Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Lingam video clip has expanded its scope of enquiry beyond VK Lingam and made damning conclusions against several people including Eusoff Chin. In that sense RCI on Lingam video clip has vindicated your earlier call on 12th June 2001 calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Judicial Independence and Justice Muhammad’s shocking expose of telephone directive from a judicial superior. The conclusions of RCI on Lingam video clip, the government’s ex-gratia payments to the judges removed in 1988 – and judge Ian HN Chin’s latest disclosures make it clear that the state of judiciary is in dire straits for revamp and re-constitution. There is arguably no need for further RCI to establish that which is already obvious – and established. The only question is what needs to be done next by the present administration. The onus is on it to show what it needs to do against the backdrop of the necessary and inevitable results emanating from the damning conclusions of the last RCI on the Lingam video clip……So far the cabinet has shifted the buck to the chief government lawyer – the AG – to follow up on investigations of what last RCI on the Lingam video concluded. Nothing has been heard from that side yet on specific issue of whether any offences – whether abuse of power or obstruction of justice – have been committed by any party. Maybe the issue of what has been done in this respect may be raised in Parliament : ask our present Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of law, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim on the latest developments.

I laughed when I looked at front page of The Star, 11th June. We have the stern looking judge Ian HN Chin, with full regalia of judge’s black robe and frilled pips with the caption in bold – Judge’s Boot Camp and byline “Justice Ian Chin tells of threats and indoctrination attempt….”

When mainstream paper The Star with its national reach puts it on front page this way, finish lah this pretence of Judiciary’s independence from Executive Interference!

Now what is a boot camp? It normally refers to a camp for military recruit training, the initial indoctrination and instruction given to new military personnel – except this one, in context, is Bolehland’s Judge Recruit Training and correctional Facility for recalcitrant Judges unwilling to toe the Executive Line! (In eras past totalitarian communist cells also had boot camps for indoctrination!)
What a joke, a perversion of Coinstitutional Process, a scandal!
Those implicated woulds say the Judge has an axe to grind because his father and brother were detained but the problem is that they were detained during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970 before the administration of The One implicated!
Besides it is difficult to impugn the credibility and truthfulness of claims and revelations by a sitting judge – which appear as solid as oath itself when expressed in full regalia of robes and pips in court!

Bar Council President Ambiga Sreenevasan has, notwithstanding datukship, has made the point that what judge Ian HN Chin revealed corroborated disclosure in similar vein by Judge Muhammad Kamil Awang earlier, and called for the setting up of a Royal Commision of Inquiry to investigate the allegations. She called for more judges to speak up. It takes the example of one or two judges to speak up for the rest to folliow.

With the image of this once reputed institution of Judiciary so besmirched by the spate of recent revelations following the wake of the damning conclusions of the last RCI on Lingam Video clip, I really don’t know how the government can defer further taking action including responding to the call for another RCI.

One has to realise that if RCI is called for and formed to probe what Justice Ian HN Chin said, the defacto head of Pakatan Rakyat will be called as a witness and be cross examined as well along with others and if what he says implicates himself with his then boss’s agenda of emasculating the judiciary – now I am not saying that this is probable but it is possible – then this will have profound negative implications on the moral standing of Pakatan Rakyat to spearhead reform of the country in displacement of the Barisan Nasional. The question that begs answer is if he did not condone what the then premier did in the boot camp, what would be his excuse (that could stand the objective light of impartial and objective enquiry) to stand in on behalf of the then premier in that boot camp, the purpose of which (which ought to be known to DSAI) was to indoctrinate judges to be pro-government???

DSAI also has to explain why he kept silent and did not disclose in the interest of transparency (at a time before Justice Ian HN Chin) to the public the existence of such a boot camp if it were his intention to expose to the public the rot in the judiciary institution (starting with his exposing the existence of the Lingam video clip). He cannot say he does not know its existence as he attended it on behalf of the former premier. Could he deny what Justice Ian HN Chin said about the objective of the boot camp without taking a position of defence for the former premier that boot camp was not intended for indoctrination purpose as said by Justice Ian HN Chin? So far only one question of why VIPs hanging around posh hotels was disclosed without fruther mention of other questions asked and what more importantly DSAI commented or said in the boot camp! Bearing in mind that those in live in glass houses should not cast stone and those who seek to bring the BN down based on moral corruption cannot do so with tainted record, my sense is that what Justice Ian HN Chin has begun by his revelations, if pursued, would open another ‘pandora box’ that will have profound implications and shock not only on the ruling coalition but the Opposition’s supporters as well, and possibly the momentum of 8th March tsunami. So how many Opposition supporters here would still want to lobby for the RCI on Justice Ian HN Chin’s revelations without knowing beforehand what such an enquiry wwould reveal???

