Ambiga as commissioner to ensure credibility and legitimacy of Royal Commission of Inquiry

In completely excluding the Bar Council members as members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry in the Lingam Tape, the government is only undermining its own case and cause that it is concerned about the restoration of national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said yesterday that there was no possibility that Bar Council members could become royal commissioners themselves.

He said: “There is no chance of that happening. How can they act fairly and be unbiased if they have already marched against the judiciary. They have already made their stand.”

This is classic perverse illogic. The 2,000 lawyers who participated in the historic “March for Justice” in Putrajaya on 26th September 2007 did not march against the judiciary. They marched against a judiciary which is subservient, decadent and corrupt. But they also marched for an independent, honest and incorruptible judiciary.

Going by Nazri’s perverse illogic, isn’t the Executive itself compromised by the 19-year history of a tainted judiciary, because of the acts of omission and commission by the Executive, which should render the Ministers unfit and unqualified to exercise powers to appoint members of the Royal Commission concerned about the independence and integrity of the judiciary?

Cabinet Ministers cannot feign innocence in the nearly two-decade-long ravages and degradation of the Judiciary as they are fully part of the process in the undermining of the independence of the judiciary and the undermining of the fundamental doctrine of the Separation of Powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

Let good sense prevail. The Bar Council should not only be allowed to take part in the Royal Commission hearings, the Bar Council President Ambiga Sreenevasan should be seriously considered as a member of the Royal Commission to ensure its acceptability, credibility and legitimacy.

Nazri’s statement yesterday is a cause of concern for he seems to confirm the worst fears about the Royal Commission of Inquiry — that it would have very narrow and restricted terms of reference.

In declaring that the government was happy with the present system of appointing judges despite calls to set up an independent judicial appointments and promotions commission, Nazri might have inadvertently disclosed the restrictive nature of the Royal Commission’s terms of reference.

If so, then the terms of reference and scope of power of the Royal Commission of Inquiry when announced, will only spark a new outrage and controversy inimical to the speedy restoration of national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

  1. #1 by AhPek on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 2:49 pm

    This Sleepy Head’s refusal to involve the Bar Council simply on the grounds that the lawyers have marched against the judiciary is yet another case of the Executive trying futilely to find some reason to uphold their cause.
    Bodoh can’t you see that these lawyers are marching for an independent judiciary not a judiciary beholden to anyone including the government and what is wrong with that mission.Entirely honourable and worthy of support surely.

  2. #2 by justaskmeanything on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 3:15 pm

    And Mr Nazri said 2000 lawyers did not represent the whole bunch of laywers or the majority of them. Why say that the 2000 represent them all now?

    Nazri is only good at twisting facts, and coming up with excuse after excuse.

  3. #3 by ADAM YONG IBNI ABDULLAH on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 3:37 pm

    YB Lim,

    i beg to differ. the inclusion of the Bar Counsel as a member of the Royal Commission of Inquiry should be viewed as a conflict of INTEREST. hate him or love him, lingham is a member of the bar counsel , which again issolve a member of its own body.

    contrary, the RCI should involve only member of high standing and integrity ( not implying Ms. Ambiga is not ) but rather persons that have nothing to gain out of the result of the Inquiry. unfortunately,any opposition parties leaders have a direct or indirect gain on the outcome of the Inquiry.

    damages to the judiciary happened 20 years ago,with the sacking of Yang Amat Arif Tun Salleh. the bar could do nothing,neither any parties could do more or less, because of the x premier iron clad rule. But God is Great, that after two decades, YAA Tun Salleh and fellow Judges that were sacked from that infamous episode is now honoured and honour is theirs .

    i am more concern as to the scopes and width and breadth of the RCI, without which, it will merely be another time and monies wasted on such panelship. i pray that those involved have the conscience to even tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. if they have been involved in such conspiracy , than an admission is the BEST solution. but with so much at stakes and the powerfuls involved, i think they will take it to their graves.

