Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was a poor witness yesterday at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam videotape scandal.
He was evasive, uncharacteristically forgetful as to be prone to sudden bouts of amnesia on certain crucial events which Mahathir had never been known to suffer from and broke his word that he would respond to all questions to the best of his ability.
Most of the time, Mahathir was evading questions to the best of his ability, including his resort to “prerogative” to refuse to answer questions for the reasons why he rejected the recommendation of the then Chief Justice Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah in 2002 for the appointment of the late Tan Sri Abdul Malek Ahmad as Chief Judge of Malaya, favouring instead of Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
Mahathir was downright wrong and irresponsible in pleading prerogative to refuse to answer questions why the recommendation of a Chief Justice who was most familiar with the best qualities of his brother judges was rejected.
While the prerogative of the Prime Minister under the Constitution to decide on who should be recommended for appointment to the various high judicial offices in the country is not challenged or doubted, it is wrong to equate of prerogative of a Prime Minister in a democratic system of government with the royal prerogative of divine rule.
This is because the prerogative of a Prime Minister in an elected system of government, while assuring the Prime Minister as having the final say in the decision-making, does not give the Prime Minister the immunity to disregard accountability, transparency and integrity in the exercise of the prerogative.
This is my second disappointment with the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal. Two days ago, I asked why the Royal Commission of Inquiry had not subpoenaed V. K. Lingam to be the first witness to ascertain from him whether he conceded the authenticity of the 14-minute tape, especially as he has authorized his lawyer to say that the person in the tape looked and sounded like him
Why was Lingam allowed to run the Royal Commission of Inquiry around in circles on the authenticity of the tape when this should be the first issue to be disposed off, with Lingam in the witness box, one way or another?
My second disappointment is that the Royal Commission of Inquiry yesterday allowed the former Prime Minister to get away so easily, when Mahathir should have been held to proper responsibility and accountability for a dark chapter in the nation’s judicial history.
Many Malaysians get the impression that the Royal Commission of Inquiry members treated Mahathir with “kid’s gloves” as they were in awe and even in some fear of the longest-serving Prime Minister in the country.
The proceedings of the first four days of the Royal Commission of Inquiry do not inspire confidence that it could play a seminal role to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the Malaysian judiciary.
(Media Conference Statement at Kota Kinabalu Airport on Friday, 18th January 2008 at 1.30 pm)