I am calling this media conference to prove that the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had misled Parliament in his denial that he had advocated the abolition of the Common Law at the seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim two months ago on August 21, which made the front-page headline, “Mansuh Common Law — Ketua Hakim Negara mahu perundangan lapuk Inggeris diganti”, in the Utusan Malaysia the next day.

On 5th September 2007, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz replied in Parliament to my earlier speech criticizing Ahmad Fairuz’ call for the abolition of the common law system as being most unbecoming of the highest judicial officer of the land sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution and the Merdeka social contract.
Nazri gave a flat denial that Ahmad Fairuz had ever made such a call for the abolition of the common law system saying that the Chief Justice’s speech made no such mention whatsoever.

Nazri blamed reporters and their poor quality reporting for the mistake. However, when I asked why no correction had been made by Ahmad Fairuz for close to two weeks of the public controversy over his call, Nazri said Parliament was the best forum for the explanation.

Nazri also made the following claim:

“Hari pertama perkara ini keluar, Ketua Hakim telah menghubungi saya untuk menyatakan bahawa itu merupakan satu perkara tidak benar yang dituliskan dalam akhbar. Saya tidak menyalahi beliau kerana dengan izin I have got bad experience juga dengan surat khabar. Apa juga yang kita nafikan yang dilaporkan mereka, tidak mendapat tempat yang sama seperti mana mereka telah melaporkan sehari sebelum itu sebab credibilitynya. Saya rasa, pada saya, it is a waste of time.”

It is significant that up to now, Ahmad Fairuz had neither refuted nor confirmed Nazri’s denial on his behalf that he had ever called for the abolition of the common law although the Chief Justice should know that his call had set off a public controversy in legal circles and the public domain which is still raging on.

Did Ahmad Fairuz call for the abolition of the common law in Malaysia 50 years after independence?

I have here a tape recording of Ahmad Fairuz media interview after his opening speech at the seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim on August 21, which clearly confirmed his call for the abolition of the Common Law, viz:

“My own opinion I think there is no need for us to go to the Common Law of England now. We have a lot of our pakar undang-undang sekarang ini yang boleh memberi pendapat masing-masing mengenai undang-undang bagaimana cara nak solve undang-undang. Why should we go to Common Law?”

Earlier, Ahmad Fairuz told the press about his proposal at the seminar:

“I am just suggesting to the seminar, perhaps they can look into this matter, whether you want to still maintain and keep this position ataupun you show to the government that we can put another substitute to this method, why go to Common Law? And pulak tu tahun 1957?”

Ahmad Fairuz is not fit to continue for a single day as Chief Justice. If he could use Nazri to mislead Parliament to deny on his behalf that he had advocated the abolition of Common Law in August, when he had actually done so as proven by this Fairuz Tape, he could easily mislead Nazri a second time to issue the denial that he was the other party in the Lingam Tape. Read the rest of this entry »

How pathetic! After three weeks, no one has come forward to give information to the Haidar Panel on the Lingam Tape!

This itself speaks louder than anything about the confidence the Haidar Panel commands among the Malaysian public concerning its credibility, independence, authority and legitimacy — which is zero!

The Haidar Panel has proved to be very “creative” in interpreting its month-long duration to complete its narrow term of reference to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape from Sept. 27 to 30 working days rather than 30 calender days — stretching its tenure to November 8, after the retirement of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice unless he gets an extension.

The Haidar Panel had started with the infamous “Five No’s” — no power to administer oaths, no power to compel witnesses to come forward, no power to commit anybody for contempt, no power to provide immunity and no power to protect witnesses.

It appears to have acquired another Three No’s after three weeks – not knowing whether Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz was at end of the phone, not knowing whether senior lawyer V.T. Lingam who appeared in the tape was the real one and not knowing whether the video clip is genuine!

We are now told that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) is sending the Lingam Tape to experts in Hong Kong to determine its authenticity.

Why did the ACA waste one whole month since the public expose of the Lingam Tape by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Sept. 19 before seeking expert help to determine its authenticity? Read the rest of this entry »

Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim’s application for six-month extension as Chief Justice should be rejected as he has brought the judiciary into greater disrepute and a new crisis of confidence in the 55 months he was the highest judicial officer of the land.

