Blast from the Past
This is a statement I issued on 12th June 2001 calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Judicial Independence which would also investigate into Justice Muhammad’s shocking expose of telephone directive from a judicial superior to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing as well as similar directives to other election judges in Sabah and Sarawak:
(Petaling Jaya, 12.6.2001 Tuesday): Justice Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang deserves the gratitude of the nation which is seeking to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary for exposing the telephone directive from a judicial superior in September 1999 to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing.
Yesterday, Muhammad Kamil said that the Likas election petitions were brought to his court in mid-1999, following the Sabah state general elections on 13th March 1999.
He said that after many preliminary objections were raised by the lawyers, he announced on September 24, 1999 that he was setting aside technical objections in favour of justice.
Muhammad Kamil said: “That started it. That’s when the phone call came.”
He said he told the caller, who had identified himself, to “drop me a note for that” but it never came. The hearing of the petitions then began on Sept 27, 1999.
Muhammad Kamil said he had disclosed the identity of the person to Chief Justice Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and related the incident to several other judges in Sabah and Sarawak at that time, as they had confided in him that they had also received similar directives from the same person on election petitions before them. There were three other election judges in the two States.
He said: “They asked for my view. I told them to ask their conscience. My allegiance is not to human beings but to God.”
Muhammad Kamil has made it very clear that the person responsible for the telephone directive was his judicial superior, narrowing the circle of possibility as he had only three judicial superiors at the time – the Chief Justice Tun Mohamad Eusoff Chin, President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Lamin Yunus and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Chong Siew Fai.
When asked by reporters yesterday if the person was Eusoff “as widely speculated”, he said: “I can’t confirm it”, adding “Most of the lawyers make a guess and everybody seems to be guessing well.”
Lamin has denied that he had ever issued any directive to Muhammad Kamil, stating that High Court matters were not under his jurisdiction.
As both the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi have both publicly denied being the person who issued the telephone directive, and as Muhammad Kamil has pinpointed the person as one of his superiors in the judicial hierarchy at the time, the time has come for Eusoff Chin to immediately clear himself or admit to having made the telephone directive to Muhammad Kamil, which constituted a blatant obstruction with the administration of justice.
The Cabinet tomorrow should set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Judicial Independence which would also investigate into Justice Muhammad’s shocking expose of telephone directive from a judicial superior to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing as well as similar directives to other election judges in Sabah and Sarawak.
Such a Royal Commission of Inquiry should investigate into all cases and causes for the undermining of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary in the past decade.
I would urge the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim to formally propose such a Royal Commission of Inquiry at the Cabinet tomorrow to demonstrate the government’s seriousness and commitment to support the new Chief Justice in his mission to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
Let’s punish him soonest and send him to jail before he dies. Time is running out. Please act quickly
Soon or later, corrupt people like him will suffer the same fate as Zakaria.
Why the members of the judiciary themselves let their own backyard rot for so long? The fact is in our judiciary that there are more corrupted judges than good judges (but the good ones got no ballz). Yep, now only Malaysians know what a mess it is, and we are responsible for it because we have been corrupted too, by the BN of course. If Malaysians wants real justice, make PR the next government. I think Uncle Kit should be the Law Minister.
Yes Kit,
We knew that these rubbish was happening all the time, esp under the rule of the last PM. Hats off to Justice Kamal, and Justice Chin. Perhaps there are others that we do not know about. It is good to know that there are still judges around who are God fearing and will answer to their conscience. I only hope that the “good” judges are doing well, despite a corrupt system.
“good judges” doing well under a corrupt system are corrupted judges. No two way about this one.
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.
The Judiciary being tempered with planted judgements in planted directives from the Executives or superiors is a mockery of those who seek justice from the very Judges that we placed our hope.
From Linghamgate to YArif Chin and now YArif Kamil , the list will only increase rather than decrease.
In the Foreword written by Mohd Eusoff Chin dated 24 April 2004 on the Publication of the Evidence by YArif Augustine Paul, Eusoff wrote ” ….IN GREY AREAS OF THE LAW ARE THOUGHT PROVOKING AND SERVE AS AN EYE OPENER FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAW.”