    back to the topic of Ms.Ambiga., i think she truely is a great lady and i am treble glad that she is the current president of the Bar Counsel, because like many predessor of hers, some collapsed under pressure and internal squabbles. Mr.lim knows best. there is no unity in the Bar, even as we are fighting for justice, a member of the bar has initiated court action against the Bar’s resolution. see what i mean ?

    so my humble request is and would be great for the RCI panelship is among others, DYAM Tengku Nazrin ( raja muda of Perak ). tengku has no conflict of interest in this case and he is certainly an impecccable character. Mr. Param is another great man among us, and he is one man that goes the way upstream. YTMRaja Sophia (the consort to the Tengku Mahkota of Johore is another lady of learned and non hypocritical at all. she has no air and is very down to earth.

    only if we have members that have no interest in the end results, that the results meets the ends. otherwise we are back to square one. and if zam zam reads this blog as a minister ,please relay to your boss, that it is high time to walk the talk.

    ASIDE: mr.zam, yet to see any of yb lim’s blog comments on rtm as threatened. sometimes it is good to think before talking, otherwise like a boomerang it hits back.

    thank you.

  4. #4 by mendela on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 4:13 pm

    To side track, many Govrnments in the world were brought down through joining hands of opposition parties as diverse as far-left and far-right parties.

    To bring down the world’s most corrupted party — UMO, I see no reason at all our 3 main opposition parties DAP, PAS and Keadilan can not cooperate and form a loose coalition front. It is so easy to find common grounds —- the fight against corruption, incompetency of Bodowi Gomen and abuse of power, just to name a few!

    Even if we fail to bring down this most corrupted party, at least we must win enough seats to make their life miserable!

    Karpal Singh and other political veterans need to understand well — our biggest enemy is not PAS, it is none other than UMO/BN!

  5. #5 by AhPek on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 4:39 pm

    honestly I fail to see how appointing a member from the Bar Council
    would involve a conflict of interest.Isn’t Bar Council supposed to be independent as well, in other words not aligned to any political party and is interested to have an independent judiciary.That Lingam is a member of of the Bar Council shouldn’t damage the standing of the BAR Council much the same way a doctor practising abortion (without strong medical grounds) to make money shouldn’t damage the standing of the Medical Association unless of course the Council or the Association condone the actions of their members

  6. #6 by ADAM YONG IBNI ABDULLAH on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 7:07 pm

    the bar council is itself in disarray. if one had ever dealt with a lawyer, and i am sure many of us have ( but not to generalise ) one would also realise how some of the lawyers charge exhorbitant fees , and any complains about lawyers conduct is snail pace and may not result in fair hearing.

    i have an experience with a lawyer who requested my help to be on panelship of a reputable bank. in the process, there were serious doubts of the amount owing to the lawyer by the bank. and when i agreed to the bank’s figure, she chose to discharge herself as my advocate ( i am the plaintiff )in the civil suit. i am still fighting her discharge in court , and unless the bar is put straight, the bar lacks the moral stand on the bench.

    crooked lawyers are also responsible for many fraud of clients accounts. one of them is yc pok from melaka.he is now a fugutive.


    look at who’s who behind all the big corporate big firms and their lawyers. who could afford the lawyer and see them through will win. ah pek, can you really afford a lawyer to the ultimate federal court ? be honest.

    and anyone cares to check how many reports are lodged at the advocates and disciplinary board. i am totally for justice,but like all noble intention,it has to begins from home.

    so ah pek- conflict of interest still stands.
    so ah pek- please try to check how many reports by layman like us have complaints against lawyers. by paying rm100.00 as process fee. and i witness one poor indian man, who waited three years for the asdb to process his complaint at wisma maran. is that fair????

    you want the name of the firm that has requested me for assistance for panelship- I WILL.
    you want the name of the poor indian man who alleged being cheated by his lawyer- I WILL.

    RATHER I AGREE WITH MENDELA, that there is no united front on the opposition. i dont know much about hindraf and their case of suit against the british government. but where is pas,dap and pkr to at least lend a moral support. not so much as street demonstration or marches , but non appear to be with the indians when hindraf leaders were arrested. if they are there, than i apologise, if not – i praise those indians around who pass the hat to raise the bail amount. and also the good judge who fix bail at rm800.00 only and release them . there are good judges too.