In fact, in the past month Ahmad Fairuz had gone into hiding since the Lingam Tape expose by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim exactly a month ago, after the Chief Justice was implicated in the latest judicial scandal involving the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and court decisions — making total nonsense of the important principle of judicial accountability.

It is most scandalous that Ahmad Fairuz had not come out publicly to personally and categorically issue a denial of his involvement in the Lingam Tape scandal and had chosen instead to rely on the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz to bat for him and claim that Ahmad Fairuz had phoned him to deny that he was the one talking to Lingam.

Firstly, in depending on a Cabinet Minister to “clear” his name, Ahmad Fairuz had undermined the doctrine of the separation of powers and the important principle of the independence of the judiciary, making the Chief Justice and the head of the Judiciary subservient and beholden to the “favours” of a Cabinet Minister who is from the Executive.

Secondly, the “proxy” denial of Ahmad Fairuz through Nazri lacks credibility, as he had used this stratagem once to deny what he had actually advocated – the abolition of the English common law. Read the rest of this entry »

Sin Chew Daily and China Press reported today that the Haidar Panel into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape, which was supposed to meet for the second time today, has postponed its second meeting indefinitely.

China Press reported that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA)’s inability to complete its investigations into the Lingam Tape as the reason for the postponement of its second meeting today, which was fixed when the Haidar Panel met for the first time on October 3.

It is three weeks since the Haidar Panel’s appointment by the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on Sept. 27 to complete its terms of reference within a month. The Haidar Panel took one week to prepare for its first meeting on Oct. 3, after which it went into hibernation for two weeks leaving all the legwork to the ACA.

China Press reported that the next meeting of the Haidar Panel may be on Oct. 27, the last day of its one-month life tenure.

In the past fortnight, the three-man Haidar Panel disappeared from public view completely upstaged by the two-act histrionics of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, viz:

• Firstly claiming that witnesses and whistleblowers are protected by the law, even offering plastic surgery to give “a new identity or even new look” for the person or persons who took the Lingam Tape, only to find subsequently that there is no such Witness Protection Act or Bill; and
• Secondly claiming that he will ask the Cabinet to provide protection for the people behind the recording of the Lingam Tape, only to announce after the Cabinet meeting that there would be no such protection.

Read the rest of this entry »

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has done a triple flip-flop in four days.

On Sunday, he said that the probe into the Lingam Tape will come to a dead end if the witnesses who can verify it do not come forward to establish its authenticity.

He also assured witnesses and whistleblowers of “full government protection, including a change of identities if necessary”, declaring: “I guarantee that we will protect the sources. Trust the government to do so.”

However when he found that the Witness Protection Act or Bill which he had quoted as authority for such protection does not exist, Nazi said on Tuesday that he would present a strong case to the Cabinet to provide protection for the people behind the recording of the Lingam Tape.

He said: “The panel’s investigation will not be able to progress if the protection is not provided. We will not then be able to get to the bottom of this. The panel will be rendered useless.”

However, Nazri sang a different tune after the Cabinet meeting yesterday.

He said: “We will assist but first we have to establish what type of protection these people want.

“If it is anonymity, it can be arranged. If it is security, it can be arranged, but we have to know.”

It is most shocking that Nazri could be so ignorant that what the informants want is full immunity from any prosecution, protection from persecution and victimization from the powers-that-be and that there should be no cover-up of the Lingam Tape scandal of perversion of the course of justice with judicial appointments and judge-fixing.

Nazri said the Cabinet had decided to assist the Haidar inquiry panel investigate the Lingam Tape in whatever way it could. If the panel had difficulty getting those behind the video clip to come forward to be interviewed, it could ask for the government’s help.

“If the panel faces difficulties in concluding investigations, it could submit a report to us and we will assist in whatever way possible.”

It is outrageous that three weeks after the disclosure of the Lingam Tape, the Cabinet is still studiously avoiding the core issues of the Lingam Tape scandal on judicial misconduct and perversion with the course of justice — focusing all the attention on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape which could be established through forensic voice and tape analysis. Read the rest of this entry »

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, is up to his histrionics again — yesterday claiming that he will ask the Cabinet today to provide protection for the people behind the recording of the Lingam Tape.