How true it is, that all these relevations of Injustice and Miscarriage of justice have indeed open our eyes and provoked our mind that many had suffered as a result of such. The laws do not need further development, when the JUDGES are not interpreting the laws as to be interpreted.
If x gratia payments are made to Tun Salleh and the “sacked judges”, maybe a cry from the grave of MG Pillai deserve a review of the multi million award to the plaintiff of the suit. And maybe Dear departed MG pillai (RIP) soul is at peace now, that those who are living are finally served their justice . I hope.
I wonder what Datuk Ambiga will comment on this new relevation of tempered justice , now that she is a datuk?
SIR JEFFREY QC.
I think not only the Judiciary is infested by cancer of abuse and corruption of power BUT every other arms of the Executive . How would you expect The AG to issue a direct and specific offence investigation when the offence is so wide ranging and may be self implicated too.
The only reason to call for a RCI is so that the corrupt BN can reject it as a matter of record. Why would they ever want to implicate their own kind ? Just look at the Lingam tape RCI. What has been done, except for the joke of the AG’s Chambers “directing” the ACA to investigate the Commission’s findings ? As Adam Yong points out, how can anyone expect fairness from the corrupted AG’s Chambers and the ACA ?
Even a member of the cabinet implicated in the Commission’s findings is acting as though nothing has happened. The others implicated are probably having breakfast together in some posh London hotel.
Yes, we can point fingers at Mamakthir, but the current administration is nothing more than an extension of the old administration who no desire for transparency and change. This is why we ourselves must effect the change if our descendants are to have a future in Bolehland.
sorry typo….”….with no desire…”
May be that is the reason why the huge banners with the words “BUAT KERJA” are hung in front of the Courts Complex in Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur. These banners are nothing else but a self confession of the judiciary of their incapabilities. They are telling the whole world that they have not been working all these while and are only awakening in the light of the recent elections!!!!
Is it ok for judges to throw books and pens in court?
Is it ok for judges to tell counsels that he doesnt know what to do in the middle of submission?
Is it ok of judges to insist that witnesses proceed to testify in BM despite the fact that they are obviously not competent in that language and in spite of the fact that they requested for an interpreter?
The list goes on.
It may be a long one.
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.
Abdullah has act and if need be put these scums behind bars. Instead of sacking Sanusi as IIUM president he should remove Mahathir’s, Eusoff Chin’s and Fairuz’ Tunship for lying at the Lingam RCI.
Only stern actions will stop others from repeating these despicable acts.
In this country the jail is only meant for criminals and Opposition politicians.
BN and criminals from the Judiciary can easily outnumber all the inmates in Sungai Buloh prison.
Abdullah has to act…………….
Pakatan Rakyat’s defacto leader Anwar Ibrahim exposed the judicial shenanigans by bringing to national attention the existence of the Lingam Video clip. He volunteered to testify before the RCI on Lingam Clip but the commissioners decided not to call him as witness.
Would DSAI volunteer to testify for the next RCI with similar alacrity he did in respect to the Lingam’s one?
Many would be interested to know what he was doing in the ‘ boot camp’, what he thinks of it when he stood in for the former premier and what was his purpose to invite questions. Will Anwar call for the RCI when he had been mentioned by reference to the “Deputy” present?
“Abdullah has to act” so urged Mr Smith. And why not when commissioning such a RCI might kill two birds with one stone – implicate both his nemesis, the Tun as well as the Opposition defacto head??
Bro Kit,
Set up a RCI & then what? Look at the Lingam Scandal. Still nothing done about it!
Well, I guess you have no other alternative but to try…good luck. Unless the PR takes over, we have no hope of any justice!
RCI without prosecution power is totally useless and waste of tax payers’ money.
Jeffrey:
Was Anwar DPM at the time of Justice Chin’s boot camp experience ? Or was it the late Ghafar Baba ?
Demanding a RCI is merely to tell the whole world that the corrupt BN machinery isn’t going to clean up the mess. No one expects anything to be done, pre or post RCI on anything.
The boot camp was held in May 1997 when Anwar was the DPM.
The history books need to be changed so that future generations can remember him as “Bapa Pemusnahan Malaysia” and his successor as “Bapa Kehancuran Malaysia”
Thanks, Mr Smith. Then Anwar has to come out and collaborate Justice Chin’s account.
