz’ behalf is just not good enough, with zero credibility.
In restricting the panel to the question of the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of allowing full investigations into all aspects of the allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity raised by the video clip, the government is avoiding the imperative issue of the long-standing rot in the judiciary and the urgent need to restore national and international confidence in the system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law.
A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape would have first to address the issue of the authenticity of the video clip and there is no reason why an independent panel should be formed with the very narrow and restricted focus of deciding whether the video clip is authentic or otherwise, without the further powers of proceeding to further conduct comprehensive investigations into all the allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the compromising with judicial independence, impartiality and integrity.
In short, the government is trying to focus public attention on the technical question about the authenticity of the Lingam Tape and distract and disregard it from the urgent, imperative and substantive issue of the long-standing rot in the system of justice which must be identified and stopped.
Najib said that the panel’s findings are expected in a few weeks’ time and will be made public.
Is the whole game-plan to drag out the issue until after October when Ahmad Fairuz would have retired as Chief Justice and the whole issue could be laid to rest on the ground that it is now academic with Ahmad Fairuz’ retirement?
The selection of members of the inquiry panel is highly questionable, particularly as the former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor had played a most controversial role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis (he was at the time Chief Registrar of Supreme Court) leading to the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court Judges.
In the circumstances, it is most regrettable that Haidar should be involved in any investigation into the Lingam Tape scandal, which should be the first step to clean the Augean Stables in the Judiciary to return it to the high international repute and esteem it enjoyed before 1988.
#1 by ADAM YONG IBNI ABDULLAH on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 4:58 pm
YB LIM,
you are absolutely correct to state that the 3 men panel is unsatisfactory.
the government is buying time.
as usual comes, october , the jetua hakim negara will retire graciously. and all tutup mata.
main mata mata saja.
#2 by devilmaster on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 5:22 pm
“Haidar Mohd Noor had played a most controversial role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis..”
_____________________________________________________
Good point! This totally render the 3-man panel set up by Altantuya murderer as toothless tiger, or even worse – sandiwara.
#3 by Godfather on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 5:28 pm
You don’t need Lee Lam Thye and two retired judges to verify the authenticity of the videoclip. You can send it to any technical lab in India and they will tell you whether it has been spliced or tampered with in terms of sequencing.
This is typical sandiwara. One of the members of the panel is already tainted, the scope is far too ridiculously restricted, and lastly, Ahmad Fairuz is still not suspended.
I am kinda surprised Lee Lam Thye agreed to be on the panel to authenticate the videoclip. He must also know about the pedigree (or lack thereof) of Haidar Mohd Noor. Why lend credibility to a discredited and corrupt regime ?
#4 by waterman on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 5:41 pm
Well the “fixing game” is rolling again.
It will take more than just some lawyers out there. Frankly every citizen should play an active role.
The roof is coming down!
#5 by shortie kiasu on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 7:09 pm
With due respect, what can the 3 cronies do in this case to verify the authenticity of the tape?
As any can see the setting up of “3-man independent panel” to investigate the authenticity falls far short of what should be required to be done to restore the integrity of the judiciary. Just an eye-wash to hookwink the ignorant and the cronies. It will not serve any meaningful purpose.
The findings will be known to all now even before the so-called panel starts to “work”.
#6 by k1980 on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 7:17 pm
Dollah’s LingamGate
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/II26Ae03.html
On May 27, 1988, then-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, his party faced with a legal challenge from rivals that threatened his leadership, summoned Malaysia’s top judge, Salleh Abas, and gave him an ultimatum: resign or face a judicial tribunal. That secret private meeting led to suspension of Salleh and five other top judges (three of whom were later reinstated). It precipitated a crisis from which the judiciary has never recovered….Coming on the heels of a lackluster economy, both locally and globally, and allegations of widespread corruption, the crisis in the judiciary is the last thing Abdullah needs. His administration has been battered with accusations of lethargy, inertia and lack of vision.
