The appointment of Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor as Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal and the commission’s restricted terms of reference are most disappointing and a great letdown for Malaysians who had looked forward to a new page for Malaysia’s judiciary and administration of justice.
Haidar, who was former Chief Judge of Malaya, is clearly not acceptable or suitable to be Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal in view of his disgraceful role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis which saw the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and two Supreme Court judges, Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh – the “mother” of a string of judicial crisis in the past 19 years which rocked the country with repeated erosion and ravages of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.
In drawing up very restricted terms of reference strictly confining the Royal Commission of Inquiry to the Lingam Tape, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has missed the golden opportunity to put right what had been wrong and rotten with the system of justice for nearly two decades.
What Abdullah should have done is to frame the widest and most comprehensive terms of reference to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape with the mandate to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
The missed golden opportunity – which can come only once-in-a-lifetime – is felt most acutely with the brave admission by the new Chief Justice, Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad on the rot in the administration of justice and his vow for a “house-cleaning” of the judiciary.
A Royal Commission of Inquiry with the widest ambit to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary would be a great ally for the new Chief Justice’s vow of “house-cleaning” of the judiciary.
Why is Abdullah backing off from such an objective – when there is a Chief Justice who has pledged to clean up the judiciary?
#1 by Godfather on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 5:26 pm
“Missed golden opportunity?” Heck, this is the opportunity to continue to control the information flow and to mislead the public. This is clearly a tactic to buy time. I think Shanker, Shim and Khoo are honourable enough to be independent, but perhaps this is what the thieves want – a deadlock somewhere, a dispute amongst the RCI members so that the deadline of March can be extended, and the findings of the panel never to see the light of day.
Sad time for Bolehland.
#2 by Godfather on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 5:27 pm
And why are they not releasing the findings of the “independent” panel in the first instance ? What did Shanker, Lee Lam Thye or Haidar saY that could warrant such secrecy ?
CEMERLANG, GEMILANG, TEMBERANG !
#3 by St0rmFury on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 5:55 pm
Sad… very sad. There is no hope left for Malaysia as long as Badawi is the prime minister.
#4 by patriotic1994 on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 6:35 pm
Kit should just go to see Badawi. Tell Badawi he should consult Opposition leader to restore his support from people. No offend pun.
In some Europe country, Opposition leaders are involved in running the country together. Best brain for the benefit of people.
Well, clearly this is not what our Badawi is intended…
#5 by budak on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 7:01 pm
this is what we called as BUDAYA KITA (Malaysia)…!
Pak Lah, not only got a pair of big ears, long nose and hands, and also a pairs of big palm to close both eyes…
#6 by Saint on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 7:27 pm
Badawi taking advice from Kit?
Even if we dream – let it be a possible dream.
#7 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 7:35 pm
With all these arrests going on, we should not expect this government to be responsive to public demands for justice. I can just visualize V.K. Lingam among Ali Baba and the 40 thieves converting their ill gotten gains to gold bars, with a life boat ready for the quick get-away as the ship sinks.
They are in their death throes to want to listen to anything but to cling on to life. Our job is to unplug the machine, lawfully or unlawfully, that breathes life to a terminally ill-patient.
#8 by k1980 on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 8:31 pm
A liar by any other name stinks just like shit
http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/75945
When Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s utterances are at variance with the truth, we’re usually inclined to excuse him on the grounds that he’s either misinformed or, as he often claims himself, he doesn’t know the facts.
But there was no doubt about his recent utterance regarding the bringing of charges against citizens who walked in the recent Bersih, Hindraf and Human Rights Day rallies: “We do not discriminate, there are no double standards in enforcing the law.â€
A statement that was, by anybody’s standards, a barefaced, outright lie.
If there’s one glaringly obvious fact of life in Malaysia, it’s that there is one set of laws for Barisan Nasional (BN) members, cronies and supporters and another for everybody else.