This was 48 hours after Nazri had declared “No Source, No Case”, castigated the people behind the Lingam Tape as liars if they dared not come forward to co-operate with the Haidar Inquiry Panel to determine the authenticity of the Lingam Tape on the ground that witnesses and whistleblowers are already fully protected under the various laws of the land, although he subsequently admitted that he had made a mistake when referring to the non-existent Witness Protection Act or Witness Protection Bill.

However, if various laws already provide protection to the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape, why is it necessary for Nazri to ask the Cabinet to provide protection for the people behind the Lingam Tape recording?

Furthermore, why ask the Lingam Tape makers to come forward to co-operate with the Haidar Panel when Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said that the Panel is not supposed to call witnesses and must rely on the Anti-Corruption Agency and the Police in their deliberations?

At least Nazri has one quality which has so far been absent from other Ministers, the humility – some will say the “temerity” – to admit that he was wrong, although it is not clear what is the wrong of wrongs which Nazri is admitting to, whether in mistakenly claiming that there is a Witness Protection Act or Bill which are non-existing, or mistakenly claiming that the various laws already provide adequate protection for the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape to enable them to surface publicly to give information to establish its authenticity. Read the rest of this entry »

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has admitted that he was wrong and that there is no Witness Protection Act.

He claimed that what he meant was that whistleblowers were already protected under various laws which offered some protection to witnesses, like the Anti-Corruption Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence of Child Witness Act and Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act.

It is clearly a very lame excuse. But it has not released Nazri from the onus of justifying two outrageous statements he made on Sunday:

Firstly, his ‘No Source, No Case” assertion — that if the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape “don’t co-operate, then the authenticity of the Lingam Tape cannot be determined and this will prevent the (Haider) Panel from discharging its responsibility. As such, it is important for them to reveal the source, failing which, we can only conclude that they are lying.”

Secondly, “The witness will be accorded full protection by the government… a new identity, a new location, even a new face. So what is there to be afraid of?”

Firstly, what right has he to decide how the Haider Panel Inquiry is to operate? Or has the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak passed the buck of the Haidar Panel Inquiry as too hot a potato to Nazri as the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department? Read the rest of this entry »

Has the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, let the cat out of the bag — that there would be no further inquiry into the Lingam Tape if its authenticity could not be fully determined with the maker of the tape showing and owning up?

New Straits Times front-page headline has put it most bluntly: “NO SOURCE, NO CASE — SAYS NAZRI”

If the whole idea is to stymie any full inquiry into the serious allegations of the Lingam Tape about the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court decisions, this is as good a stratagem as any.

Of course, even if the makers of the Lingam Tape show up, there is no guarantee that it would be followed up with a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years since 1988.

I am completely baffled by Nazri’s reference to the Witness Protection Act (Star, Sun) which he said assured protection to the person or persons who took the Lingam Tape. New Straits Times reported him as referring to the Witness Protection Bill, “tabled recently in Parliament” — which is untrue, as no such bill had been tabled in Parliament.

I had been pressing for a Whistleblowers Protection Act to give meaning to a national campaign to expose corruption, misuse of funds, government scandals, criminal breach of trust and all forms of malpractices and abuses of power but the government had been dragging its feet and there are no signs that the government is ready to present a Witness Protection Bill to Parliament. Read the rest of this entry »

On his tenth day as the fifth Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi made an electrifying call to Barisan Nasional leaders and members which came as a breath of fresh air, raising the hopes of 25 million Malaysians sky-high that the country was going to have a fully hands-on and people-oriented Prime Minister.

Speaking at the opening of the MIC branch chairmen convention on November 9, 2003, Abdullah told Barisan Nasional component party leaders and members to give him correct information to enable the government to respond appropriately to the people’s needs.

He said:

“Tell me the truth.

“Sometimes people do not provide truthful information for fear that I will cry, worry or lose sleep over it. But as a leader, I have to know the truth.

“If we (leaders) are not prepared to hear the truth, then we should not become leaders.”

Almost four years later yesterday, Abdullah made a similar call at the Gerakan National Delegates Conference, declaring:

“We do not want to pretend and say that everything is okay. We do not want to be in a state of denial. Tell the truth, even if it is painful.

“The prime minister must have the courage and readiness to listen even to the worst stories, whether it is related to the country or himself. Never allow yourself to sink in a hole of denial and feel that everything is alright.”

