I am heartened by the appointment of Zaid Ibrahim as minister in charge of law. He is definitely more forward looking and positive in reforming the judiciary than his predecessor, Nazri Aziz against whom Zaid engaged in public debate on 24 April 2007 hosted by the Malaysian Bar Council. Zaid holds promise to do something about the malaise. If Zaid could dare speak out against the ills when he was a mere UMNO foot soldier facing the risk of being denied ministerial positions, would he hold back now when he is “promoted” to senator and minister? He will likely be bolder with PM’s support. Judiciary is big issue because courts are arbiter of all big constitutional issues. We can’t afford a lameduck judiciary. Pak Lah has done right on this score. Yet, though apparently favoured by PM, Zaid was not even fielded in Kota Bharu as BN Candidate. Many must be against him for his outspokenness. This shows that there’s much factionalism within the ruling party with Pak Lah has to contend – to live up to rakyat’s expectations on one hand and fight right wing factions within his own party inimical to reforms on the other. Either of these could end his political tenure. Appointment of Muhammad Muhammad Taib may be some political horse trading to build a coalition against other factions out to oust him. He is juggling to politically survive. There is one promise he hasn’t kept that reflects well on him – the ultimatum on eve of election to non malays whether they wanted representation in government (by voting MCA/MIC) or have mere louder voice in Parliament. Well from election results, MCA and MIC nearly decimated with Opposition flooding Parliament but Pak Lah did not exclude non malay representation in government judging from the cabinet line up. If it were not for him being more lenient to public debate and criticism – and to many, not fulfilling his 2004 pledges and so called somnambulistic leadership style, the new dawn to Malaysian politics with paradigm shift of support for Opposition or rather against the BN would not have had the much needed catalyst so early in the 12th general elections. :)

///Nazri “the Mouth” is not going to keep quiet, so who should UMNO listen to on legal matters ?/// – Godfather.

Maybe ex UMNO lawyer, Zaki?

Zaid is not legal advisor to UMNO; neither is he, the government’s. The AG is govenment’s lawyer. Zaid is put by Pak Lah to revamp a judiciary discredited publicly by public disclosures on Lingam video clip. Zaid’s credential to do the job in these respect is based on his well known public criticisms of the judiciary’s shortcomings. I had heard him speak on such issues in public forums and even his arguments with Nazri in public debate on these issues. FYI, the Bar Council has publicly expressed support and hopes that he would help institute the judicial commission for appointment of judges. It is a position Zaid had expressed support for on public record. Many have read his writings in MSM – NST for example, which were views those within UMNO power circle dare not speak publicly. His appointment is vindication of what shortcomings he publicly criticized about his own party, and govt. Not heeding what he said inflicted heavy cost on BN in last election.

///Zaid is also a sleeping (dormant) partner of the law firm that bears his name, and which handles mostly government contracts///

Yes I expect he and his law firm were beneficiary of UMNO/government – even years back – but how much he still enjoys it now, I don’t know. Most beneficiaries would not rock the boat by speaking against establishment. They would risk losing patronage. But Zaid did. He risked patronage he enjoyed, and was not even fielded as a parliamentary candidate. This is the test (risking patronage) whether he meant what he said. It would have spelled an end to his political career if Pak Lah had not appointed him senator and minister. To the question “how certain are we that this pecuniary arrangement will not cloud his judgement ?”, well if pecuniary arrangement is important enough to affect his judgment, he would not have spoken up. He enjoyed “pecuniary arrangement” way before he started to speak up against the establishment; he risked it for speaking up. Hat is the acid test of sincerity – risking pecuniary advantage and political position which one already had.

“Imagine a den of thieves taking in a vocal critic – the tendency is to try to corrupt the critic from within, even if at the same time the critic thinks that he can reform the thieves from within !”.

Who says thieves wanted him, a vocal critic? The already maneuvered him out of Kota Bharu parliamentary seat that he held!

The critic (Zaid) of course cannot reform thieves. Thieves will be thieves. Anyone who comes to power is susceptible to steal, even Opposition. What the country – or any country – needs is 2 strong coalitions checking and balancing each other, like Labour /Conservative in UK or Democrat/Republican in US and hopefully BN/BR here.