For example, charges of attempted murder have been brought against 31 people arrested at the Hindraf rally in Kuala Lumpur on Nov 25, yet no charges have been laid against the member of the police force who shot two PAS members Suwandi Ab Ghani and Muhammad Azman Aziz, during a Bersih gathering on Sept 8 at Pantai Batu Buruk in Kuala Terengganu.
Nor do any charges ever appear to be brought against police responsible for one of Hindraf’s many causes for complaint, the shocking rate of deaths – especially of Indian – that occur among ‘suspects’ in custody.
Then there’s the fact that leaders of the Nov 10 Bersih rally in KL have been charged with threatening the peace and stability of the nation. Yet Umno members who, during the party’s 2006 general assembly threatened to bathe the keris in the blood of fellow Malaysians were not so much as reprimanded.
And following the Hindraf rally, roundly condemned by the government as being racist, ex-Malacca chief minister Rahim Thamby Chik wasn’t so much as chided for the incendiary remark that “The Malays have never taken to the streets so do not force us to do so as we will draw our parang to defend the Ketuanan Melayu in this country.â€
Perhaps the most frequently mentioned example of the double standard in enforcing the laws pertaining to public assembly has been the denial of police permits for the recent rallies, compared with official approval if not encouragement of an earlier protests led by PM-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin at the Burmese Embassy and at the arrival of the visiting US Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice.
Then there are the contrasting styles of law enforcement against illegal signage and construction. Lawyer Edmund Bon has been charged with “obstructing Kuala Lumpur City Hall officers from performing their duty†in removing a Human Rights Day banner from a building on which it was lawfully displayed, but hundreds of illegally-erected billboards in PJ are permitted to remain in place on the pretext that it’s too expensive to pull them down.
Hindu temples and other places of worship are demolished on the grounds that they’re illegal, while the so-called Istana Impian, built without a permit by Klang assemblyman Zainal @ Zakaria Mat Deros on public land acquired suspiciously cheaply by his wife, is allowed to stand unscathed.
But the falsehood of the prime minister’s “no double standards in enforcing the law†remark gets much closer to home than that.
His very family and in-laws have been suspected of being above and beyond the law. His son’s amazingly successful company, Scomi, has been accused of complicity in the supply of US-blacklisted uranium-processing equipment to Iran.
His former sister-in-law’s name has been linked with the Iraq food-for-oil scandal. And his son-in-law, Khairy, famously received a ‘loan’ of a great many shares in a local company, and then claimed to have sold them ‘at a loss’ after this windfall was embarrassingly revealed.
Some of Pak Lah’s cabinet ministers have come under suspicion too, but somehow spared the inconvenience of legal action against them. S Samy Vellu and Rafidah Aziz, for example, have both faced apparently credible corruption allegations but in the event have proven untouchable.
I could quote a great many more examples of selective application of the law, but I’m sure you can think of even more than I can.
And in any case, as the prime minister well knows despite his repeated denials, the rot in Malaysia’s legal system is much more serious than simple inequity, as the very institution of the law is iniquitous.
The previous chief justice was a symptom of this malaise, hence the walk by lawyers in Putrajaya in October. But now, far from seriously addressing the problem with the royal commission that was called for, the prime minister has presided over the appointment of an even less desirable chief justice-to-be, the former Umno and government-linked company fixer Zaki Azmi.
As Kim Quek wrote recently, Azmi has “not even warmed his seat as a judge, and yet he now looks poised to succeed Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad five months from now when Hamid retires in April 2008 upon reaching 66 years of ageâ€.
Pak Lah has demonstrated a similar level of bias in the face of Bersih pressure for free and fair elections with his plot to pass a constitutional amendment to extend the term in office of the thoroughly discredited chairperson of the Election Commission, Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman.
Abdul Rashid is so far from independent in the performance of his duties as to reveal in a recent speech that he believes that “there is only one regime in this country that is capable of running†the nation, and that Malaysia would be “in trouble†if he was in disagreement with BN politicians in terms of what the country needs.