However, this time the Prime Minister’s call to end the state of denial and face the truth is incapable of having any electrifying effect as it has all the stale air from the long catalogue of failed promises of the least hands-on Prime Minister in the nation’s history in the past four years to “hear the truth” and “walk the talk” to deliver political and government reforms. Read the rest of this entry »

With the one-week ultimatum given by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice president Sivarasa Rasiah and party adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political co-ordinator Sim Tse Tzin to reveal the source of the eight-minute Lingam videoclip or face action under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 entailing two years’ jail, RM10,000 fine or both, every concerned Malaysian is asking:

Is there a grand conspiracy to “kill” the Lingam Tape scandal at the technical level casting doubts on its authenticity to avert any inquiry into the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years and who are the people and parties privy to this grand conspiracy?

With the ACA ultimatum, the game-plan for the damage control of the explosive revelation of the Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice with grave allegations of the fixing of judicial appointments and court decisions has become clearer — as the ACA is only interested in zeroing on the “whistleblowers” rather than the truth or otherwise of the serious allegations of the perversion of the course of justice highlighted by the Lingam Tape.

An administration fully committed to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary would leave no stone unturned to investigate into the allegations of fixing of judicial appointments and court decisions regardless of whether the identity of the “whistleblowers” could be identified.

But here, we have all the resources of the state being expended to try to cast doubts on the authenticity of Lingam Tape while ignoring the rot in the judiciary in the past 19 years since the 1988 Judicial Crisis. Read the rest of this entry »

The three-man Haidar Inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape yesterday asked the person who recorded it and others who have relevant information to come forward “for the sake of Malaysia”.

Panel member and former Court of Appeal judge said: “Somebody out there (has) the original video. Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)? There may have been others who were there (during the incident). Have they got the responsibility?

“If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

It is the three panel members Tan Sri Haidar Mohamad Noor, Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye who should set the example of acting “For the sake of Malaysia” by returning their letters of appointment to the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to ask for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape, the allegations of the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court judgments as well as into the 19-year rot in the judiciary.

With the declaration of five “No”s — no power to administer oaths, no power to compel witnesses to come forward, no power to commit anybody for contempt, no immunity under the law and no power to protect witnesses, the Haidar panel is swiftly degenerating from a farce into a joke.

It is balderdash to plead “The truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection” or to trot out philosophical arguments about “the power of the powerless” as counterpoint to the absence of protection for witnesses who appear before the panel.

If all the judges at all levels of the judiciary in the past 19 years had been guided by the noble objective “For the sake of Malaysia” and the principle that “the truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection”, the system of justice and national and international credibility in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary would not have plunged to such a sorry state with one judicial crisis after another in the past 19 years.

What happened to a courageous judge, Justice Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah who in 1996 tried the blow the whistle in his 33-page anonymous letter containing 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct against 12 judges? Read the rest of this entry »

I will move a substantive motion of no confidence in Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice when Parliament reconvenes on Oct. 22 if the Prime Minister and Cabinet evade their national duty tomorrow to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of Malaysian judiciary and establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The urgency of such a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the independence and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary has been highlighted by the current controversy and public furore over the Lingam Tape scandal re-opening one of the most disgraceful subjects in Malaysia — the 19-year crisis of confidence in the Malaysian judiciary with the system of justice tottering from one scandal after another in the past two decades since 1988.

Public opinion have spoken out loud and clear that Malaysia must not miss the golden opportunity which has surfaced to rectify one of the greatest national shames and injustices in five decades of Malaysian nationhood — the plunge in national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary in the past 19 years from the high world esteem and respect it had enjoyed during the first three decades of Malaysian history, especially under the first three Prime Ministership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.

The Cabinet tomorrow must not abdicate from its national duty to do what is right for the country and future generations — to make Malaysians proud of the Malaysian judiciary and system of justice once again after 19 years by disbanding the three-man panel on the authenticity of Lingam Tape and its replacement by a Royal Commission of Inquiry with wide-ranging powers to inquire into the rot in the justice system to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary.

On Sunday, three illustrious former members of the Bench had added their voices to the snowballing demand for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the system of justice as well as for a Judicial Appointment Commission.