#7 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 8:02 pm
Can we expect anything better from an infamously half-past-six Executive? And an opaque and corrupt one too! They speak of integrity with forked tongues and dare to insult God by praying with the same sinful tongue. God is not mocked and not sleeping either; so sinners had better beware.
The incompetence and corruption of the judiciary has been bandied about for more than a decade; none more telling and credible than by a former member of the Bench, Syed Idid himself, who has repeated his allegations time and again. These allegations have been brushed aside, swept under the carpet but none credibly refuted! CAn anything else be more telling?
All I can say to PM PAk Lah and DPM Najib is: ‘Your administration stinks to high heaven!’ IGP, ACA, Judiciary, Govt Agencies ….You are simply the indisputable champion amongst the laughing stock of the world.
#8 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 8:21 pm
Prima facie. God knows it’s indeed prima facie!
25/09: The VK Lingam video-a prima facie case against some judges even if VK was speaking to the wall
Category: General Posted by: Raja Petra
Malaysia’s Judiciary
Much has been said about the party at the other end of the line in the VK Lingam video.
Let us for the time being assume that the video was of someone speaking to the wall.
We can still, nevertheless, conclude with a high degree of creatinty that the following was said:
One day I went to Vincent Tan’s house, I fired him at night in his house. I said bloody hell, if you don’t do this who will do it? All these people, Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainol (?) all fought for …hat. Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.
(http://www.keadilanrakyat.org/index.php/content/view/303/1/)
There are some gaps in this transcript, so readers should listen to the original to ascertain for themselves that in stating the above, the person in the video was saying that Tun Eusoff Chin, Ahmad Fairuz and one Tan Sri Zainol all fought for Vincent Tan.
Therefore, from the above alone, there appears to be a prima facie case that former CJ Eusoff Chin and current CJ Ahmad Fairuz (110% loyalty) promoted , indeed ,fought for the interests of Vincent Tan, in their official capacities.
Certainly, there is evidence even in the public domain, reproduced on this blog, to show more than one instance where both men have handed down judgements in favour of Vincent Tan that would be laughable if not for their consequences.
This prima facie conclusion then raises questions,the answers to which may come within the provisions of the ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT 1997 and/or the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961.
Therefore, it cannot be said out of hand as the AG has done, that the video disloses no criminal offence.
#9 by ADAM YONG IBNI ABDULLAH on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 9:07 pm
this year is rather an eventful year for Malaysia to celebrate 50 years of maturity.
1. we had ezam from gerak who together with the x aca chief of sabah exposed the corrupt and criminal activities of zulkipli ( former aca chief ) . WOW! i thought with an insider and senior officer blowing the whistle, we can find justice. but the police and ag deem NOTHING.
2. we also had the deputy internal security minister alleged corrupt of hanky panky with release of those detained under the emergency order. WOW ! i thought this is too good to be true. an umnoputra and deputy minister being serve justice.but the aca and ag deem NOTHING.
3. we had the Igp , no less, in cohort with taiko tai tai and as reported, promotions of the force is determined by the syndicate that controls the underworld. WOW! i mean, the premier must be serious , and got to be serious that the igp is involved with gangsta. but the aca and ag deem NOTHING.
4. we than have a Bersih get together in batu buruk in trengganu, and now trigger happy plaincloth police fru man fired – live bullets. man oh man. we are getting HOT to HOTTER. khairy – the son in law of the premier was also gathering for a not peaceful flag burning at the US embassy. no actions were taken. and i wonder why?
5. the police took more than a month , to realise that dear Nurin was dead, and that is because , someone found the bag !. what was the police doing during the last 30 days ? said the igp, the law is the law and parents will be charged. but the premier today acknowledged that both husband and wife need to work to survive. WOW ! how true. with all this rising cost, both have to work and work maybe 2 /more jobs. i wonder if kj is employed and how is he maintaining the family without a job? i wonder ?