So, all in all, as far as free and fair elections and equality under the law are concerned, it’s painfully evident where Malaysia’s future currently lies – in the hands of that master of empty words and paragon of broken promises, the duplicitous and deceitful Pak Lah.
#9 by SkullOfScar on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 8:54 pm
We are doom because of ABB. no…. (correction) because of BN!
#10 by SkullOfScar on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 8:56 pm
(Correction) AAB.
#11 by SkullOfScar on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 8:57 pm
AAB or BN also same… we’re DOOM!
#12 by Godfather on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 9:10 pm
“With all these arrests going on, we should not expect this government to be responsive to public demands for justice. I can just visualize V.K. Lingam among Ali Baba and the 40 thieves converting their ill gotten gains to gold bars, with a life boat ready for the quick get-away as the ship sinks.” Undergrad2
We have to do everything in our power (however little it may be) to ensure that the lifeboat with gold bars doesn’t set sail that quickly. Maybe we should try our best to convert these to Mars bars. The reality could be that the thieves try to load on so much of gold that the lifeboat sinks to the bottom of the sea !
#13 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 9:29 pm
“The reality could be that the thieves try to load on so much of gold that the lifeboat sinks to the bottom of the sea !”
Let the boat sink but not the ship!
#14 by Jong on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 9:52 pm
Thieves, they are all the same, holding on desperately to dear life. I’m quite certain their ‘ill-gotten’ gains have already left the country each time they get their spouses to tag along on overseas trips – depositing them in UK, Ozzieland and collecting rents in France and Russia.
Even Mr 10% had chunks of properties in Canada near where I stay but all under his children’s names.
#15 by Jamesy on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:04 pm
From Haider Panel to Haider RCI.
Someone please tell me it’s not a joke.
Even Mr. Bean can be in the RCI-lah, come on!
#16 by toyolbuster on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:05 pm
Kit,
With due respect, swallow your pride and join force with PAS / PKR and get rid of this moron. I would agree with all that its impossible to get rid of this BN govt., but just get rid of this worm. Once DAP join force with the rest, UMNO will be forced to get rid of the pest and whatever SIL or Patrick that comes with it.
#17 by 9to5 on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:16 pm
***Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has missed the golden opportunity to put right what had been wrong and rotten with the system of justice for nearly two decades.***
Who ever gave you the idea that Badawi is going to change the status quo?
The very fact of the fast-track elevation of the CJ-in-waiting, Zaki, already clearly shows Badawi’s intention to control the system of justice when Zaki comes on board. Do you honestly expect him to expand the term of reference of the RC so that he can kick himself in the butt later on?
The only way to prevent Zaki from becoming the next CJ is for divine intervention.
#18 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:18 pm
“Even Mr 10% had chunks of properties in Canada near where I stay but all under his children’s names.” Jong
Where is that? Vancouver?
#19 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:19 pm
The purpose of calling for a Royal Commission (RC) assumes that RC’s members are persons of merits, independence and impartiality to be able to perform, with public confidence, their important role of investigating the concerns raised by the Lingam Video Clip and evaluating how best the system of judges’ appointment may be carried out to buttress the perception of their independence.
When public doubts are expressed, as they are now, in reference to the members of the RC themselves especially its chairman, the RC, even though formed, will not, as certain as the sun will rise in the East, achieve the purpose for which its formation was intended – to assuage and ameliorate public misgivings of the judiciary independence.
And hence it is a waste of time and public funds to form it when it will be dismissed by significant portion of the public and their stakeholders as just another ‘sandiwara’.
Indeed, it will achieve the opposite negative effect of convincing many of the public, that until now were undecided, to now decide that the executive is actually determined to ensure that the judiciary comes or will remain under its control and influence.
Indeed I had in earlier threads on this subject mused of the possibilities that the same persons in Haidar Commission would be reappointed in the RC and quite paradoxically the fact that I was wrong about Lee Lam Thye being reappointed in the RC is something that might elicit a positive inference about him!
