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.
In the first place, why should there be an independent panel to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape when there had been no full denial for a week by the two personalities involved, senior lawyer V.K. Lingam or the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as the so-called “denial” by Ahmad Fairuz through the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz was clearly unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
In the second place, why should there be continued refusal to have a Royal Commission to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the rot in the system of justice because of the usurpation of the powers of the judiciary by the executive and the erosion of the fundamental principles of the independence, impartiality and integraity of the judiciary, a continuing national and international scandal for 19 years which had been re-opened by the Lingam Tape?
Are Malaysians to be blamed if they sense that there is a greater eagerness to find a technical excuse to “cover up” the Lingam Tape scandal than to grapple frontally with the serious allegations of the perversion of the course of justice on the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of judgments in the past 19 years?
I call on Shanker and Lam Thye to decline or withdraw from the three-man “Independent Panel” because no one should lend themselves to any stratagem which would, in Steven’s words, cause Malaysia to “miss the boat” to have probably the last opportunity to exorcise the ravages against an independent, impartial and incorruptible judiciary and lay the basis for the restoration of the Malaysian judiciary to its former high international repute and esteem.
Haidar should know that in these circumstances, considering his controversial role in the “mother” of the string of judicial crisis which afflicted the country in the past 19 years, it is most inappropriate for him to head any investigation to restore public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.
Haidar, who was then the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, had played a crucial role in the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court judges.
Haidar’s role in the sacking of Salleh Abas, particularly with regard the third charge leveled against Salleh at the Judicial Tribunal, can be read from Salleh Abas’ accounts of the “mother” of all judicial crisis in Malaysia, particularly from “May Day for Justice” by Tun Salleh Abas with K. Das.
In his “Postmortem of the 1988 judicial crisis” in Aliran Monthly 2005, Datuk George Seah made the following reference to Haidar:
Haidar’s Dilemma
Lastly, there was the interview given by the retiring Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaysia, Tan Sri Justice Haider Mohd Noor, which was published in the New Straits Times (7 November 2004). The retiring Chief Judge was reported to have said:
“As for the most memorable moment in his career, he cited the impeachment of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988. As the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, I was very much informed of the action taken. At the tribunal against the five judges of the Supreme Court, I was the star witness.
“It was a very tough time for me because on one side, Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawan Teh was threatening me with contempt if I did not follow his order, and on the other side, Tun Hamid Omar was assuming the power of LP and directed me to act otherwise.
“When I was called up, I said that I was only a civil servant and it was not for me to question the Acting LP’s order. Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman said he could cite me for contempt and I said if I had to go to jail, I would.”
Readers would recall that Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor was the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Malaysia during the 1988 Judicial Crisis.
Immediately after the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and senior Supreme Court Judges Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah in 1988, Tan Sri Haidar was appointed a Judge of the High Court in Borneo. He returned to the High Court in Malaya and was elevated to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Federal Court before his appointment as Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya.
Supreme Court vs Acting Lord President
Tan Sri Haidar’s statement that he had to make a choice — between the instructions given to him by Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the contrary instructions given by the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Hamid Omar — poses a very fascinating constitutional question: Which instructions should take precedence?At that point of time, it is relevant to note that Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman was giving his instructions in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of a specially constituted 5-member Supreme Court of Malaysia. These instructions were in fact tantamount to an Order of the Supremen Court — whereas Acting LP Tan Sri Hamid Omar was only giving administrative directive to his Chief Registrar. Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar’s instructions did not and could not by any stretch of the imagination amount to an Order of the Court or perceived as having similar or equal weightage. Contempt of Court postulates as an Order of the Court and not as instructions of another Judge of the Supreme Court who is not sitting as a Judge in the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, contempt of court can arise only when an Order of the Court is disobeyed. The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court cannot take it upon himself that the administrative directive of the Acting Lord President can override the Order of the Supreme Court. It is something very basic.
The directive of another Judge of the Supreme Court cannot supersede the Order of the Supreme Court. It is prudent to note that even the Lord President is not accorded any special privilege to override or exempted from this rule — leave alone an Acting Lord President!
Which order should have prevailed?
Contrasting the two instructions in this way there is no doubt whatsoever, whose instructions should have taken precedence, namely and without any fear of doubt the instructions given by Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the 5-member Supreme Court of Malaysia should have prevailed.
Tan Sri Haider, as Chief Registrar, had no right to question the legality of the 5-member Supreme Court. As Chief Registrar, his duty was merely to carry out the Order of the Supreme Court — and nothing less! Instead Tan Sri Haidar preferred to comply with the administrative instructions of the Acting Lord President rather than obey the instructions given to him by the Presiding Judge of the 5-member Supreme Court.
In hindsight, Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar seemed to be interfering or countermanding the Order of the Supreme Court! This episode will no doubt, make an interesting academic article on Malaysian constitutional law for law students.
Haidar should clarify his role in the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis” in Malaysia and the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court judges before he takes up any role connected with restoring national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.