  7. #7 by kwkean on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 7:11 pm

    Bar council shouldn’t get involve in the Royal Commission. They must stand as an independent party to observe the Royal Commission. Getting Bar Council into Royal Commission is the same as putting that stupid Mr Nazri or Mr Zam into it. A Royal Commission member must be fair to both side, some one who is neutral if you want the public to accept their finding and to clean up our judiciary system.

  8. #8 by kwkean on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 7:22 pm


    “but where is pas,dap and pkr to at least lend a moral support. not so much as street demonstration or marches , but non appear to be with the indians when hindraf leaders were arrested. if they are there, than i apologise, if not – i praise those indians around who pass the hat to raise the bail amount. and also the good judge who fix bail at rm800.00 only and release them . there are good judges too.”


    YB LKS was there, check out the vidoe clip by

  9. #9 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 7:43 pm

    Wait a minute!

    So this Nazri guy, by implication is in effect saying that lawyers appointed to the Bench should not hear a case involving a litigant who is a lawyer because of the possibility of bias because he or she is a lawyer – that the judge should recuse himself??

    Are we to take his convoluted reasoning seriously or is he taking all of us non-lawyers for suckers??

  10. #10 by AhPek on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 7:48 pm

    I am saying Bar Council not only have to but must be interested in having an independent judiciary as well as being non aligned to any political party. That is my stand.I don’t know whether you agree with this position.
    But what you are saying is that the majority of Bar Council members are scumbags much like many of the judges in the judiciary.I don’t know about that but if you are right, I’ll go along with you!
    As for your saying non of the political leaders are there with the indians you have certainly jumped the gun,KIT was there and he became their instant HERO!

  11. #11 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 7:58 pm

    “In declaring that the government was happy with the present system of appointing judges …” YB Kit

    This is something like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    It also goes to show the extent of the rot within the judiciary. I think our Ministers if they want to retain their jobs as the elected representatives of the people should undergo a course in political science and administration. Isn’t the Judiciary the third pillar of government but is otherwise independent and free from executive interference?

    Let the head of the Judiciary speak for himself! OK, we understand now. The judiciary is currently headless and the government is happy! Next he’ll be speaking on behalf of Patrick Badawi whom he will declare to be the “happiest person” ever to hold the office of Prime Minister!

  12. #12 by waterfrontcoolie on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 8:21 pm

    I would certainly agree that they are too many below average lawyers in the market to-day. They are only few exceptions to this conclusion. And a friend once said of today’s lawyers: b4 you sign up, sure win, after opening a file and the 1st postponed hearing, you have only 50% chance; after a few more postponements, you better settle!. This is not meant to doubt the current Chair of the Bar Council, but the Council should do more to clean up their membership first. I do support their stand against the way the GOMEN handles the judiciary. I also believe we can find 3 Malaysians to do the job without getting into this controversy.

  13. #13 by liu on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 9:04 pm

    I agree with Adam Yong that the Bar is not in much better shape. It is a problem which is inflicting alll the vital institutions – the Judiciary, the Bar, the AG Chambers, the Police, the ACA, Parliament – and our Dr M has very much to do with it. He neutered them all one way or the other.

  14. #14 by dawsheng on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 9:15 pm

    I can agree with all of you.