Lamin Yunus has been quoted as saying that he “can’t remember”. Many others will say the same thing, pleading memory failure. What can a RCI do ? Even if the RCI found reasonable grounds to recommend indictment against Mamakthir, the current AG is beholden to his old boss, so they would rather drag the issue until the old man kicks the bucket.
If this is so, then the question remains, were the judgment make by the judges based on law or outside influences ? It is a very big mess IF the Govt did force the judges to consider the Govt’s wishes ahead of the laws pass by the parliament, then all cases will have to be reviewed.
It also means that nobody can get a fair trial in Malaysia as we will not know if the judges are clean or dirty. Worse case is that the Govt can find you guilty just about anything and sentence you to death. RCI would not be enough at this stage, only a clean out of the judicial system under the supervision of both side of Parliament and an open and transparent system. I would go as far as charging those responsible for this mess.
Now, we are seeing and hearing more and more ‘cats out of the bag’, the proverbial ‘dirty linen washed in the public’.
The reputation of Malaysian government under BN is now confirmed to be further down into the drain. They would be hard hit to lift their heads in front of the world community. That is self-serving.
Abusing the judiciary of the country is worst form of abuse and corruption can ever be committed by a PM and his administration. Now he still has the gut to speak of integrity against others and his fellow members of his ex political party.
The lowest a human being can stoop is to feel no shame or remorse of all the ‘dirt’ he has committed during his extraordinary long tenure of rules in the country.
The word “shame” is not in UMNO’s dictionary.
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???
I can foresee future MSM headlines:
“Judge Ian Chin suspended”. “Ian Chin be investigated for false accusations against the Judiciary and government”. “Judge sacked and disrobed for false accusations”. “Tribunal set up to investigate Ian Chin’s misdemeanours”. Etc etc.
Possible isn’t it in this country? When the messenger is often shot.
We have becoming the laughing stock of the Commonweath and the whole world.
But lets be frank. Many cases have already been “arranged” and decided well before the circus show even started.
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???
Jeffrey:
I do not read anything in Justice Chin’s expose that DSAI was part of the conspiracy to intimidate the judiciary. If anything, I read Justice Chin’s comment on the then DPM as being unprepared and that irrelevant questions were being asked.
In any case, the situation now should have jolted DSAI’s memory of what transpired almost 20 years ago. He should simply come clean on his role at the boot camp.
Gradually we see revelations of how the blatant corruption and imcompetence of UMNO and BN have and continue to destroy and tarnish Malaysia. We as Malaysians must not allow this to continue. Hopefully September will be a turning point in our history.
///I do not read anything in Justice Chin’s expose that DSAI was part of the conspiracy to intimidate the judiciary/// – Godfather.
Yes nothing directly yet but 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.
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.
What a crying shame these revelations come ten years late! But who is to blame them judges as even the then DPM nearly paid with his life for daring to right the wrongs of the BN gomen of TDM. DSAI is lucky to survive but he is the exception rather than the rule. Hence all Malaysians now owe it to him for exposing LINGAMGATE and now that the sequels are coming out strong and furiously, Malaysia owes him the ultimate crown.
Justice Ian Chin made a very “funny” ruling on the London casino vs Osu Sukam case. In his judgment, he said the casino had no right to claim debts from Osu cos the latter a Muslim was not supposed to gamble and the former bore responsibility to allow him to enter the casino.
godfather, remember we highlighted issue concerning Rapid KL. Apparently, former PM has picked up the issue and now we have pictures showing all the buses left to rot at the yard. See, we know better than most PK MPs lah.
Jeffrey: I think the term “boot camp” has been misconstrued. There was no military camp, and I can bet my bottom dollar that it was held at a five star hotel. 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. I’ve attend such ceremonies in the past, and the PM or DPM usually comes in late, gives his 30 mins of speech, and then disappears.
The point is that the RCI on Lingam Tape and the follow-up recomendation for indepedent appointment does not even come close to correcting the injustice and fixing the system. Dr. M wrecked the system and it need to be revamp completely. Sdr. Lim was right in that only a full RCI on the entire judicial system and all judges and appointment/promotion during Dr. M tenure can fix the system.
