CJ Zaki already gave his reason why the judges were asked to go. “They were grossly inefficient,” said Zaki reported in The Star Online Sunday, 06 September 2009.

If inefficiency (incompetence) were a false accusation, the judges, who would know their constitutional right could invoke constitutional protection to require a Tribunal to adjudicate whether the Zaki’s charge of inefficiency were true or not true. They could reject the CJ’s request to resign and for them to be otherwise removed, a Tribunal will have to be instituted. Why don’t the judges do that? Why do they resign?

If the judges accepts the request and resign then it must be taken that they do not contest the allegation of inefficiency.

Their resignation (without invocation of Tribunal) is also allowed by article 125(2) of the Constitution.

No constitutional provision is deviated from.

The constitution has been followed, So how does the question “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” arise?

So what is the issue?

That Zaki’s reason of inefficiency given to public is not his real reason? You have evidence of that?

If there were reasonable grounds to think that Zaki is not giving the “real reason” – provided one has such reasonable grounds to believe so and to contradict Zaki – then the issue would be the propriety of the CJ’s conduct in sweeping things under the carpet by way of giving the reason “inefficiency” when that is not the real reason.

Even in such a case, this issue of Zaki not telling the truth has nothing to do with the separate issue of the Constitution, which provisions have apparently been followed..

Art Harun asks “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” This specific question does not arise by the fact of the judges’ acceptance of the request to resign. If one says the government has not given the reason, thats not true for Zaki has already given the reason – inefficiency.

One is entitled to introduce the separate issue of whether Zaki has acted with propriety in asking judges to resign if one has reasonable grounds or proof that the judges are guilty of other things than inefficiency, and that inefficiency is just an excuse. Does any one have reasonable grounds or proof in these respects?

Lim Kam Put tries to be clever here by saying “as we know, it can be due to many factors – know too much, making decisions that some people don’t like, too clean, too efficient, too independent, and do not know how to play ball.”

All these are speculations. Who does not know to speculate? Maybe Zaki does not like their face. Maybe this or maybe that. May be(s) don’t get us nowhere. If there were grounds to suggest there are some “reasons” other than inefficiency – and I don’t see Art Harun suggesting there is any – then the issue posed by Art Harun will arise ie whether Zaki acted appropriately. It has nothing to do with the question why tribunal is not invoked, and whether the Constitution is followed because the Constitution clearly covers the situation of a judge resigning when asked to do so on ostensible grounds of inefficiency.

///May be you are a imposter here, working for someone/// has got as much merits or lack thereof as the other speculation that Maybe you have just made your postings from a lap top somewhere in room 69 Hospital Permai, one of the oldest mental asylum in this country!

///You are saying there is no reason to doubt CJ. May I know on what evidence you based your confidence? /// – Lim Kam Put

I am not saying that. Whether there is a reason or no reason to doubt what the CJ says was not the issue discussed by me.

The issue discussed by me was Art Harun’s raising the question “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?”, in terms of Tribunal invoked, which I said did not arise in the case of resignations as distinct from removal/dismissal. Thats all!

Issues other than “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” are speculations.

There’s nothing wrong with speculations. My posting did not dwell on issues of what might be speculated on basis of probabilities. More important Art Harun’s essay and the argument in it does not seem to have been based on what might be speculated or that there is a basis for various speculative possibilities. His argument is structured on saying CJ Zaki is not following the constitutional option of invoking the tribunal, and as a result the public do not know the reason for dismissal which misses the points that:

(1) the constitutional option of invoking the tribunal is an option for the judges (not Zaki) which they invoke only if they don’t accept Zaki’s request to resign. Here however I assume they have agreed to resign.

(2) on the issue of informing the public, Zaki has already given reason – inefficiency (incompetence). That may be the true reason; or maybe not true, or maybe half true but these are issues not raised by Art Harun, anmd neither by me.

I thought we should confine to the immediate issue raised than jumping all over the place entangling all other collateral issues. I have addressed only the question raised by Art Harun – “Why wasn’t the Federal Constitution followed?” and said that this question did not arise!

Now in earlier thread on ” Chief Secretary should explain why he had failed in past two years” in posting #4 by limkamput on September 16th, 2009 21:43, this Lim Kam Put himself said:

“When we fight, we must adhere to issues, not fearing how many people are on the other side. That is the hallmark of leadership and tenacity….”

He does not even follow his own prescription of ” we must adhere to issues”…

I must apologise for the long windedness in triple postings harping on these points – it is forced upon me because of their impenetrability to LimKamPut’s mental make up who keeps saying “You have not answered a single point I raised’ when he is out of point regarding the issues I discussed!