  15. #15 by messy on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 9:44 pm

    aiyo…let me predict to u how the situation will be like…
    the royal comissioner will say it’s not true…he was maybe just drunk or a he was acting out of his consience…or maybe it was just a child’s play…
    even if lingam is charged…he will be released on the grounds of good behaviour…or he’ll bribe his way out…

  16. #16 by ADAM YONG IBNI ABDULLAH on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 10:36 pm

    Dear YB LIM and Ms. Ambiga.

    let us not be distracted from the priority issue of judiciary rot in this lingham gate. but may i ask a very straight question address to the bar counsel.


    the bar counsel was said to have lodged a complaint against the said lingham to the ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR DISCIPLINARY BOARD for investigation.

    has a date been set for hearing ?
    has lingham and co responded to the asdb?
    if no ? when?
    if yes? what is the outcome of the asdb investigation ?

    can the bar counsel kindly make it public too, the said investigation?

    until and unless the bar COMES CLEAN FIRST. just eat humble pie.

    it takes two to tango. so in order to make the RCI pure ( if and only if ) the least is that ms. ambiga is not into the panelship. remain neutral and hold steadfast to your lodge complaint against the lawyer so implicated and i will be impressed.

    but than again, asdb do not make public the complains lodged by laymen . how sad!

    thanks liu. its all rotten.

    and ah pek. i did mention i do apologise if yb lim is there. but than doesnt pas and pkr has the indians at heart too!!!!

    liken to what mendela stated – the opposition ( do we really have a united opposition front ? ) nay.


  17. #17 by pulau_sibu on Saturday, 24 November 2007 - 11:00 pm

    One party two systems? Why no DAP Sarawak members are linked to your blog? Several of them own the blogs

  18. #18 by 9to5 on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 12:40 am

    I’m of the opinion that the Bar Council should not sit in the RCI. Why?

    1. At this point of time, you don’t know who are the composition and the number of members of the RCI. But you can bet your last dollar that most of the RCI members appointed by the present administration will be “friendly” towards this administration. If the final decision is based on a majority system, Ambiga can be easily overwhelmed by the “friendly” majority. This will lend even more credence to the present administration and decision made by the RCI because the Bar Council (BC) is being involved in the decision. The BC cannot turn back later on and say the decision is unacceptable for the fact that it is the majority decision that counts!

    Don’t also forget, if half through the deliberation, the RCI becomes a farce, the lawyers cannot hold a demonstration or accuse the RCI for being a farce because, remember, Ambiga also sits in the panel. By doing so, it is like shooting one’s foot in the process.

    If I were the present administration, I would love to move Ambiga as a chess piece into the RCI to demonstrate to the public that the Govt is fair while actually the BC is being set up.

    2. To be inside the RCI, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will bring better results. In fact, the BC could do so much more outside of the RCI by exerting pressure on the panel to be fair. They can be vocal in their criticism, organise boycott, carry out rallies and do so many other things effectively to rein in the RCI towards the path of justice.

    3. If the RCI is a farce (restricted terms of reference, a selective, biased members panel, etc), as most likely it will be, would BC wants to be in the RCI?

    That’s my opinion.

  19. #19 by 9to5 on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 1:10 am

    A case in point is the PAC.

    The representatives from DAP, PKR and PAS also sit in PAC. Shahrir, on behalf of the majority of BN members sitting in the committee, makes a lot of noise when it involves the small fishes. But when it involves the powers-to-be, his decisions are consistently seen to pare down, deflect criticism, play taichi, blame on someone else, or in unavoidable situation, take the path of least legal consequence in favour of the powers-to-be.

    Had the opposition been outside of PAC continually breathing down the neck of Shahrir, he would not be so outwardly in favour of UMNO and the powers-to-be.

    At present, the opposition cannot criticise the decision of PAC because the opposition is also part of the decision.

    To be inside of something, does not necessarily mean more effective.

    The same can be said of MCA, Gerakan, MIC, etc, inside BN.

    Likewise, the Bar Council can do much more from outside the RCI!

  20. #20 by delCapo on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 2:37 am

    Shouldn’t the members of a royakl commision be recommended by the governemnt BUT approved by the royals?

    Once again Nazri likes to act like he calls the shot… *woof *woof*

    anyway, it’s going to be hard to find any credible members who are totally indendent for this case… we are talking about a hihg profile lawyer, potentially an exCJ and some current and ex leaders of the country…

  21. #21 by k1980 on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 10:26 am

    Constitutional amendment by stealth
    Kim Quek

    Almost by stealth, the government has quietly introduced a constitutional amendment that will have an important impact on the course of history.