Ian Chin’s description of the ‘boot camp’ seems to show that the questions Jeffrey raises about Anwar’s role are legitimate. Anwar has to explain his role.
///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.
I wonder on what basis one infers this idea.
According to Justice Ian HN Chin, it was specifically a “boot camp” held on May 26-30, one month after the Judges Conference held from April 24 1997, in which the then prime minister “was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date” and during which the veiled threat was delivered. The ‘booth camp’ was, according to Justice Ian HN Chin, “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”.
Is there a basis to say here that Judge Ian HN Chin – a trained lawyer and sitting judge – is imprecise in what he said or what boot camp implies?
How could “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” when he went there representing the then PM as his deputy and engaged in question and answer sessions with the judges – when what transpired immediately before was a university lecturer berating the election case and was told by a judicial officer, during question time, that the lecturer was in contempt of court??? To say that Anwar did not know what was happening (the lecturer episode & what Lecturer was trying to do) before he engaged in question and answer session with judges there and or that he didn’t know his purpose of being there and what it was all about would, I think, insult the intelligence or diligence or possibly both of the man who is heading Paktan Rakyat as its defacto leader!
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”.
It has been postulated “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”.
DSAI read no prepared speech during opening or closing of function.
He went there representing the then PM as his deputy.
He engaged in question and answer sessions with the judges.
What transpired immediately before DSAI’s question & answer session was a university lecturer berating the election case and was told by a judicial officer from audience, during question time, that the lecturer was in contempt of court.
To suggest or imply that DSAI did not know what was happening (the lecturer episode & what Lecturer was trying to do) immediately before his question and answer session with judges there and or that he didn’t know his purpose of being there representing the former PM and what it was all about, would, I think, unintentionally insult the intelligence or diligence or possibly both of the man who is heading Pakatan Rakyat as its defacto leader though it might be intended to protect him!
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.
“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…” Jeffrey
I am willing to bet my last ringgit that it wasn’t the case as Jeffrey postulated. This government will NEVER acknowledge nor admit that there is corruption in the judiciary. What Zaid said is that the reforms proposed by his boss would be good enough to satisfy everyone’s concerns or doubts – hence we should all sit back and relax.
We should stop the speculation about the “boot camp”, and whether Anwar knew what the purpose was, etc, and wait for him to tell us his recollection of events. There can be no attempt to shield him from criticism if it is warranted – that will only dig a deeper hole for PR.
Mahathir has challenged the authorities to charge him. “I want them to charge me in court. Only then will I have the opportunity to expose more conflicts faced by the judges, including those who have implicated me,” he said.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/353327/1/.html
No need for RCI. where is the action on the RCI from Lingam case. AG tidur ka? so fast on small case like Hindraf at Batu Caves but one liek Lingam, what happen?
as for Anwar, all speculation. His boss send him there and Anwar didn’t follow instructions instead ask for questions. He may have a good reason for this. All I know is there is a lot Anwar knows and he is taking his time. This revelation is another opportunity for him to say more. But the buck stops at Dr.M. He was the strong man and the fearful one.
Time for action, the judiciary needs a revamp and some house cleaning and those responsible need action to be taken against them so that this will go own as a lesson for the others. If not, it will happen again by another strong man in the future.
Jeffrey,
I have used some of your notes as below:
“Pakatan Rakyat’s defacto leader Anwar Ibrahim exposed the judicial shenanigans by bringing to national attention the existence of the Lingam Video clip. He volunteered to testify before the RCI on Lingam Clip but the commissioners decided not to call him as witness.
Would DSAI volunteer to testify for the next RCI with similar alacrity he did in respect to the Lingam’s one?
Many would be interested to know what he was doing in the ‘ boot camp’, what he thinks of it when he stood in for the former premier and what was his purpose to invite questions. Will Anwar call for the RCI when he had been mentioned by reference to the “Deputy” present?”
and posted it in DSAI blog for his comment and answer to the rakyat. It is easier to copy and paste. Sorry for the infrigement of your IP. Well we wait for DSAI response on this matter.