Yes nothing directly yet.

However why did he attend the Boot camp on behalf of TDM knowing its objective or are we to assume he attended functions like this like another sleepy head functionary not knowing its purpose? And if he knew the purpose, then why didn’t he disclose this startling method of indoctrinating judges earlier in view of the campaign initated by him to expose corruption within the Judiciary starting with the existence of the Lingam Clip? Can we have a reasonable explanation to these preliminary questions first. Surely more questions will be asked in th RCI on Justice Ian HN Chin’s revelations.

I wonder on what basis one infers this idea – that “it was a standard BN “rah rah” camp, organised to celebrate the successful methods of the den of thieves. DSAI must have thought that this was a typical opening or closing ceremony type of function where an UMNO leader typically reads off a prepared speech prepared by people close to the event” (Godfather).
Justice Ian HN Chin specifically described a “boot camp” held on May 26-30, one month after the Judges Conference held from April 24 1997.

And according to Justice Chin (a trained lawyer & sitting judge of which precision of words by the way ought to be an asset), it was specifically a ‘booth camp’ – we know what that expression implies – “without any doubt an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.

Malaysiakini reported (Jun 11, 08 4:21pm) (I quote) “De facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim today ruled out a probe into claims made by Sarawak High Court judge Ian Chin on the executive intervention into the judiciary some 10 years ago. Zaid said that such a probe would tantamount to a waste of public funds. The minister instead suggested all the alleged judicial interventions could be avoided with the formation of the judiciary commission as proposed by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. “An investigation would not reveal anything more than what we already know,” he told reporters at his office in Putrajaya. In my view, we need to look at restoring the integrity of the judiciary,” he added”.

Now the key words I repeat – “An investigation would not reveal anything more than what we already know”.

This statement by Zaid irreputably establishes to my mind that the government acknowledges and admits that what judge Ian HN Chin said was likely true; that the Judiciary institution has been compromised and is in dire straits of reforms.

HJ Angus, in reference to Justice Ian Chin’s ruling on the Ritz casino vs Osu Sukam case, it was a judgment obtained by Casino in UK sought to be registered here locally for enforcement. (Between Common Wealth countries, they have between themselves these reciprocal enforcement legislations that allow the judgment obtained in one common wealth country to be registered in the second common wealth country for enforcement against the debtor whose assets in that second country and vice versa… It is not automatically enforceable in sense that it is allowed so only if the enforcement is not contrary to public policy of the second commonwealth country. The issue – and controversy – is whether Justice Ian Chin was correct to rule that enforcing a debt based on wager (gambling debt) is ‘no no’ in Malaysia for being contrary to public policy. Ritz Casino in London like Genting is licensed and gambling, and incurring of gambling debt is lawful by virtue of that – at least by secular law that Justice Ian Chin should be concerned with. It was not the judge’s concern about Sharia and what it prescribed and I doubt that that was even mentioned. The judge’s ruling could imply that Osu Sukam and the likes of anyone else (who is not even a muslim) could gamble on credit in a licensed casino like Genting and afterwards renege the debt by saying that the licensed casino’s enforcement of the gambling/wager debt (even if incurred in a licensed casino) is contrary to the public policy of Malaysia. The big question is – is it? Where gambling is licensed and lawful, how could the incurring of debts from such an licensed establishment be contrary to public policy when public policy tolerates the licensing in the first place???

I quote here for your examination Justice Ian Chin’s reasoning & thoughts on what is public policy and why being contrary to it is the reason for Ritz casino having no recourse against Osu Sukam in Malaysia –