6. thanks to anwar, who release the video clip of my learned lingam, that judges promotion can be kaw tim. WOW! this is even better than harry potter. anwar did spoil badawi feel good sentiments with this tape released. a general election was supposed to be called soon, but mr.anwar wouldnt allow it as yet, till he is allowed to contest by next year. much relevations and feel bad will BE revealed to stall any early elections.
7. thanks to the us mortgage crisis, we are heading into unknown, economic time warp next year and it aint going any better. so the feel good factor is being revised to FEAR FACTOR.
BACK TO LEARNED LINGAM. read in malaysiakini that his mobile is off and overseas.( surely an important man must have roaming mobile ) this is frustrating . everytime, we need to get an answer from someone IMPORTANT, they are overseas and/or on sick leave or cannot be reached. that ‘s typical of those who has something to hide. a saying goes ” IT IS OK FOR A CHILD TO BE AFRAID OF THE DARK, BUT IT IS A PROBLEM WHEN ADULTS ARE AFRAID OF THE LIGHT” how very true.
but than what has lee lam thye got to do with the judiciary ?
mr.lee is a very nice guy. no doubt about it. but how the parameters and factors that najib could have appointed mr. lee to investigate the authenticity of the video ( malaysian funny home video ) is mind boggling.!!!!!!!!!!!!.
and even having called miami vice/csi/ and proven beyond reasonable doubts that the man was learned lingam. SO WHAT ?
yes,i was trying to help out a friend. hei! let’s be honest. dont we all help out friends? any criminal intention ? BUT. BUT. THIS IS THE POSITION OF KETUA HAKIM NEGARA. this is a position of total integrity and absolute fairness.
kit siang. if with all the ammunitions that badawi had provided the opposition for the coming elections to use and IF , YET the raayat fails to realise the broken promises. i be damn and dumb.
GOD SAVE MALAYSIA. MY COUNTRY. OUR COUNTRY.
#10 by bystander on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 9:19 pm
Lingam, fairuz, Chin and Vincent Tan should be hauled up to face corruption charges for corrupting and bringing disrepute to the judiciary. From thereon, you can get them to spill the beans on the others including TDM thereby opening the can of worms. Stupid Nazri is trying to cover for them. Maybe he is in the thick of it as well.
#11 by bystander on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 9:29 pm
Tomorrow’s march is on. somebody pl send the photos/taping to I-Report/CNN if CNn is not at the march. Gopal Sri Ram is the only judge with the integrity, guts, independence and knowledge. He should replace fairuz as CJ.
#12 by straight talk on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 9:57 pm
Pak Lah bagun lah dari tidur. The country is going to the dogs. This 3 man panel is unacceptable. A Royal Commission is the only option… unless you are aware of the fixing and appointment of judges who are not qualified to sit in the high office. Our entire delivery system is compromised, the police, the ACA, the state governments and the judiciary. How can you go on as though nothing is wrong. The naked truth confronts you and you slee……p.
You profess to be a man of religion. Do the right thing in this holy month of Ramadan. Do not shirk your duties and responsibilities. Some how I feel Pak Lah you were put in a position to do the right thing even if it means that you were shunned by the UMNO you lead. At least the rest of the country will be singing praises for you. 3 million UMNO members do not decide for 26 million citizens of this beloved country of ours Malaysia. Kindly do the right thing. You are PM not for nothing. In you we put our fate. SO STAND UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING FOR ONCE IN YOUR MIS…… LIFE.
#13 by newton_theory on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:02 pm
What is all these nonsense of waiting for police investigation,and 3-man panel.
these are only excuses to wait for the fire to die down. and everything will soon be forgottten.
why not try this to ascertain whether the video is tamper or not.
Just convene the Royal commission of Inquiry and immdiately we will hear of those implicated will be scampering looking for holes to hide and the more creative ones will suddenly feigned ill seriously and had to seek medical treatment overseas.