What a joke!
Now in furtherance of public confidence, it is no more just an issue of how the Royal Commission, when established, could evaluate how a system could be put in place for appointment of judges to ensure their independence.
Now the current issue is how a system could be put in place for the appointment of Royal Commissioners to ensure in the first place their independence and merits to assess other important public issues whether concerning independence of judiciary or other issues of great public importance of the day…..
To do this, we need another Commission – maybe a Public Commission whose members are appointed in consultation with NGOs and Civil Society or at least not persons whom these stakeholders would express diffidence of their independence from the Executive?
It might be questioned how absurd can this be – a Royal Commission on the Judiciary, and then a Public Commission on the Royal Commission and what if the Public Commission members are still not perceived independent, are we going to have yet another Commission (say) the people’s Commission on the Public Commission, ad infinitum? :)
Absurdity begets absurdity, in a cycle: it just cannot be helped.
When an institution like the Royal Commission, which is supposed to inspire public confidence, were constituted in a manner that it does not achieve the very purpose for which its formation was intended – to restore public confidence – when it is constituted in a manner that achieve the exact opposite effect, then what else can be done or said?
True, the clamour of one commission after another possibly stretching to infinity sounds an absurd response but it is actually a cogent one if only to demonstrate our collective perseverance to protest for an independent tribunal until it is achieved, and the first absurdity – ie. appointing an RC that does not meet its fundamental objective of garnering public confidence – is eventually rectified, and not to be contented meanwhile with sham makeshift arrangements masquerading as satisfactory one.
#20 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:21 pm
“Do you honestly expect him to expand the term of reference of the RC so that he can kick himself in the butt later on?”
I was told he was good in gymnastics in school. So he just might be able to do that i.e. kick himself in the rear end while juggling with justice.
#21 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:23 pm
Welcome back Jeff.
There are lots of posters here who need your ‘hollow sophistication’! The poster who coined the term has re-appeared and may be reading your posting – so be prepared.
#22 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:26 pm
“…re we going to have yet another Commission (say) the people’s Commission on the Public Commission, ad infinitum? ” Jeffrey
No. Just 2% commission will do.
#23 by Jong on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:31 pm
Vancouver it is.
#24 by Jong on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:34 pm
DarkHorse, you are a real “batu-api” ! Like my grandma, nag and nag!
#25 by Cinapek on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:40 pm
“….the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has missed the golden opportunity to put right what had been wrong and rotten with the system of justice for nearly two decades.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. AAB was trying his damndest from Day 1 on how to suppress the truth on the tape. He tried delaying tactics, then he tried manipulating the toothless panel and would have buried further investigation into the matter if the 2000 lawyers had not marched.
He is trying desensitizing the public now. His initial manipulation of the panel backfired when apparently two members refuse to play ball and ask for a Royal Commission. He was caught in his own mess and had to go along with the commission. So the next best option is to appoint the most Govt. friendly member of the panel to head the RC and limit its powers thereby having a better chance to keep the lid on more stink getting out.
And he accuses the people for resorting to marches and rallies to put right the wrongs that has been inflicted on the public for decades.
#26 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:46 pm
I have a friend who gave up his job, tore his MBA and sold everything to go to Vancouver to open up a sandwich bar ten years ago. His wife took a course in physiotherapy – euphemism for ‘tukang urut’ la! But his daughter kept coming back!
#27 by DarkHorse on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 10:49 pm
“DarkHorse, you are a real “batu-api†! Like my grandma, nag and nag!” Jong
You know a better way to flush him out of the woodwork??
#28 by Jong on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 11:09 pm
Jeffrey,
What avenue do we ordinary citizens have to voice our objection to the choice of RC members, especially so Haidar? Is there no any others to head the RC ? The Haidar panel of 3, showed incompetence, came out “nothing” after one whole month of ‘investigation’ ! Any ordinary person I am sure needs only 30 minutes!