Zaid said that a commission of inquiry is a waste of public funds. I think his salary is a waste of public funds. All miscarriage of justice under merciless Mahathir has to be reopened and corrected. Justice has to be seen to be done, not just talked about and swept under the carpet.
Where are all our budding creative movie directors and producers? We have wonderful stories of corrupted judges, corrupted Tuns, and evil politicians, who perverted justice to punish excessively innocent people (who are politically nonaligned with the evil politicians), to be made into Bollywood-style blockbusters.
C’mon Comedy Court, it’s time to use your creative talents to put up another show in http://www.comedycourt.com.my.
Now, people, what’s your opinion of individuals with the title of ‘Tun’?
Sorry, please visit:
http://www.comedycourt.com.my/index_00.html
That’s a hilarious site! Thanks!!
the very wrong lies in the pursuit of apparent security and morals of the elite.
the next wrong is the believe we put inot ourselves that these people who spoke and made promises and then you are impressed and gave them the mandate to kick your own ass awhile he reap every other way he could within his tenure.
you have open the flood gates.
while we are at it , lets have a ball…..did you bring your swimming trunk, the water is not going to subside for anytime soon…..hang on…..till come sept morning
It’s really very clear that the Executive was ruling and dictating the Judiciary. Just as what they did with the Royals then. And the Legislature as everyone knows.
So Salleh Abas was right to complain to His Majesty but then everybody was under the control of “the Man who can do no wrong”. And he calls it “democracy”.
I think it is pointless speculating the role of Anwar in the boot camp. It is better if Justice Chin could be more explicit when disclosing the role of Anwar. If there is a need to explain and clarify, it is better for Anwar to come forward and settle this quickly.
humanly wrote:
“Justice Ian Chin made a very “funny” ruling on the London casino vs Osu Sukam case. In his judgment, he said the casino had no right to claim debts from Osu cos the latter a Muslim was not supposed to gamble and the former bore responsibility to allow him to enter the casino.”
Isn’t that a remarkable argument?
Now anyone who buys a gun and shoots someone can also get off as all religions teach it is wrong to kill and the gun seller should be blamed.
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???
Jeffrey
thanks for the legal arguments.
But if Genting were not allowed in Malaysia, the judgement would have a better basis?
Maybe he was under “duress” at the time? The Bar Council didn’t take issue with this imposition of Syariah rules in a secular court?
I have been suspicious of this specific ruling of Justice Chin’s for a long time. I am not a lawyer, but I can’t think of another case in a commonwealth country that does not recognise reciprocal enforcement of judgments on the ground of “public policy”.
What is equally puzzling is why the plaintiffs did not appeal Justice Chin’s decision to a higher court.
Now both Idid and N.H. Chan have reasons to smile.
We know that you are smiling.
‘Cos we are.
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]
What constitutes public policy is subjective to person defining it. According to Justice Ian Chin’s reasoning (in a gist),a casino business may be equated with that of prostitution (both being legal in many foreign countries) but whose activities are against public policy here as applicable to “God fearing” Malaysians following the Rukun Negara. Justice Ian Chin in Osu Sukam case did not follow an earlier case of Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock in 1991 which allowed the registration of a foreign judgment for a gambling debt.
So if Ian Chin were to give a legal opinion in his (future) practice, he would say that it’s OK to pocket the winnings AND it’s also OK to ignore any associated gambling debt as it won’t be enforceable.
No wonder the Ah Longs are having a roaring business as their way of enforcement of a debt is, as they say, not the conventional way.
And next time you folks visit red light districts, you can refuse to pay and tell the girls “sue me”.
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??? :)
Prostitution and gambling in foreign land. Can those who suffer economic grievance in respect of them seek legal remedy in malaysia?
Since, the reasons below apply equally well to both prostitution and gambling, I shall only mention gambling.
This is obviously a question of contractual rights, and the remedy sought must be look upon from two perspectives, i,e., that of (1) validity; and (2) enforcement.
An invalid contract will not be enforced by the courts. That goes without saying.
And conversely, a valid contract will be enforced. This apparently simple statement is actually not easy to explain.
Recognising the validity of a contract tantamouts to acknowleding the fact that the contracting parties do have rights. And remedy must follow rights, for there can be no rights without remedy. And remedy is meaningless unless the court enforces the contract.
