YB,

It seems commonsensical enough that the selection criteria for Royal Commissioners ought to be a record of significant achievement within the nominee’s chosen way of life that demonstrates a range of experience, skills and competencies; an ability to make an effective and significant contribution to the work of such a commission of which having some knowledge of law will help; outstanding reputation as well as personal qualities, in particular integrity and independence; a strong and personal commitment to the highest standards of public life; and independence of any political party.

The names suggested by you meet these criteria but what if the government recommends candidates the opposite of these criteria? What is a point of a Royal Commission when we need another independent commission to evaluate the independence of this Royal Commission?

The Royal Commission will be established pursuant to the Commissions Of Enquiry Act 1950 (Revised 1973) (“OEA”) by virtue of which it is stated “The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, where it appears to him to be expedient so to do, issue a Commission appointing one or more Commissioners….”.

Obviously, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong either has some ideas of his own or he would require advice. The OEA is very clear that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong does not need to seek advice from the cabinet (though there nothing to preclude him from so doing if he wishes).

When Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said that the names of candidates for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and Judiciary will be tabled at tomorrow’s Cabinet, he is assuming that as a matter of course the Yang di-Pertuan Agong will be requiring advice from the cabinet.
Why does he assume this? Well even if the government were entitled to submit its recommendations, why must it be assumed that the process of selection excludes other stakeholders’ views and recommendations?

There are a number of considerations here why I would argue the cabinet’s recommendations should not be exclusive.

First Nazri is submitting with alacrity the list of the possible candidates to the cabinet for deliberation for onward transmission to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This has been done without canvassing the views of interested stakeholders ie the civil society, Bar Council etc.

The strongest argument why the government should not be the sole and exclusive recommending body is that it is an interested party in the subject of enquiry of such a commission. This is because the subject of enquiry is the video clip in the context of the larger issue of how the institution of judiciary has been compromised by executive interference – so how can (I respectfully ask) an interested party like the government be the sole and exclusive recommending body of commissioners, which if allowed, is fraught with conflict of interest leading to the government recommending persons that will exonerate its interfering role – something like appointing one self or one’s proxy to adjudge the merits of one’s own cause?

I suggest that all relevant stakeholders – whether Bar Council, Transparency International, NGOs representing women groups, association of ex judges – also have equal right as the government to submit their candidates to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for consideration at the same time.

There is nothing in the OEA that precludes them from doing so. If Bersih’s memorandum on electoral reforms that stem from, an illegal assembly and march could be presented to the Istana, why can’t similar memos by Civil Society and NGOs on choice of possible commissioners be likewise presented when such presentation is legal and not in contravention of OEA? There is after all nothing in OEA or even the Federal Constitution that says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to seek advice of the cabinet in appointing the commissioners, though he may be entitled if he so wishes.

It may be convention for the Cabinet to advise but these are extraordinary and extenuating circumstances in which government is interested party in object of enquiry that justifies the unconventional approach of other stakeholders views be given equal hearing and royal audience.

Would it be wise – can you – mobilise civil society and NGOs to submit their views to the King as well since the government, in its infinite wisdom, has not deemed it neccesary to prior canvass all relevant stakeholders’ opinion before making decision/recommendation? :)

…majority of representatives elected consistent with concept….