#29 by 9to5 on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 - 11:44 pm
***Toyolbuster – Kit, With due respect, swallow your pride and join force with PAS / PKR and get rid of this moron.***
Toyolbuster has a point. We all know DAP had a trashing in the previous GE when it worked together with PAS. But then it was different; UMNO then, was not like UMNO now. UMNO then, was moderate but now UMNO is:
1. even more radical and intolerant than PAS and is becoming more Taliban by the day! Demolition of temples, eradicating pig-rearing livelihoods, refusal of inter-faith dialog, adversity to crosses and statutes in missionary schools, passing haram fatwa on religious statutes, creeping islamisation into schools and universities, forced counselling for “misbehaved” school children and people leaving Islam, body snatching, asking Malaysians to leave Malaysia or having their citizenship revoked, their own narrow interpretation of the Federal Constitutions when it comes to religion, human rights, rallies, etc There are many, many other examples of an intolerant UMNO, too many to mention.
Take a look at how Kelantan is managed by PAS. They have the largest buddha statute in SEA and they are tolerant to places of worship of other religions, the only state without tolls, less corruptions, etc. Don’t take my word on this, research it yourself!
2. even more dangerous than PAS with their complete dominance in the news media, police force, judges and parliament. You already saw their enormous power in the recent rallies and their accusation of defiants as terrorist without an iota of evidence, their kris rattling, threats of bloodbath of other races, their arrogance and total disregard of other component BN parties, using of C4 to blow up people, erasing immigration records, etc. Worst part of it is that that they did all these without guilt and conscience!
3. without doubt, more corrupt than PAS! You have your own eyes and ears to judge for yourself – from the the police force, ACA, judges, timber and land concessions, tolls, mega-infrastructure projects right down to the ordinary policemen and JPJ officers in the street! The hijacking of the NEP to enrich themselves and putting the blame on the other races.
I was never a PAS supporter and have never voted for PAS before. But seeing the events unfolding in Malaysia the last 5 years, I realised I might be a little prejudicial in thinking PAS is a radical Islamist where in actual fact UMNO in recent years has actually grown to be an uncontrollable monster. My prejudicial thoughts might be due to my own perception – because PAS wears skullcaps and jangut and UMNO smartly attired in coats and neckties which I’m more used to and familiar! At the end of the day, I realised no matter how we attired ourselves, we are just people with the same blood colour but with different religions.
I can now accept things are not static; what is true or good in the past may not necessarily be the same in the present and future. Likewise, for me, decision to vote for a party needs to be revised to the present day circumstances.
If DAP is not prejudicial to past events, your decision to cooperate with PAS and PKR need not also be static but conforming to changing circumstances of the present and future. Only then, one can say that the party is relevant…
#30 by ablastine on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 12:05 am
Lets face it. Even if Badawi wants the judiciary to be independent, many of his powerful cronies will not agree to it because a strong independent judiciary will not be conducive for them to continue plundering the country. I mean it will be more difficult for the favoured politician to stash away hundreds of millions with impunity as we all know is happening. There is every intention of this corrupted government to continue to control the judiciary commission or no commision of enquiry. Really, the only hope for Malaysia against these
corrupted politicians is to have them kicked out of office in the next election. However, as we know this is not going to happen. So there really is very little hope for Malaysia.
#31 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 12:42 am
What avenue do we ordinary citizens have to voice our objection to the choice of RC members, especially so Haidar? Only avenues are those not controlled by govt like NGOs, Opposition, internet news bulletins and blogs, from where public opinion is gauged. Whether it is efficacious in sense of being heeded is the other more important question. I would venture a guess that in many societies, the ruling elites would not be bothered to set aside their vested interest and heed, not just public opinion but a sense of what is fair and right. In some societies, they would (in comparative sense) more than others. This is because by history, culture and tradition the ordinary people by majority, have a sense of fair play and to do right. When they do, there will be more independent judges. When people are by majority like that, it rubs off on their leaders who cannot just disregard their constitutencies’ values. Here it is not the case. You’d only have to ask yourself but one question – whether you believe or not believe that by history, culture and tradition the majority of people here care for what is fair and right…..If they don’t would their leaders do just because the minority clamour for such values?