Hence, if a particular contract is valid, then the parties would have rights which the court must enforce so that the grievance of the suffering party could be addressed and remedied.
Now take a look at gambling contract. It is illegal by our laws and hence it would not be enforceable in our courts for the reliefs sought.
What happens if the gambling contract was concluded in a country (say X) where wagery is lawful?
This situation would give rise to a conflict as to the proper law one ought to refer to in order to determine the lawfulness and hence validity of the gambling contract.
The validity of such contract must be decided by the laws of the country in which it was concluded – rules on conflict of laws. It matters not what our laws say. And it matters not if such contracts go against our public policy (whatever it may mean).
In other words, if the contract is valid by the laws of X, then our court must recognise and uphold it. In which event, enforcement and remedy must follow.
That must be the answer.
A little bit more about the public policy argument. Our laws strike down contracts that oppose public policy by making them illegal. This is a legal principle that decides the legality and hence validity of a contract; and as mentioned before, this principle would have no relevance in a situation of conflict.
Enforcement of a valid foreign contract is another issue altogether. I will not go into it here.
Very interesting, very very interesting.
While our attention is deflected to important such as these, other equally important things are happening.
Maybe, we should put Mahadey Kutty and his cronies into jail and then throw away the keys.
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? – Jeffrey.
I’m inclined to say no. Osu’s case can be distinguished. In that case, the casino extended credit and “inticed” him into digging a grave big enough to bury him and his family together. Yes, Osu is at fault for incurring such debt, unable to control himself not to gamble to that extent or to gamble at all, going against teachings of his religion and so on. Yes, he should shoulder responsibility. But Justice Ian made it clear that the demarcation is drawn when a casino offers credit and lures an unsuspecting or otherwise, high roller into a false sense of security that the preferrential credit limit would give him a chance to offset his losses by further gambling or in the event that he loses, the interest applicable is low or period for repayment is longer,etc. Then the casino has “crossed the line”. The casino is in no business to care whether the debt will be so great that the livelihood of him and his family would be wiped out in a night or not. They are in the business of getting every single penny left on the gambler.
In the scenario you set out, you may suffer losses but probably not to the extend of burying your entire family. Justice Ian clearly thinks that once a casino offers credit, thus “inticing” one to gamble away his entire savings to the extent of losing his livelihood and that of his family, then it’s against public policy because the casino afforded the said gambler the opportunity to dig a grave on porous soil. If the casino had not done so, probably the gambler would not have been in such an unreversible situation.
Further, I think the reason Justice Ian decided so is because if he disallows casinoes fr recovering enormous debt as a result allowing gambling on credit, it would help to discourage casinoes to offer or extend credit to gamblers. Of course you could question the efficiency of such method to curb dire gambling problems arising from large losses and debt. Notwithstanding, the inconsistency u pointed out regarding the public policy (as the Govt allowed Genting to operate), consider this analogy: The subprime mortgage crisis was caused when banks/financial institutions “inticed” borrowers with spotty credit and dubious resume via numerous solicitations while fully aware of the risk of default by such borrowers. To use the words of Soros, “unsuspecting customers were lured into making commitments that they couldn’t fulfill”. What followed after that need no further elaboration. In that case, it seems that the Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns,etc were the villian, not so much on Mr. Joe Average who took the loan eventhough he knows that he’s already struggling to pay the bills.
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.
Can gambling dens recover facilities extended to gamblers?
It depends on whether there is a valid contract; and if there is none, then on the type of action mounted for its recovery.
If the facility was extended for a consideration, say a token interest upon repayment, then the facility would become a stand-alone contract which is completely divorced from the use to which the facilities was subsequently applied. In which the casino concerned could simply sue on the facility (in contract).
If no such consideration was requested then, the law could well construct one by saying that the facility was granted in consideration of the gambler placing bets. Such a consideration is void in law, and the contract would be unlawful.
However, the casino can still recover its money. Not in contract of course because here there is none which the law recognises. The casino concerned could mount an action for the return of money had and received. This is an action in restitution and not contract. Illegality of the contract is not a relevant issue in such an action. In lay terms, such actions amount to this: “That’s my money you are holding. You have no lawful reasons to hold it. Give it back to me.”
