And conceivably Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim would respond and reply thus : –

“Dear YB Lim Kit Siang,

I am all for independence and integrity of the Judiciary. Why else had I taken the unprecedented step of castigating publicly judges who take bribes, judges who were often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures while hearing their cases in court and Judges who were constantly angry and foul-tempered that was featured on 24th March 2007 in your blog thread in this link – http://blog.limkitsiang.com/?p=92 ?

And you would recall I have also proposed sitting of 3 judges instead of 1 to hear a case : why? It would be deterrence as it would be more expensive and difficult to bribe all the 3 judges as compared to 1.

Whilst there is a grain of truth in what former Lord President Sultan Azlan Shah said – that “sadly, over the past few years there has been some disquiet about the judiciary” – especially in relation to 1988 events, much headway had been made to clean up the Judiciary and restore its former eminence during the time of my illustrious predecessor, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah.

At the time of his retirement after having served two years and three months at the helm of the judicial arm of the country, when asked what he would like to be remembered by, Tun Dzaiddin’s resounding words were, “the events in the judiciary after my appointment as Chief Justice have helped a great deal in restoring its image and reaffirmed the public’s trust and confidence. If I am to be remembered, I would like to believe that this is my intangible achievement as Chief Justice.” (see The Star Sunday, 23-Mar-2003).

And Tun Dzaiddin is a honourable man who holds high claims to public respect. Because of his achievement in cleaning up the Judiciary, he was afterwards (in retirement) appointed the Chairman of the Special Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police (that conceived the IPCMC).

Regarding the immediate controversy at hand, the honourable Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had already made public my denial that I was ever the person that senior lawyer V.K. Lingam was speculated talking to in the now infamous 8-minute so called Lingam Tape.

The reason why I did not make the denial myself is rightly or wrongly my adherence to the time honoured principle that a judge should not directly be embroiled in public controversy and engage in public rebuttals of allegations no mater how unfounded they may be.

The fact that I have been equally silent and not denied what the honourable Minister said itself suffices as a denial against the unfounded allegations. My request for an extension of another six months tenure, as earlier planned, buttresses the fact of my innocence.

Dare I do this if I were really implicated? To withdraw my request now for a 6 month extension (as earlier planned) might be wrongly perceived as a vindication of those spurious allegations, not to mention insult the honourable minister that either he was lying or I lied to him.

As people trained in the discipline of law and respectful of the Rule of Law – as both you and I are – you will surely appreciate the time honoured presumption of innocence until proven otherwise guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which is a principle even a common snatch thief is entitled, let alone the Head of Judiciary.

Here there is a doubt whether the video clip is itself authentic, which is why the Haidar Panel was commissioned to ascertain, and only if that video clip were ascertained authentic with the identity of the person captured on camera established, then only would the next question arises, who was he talking to, a question no doubt could be answered when the relevant witnesses are then called.
Meanwhile let us not, in the interest of the nation and repute of the Judiciary, put the cart before the horse!

Any act on my part to now withdraw my request for a 6 month extension might be unwarrantedly misconstrued as an admission of guilt, which is not only unfair to me, personally, but unfair to our institution of the Judiciary which has been prematurely tarnished by virtue of the adverse inference drawn against me.

For these reasons, I must respectfully demur at your suggestion no matter how well intentioned on your part.

In fact the proper avenue to which your request that my six-month extension of tenure should be denied on grounds of national interest ought to be the Executive, not me. It is the government’s call whether or not to accept my service for another 6 months.

It is the government that is custodian and keeper of national interest. It is the government to whom you should direct your request – not me, since my position has been made known via the honourable minister that I am innocent of these calumnious allegations. You have basically addressed your request to the wrong party”. :)