///Given Malaysia’s track records, do you think judges (whether errant or otherwise) would dare to go through the tribunal? I think the fear is real. Was there a significant change from 1988? If a judge resigns, he gets pension, gratuity and retains whatever status he/she has. If he/she goes through a tribunal and gets fired, he/she loses everything, you got it, wannabe?/// – Lim Kam Put

I did not raise these issues. I have not discussed these issues. These issues were not raised by Art Harun.

Lim Kam Put raises these issues; he answers them for me and then he called me a “wannabe”.

That is the type of quality of his arguments – irrelevant and dishonest.

He raises

Lim Kam Put – you are nitpicking and pedantic. When two judges choose to “resign” instead of resisting the CJ’s request, it must be taken that they resign voluntarily. This is the way an inference by outsiders is made. It is not the state of minds/feelings of the judges that counts which you, in your naïveté suggest that I am speculating.

The way you posed the question is whether inside their minds they are “voluntarily” in sense of being without unhappiness or rancour. I have no equipment to ascertain whats go on in their minds even if I knew who they were.

There’s a saying that even the Devil knoweth not whats on the minds of men and they have to be assessed objectively based on what their actions lend objective inference of (whatever goes on in their inner feelings of which no one could ascertain)!

This is ridiculous if you rtalk of subjective mental state – you know that they are not voluntarily resigning?

The fact that you talk of subjective states of minds and challenging if I were speculating about their subjective frame of mind (voluntarily) when I am addressing what people might deduce and conclude from an objective set of facts of their resignation suggest that you are entirely arguing off tangent, seeking to nit-pick a point at basement level what that others have already settled at that level and now at the 5th Floor!

//But I am not hopeful// – Lim Kam Put. You are right. You are thick. You don’t understand no matter what I said that I did not discuss issue of the propriety of what the CJ did. That was clarified in my 1st posting.

//I have read this sentence slowly three times, and I conclude that it is your opinion and your inference, no one else’s// – Lim Kam Put.

Then I suggest you read the sentence slowly another thirty times. This is not “my opinion or inference” as you allege. This is the objective reasonable man’s test. I am well reminded that an unreasonable man may either not so readily grasp what is an objective reasonable man’s standard, or even if you could, you would refuse so.

Let me then explain a little further one last time: when adjudging what a man intended we (3rd parties and bystanders) obviously have no equipment to ascertain his subjective mental state. That is why judges always proclaim, ‘that the intent of a man cannot be tried, for the Devil himself knows not.
So if we cannot delve into a person’s states of mind how else can we ascertain his intention from the standpoint of reasonable criteria?

It is always determined from objective facts – what he has said, written or done.

Even in construing commercial agreements when a dispute arises and it becomes necessary to determine what the parties had originally intended and agreed – of which they presently obviously deny that there was an agreement, which is why they are now in dispute – any judge, will not to seek the futile task of trying to determine the elusive mental element subsisting between the parties but to examine the surrounding circumstances of what they next after said or wrote or did to each other, and then ask, based on these specific circumstances provable (in contrast to mental states not provable) what the intention of the parties was or must have been, as may be reasonably inferred, based, as far practical experience permits, that the reasonable expectations of honest men, given what the other side have said or written or done to them, are not disappointed. This is often compendiously expressed as the objective reasonable test.

And this is the way one look at the two judges tendering their resignation. They were asked to go by the CJ. Reason has been given – their inefficiency. The judges could refuse to accept the CJ’s request. They could dispute the allegations of inefficiency. If so the CJ has no choice but then – only then to invoke the Tribunal. The judges will know better than you and I their constitutional protection and recourse to a tribunal before unilateral attempt may be made to remove them against their consent. Yet the judges accede to the request and resign, so what does objectively the situtaion infer? Isn’t it that they must have accepted the allegations of inefficiency and that their resignations are “voluntary” (whether actually in their individual minds they agree or not that they are inefficient, and whether there are other reasons we will never know and can never ascertain as facts though we speculate whatever probable).

If you are nitpicking that I am arguing and speculating on the “voluntariness” of their resignations based on their subjective states of their mind, then you have not understood the very basics of the objective reasonable man’s test underpinning my earlier postings before launching into an argument.

If you still cannot understand, please read a 100 times for I can explain no further.

//Christianity is not even a religion// – so claims Lim Kam Put.

First you tell me what is your understanding and definition of religion before you proceed to say Christianity is not even a religion.