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.
…definitely the credit NOT recoverable by legal suit…
Taiking, perhaps ur argument would be restricted to gambling dens i.e. illegal gambling centres and not licensed casinos. As pointed out by Jeffrey, extension of credit would be lawful.
“This is an action in restitution and not contract. Illegality of the contract is not a relevant issue in such an action.”
Surely remedies must follow rights. Would u agree if i say a claim in restitution must follow a right of action, e.g. breach of contract.
I’m also of the opinion that a casino seeking to recover debt would proceed on the basis of breach of contract to include interest sum as restitution only seeks to restore the benefits obtained from one another and that would exclude any interest applicable.
Jeff, I fully agree that it’s customary for any casino operators/owners who have biz acumen or rather dragula genes(just joking ok,no intention to offend any casino owners here), to extend credit to high rollers. I think that’s exactly what ticked him off and he feels that casinos which extends credit thus inticing one to gamble away ALL his assets would be against public policy. Also he raised this point well ahead before he raised Rukun Negara (which I think he used it as additional or supplimentary ground/ratio). Further, note again the part where he referrred to Rukun Negara:
“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 this is where he mentioned Rukun Negara for the first time which by extension, connects the despicable act of the casino and public policy.
“I think we have generally accepted that secular law, as distinct from Sharia or other religious laws, does not concern itself with enforcing morality” That’s the problem isn’t it? The line between morality and law is very fine, especially when public policy comes into play. A lot of public policy would be based on guarding the local social fabric of society which includes our customs,cultures,etc. Of course as I said earlier, u may question the propriety of a Judge, however much or little, playing the role of moral guardian/police of society as well as the effectiveness of the outcome if they do play such role via dishing out binding judgments. To conclude, I think Justice Ian’s intention is honourable but perhaps he just couldn’t really bring he entire case within the four corners of law to, by precedent or established principles of law, rightfully deny the claim of the casino, without the venturing to use the veil of public policy, if morality is not already the underlying basis. You may even say that it’s a feeble attempt to cloak morality with the armour of law at the risk of appearing being a moral police.
Understand what you are saying procol – on problem & fine line of what constitutes public policy – but the fair criticism here against the rationale of Justice Ian’s decision is that we have our own licensed casino here (Genting) and whether his decision would adversely affect Genting’s giving credit to (say) a British high roller, running away to UK and reneging on his debt. Before we can get a local judgment here for “reciprocal” enforcement in UK, the British High Roller will argue at first instance in Malaysian Courts that Genting’s claim cannot be entertained as Malaysian courts should not entertain and help enforce a credit debt arising from gambling in Genting casino, albeit licensed, as it is contrary to Malaysian public policy! People are people. When they look at tortuous or as you said “feeble attempt to cloak morality with the armour of law” they may not just attribute it to mere differences of approach on how to resolve a problem but impute or speculate other motives, not so proper for me to fo further here.
….not so proper for me to GO further here….
Restitutional remedy has nothing to do with contractual rights. Lord Goff is an expert in the field. He has written a book on it. It is a very interesting area of the law.
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. :)
Jeffrey, taiking and procol, please stop all the nonsense as this blog is not designed for you to debate on trivial issues. I hope someone from the higher authority can quickly bring Ian Chin to task as his comments had seriously tarnished the image of our former Prime Minister Tun Mahatir. He made such comment because he was unhappy with the fact that he was not promoted. In Singapore, Ian Chin would have gone to jail for making such unjustified remarks against the former Prime Minister. Without Tun’s decisiveness and dogmatic approach, judges would have been fighting all over just for the top post and forget about serving people, which is their foremost duty.
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.
Thanks for d heads up Taiking.
Dear Kasim Amat,
Just be cool….What u perceive as nonsense may not be so for another person. It’s just a few posts being replied that’s it. Besides, if it’s really that trivial, then don’t get all worked up. Surely Tun will speak for himself right? So don’t get all grouchy. Have a nice day.
Seems like some one is scrutinising the blog for the BN government. Can the moderator ban Kaism Amat from posting on this blog? Sorry, Kasim Amat, we do not need your contribution here.