The three retired judges — rightly described by Sunday Star as “among the most highly-respected to have served on the Bench – who have spoken up are retired Court of Appeal judges, Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail, Datuk K.C. Vohrah and Datuk V.C. George.

Shaik Daud made a most powerful argument for a Judicial Appointments Commission when he pointed out the blemishes of recent judicial appointments: “We have seen so many cases where seniors (judges) with merit are not promoted but juniors without merit are. The reason would appear to be that they are being rewarded.”

On the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry instead of just a panel to look into the authenticity of Lingam Tape, George said: “The panel is only looking at one issue. I think the Bar is on the right track in calling for a royal commission to look into all aspects of the judiciary” while Vohrah said: “Yes. A royal commission could explore all aspects of the ills besetting the judiciary. The problems are far-reaching and something has to be done fairly quickly before the judiciary slides further down the track.”

On Nazri’s claim that everything was all right with the judiciary, Vohrah had this unflattering comment:

“I think he’s probably not aware of what is happening on the ground. In many commercial contracts, parties are including an arbitration clause to resolve disputes instead of the courts. That is a terrible blow to the judiciary because apart from a handful, the rest are good judges. In some states, there may be three or four judges but you will find that only one or two are doing all the work and carrying the whole burden.”

If the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Cabinet are not prepared to do their national duty to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow by establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry, then there is probably no other option than to explore the next logical move in Parliament — a substantive motion of no confidence in Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice. Read the rest of this entry »

The 50th Merdeka anniversary should be a celebration of the success of Malaysian nation-building after 50 years. Unfortunately, Malaysians are being given proof of of many things that have gone wrong with the nation — whether national unity, civil service efficiency, independence of the judiciary, the police, crime, anti-corruption, education, economic development and quality of education.

I will just give one instance of Malaysian nation-building which has gone wrong highlighted on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary.

In the 2008 Budget presentation, the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that as part of the effort to inculcate corporate social responsibility (CSR), all public-listed companies will be required from the financial year 2008 to disclose their employment composition by race and gender.

But has the government set a good example of responsibility with regard to ensuring a civil service which reflects the multi-racial composition of the country? Read the rest of this entry »

Malaysia is still reeling from the many shocks reverberating from the expose of the Lingam Tape — confirming what had been widely talked about concerning the perversion of the course of justice in the fixing of judicial appointments and court judgments but also from the responses from the Executive and Judiciary.

Both the Executive and the Judiciary had come out of the Lingam Tape scandal with their reputation in tatters.

The thunderous ten-day silence of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has completely drowned out the puny denial which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had made on the Chief Justice’s behalf.

In the 50-year history of the nation, one top judicial officer had been sacked from his office but he retained national and international respect for his honour and integrity. However, two other top judicial officers who completed their term of office did so under a black cloud and nobody would have thought there would be a third top judicial officer who would be exiting from office in ignominy.

The Executive on its part had brought the whole system of democratic governance into a tragic-comedy of errors — not least of which was the decision to set up a so-called “Independent Panel” to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape and headed by someone who is tainted by his role in the “mother” of all judicial crisis in the past 19 years, the 1988 Judicial Crisis.

Even now, the term of reference of the so-called “Independent Panel” into the Lingam Tape has not been fully made public. What is there so secretive that its actual term of reference is still being kept a secret?

But it is Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of law and justice, who has wrought the greatest harm to the system of governance in Malaysia. Read the rest of this entry »

“Unbecoming, irregular and improper” are three adjectives which best characterize government and Independent Panel responses in the latest developments on the Lingam Tape scandal.

It was the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who was doubly “unbecoming” in launching a tirade against the Bar Council and Malaysian lawyers for their historic march for justice yesterday from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya despite unwarranted police obstructions and in dismissing the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointment Commission.

Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”

What makes Nazri think it is beneath the station of lawyers to be involved in a march for justice?

The 2,000 lawyers and supporters of the cause of justice have done themselves and the nation and the 50th Merdeka anniversary proud in the March for Justice in Putrajaya yesterday, in the true tradition of the great marches in the struggle of humanity for justice and freedom, like Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930 to help free India from British colonial rule and Martin Luther King’s March on Washington for Freedom in 1963 which culminated in his electrifying speech “I Have A Dream”.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King are now recognized by history and mankind for their great marches while their detractors, the Nazris of their era, have been forgotten!