    On Nov 20, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz tabled for first reading the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2007 that seeks to extend the retirement age of members of Election Commission (EC) from 65 to 66. This bill will be tabled for second and third reading on Dec 11.

    This lightning move to amend the constitution is obviously to enable current EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman – due for mandatory retirement on Dec 31 when he reaches 65 – to preside over a critical general election that may take place soon.

    Rashid is a virtual Umno functionary, having faithfully served to advance the political fortunes of ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN) through unabashed gerrymandering at every constituency re-delineation exercise in the past few decades.

    Our memories are still vivid of his shameful conduct during the Ijok by-election in April – an election so scandalised that it rendered even election Malaysian-style meaningless. Apart from committing every election sin imaginable, BN’s open and massive bribery- spending tens of millions of ringgit in public funds on a constituency of only 12,000 voters in a matter of days prior to polling – was virtually crying out for punishment.

    Yet, in the face of such blatant challenge to his authority, Abdul Rashid not only failed to take action, but abetted by endorsing such bribery as legitimate government expenses.

    The mammoth street rally in Kuala Lumpur on Nov 10 to hand over a petition for electoral reforms to the King was the culmination of accumulated frustration and despair at the hopelessly biased electoral system that has gone from bad to worse. Abdul Rashid must bear major responsibility for this.

    Democracy cannot exist without elections. Similarly, a country with a critically defective election system that heavily favours one contestant is not a democracy for the simple reason that the winner is a fake. Fake victors do not represent the will of the majority – the very definition of democracy.

    Opportunity in hand

    For the electoral system to work, it is imperative that the EC remains neutral. For this reason, EC has been accorded the same degree of independence as the judiciary, with Parliament determining the members’ term of service. Once appointed by the King, a EC member cannot be removed without going through the same elaborate process as that for the removal of a judge – by a tribunal appointed by the King.

    In fact, our constitution has shown even greater respect for the independent status of EC by having its members appointed by the King without the mandatory ‘advice’ by the prime minister as in the case of appointment of judges. This ensures that the appointee is not obligated to the Executive. All the King needs to do is to consult the Conference of Rulers and to ensure that individuals so selected enjoy public confidence (Article 114 of the constitution).

    Hence, there is enough constitutional protection to allow the EC to operate in comfort and security as an independent institution free from interference from the incumbent political power.

    There is certainly no justification for Abdul Rashid to be subservient to the Executive as revealed in his interview with Malaysiakini on Oct 10, 2003. Asked if EC is meant to be an independent body, Rashid answered: “No, never ever. You look at the constitution, what does it say? That there shall be a commission that enjoys the public confidence. It does not say ‘an independent commission’.”

    With such a mentality, is it any wonder that the EC has always been regarded as an indispensable instrument to perpetuate Umno’s political hegemony?

    Without an impartial EC, how can we ensure that the power to rule is vested with the people and not hijacked by the incumbent?

    Abdul Rashid’s impending retirement has offered the nation a golden opportunity to kick-start serious reform of the electoral system. We therefore appeal to the King to exercise his power to appoint a new chairperson that truly commands public confidence, and who can detach the EC from the clutches of the ruling coalition.

    We respectfully suggest that the King should not confine his consideration to only the prime minister’s candidate, but should also cast his sight over the wide spectrum of civil society to select the most suitable person, on whose leadership much of our hope on restoration of democracy depends.

    Trivialising the constitution

    Turning now to the impending constitutional amendment, Umno is trivialising the constitution through a shotgun amendment for political expediency. This must be deplored in the strongest terms. Today, we are asked to approve a constitutional amendment overnight to accommodate Abdul Rashid. What if a future EC head falls out of favour – will there be another lightning amendment to cut short his service?

    Umno must be reminded that the constitution is the solemn agreement cementing the consensus reached among the founding fathers who represent various racial and religious factions. Where alteration is desirable and inevitable, it should only be done with consensus after the widest consultation possible, so as to preserve societal harmony.