[Quote] “A foreign bank lending money to a Malaysian in a foreign country would not face the problem of public policy even though the foreign bank is not licensed in Malaysia. But it is a different proposition if a prostitute who legally practiced her trade (as it is allowed in certain countries) and had obtained a foreign judgment for services to a Malaysian. The prostitute would face the same impediment as that of casino, that is of it being against public policy since it is one of the twin vice and which is against our religious belief even though it is legal in the foreign country. Therefore, it would be accurate to equate a casino business with that of prostitution (both being legal in many foreign countries) but whose activities are against public policy. It was totally inappropriate to liken a casino with a bank to argue that since it has a licence, there should be no objection to the registering of the foreign judgment because banking business is not a vice unlike prostitution and gambling. What is offensive and totally unfair is for the casino to allow someone to gamble on credit in order to make him loose not only his pants but the livelihood of his wife and children as in this case. It may be forgivable that the casino is able to entice someone to enter the casino and lose everything that he has on his body but not otherwise, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I therefore cannot agree with The Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock [1991] 2 MLJ 484 which allowed the registration of a foreign judgment for a gambling debt as that case never consider the matters I have mentioned. Malaysians are a God-fearing people, at least that is what the Rukun Negara, wants us to be and to allow a foreign judgment which had enticed a person to gamble on credit and to gamble away the welfare of the family and leaving the state to pick up the pieces and thus lead one away from the path God has shown us would surely be against the principle of Belief in God and believing in God means eschewing gambling since it is a form of covetousness, that is to desire to be rich quickly without working. In another word, it is against the Rukun Negara. Anything that seeks to go against the Rukun Negara must surely be regarded as against public policyThe world would be a much nicer place if no country would allow the recovery of a judgment for a gambling debt which debt was the result, invariably, of the debtor being enticed to gamble on credit and beyond his means. In fact, I would suggest that a law should be enacted to allow a gambler to sue a casino for having enticed him to gamble beyond his means if that is not already a common law. Malaysia may soon have casinos at its doorsteps giving easy access to Malaysians. Its populace must be protected from being enticed to gamble on credit and the only way to discourage this entrapment is to prevent such foreign judgment founded on gambling on credit from being registered and from being enforceable in Malaysia”. [Unquote]

According to the reasoning, can I strike the jack pot in the slot machine in Genting and Genting can renege by stopping me from taking the winnings out??? Or can I ask for refund of coins I put into the slot machine when I did not strike jack pot? The ruling made no distinction between a licensed casino and unlicensed Ah Long. If Rukun Negara eschews gambling then why is it ok for the government to contravene the Rukun Negara by licensing Genting and raking in corporate taxes from its multi million profits per year? By same token if it is accurate, according to Justice Ian Chin, to equate a casino business with that of prostitution, then why is it ok for the government to license and tax Genting but not the prostitution trade??? :)

Thanks for observations, Procol.

I am not familiar with gambling in casinos but I believe it would be customary practice of licensed casinos world over including our Genting to extend, as a matter of courtesy or service, credit to premium customers like Osu Sukam, and Ritz Casino did not, in my view, cross any line deserving to be singled out for denial of redress based on this alone. (Besides when Justice Ian brought in the Rukun Negara as part of his elaboration of public policy, he was not really making a big issue of casinos extending credit but gambling in casinos in general. Like earlier case of Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock, all these cases arose because there was credit extended or else there was no debt incurred to be sued upon).

It is true that when a casino extends credit it may be “enticing” one to gamble away his entire savings to the extent of losing his livelihood and that of his family (though this may not apply to Osu Sukam) but this method of eroding one’s financial discipline should not be construed as against public policy or else similar considerations may be argued to apply to licensed money lenders or even licensed banks that give you credit cards free of charge in the process enticing us to incur burden of irreversible debt until bankruptcy.

“Enticing” in sense of making available easy credit in circumstances where the less disciplined will head to financial ruins may be immoral – in sense above stated – but I think we have generally accepted that secular law, as distinct from Sharia or other religious laws, does not concern itself with enforcing morality especially when it concerns credit extended by casinos or money lenders or even banks or other institutions, domestic or foreign (Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns) whose economic activities are licensed and lawful.

Gambling dens are by definition illegal – and operators prosecutable under Common Gaming Act, definitely the credit by recoverable by legal suit based on contract – they recover them by fist and breaking your legs so there’s no bad debts! Casinos are licensed – and their operations legal and therefore they can contract legally including gambling and giving credit from such activities that are their core business, licensed and lawful.

….not so proper for me to GO further here….

Taiking, sure as Lord Goff said (1) Restitutional remedy is independent and has nothing to do with (2) contractual rights – but to pursue either (1) or (2), you would need assistance of and apply to the courts for recourse, which they are not prepared to assist if by providing such assistance implies giving effect to something contrary to public policy. :)

kasim Amat,

What we’re discussing pertains and is adjunct to the Justice Ian Chin’s reasoning in the case of Ritz Casino vs Osu Sukam which in turn is related to the credibility of his allegations raised against your idol Tun Dr Mahathir. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion that issues discussed are trivial nonsense, you are in no position to ask anyone to stop discussion on anything here as you are neither the blog owner or moderator. You are liberty to of course skip the postings – and don’t read – that which you think are nonsense, and it will be polite if you keep your judgment that it is nonsense to yourself.