This way we save everybody’s time and cut short the whole process of uncovering the truth.
No need to involved the police.
Just dont wait for the sleeping beauty to act for it wont happen.
#14 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:07 pm
I suggest either one of the following teams :
(1) The Three Stooges – Loe, Larry Curley
(2) The Three Monkeys – See No Evil, Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil
(3) The Three Blind MICe
(4) The Three Bandidos
(5) The Three Bujang Lapoks
(6) The Three (sorry, Two) Tenors
(7) The Three Mosquitoes
(8) Tiga Abdul
(9) Tiga Suku
(10) One, Two and Three
#15 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:14 pm
Are supposed to be thankful to the government for having set up any panel at all??
#16 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:27 pm
This issue involved people in the justice system. Also involved people who have been muslims throughout their lives. And this is the bulan suci Ramadhan.
So, are we seeing truth, honesty, or ‘bohong, bohong, bohong’? Where are the Islamic values?
#17 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:30 pm
To: ENDANGERED HORNBILL
As a lawyer I’ll have to agree with the AG that the Lingam Tape shows no evidence of the commission of any crime by the individuals concerned under the country’s Penal Code.
As much as I hate to say so, I’ll have to disagree with anyone who says that the Lingam Tape is prima facie proof of anything – in the legal sense of the term ‘prima facie’.
HOWEVER, we are not in a court of law. No one has been charged. But the public is entitled to know from V.K. Lingam himself the identity of the party he was talking to. Because it appears from the conversation he was having that he and this other person are part of a plot to ‘fix judicial appointments’.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.
Where is V.K. Lingam??
#18 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:40 pm
Is ‘fixing judicial appoitments’ by itself or without more a crime under the country’s Penal Code. It is certainly a crime to pervert the course of justice.
#19 by smeagroo on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:51 pm
PKFZ drowned Altantuya’s case. And Nurin’s murder drowned PKFZ fiasco. What now will be used to drown this shockaLingam case?
KNowing BN, they will do anything to cover up.
Oh and in between dont forget we have the Batu Buruk and AG’s reports that have died a natural death.
Who said PM is sleeping?
#20 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:57 pm
Can V.K. Lingam be legally compelled to answer the question: “Who were you talking to in the tape?”
He can be legally compelled to answer the question when asked provided he is callled to testify as a witness in a case against Fairuz. Right now Fairuz is not accused of any crime.
If V.K. Lingam himself is the defendant in a case against him, then there is the rule against self-incrimination and he does not have to answer the question. But what if Fairuz is called as a witness and is asked the same question? The same answer.
But what if the maker of the tape who was present in the room at the time is called to testify against either party?? The telephone records could then be used to corroborate his evidence.
But here’s the problem. V.K. Lingam or/and Fairuz will have to be first charged for a crime.
What crime does the Lingam Tape reveal??
#21 by mendela on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 12:07 am
Can someone out there donate some money and send the tape to an American lab to investigate the authenticity of the Lingam Tape?
We don’t need any stupid panel, what we need is to have the tape investigated by a reliable lab!
#22 by Old.observer on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 12:10 am
I’ve read the articles and the comments here, and I have no doubt that there are many, many clever and very good quality observations here made by many intelligent people.
But, to the vast majority of layman on the street, “so what?” That the government enrich themselves? That they already know many times over. That the government controls everything? That they already know many times over. And yet, when ask why they continue to vote for BN, because it’s safer. And to vote for Opposition is useless and won’t change anything. Safer to vote for BN, since BN already controls everything. “And maybe when I save enough money, I’ll migrate overseas or send my children overseas.”
How do you respond to that general attitude from the layman on the street? And remember, there is a huge number of passive BN voters out there who has already given up hope …
Old observer.
#23 by Jonny on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 12:16 am
wow. the three man panel will sub-con job of verifying authenticity of video? and get the decision from there?
how much would this tech lab work will cost???
why we like to do so many subsubsubsubsubsubcon subcon con jobs?