It would not stop the stealing. It will help make it less blatant. Methods to steal have to be more ‘refined’, rakyat not made angry by too excessive and glaring plundering. That’s all.

Finally on Lim Kam Put’s question “ Can a right man doing a good job in a wrong party?” – yes it is possible if you meant Zaid.

Now that’s not because the wrong party really like to be influenced by him to reform to do right thing for its own sake. It is because they want to stay in power to enjoy its perks. The last election shows that they would be booted out (next round) if they continued doing wrong.

Now they want to learn from “right man doing a good job” how to do the “right thing”. Well not exactly right, it may still be wrong – this using of public office to make money – but in more refined less blatant ways, like what Lingam said, “looks like right, sounds like right but…….”. However before March 8th they were doing not only what “looked like wrong, sounded like wrong but was actually very obviously wrong as well”.

I have responded to Godfather’s & Lim Kam Put’s comments but as always it is under “moderation”. For how long I know not.

Now it is not just one for me and one for you in terms of sharing of largesse and spoils of power. It is also one declaration of asset to the PM, and the other (presumably a conformed copy) “to be made available for public viewing”. At least that is what we have been told. “I have asked the Anti-Corruption Agency to help prepare the relevant forms. When the forms are ready, we will need to discuss and understand what assets need to be included in the form”, PM said.

I say (1) we include all assets including inheritance as well as those acquired prior to public office; (2) the assets declaration ought to disclose how and on basis of what transactions they were acquired and accumulated; (3) the declaration should not be just a “form” but a “Statutory Declaration” under the relevant Statutory Declaration Act signed before Commissioners for Oath.

(1) is necessary but too general requirement of asset declaration short in details or qualified by too many exceptions facilitate misrepresentation, subterfuge and evasion of ill gotten assets not declared; (2) is important because what is the point of making declaration available for public viewing unless it contains sufficient details for public to assess and GIVE FEEDBACK on whether contents of declaration are true or otherwise??? And (3) is important because of assumption that no one will knowingly make a false statements in a Statutory Declaration that is available for public viewing – and hence may be contradicted by public showing evidence to the contrary – since making untrue statements in a formal Statutory Declaration is “perjury” ie lying under oath, a punishable office exposing the declarant to prospect of criminal prosecution.

The challenge to Opposition is that PM will ask all MBs and Chief Minister in state govt including those appointed by Opposition parties to likewise make declaration of assets. For what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, so to speak.

Now why should we be wet blanket to predict “doomed to fail from the start”? If they evince genuine desire to reform, we should encourage, if they show insincerity, then we lambast…. See what develops, if it were that doomed. The same argument that was raised in earlier thread against so called “wet blankets” criticizing Barisan Rakyat prospects before they had chance to work due to DAP/PAS diametrically opposed agendas! We also need a reformed BN to counter check if fellas in Barisan Rakyat get power and become corrupt once they acquire power!

Of course one can say BN is incorrigible, a different kettle of fish but really how different? They too want to stay relevant and in power and for that they have to re-invent and reform or else perish in next GE.

In 2004 they could talk and not walk it because they had over 90% parliamentary seats. But what about now? It is different circumstances and dynamics at play. BN fellas are not even secure as Anwar scours the East Malaysian political landscape (with his war chest) to elicit cross overs : he needs only 30! As TDM said, they are nearly destroyed, if not already!

///Nazri “the Mouth” is not going to keep quiet, so who should UMNO listen to on legal matters ?/// – Godfather.

Maybe ex UMNO lawyer, Zaki?

Zaid is not legal advisor to UMNO; neither is he, the government’s. The AG is govenment’s lawyer. Zaid is put by Pak Lah to revamp a judiciary discredited publicly by public disclosures on Lingam video clip. Zaid’s credential to do the job in these respect is based on his well known public criticisms of the judiciary’s shortcomings. I had heard him speak on such issues in public forums and even his arguments with Nazri in public debate on these issues. FYI, the Bar Council has publicly expressed support and hopes that he would help institute the judicial commission for appointment of judges. It is a position Zaid had expressed support for on public record. Many have read his writings in MSM – NST for example, which were views those within UMNO power circle dare not speak publicly. His appointment is vindication of what shortcomings he publicly criticized about his own party, and govt. Not heeding what he said inflicted heavy cost on BN in last election.