    For this reason, the constitution of a democracy is rarely amended. Take the case of US which, in its 231-year history, has only amended the constitution 27 times (mostly single amendments), the last being in 1992. In Singapore, whose historical background is similar to Malaysia’s, the constitution has been amended only four times, the last being in 1991.

    In contrast, Malaysia has amended its constitution well over 40 times (mostly multiple amendments) consisting of not less than 650 individual amendments. These figures speak for themselves as to the low priority that successive BN leaders place on the sanctity of law and the preservation of rule of law.

    Economy threatened

    An impartial EC would certainly help to reduce the lopsidedness of the playing field, thus offering the country the first real chance in breaking off from an antiquated corrupt rule which is gradually but surely bringing the nation to the precipice of calamity.

    Just look at some of the titanic scandals so far – top crime-busters being investigated for corruption and exonerated dubiously; the RM4.6 billion ‘ghost town’ in Port Klang; the RM6.7 billion naval vessel contract; and the Sarawak chief minister’s alleged embroilment in a timber kickbacks scandals.

    The quality of our education system continues its unrelenting slip, as for the first time, none of our 20-odd public universities could squeeze into the top 200 of the prestigious THES World Universities Rankings (Times Higher Education Supplement).

    The ruling coalition may be unfazed by such bad news, nestling in the thought that it is well-insulated from the wrath of public opinion by the protective shield of the press and TV. But market forces are merciless and will mete out punishment via crippling economic competition and hollowing out of investment.

    For the first time, Malaysia’s FDI outflow equals FDI inflow for 2006 (inflow US$6.1 billion against outflow US$ 6 billion), as reported in World Investment Report 2007 published by the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development on Oct 16.

    This is most unusual for a developing economy, and it signifies a troubling scenario – capital flight arising from dwindling investment opportunity due to loss of competitiveness. It is pertinent to note that even in an advanced economy like Singapore’s, FDI outflow is only one-third of FDI inflow, which stands at US$24.2 billion – or four times that of Malaysia.

    The inevitable conclusion is that the Umno-led anachronistic conglomerate of race-based parties has long outlived its political lifespan. It is time that we turn to a new leadership to steer the nation towards the path of genuine integration and growth.

    And the restoration of neutrality to the EC will be a big step towards realising this objective. We must ensure that a competent chairperson is appointed.

  22. #22 by Malaisesial on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 10:51 am

    Uncle Kit,

    Not sure if u have seen this but this is the rtm new media proposed by Zam that i stumbled upon Seems like their idea of posting yr blog articles is to interpret it using their own words.

  23. #23 by cancan on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 11:04 am

    What is right,is right and what is wrong, is wrong.
    Only idiots don’t know this.


  24. #24 by lbn on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 12:27 pm

    If the RCI is appointed by the Gomen, might as well don’t have it. The Commission has to be impartial and should comprise of people of highest integrity and honesty. Can be from ASEAN or UN which is only a dream. With the current turn of events, no loss in wishing!

  25. #25 by EARNEST on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 3:54 pm




  26. #26 by ALtPJK on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 5:29 pm

    k1980, your above comments (November 25th, 2007 at 10: 26.03 ) squarely bares out the disgust and despair of the Malaysian rakyat.

    Regarding your points on ‘Constitutional amendment by stealth’ & ‘Trivialising the constitution’ if my memory serves well, these were the very issues DAP was clamouring for support in the 80’s. Well, not many Malaysians were willing to listen to them then. Hopefully many, many more Malaysians will realise this before the next GE.

  27. #27 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 5:59 pm

    YB LKS says: “Going by Nazri’s perverse illogic…”

    YB, is Nazri known at all to be otherwise? Any semblance of sanity, logic or principles of late? Or in recent history?

    I leave that to the Malaysian public who are more familiar with this legally-trained Minister whose infamy is limited by his trisyllabic vocabulary such as “Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!” and “Racist! Racist! Racist!”.

    He disgraces the legal community with his inabiltiy to understand simple legal precepts and to communicate national or social ideals.