#24 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 12:57 am
“The Government has set up a three-man independent panel to investigate the authenticity of a video clip featuring a lawyer allegedly brokering the appointment of judges with a senior judge, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said today.” BERNAMA
To investigate authenticity of a video clip??
Which part of the tape is not real? The tape is not real? The person is not V.K. Lingam? The voice we hear is not that of V.K. Lingam? You don’t need a 3-man independent panel to do that!
The Bar Council should call V.K. Lingam to appear before the Board and ask him if it is not him pictured on the tape. The rest is direct evidence. It can try serving as an informal grand jury to try and find out if a crime has been committed.
The Royal Commission when set up and if it is set up would have a wide term of reference allowing it to investigate broad issues affecting the integrity of our judicial system.
It should not serve only as an investigative body to look into the continued fitness, or lack of it, of the current CJ to continue in his office – or if a crime has been committed. The latter is the role of the Attorney-General.
#25 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 1:02 am
This is ridiculous!
You do not need a panel of any number of individuals to investigate the authenticity of a video tape! Is the authenticity of the tape the issue? Or are we talking about its contents?
If we are talking about the truth of its contents, then the Bar Council should call on its member seen on the tape to answer their questions.
#26 by devilmaster on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 1:03 am
“How do you respond to that general attitude from the layman on the street?” – old observer
_______________________________________
Very easy. Ask them – they want a strong Opposition or a weak Opposition.
#27 by k1980 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 1:25 am
Anwar Ibrahim with his loads of money can surely afford to invite a distinguished panel of international video recording experts to examine the authenticity of the Lingam video clip. Its findings will then prove or disprove the conspiracy by the highest powers in the land to abuse the judiciary for their own self-interests.
#28 by kanthanboy on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 2:56 am
After reading bystander who wrote:”Gopal Sri Ram is the only judge with integrity, guts, independence and knowledge. He should replace Fairuz as Cj.”
I search on google to learn more about this esteemed judge. See what I find:
In April 1988 the Appeal Court upheld the appeal and sentenced Lim Guan Eng to 18 months imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently. In delivering the sentence Appeal Court Judge Mr. Justice Gopal Sri Ram was quoted as saying “it is time that the court send a clear message that it connot tolerate any attack on the judiciary.’
In August 1998 Amnesty International declared Lim Guan Eng a prisoner of conscience and called for his immediate and unconditional release.
Is this why bystander siad” Gopal Sri Ram is the only judge with the integrity, guts, independence and knowledge”? My concern is: Does he has any conscience and sence of justice?
#29 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 4:59 am
YB LKS,
If the government’s intent were genuinely to get to the bottom of things in relation to the clip, then there is no doubt that a Royal Commission established by the Yang di Pertuan Agong (“Agongâ€Â) under the Commissions Of Enquiry Act 1950 (Revised 1973) (“the Actâ€Â) is definitely the appropriate body that best inspires public confidence instead of just a 3 man panel appointed by the government.
There are three advantages that a Royal Commission has over a mere so called “independent†panel of 3 men appointed by the government:
1. The fact of Royal Commission’s ‘royal’ status and the freedom of the Agong to appoint commissioners from retired and respected judges, lawyers and community leaders inspire confidence in contrast to a mere panel that may be suspected by the public to be appointed by the Executive to white wash scandal and protect its own image;
2. the powers of a Royal Commission to subpoena witnesses and compel them (by threat of warrant of arrest) to give evidence under oath – section 8 of the Act;
3. the wider frame of reference of the Royal Commission to cover besides the conduct of federal officer under investigation, all other matters “which would in the opinion of the Agong be for public welfare – section 2.1(d) of the Act.
Now as Leader of the Opposition, you have requested for the Royal Commission. The Bar Council demands for the Royal Commission. Many Civil Societies lobby for Royal Commission. Concerned individuals like former United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Param Cumaraswamy also demand for the Royal Commission. The Government however said that the Royal Commission was not necessary.