More so for Tan Sri Lee to withdraw for the sake of his rakyat of Bukit Bintang who were robbed of their rightful MP representation when Wee was being dethroned by the main characters implicated in this scandal.
I think we should be utilising the most appropriate manner/ways to solve any issues. This is a grieve concern to the public, Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye should withdrae from the panel and setup Royal Commission of Inquiry instead.
Let this be and as a way to bring back confidence, at least to the general public of Malaysia
Haidar is tainted beyond redemption. Lee Lam Thye walks on fours in Barisan’s corridor. Only Shankar is acceptable for me. But then how will the inquiry arrive at its final decision. I am afraid it will be 2-1 decision. Then what?
Reject the offer? I doubt they will.
This country is run by those with no integrity.
If the tape is not genuine, Anwar will be charged.
If the tape is genuine, case close.
To achieve this, the government needs a low power (or rather no power) commission of inquiry.
The government has learnt a bitter lesson from the setting up of the Royal Commission of Police.
The ghost of 1988 came back to haunt those responsible for the judicial crisis two decades ago today.
I’m glad it did, because what goes around, comes around.
Malaysia judicial system are among ineffective bodies because it is influenced by monopolistis powers. The rights and dignity of malaysian people are also being sacrificed for the selfish desires of those holding power.
Malaysian who are justice-seeking and peace-loving nation to join in ‘ Vote BN Out From Power’.
YB, what euphemism! This is no mere irresponsible form of action. Let’s call a spade a spade. This is a fraud on the people of
Malaysia. Period. This Inquiry smacks of a stooge play; maybe it might end up not unlike the three stooges.
Quote: “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.”
Do we really think that the UMNO led goverment is serious about finding out the truth about about this scandel and all the other scandel.
BN has been in power for so long, not because of of the support of the rakyat but because of the support of the,Police .ACA,BPR and the judicary.
During the 2000 Telok Kemang by election ,When i was helping the opposition party, We found out that there were 4 single stories houses with more then 35 registed voters in each house, and one house was not even occupied two report was made one with the police the other with BPR,NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.
So do you really think that action will be taken now , When the UMNO led goverment can relly on this judges to do their bidding.Dont forget that the election is around the corner, and you can bet alot of court cases will be filed by the opposition parties againts BN parties regarding vote buying and money politics and the use of goverment machinenery during the election.They need this judges…
I have to say Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye is a sad person indeed in the twilight of his lcareer. He think he is playing practical roles in crises and most of the time he play some practical role although being used to cover up misdeeds. In this case, he is again being used as for misdeeds of the government but this time there is no practical role for him to play for his participation. By avoiding a judicial cleanup, he is furthering the rot that is already affecting the countries in many ways. He will not be able to contribute anything positively and best for him to walk away from this inquiry.
This is about standards of ideals and a the interest of a bunch of rotten apples that affect thousands and maybe millions. Its not about interest of thousands of police or millions in the national service.
Lee Lam Thye not being able to tell the difference makes him a sad sad person indeed.
TSLLT is a sore loser in his political career.
Seeing him in those active days representing people in BB constitution and assisted many in daily affair matters, he done the most than any other politician of today.
His family life and other personal matters have finally chewed him up when he decided to call it a day from political grounds.
Moving to manage NGOs was a good platform for a man of his capabilites and compassion. As the ground rules in NGOs also created some ‘network’ opportunities within the governing system, he was given a golden key to access back in the political environment.
Today, when he was those days ….. he done more than enough and earn nothing more than a pad at the back from people he have assisted.
Now, with a TS on his name and moving into many ‘conditional’ programmes for the government under NGOs flagship , he have earned more than a many and his next generations all benefitted from all his ‘hard work’.
Give this man a break …..
He have done what was right back then ….for the people
Now, he need to continue doing what is right here …for himself.
That his journey and the legacy that he decided to leave behind ..
“you can’t beat them , join them”
Royal commission of inquiry- Yes
LLL- give some credit for him – searving the people. but now with ” TS” title – questionable
Two Tan Sris and a Datuk who desperately wants to be one.
I have doubts about their suitability vis-a-vis their independence, objectivity and accountability. All are just too closely linked with the powers there be. Perhaps that’s the problem. We just don’t have, can’t find suitable candidates.
We have too many politicians looking for perks of the jobs than policies to improve the country and her ordinary people lives.
That’s why the country and ordinary people are grossly neglected.
Decades of bad leadership and governance of the country had done enormous damage with permanent, long term and far reaching consequences….there is no quick fix.
I think Lee Lam Thye has done the best he can do within the scope of his duties – maybe I’m biased as he is a former classmate in secondary school but I have never met him since then.
However his writing to the press on issues still shows him to be a caring Malaysian.
I’m not sure how effective he will be in such a panel in that it is possible that the government that appointed the panel may also be implicated in the “Judiciary fixing”.
The call for a Royal Commission is certainly justified.
http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-this-not-smoking-gun.html
We might as well put V.K. Lingam on the panel and let him decide if there was any evidence of this fixing of judicial appointments by vested interests.