  28. #28 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 6:11 pm

    EARNEST Says:

    November 25th, 2007 at 15: 54.23

    YB, is there any way you can at least offer your service on the RCI? The rejection is immaterial. It is the offering of yourself that counts.

    1) You do have a legal mind.
    2) Your integrity in public service is unquestionable.
    3) You will only be one in a panel of hopefully 5 or more others.
    4) You don’t have any personal axe to grind against Fairuz. (Maybe yes, Guan Eng was incarcerated by a suspect judiciary over the Malay girl she defended. But it wasn’t Fairuz who passed the conviction then…or did he have a say? Besides, you would be too noble to stoop so low.)
    5) You do have a heart for the truth. And you do love malaysia and the Judiciary.

    Do we need more reasons? Lee Lam Thye wouldn’t have half as many of these qualifications and yet he was in the other panel!

  29. #29 by ALtPJK on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 6:16 pm

    ENDANGERED HORNBILL has put forth good reasons for YB LKS to be on RCI. But the points put by 9to5 are equally valid.

  30. #30 by sj on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 6:43 pm

    1) You do have a legal mind.
    2) Your integrity in public service is unquestionable.
    3) You will only be one in a panel of hopefully 5 or more others.
    4) You don’t have any personal axe to grind against Fairuz. (Maybe yes, Guan Eng was incarcerated by a suspect judiciary over the Malay girl she defended. But it wasn’t Fairuz who passed the conviction then…or did he have a say? Besides, you would be too noble to stoop so low.)
    5) You do have a heart for the truth. And you do love malaysia and the Judiciary.


    Let me add reason

    6) To have more people to observe how an investigation is conducted is always better in terms of integrity and also to provide check and balance. Even though it is RCI, there is always room for more to put extra people if not moderators into the panel, main reason being you dont want a groupie in the RCI, you would want a diverse group of people from all corners to make an impartial judgment.

  31. #31 by AhPek on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 6:58 pm

    The other very important reason for Kit to be in is he has a heart of gold and he can be depended upon to look after Malaysia’s interest.
    But these group of scumbags will never include him in such panel, that is as sure as the sun rising in the east everyday in the morning and setting in the west every evening.

  32. #32 by EARNEST on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 7:52 pm

    I believe working from within the RCI is more effective than working outside the RCI, if each commissioner’s views is also included in the final RCI report. Like the written judgments of Federal Court judges, dissenting views are also included.

    YB Lim’s input will definitely improve the quality of the final RCI report. If the BN appointed commissioners are weighing between two alternatives, YB Lim could come out with a third alternative which may be better than the first two alternatives.

  33. #33 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 25 November 2007 - 10:03 pm

    EARNEST, the answer to your question about Jeffrey and the Cambridge “brat” is on the other thread:

    “Hindraf rally – police stop over-reacting, dismantle roadblocks and issue permit”

  34. #34 by EARNEST on Monday, 26 November 2007 - 12:49 am

    DarkHorse, Thanks. Very informative.

  35. #35 by akarmalaysian on Monday, 26 November 2007 - 3:46 am


  36. #36 by EARNEST on Monday, 26 November 2007 - 3:54 am

    I maintain that it is important to work within rather than outside the RCI.

    If you are a litigant in a Federal Court case, you would certainly wish that impartial and courageous judges like Honorable Judges, to wit Sri Ram, Hishamuddin Yunos or K.N. Segera are among the panel of judges. You would pray that the judge is not one who would wish to abolish or have no regards for the common law legal system because most of our lawyers are trained only in the legal system which we have inherited from the British since colonial days and which has been time-tested for hundreds of years.

    If YB Lim is a commissioner of the RCI, he may have a say or some influence in drawing up the terms of reference for the RCI, or at least include the following as one of the terms of reference :

    – Entrench citizens’ right to fair trials in our courts.

    Undoubtedly, the above right is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and Articles 7 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, but invariably this unalienable right of ours has been violated like nobody’s business. It has been trampled upon like Article 10 of the Federal Constitution times and again.