#32 by Jong on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 1:04 am
“You’d only have to ask yourself but one question – whether you believe or not believe that by history, culture and tradition the majority of people here care for what is fair and right…..If they don’t would their leaders do just because the minority clamour for such values?” – Jeffrey
Whaa, you just broke my set of ribs! A good excuse for another ‘People’s Rally’ ! We cannot afford to continue having 1st world infrastructure and 3rd world mentality and be treated so! I hope Bar Council and Bersih will take this up, united we stand.
#33 by 9to5 on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 1:06 am
I’m no lawyer but when I read the terms of reference quoted in Malaysiakini, my thought is: provided the panel members are independent minded, not subjudicated to the present administration and DARE to interpret them liberally they can be quite wide.
The terms of reference as quoted by Malaysiakini are:
1) to enquire and ascertain the authenticity of the video clip
2) to enquire and identify the speaker, the person he was speaking to in the video clip and the persons mentioned in the conversation
3) to enquire and ascertain the truth or otherwise of the content of the conversation in the video clip
4) to determine whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip
5) to recommend any appropriate course of action to be taken against the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip, should such person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour.
Comments:
No 2. – to enquire and identify the speaker (Lingam), the person he was speaking to in the video clip (Fairuz) and the persons mentioned in the conversation (Tun Mahathir, Vincent Tan, attorney general – Mokhtar Abdullah, tourism minister – Tengku Adnan, etc). To do this the panel can summon these people to hearing and if they lie they can be persecuted by law. The panel members can even summon Lingam brother, sister, and who-so-ever to find out the truth.
No 4. – to determine whether any act of misbehaviour (corruption or condoning corruption, perjury, etc) has been committed by person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip (Lingam, Fairuz, and includes [if they are brave enough which is unlikely] – Mahathir, Vincent Tan, etc.)
No 5. – to recommend any appropriate course of action (jail, fine, actions under anti-money laundering act, look into system of appointment of CJ, transparency of appointments, recommending people of integrity to sit in the board of appointment, etc, Note: in fact this clause encompasses very wide recommendations) to be taken against the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip, should such person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour.
Problem:
As I see it, the only problem lies with the integrity and independent minded panel members. If the panel members are subjudicated to the present adminstration, then they can influence and tip the scale on (particularly no. 3 – no truth in allegation), (4 – less degree of misbehaviour) and (5 – slap on the risk type of actions and exclude high ranking individuals).
Conclusion:
If only the panel members are OK, the Royal Commission should be OK. (Remember, I’m no laywer)
#34 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 1:31 am
Let us see how the Royal Commission handles the hot potato.
Maybe it is not that hot now.
Given the long delay to get any action/s going it may be perceived that some people were given sufficient time to cover up their tracks.
What is it now? About 3 months after the tape surfaced?
#35 by Jong on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 1:33 am
9to5,
The Panel Members may be OK but the chief Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor is not.
Haidar was deemed to have played a notorious role in the unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abbas as Lord President and two other Supreme Court judges Datuk George Siah and Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh in 1988. With such a disgraceful reputation, he must not be allowed into the RCI let alone head it!
#36 by Jong on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 1:49 am
I like to reword my last sentence:
“With a reputation that is questionable, he must not be allowed into the RCI let alone head it!”
#37 by 9to5 on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 2:05 am
Jong,
Agreed! In fact all the 5 panel members are in one way or another beholden to the present administration for their income and livelihood or owe gratitude for having once employed under the present administration. But of course, Haidar is the most outstanding one.
It would be preferred at least 1 or 2 of them be from the judiciary overseas like Australia, UK, US or Europe. In the good old days, we have had a few foreigners in various RCs. Then they can provide better quality input/recommendations and the RC’s seen to be of integrity and impartial.