It is also most unbecoming of Nazri to arrogate to himself the powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss offhand the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointments Commission or has Nazri been authorized to usurp the powers of the Prime Minister? Read the rest of this entry »

Former Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, should decline or withdraw as Chairman of the three-man panel on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape in view of his controversial role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis to allow for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to be formed to conduct full and comprehensive inquiries into the erosion and ravages of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary since 1988.

I also call on the other two members earmarked for the Lingam Tape panel, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye to similarly decline or withdraw from the panel to send a clear and unmistakable message on behalf of all Malaysians and future generations — that the time has come not only for an untrammelled inquiry into the Lingam Tape with all its far-reaching and horrendous implications about perversion of the course of justice but the opportunity must not be missed to right the historic and generational wrongs in the past 19 years which saw Malaysia stumbling from one judicial crisis to another.

The question which Malaysiakini editor-in-chief, Steven Gan, asked in his editorial yesterday, “Will we miss the boat again”, must be asked by all Malaysians, including Shanker and Lam Thye.

Steven cannot be more right when he wrote:

“Almost a generation has suffered because of our ‘tidak apa’ attitude to the judicial crisis. Here’s another chance for us to make amends.

“We have missed the boat – not once but twice. Indeed, for the sake of the country, we cannot afford to blow this one chance.”

The establishment of an “Independent Panel” into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the rot in the system of justice in the past two decades and which had been highlighted by the Lingam Tape is the height of irresponsibility in trying to reduce the shocking scandal into a joke and a farce. Read the rest of this entry »

Disbelief, shock and outrage — these three feelings sum up the general reaction to news of the announcement by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak of the three-man independent panel set up by the government to investigate the authenticity of the Lingam Tape of a telephone conversation between a senior lawyer V.K. Lingam and Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002 on fixing of judicial appointments and perversion of the course of justice.

Najib said the panel would be headed by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, with former Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar and social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye as members.

The three-man independent panel into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape is unsatisfactory and unacceptable as it falls far short of what should be done — a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the alleged perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, integrity, impartiality and integrity.

The establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation is particularly urgent and imperative to restore public confidence in the system of justice as up to now, Ahmad Fairuz has been conspicuously silent in failing to personally issue a statement on the Lingam Tape — five days after its expose by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The denial which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had made on Ahmad Fairuz’ behalf is just not good enough, with zero credibility.

In restricting the panel to the question of the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of allowing full investigations into all aspects of the allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity raised by the video clip, the government is avoiding the imperative issue of the long-standing rot in the judiciary and the urgent need to restore national and international confidence in the system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law. Read the rest of this entry »

Cry for the judiciary — for the first time in 50 years, there is a Minister for the Chief Justice when seven years ago, the then Chief Justice declared that there was no Minister looking after the judiciary and ridiculed the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of the law and justice portfolio as Minister for “tables and chairs” for the courts!

Yesterday, when trying to explain why he had issued a denial on behalf of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in connection with the Lingam Tape, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz said that this was because “I am his minister”.

He said: “I am his minister. I am the minister in charge of legal affairs. He is clever enough to know that the reporters will ask me for a response.”

In one fell swoop, Nazri had not only reduced the Chief Justice to that of a subordinate junior but also repudiated the cardinal principle of the independence of the Judiciary and destroyed the fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

In the five decades of nationhood, the Minister delegated the law and justice portfolio by the Prime Minister was never regarded as a Minister for the judges because of the doctrine of separation of powers of the three branches of government and the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

In June 2000, Malaysians were offered a glimpse of judicial goings-on when the contretemps between the then Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Tun Eusoffe Chin and the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim erupted after the latter chastised the former for his improper judicial behaviour in “socialising” with lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam during a New Zealand holiday in 1994.

Eusoffe said he coincidentally “bumped” into Lingam when holidaying in New Zealand, and relegated Rais to a Minister for “tables and chairs” for the Chief Registrar’s Office and not law.

Eusuff said: “I suppose when we need tables and chairs or a new courtroom, we go to him.” He stressed that the minister “doesn’t look after the judiciary”. (Star 7.6.00). Read the rest of this entry »