There’s a Ranasinghe on the panel.
Lee Lam Thye, in a nutshell, I am extremely disappointed in you.
Based on his recent interview/comments in the NST, Datuk Mahadev Shanker should decline his appointment in the panel. More so I am sure he is in the know about the judiciary fiasco of 1988 in which he must have been a “helpless bystander” unable or not brave enough to make a stand then. Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye is one who threw out his political principles out of the window for his Tan Sri-ship and his appointment in many lucarative “Chairmanship” positions. I am sure he would yet grab one more opportunity. Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor is already tainted, so one more “dirty” role would not make a difference. Let us face it, the setting up of this panel is just another eye wash. If our PM intends to keep any of his ‘election promises’, he would grab this opportunity to clean up the judiciary once and for all and be respected for it- but would he!?
Police is using the ” KAMI ANTI RASUAH BADGE”” All BN MPs and State Assemblymen should also wear the badge,Along with all the goverment department … Including the judges and magistrates.
Read somewhere that bodowi grabbed this opportunity to fly out of the country instead of cleaning up the mess.
Are you aware of the famous statue comprising three monkeys? See not, hear not, and speak not, leading to think not. Essential characteristics to Tunship.
It’s time for TDM to have a change of heart and tell us the truth before he faces his maker.
I feel sory for Lee Lam Thye who has agreed to be used as a member of the 3-men kangaroo panel. A person with over 20 years of experience as an opposition stateassemlbyman and MP should know how to read the true motive of the BN government in setting up this kangaroo panel to investigate the Lingam’s tape. I don’t believe he is innocent or naive. He has gone down to the point of no return. He has sold his soul to BN. Can he say NO to his master?
[deleted]
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=730&Itemid=31
…nobody has seriously regarded the courts as independent in the near two decades that have elapsed since Mahathir, angered by a series of decisions that went against the government, fired the supreme court officials and engineered the appointment of judges more to his liking. The former lord president Salleh has vainly been seeking a review of the judicial misconduct that led to his firing since Mahathir left office.
From the time of the firing forward, all of Malaysia’s courts have pretty much bent to the government’s wishes. When Abdullah Ahmad Badawi succeeded Mahathir as prime minister in 2003, he made combating corruption a cornerstone of his administration, but he is widely regarded as weak and out of touch, and his administration continues to be unable to overcome issues concerning either the independence of the Parliament or the judiciary.
undergrad2 Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 19: 10.32
We might as well put V.K. Lingam on the panel and let him decide if there was any evidence of this fixing of judicial appointments by vested interests.
Hey, if Lingam can be included, so can CJ Fairuz. After all, Malaysia semuanya Boleh. Then there is also precedent set where ex-CJ Hamid ‘whatever-his-name-was’ sat on the tRibunal that judged Salleh Abbas ( I remember names of integrity better because unlike Shakespeare, with me the good that men do lives after them; those evil-doers and their names get buried with the scum of the earth).
Mahathir, now we know he is quite a different kettle of fish. His evil genius is nonpareil and legendary, something we either knew or suspected all along. God help him in the hereafter.
Kudos to the lawyers for going ahead with the march but I think the result as will be the verdict on Badawi in the end, is mix. Badawi is the epitome of mediocrity. he is neither bad nor good at much. So he is nowwhere – no strong decisions, no firm standards, no real pivotal changes that Malaysian yearns for knowing that the time for mediocrity is over and that the future holds only hardship and suffering for those not prepared. One can only look at the transparency index which when up a notch for Malaysia and they are trumpetting it like its a miracle. Its a statistical error at best.
Badawi mode of operation like most of his promises are unrreal. Are there changes, yes but like justice delayed is justice denied and that is what the Badawi promise is most of all…
The unfortunate thing in this mess is that BN thinks that there is a price for everything, when in fact there should never be any price on integrity.
Once sold, always sold and remain sold. A person whose integrity and dignity can be bought with money is spiritually bankrupt.
“Hey, if Lingam can be included, so can CJ Fairuz'” Endangered Hornbill
Why not?? The more the merrier.
“Mahathir, now we know he is quite a different kettle of fish. His evil genius is nonpareil and legendary, something we either knew or suspected all along. God help him in the hereafter.” Endangered Hornbill
Be patient. God is presently deliberating on the kind of ‘help’ he should receive.
Maybe two strokes of the rotan??
Actually the right person to be in the “Independent Panel” should be V.K. Lingam,CJ Fairuz and Nazri Aziz.
If for the name of transparency and justice , uncle LKS must be in the panel.
Dear all, call for it…..
whoever said Malaysia Tak Boleh??
I always believed Malaysia Memang Boleh!!!
that’s the problem with us malaysians… the rules are for show, no one bothers to follow them, at least some of us don’t bother!!
it’s possible, the panel might conclude the clip is a fake/doctored!!!
wonder if TDM will get another heart attack if he reads about the Lingam clip!!
Monetary bankruptcy is dischargeable, not spiritual bankruptcy!!!!