    In order to entrench our right to a fair trial, certain guidelines have to be put in place, the Judges Codes of Ethics 1994 must be updated and there must be enforcement to make give the codes teeth.

    — Judges must be impartial. Must not approach a case with a
    predisposed mind.
    — Judges must rely on evidence and the law in making judgments.
    — Judges must not delay writing grounds of judgment. Must do it
    within 8 weeks, else must apply for extension from:
    — Chief judge of Malaya for High court cases
    — President of Appeal court for Appeal Court cases
    — Chief Justice for Federal Court cases
    failing which further application for another 8 weeks must be
    done. Only 3 application for extensions are allowed, else judges
    may face disciplinary actions, in the form of pay cuts and/or

    — Recusal and sacking of partial and biased judges must be
    simplified. Recusal hearing must be done by another judge,
    or if the challenged judge insist on hearing, it must be heard in
    the presence of another impartial judge. Preferably this is done
    in open court and not in Chambers.

    — Missing and tampering of documents filed in court must be
    accounted for and prevented from happening.

    — Lawyers must respect the rules of the courts and the legal
    profession act. Punishments for breaching the rules must be
    swift and substantial enough to serve as deterrents.

    — The Disciplinary Board of the Bar Council must be transparent, and must be held accountable for its decision, and not just dismiss legitimate complaints by merely stating “No merits. If you are not satisfied with the Board’s decision, go to court to pursue your complaints”

    — The identity of members of the Board making decision in each complaint must be disclosed to prevent conflict of interest.

    This proposal is a matter of utmost urgency, because it has been long overdue.

    Furthermore, now that hundreds of courageous and righteous individuals participating in the Bersih and Hindraf gathering have been arrested, their rights to fair trials must not be violated.

  37. #37 by Count Dracula on Monday, 26 November 2007 - 6:29 am

    “If YB Lim is a commissioner of the RCI, he may have a say or some influence in drawing up the terms of the terms of reference….” EARNEST

    What are the chances of seeing Dracula coming back to life and flying to Malaysia to suck your blood??

  38. #38 by Godamn Singh on Monday, 26 November 2007 - 7:17 am

    I disagree with EARNEST, who despite being an old man has worked through the night to produce this brilliant piece of work in the interest of justice and fairness to all. I think the current unofficial version of the unwritten Code of Ethics for judges should remain thus:

    – Judges must be partial. Must approach a case with a view to promotion and/or winning the favor of a V.K. Lingam connected litigant;

    – Judges must understand both the unwritten law of evidence and written law of evidence and apply both laws to the facts, the former to take precedence over the latter when there is a conflict;

    – Judges must try and delay writing grounds of judgment when they are confused;

    – Recusal by the judge should not be allowed if that means giving the non-V.K. Lingam connected litigant the right to a fair trial. Preferably such court proceedings are done ex parte and in Chambers when there are chamber maids around to take care of the needs of the judge;

    – Missing and untampered documents filed in court must remain missing and unaccounted for;

    – Lawyers must respect the unwritten rules of the courts and refer to the Legal
    Profession Act only to confuse the parties. Punishments for breaching the unwritten rules must be swift and substantial enough to serve as deterrents;

    – The Disciplinary Board of the Bar Council must be not too transparent, and must be held accountable for some of its decisions, and sometimes just dismiss legitimate complaints by merely stating “No merits. If you are not satisfied with the Board’s decision, go to court to pursue your complaints”

    – The identity of members of the Board making decision in each complaint must remain undisclosed to maintain a conflict of interest.

  39. #39 by undergrad2 on Monday, 26 November 2007 - 7:07 pm

    Godamn it, Singh!

  40. #40 by EARNEST on Monday, 26 November 2007 - 7:55 pm

    Godamn Singh,

    Son, are you okay? Got fever? Take more rest. Sleep early.

  41. #41 by Tulip Crescent on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 - 5:09 am

    Nazri is a sick guy. He needs help.

    So please tell him to go into Hospital Bahagia.

You must be logged in to post a comment.