My question is why the various stakeholders for independence of judiciary do not directly petition to the Agong for a Royal Commission.
Thus far the implicit assumption has been that a Royal commission cannot be established by the Agong unless the government advises or requests for its establishment.
Is this fundamental assumption correct? I say no.
I wish to direct your attention to the language of the Act in which under section 2 the Agong “may where it appears to him to be expedient to do so†issue a Commission appointing one or more commissioners authorizing the Commission to enquire into the conduct of any Federal officer, public institution maintained by state funds or any matter involving public welfare.
Unlike the case of appointing judges by which the Agong has to act on advice of the Prime Minister (the Executive), now in the matter of commissioning a Royal commission, the operative words are “where it appears to him to be expedient to do so†rather than where he is advised by either the Prime Minister or the government†to do so, which suggests to me that nowhere in the Act there is any hint that the appointment of the Royal commission by the Agong requires the initiative of the government of the day!
It seems very strange to me that a commission described as “Royal†commission should require the government’s endorsement and request – this is not a government’s commission – and I would think all that is required is the Royal’s discretion exercising the Royal prerogative for such a commission to be formed!
There is therefore no need, in my opinion, for the Agong to act on advice of the Prime Minister or Cabinet to form such a Royal Commission and the establishment of such a Commission is, as a matter of common sense as well as law of the land, not a decision of the Government to take, or not to take, as the case may be.
Please be so advised and you may be in the position to help do the needful. Thanks.
#30 by Loyal Malaysian on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 5:30 am
The response is expected from a government that thinks it can get away even with m–d–.The question is whether enough Malaysians will use their vote to send those clowns the right message at the coming general elections. I am not optimistic. For one the constituency delineation is such that in some cases 1 rural voter is equivalent to 10 urban voters[not actual statistics]. Pardon the reasoning, no disrespect meant to the rural voter but I think it is a fact that, by and large , the bulk of the opposition votes come from the urban areas.
#31 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 7:54 am
“I wish to direct your attention to the language of the Act in which under section 2 the Agong “may where it appears to him to be expedient to do so†issue a Commission…”
Good job, Jeffrey QC. For the less well informed including myself, would you do us all a favor by quoting the relevant Section verbatim. Thanks.
#32 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 8:55 am
Section 2 of Commissions Of Enquiry Act 1950 says (verbatim) that “The Yang di Pertaun Agong may, where it appears to him to be expedient to do, issue a Commission appointing one or more Commissioners to enquire into:-
(a) the conduct of a federal officer;
(b)the conduct or management of any department of public service in Malaysia;
(c)the conduct and managment of any public institution which is not solely maintained by the State Funding;
(d) any other matter in which an enquiry would in the opinuion of Yang di Pertuan Agong be for public welfare, not being a matter involving any question relating to Islamic religion or malay Custom or, in relation to Sabah or Sarawak, a matter specified in item 10 of teh State List Provided that that where any federal officer into whose conduct ot is proposed to enquire was, at the time of committing such conduct, serving in a public service of a state, such commission shall only be issued with concurrence of the state authority”.
Please note that “state” means the individual states in the country and not “state” as often used as synonymn to a country or the government. The Act makes very clear difference between state and federal.
#33 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 9:00 am
But then in the event of a conflict between subsidiary legislation and the Federal Constitution, the latter prevails.
#34 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 9:06 am
…assuming of course the said Act covers the setting up of bodies like a Royal Commission of Inquiry to inquire into matters like the integrity of our judiciary.
#35 by Bigjoe on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 9:07 am
Badawi cannot afford a full-blown judicial crises that would result from a Royal Commission just too close to the election. The strategy is to just difuse any crises right now until he can pull off the election. He learned how hard it is to put the genie in the bottle once you release it like the IPCMC that had the whole police force after him.