#38 by kanthanboy on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 4:03 am
YB Lim,
These are the names you have suggested for appointment to the RCI:
• Tunku Abdul Aziz
• Raja Aziz Addruse
• Datuk Param Cumaraswamy
• Yeo Yang Poh
• Chooi Mun Sou
• Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah
• Datuk Shaikh Daud
• Datuk N.N. Chan
• Datuk Seri Visu Sinnadurai
Sorry YB, you got a big smelly EGG from ABB in your score.
With the appointment of Tan Sri Haidar as Chairman of the RCI the truth of the Lingam Tape will be sealed. Let’s not forget Haidar’s key role in the 1988 judicial crises. He has subverted an emergency Supreme Court sitting by locking up the Seal of the Supreme Court. His appointment as Chairman of the RCI is merely a recall from retirement to lock up the truth of the Lingam Tape.
This guy is part of the rot in the judiciary; he will do anything at a price. Remember that immediately after the removal of Tun Salleh Abas, Tan Sri Suleiman and Datuk George Seah in 1988; he was awarded a judgeship in the High Court in Borneo. Subsequently he was appointed as Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaysia.
#39 by twistedmind on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 8:21 am
They guy who got nothing done in his last appointment, is then appointed to head a bigger name ROYAL COMMISSION. Truly Malaysian style!
ABB thinks the rakyat are idiots?
#40 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 8:26 am
While it was not unexpected, Haidar appointment is still a surprise. Even if the PM wants some one that he is sure is politically compliant to UMNO, is there no one else? Why choose somone who can create a storm now.
I see the appt of Haidar as Badawi penchant for seeing limited options to him. The man has no imagination and has limited reach in personal power and influence. After 4 years, his authority, power and influence still reside primarily in his office.
What is also not obvious is that there is something very stubborn about Badawi. He is very set in certain ways and utterly unfazed by even seismic changes around him. Quite lost actually.
What is next for PKR and the Lingam tapes. They should come forth with the witness, but they need to protect the witness themselves. How do they make sure everything that is divulged to the RCI is also divulged to the public?
#41 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 9:04 am
Haidar appointment is nominally the PM’s choice but who is he really identified with?
#42 by Jong on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 11:06 am
He was quickly named by Deputy PM Najib Tun Razak to head the panel of 3 against a call by PM(who was then out of the country) to let the Police handle the authenticity of the Lingam video.
After one whole month of ‘investigation’ and deliberation, the three members came out with their three different views and conclusion which were never released to the public/rakyat. Why?
Why then is Haidar retained and again named, this time to head the RCI? To see to “unfinished business”?
As I had earlier said, with his questionable reputation of being involved in the 1988 Judiciary crisis, appointing Haidar once again to head RCI is most suspicious. Malaysians will not accept his appointment.
#43 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 12:03 pm
One way for the authorities to gain back public trust is to publish all the reports of the first 3-man panel.
If any one of those wrote against the RCI and has been appointed that person should not accept the appointment.
So far only OSA applies to those reports.
http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2007/12/another-royal-commission-of-inquiry.html
#44 by Jong on Thursday, 13 December 2007 - 12:39 pm
It has been hours, why is my posting still awaiting moderation? Moderator gone for morning tea then lunch?
#45 by DarkHorse on Friday, 14 December 2007 - 12:06 am
What obscene posting did you make?
#46 by Jong on Friday, 14 December 2007 - 2:03 am
It finally appeared after 8 hours. I posted it “Yesterday 11.06.16 ” .
Btw Horse, I don’t need to be obscene to get my message across.
#47 by Jeffrey on Friday, 14 December 2007 - 8:38 am
If you were moderated, any posting under your handle will be reviewed and delay will occur for all postings rather than a few. Where only a few are delayed, some longer than others, it could be due to some bug surfacing once in a while in the Word Press System underpining this Blog.