This is classically Badawi, he avoid the hard stuff like a disease. In the end, he can always says he never promised that he would make drastic change. In the end, he can give the excuse he is a civil servant and don’t know how to make radical change. In the end, he says he is not Dr. M can his style is not dramatic etc.
In the end, its really about mediocrity. In the end, if the top leadership is mediocre, so will the rest of the government and the country as a whole. Malaysia – land of mediocrity.
#36 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 9:10 am
kanthanboy – good rebuttal. People including judges can change behaviour due to changed circumstances or motives, whatever they may be, not necessarily connected to greater accretion of wisdom or humanity or compassion due to age. Of late – since the Fawziah Holdings vs Metramac Corporation case in which Justice Gopal Sri Ram presided in Court of Appeal and (unncessarily in Federal Court’s/CJ Fairuz’s view) dragged in Tun Daim & Halim Saad’s names – there is a discernable change in his style of writing judgment almost as if in emulation of judicial icon, Lord Denning’s, but then I could be imagining. :)
#37 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 9:14 am
“In the end, its really about mediocrity” – Big Joe.
A lot of Malaysians can live with mediocrity but few can stomach flagrant mendacity.
#38 by Justicewanted on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 9:39 am
How come the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced the three-man independent panel set up by the government to investigate the authenticity of the Lingam Tape.
Where is the Prime Minister? Tidur or out of country again?
#39 by sotong on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 10:04 am
This is a very serious case and there must be fair and proper closure.
Anything short of a Royal Commission is a waste of time and taxpayers money!
#40 by wantonhead on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 11:10 am
I totally agree with Old.observer
UR great ADAM YONG IBNI ABDULLAH
#41 by Libra2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 11:17 am
What can the 3-man panel uncover that has not been uncovered in this blog?
What we need now is the maker of the video to come forward? How did he record it and under what circumstances? Who else were present in the scene when he recorded the video? Did Lingam boast to him about his high connections? Did Lingam begin the call with a “Hello, Fairus….” or “May I speak to “Datuk Fairus..”
The maker of the video must be given protection or he too might be blown up by C4 explosives.
I believe the most damning evidence is in the part which has been censored by Anwar Ibrahim. A tactical move perhaps. I presume he will use this part when the government tries to sweep this whole elephant under the carpet.
#42 by grace on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 11:24 am
We must not forget Lingam’s holiday with Eusoff Chin.
Wa! This LIngam has lots of influence.
#43 by AntiRacialDiscrimination on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 11:25 am
No other democratic government dares to do this, only Malaysia government dares to do this mad thing.
Even if they do nothing, they will still be returned as a government with big big majority in the next GE.
The PKR should educate those kampung Malays so that they have more open minds and don’t be fooled by UMNO anymore.
#44 by helpless on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 11:29 am
YB, support your call.
“Government” = ” Cabinet” = ” Minister ” = ” BN ” = ” Corruption ”
Tan Sri = toothless tiger cannot beat corruption.
#45 by helpless on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 11:40 am
AntiRacialDiscrimination Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11: 25.20
” …educate those kampung Malays so that they have more open minds and don’t be fooled by UMNO anymore”
grace Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11: 24.05
” This LIngam has lots of influence”
Libra2 Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 11: 17.13
” …maker of the video must be given protection or he too might be blown up by C4 explosives.”
sotong Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 10: 04.19
” This is a very serious case and there must be fair and proper closure.
Anything short of a Royal Commission is a waste of time and taxpayers money!”
Good comments
#46 by grace on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 12:01 pm
Do you think that all those members are independant?
I doubt it!
Final finding:
(1) Tape be being doctored
(2) Speaker is not Lingam but one Mahalingam
(3) The person on the line, his wife
Therefore Anwar is telling nonsence.
Final recomendation: Sue Anwar for RM1billion.(so that he dared not try this monkey show again)
#47 by k1980 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 12:42 pm
Revised findings by the 3 “experts”
(1) Tape was not doctored, but was surgeoned
(2) Speaker is not one Mahalingam but one Butuhlingam
(3)The person on the line was not his wife but his concubine
Final recomendation: Gve Anwar another 6 years behind bars, with a gift of a 2nd blackeye courtesy of the present IGP
#48 by sotong on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 12:57 pm
The 3 man independent panel aka ” 3 stooges ” is a joke considering the seriousness of the case involving the CJ.
#49 by Jimm on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 2:21 pm
Have we ever checked on these ‘chosen’ three about their wealth ?
I believe what they are having now in total , would have increased significantly prior to passing their final decision ……….
Money talks … so loud on this case …
Don’t some of us wished that we are the one selected for it ..?
It’ not your qualification that matters here …. you must know who first …. ha..ha………HA
#50 by Anti_NEP on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 3:14 pm
Can anyone tell why lee lam thye suddenly quit DAP and politics in the eve of general election? I don’t trust this NS godfather.
#51 by 9to5 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 3:27 pm
***Now as Leader of the Opposition, you have requested for the Royal Commission. The Bar Council demands for the Royal Commission. Many Civil Societies lobby for Royal Commission. Concerned individuals like former United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Param Cumaraswamy also demand for the Royal Commission. The Government however said that the Royal Commission was not necessary.
My question is why the various stakeholders for independence of judiciary do not directly petition to the Agong for a Royal Commission….. quote Jeffry***
A clear and incisive analysis, as always, coming from Jeffry!
If these judicial organisations petition to the Agong it will be difficult for the Agong to refuse the set up of a Royal Commission as these organisations truly represent the aspirations of the Rakyat. Whether the petition is accepted or not, it’s already a victory to the Rakyat as it showed the BN Government’s decision is not backed by the very organisations who truly matter.
The thing is who can coordinate these judicial organisations towards a common goal?
#52 by 9to5 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 3:32 pm
Jeffry, from your analysis, shouldn’t the bar council march to the Agong’s palace instead of the Prime Minister Department today?
#53 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 6:41 pm
The lawyers should march to the Istana. It would show they know what they’re doing. What’s the point of marching to PM’s Dept when the government has already decided on a 3 member panel? I am not saying that the Agong could not commission a Royal Commission if requested by the government. What I’m saying is that even if the government has not made such a request the Agong would have the discretion to independently do so, if hwe deems exedient….Recent events have shown the Rulers concerned about the state of affairs in the judicial department. They have not rubberstamped what ever the government suggested. The lawyers should have taken that cue that what they request (of a Royal Commission) is in line with the drift of where the royalty stands on the issue.
#54 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 6:47 pm
What the BN run government did not say when it proposed to set up this ‘independent’ panel is its objective – which is ‘damage control’.
#55 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 6:53 pm
I think they should march to Najib’s residence. We know who is making the decisions. As CEO of Malaysia Inc. he’s in charge of the day to day running. In countries like the U.S. the Vice President does not act independently of the President – not so in Malaysia.
#56 by kanthanboy on Thursday, 27 September 2007 - 3:00 am
I feel sory for Lee Lam Thye who has agreed to be used as a member of the 3-men kangaroo panel. A person with over 20 years of experience as an opposition stateassemlbyman and MP should know how to read the true motive of the BN government in setting up this kangaroo panel to investigate the Lingam’s tape. I don’t believe he is innocent or naive. He has gone down to the point of no return. He has sold his soul to BN. Can he say NO to his master?
#57 by pamelaoda on Thursday, 27 September 2007 - 7:39 am
You mean this conversation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlROjCITFvY
#58 by Godfather on Thursday, 27 September 2007 - 9:58 am
Typical knee-jerk reaction from a bunch of thieves who are so incompetent at covering their tracks.
#59 by ktteokt on Thursday, 27 September 2007 - 2:02 pm
LLT has become a “puppet” to the BN government!!!