Category: Judiciary

In my Open Letter to Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim last Tuesday to act in the national interest to restore public confidence in the judiciary by withdrawing his controversial application for a six-month extension, I had quoted extensively from former Lord President, Perak Sultan Azlan Shah’s April 2004 postscript to his book “Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance” over the “disquiet” at the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary over the previous few years.

I had said that Sultan Azlan Shah’s “critique of the parlous state of the judiciary is even more pertinent today than when he wrote it in April 2004, with the entire period falling under your (Ahmad Fairuz) term as Chief Justice — a powerful reason why Tun should avert a constitutional crisis and a new crisis of confidence over the judiciary over the controversial application for a six-month extension.”

This has been confirmed by Sultan Azlan Shah In his opening speech at the 14th Malaysia Law Conference yesterday, as he said:

Sadly I must acknowledge there has been some disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years and in the more recent past. In 2004, I had stated that it grieved me, having been a member of the judiciary, whenever I heard allegations against the judiciary and the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary.

Recently there have been even more disturbing events relating to the judiciary reported in the press. We have also witnessed the unprecedented act of a former Court of Appeal judge writing in his post-retirement book of erroneous and questionable judgements delivered by our higher courts in a chapter under the heading “When Justice is Not Administered According to Law”. There are other serious criticisms.

I am driven nostalgically to look back to a time when our Judiciary was the pride of the region, and our neighbours spoke admiringly of our legal system. We were then second to none and the judgements of our courts were quoted confidently in other common law jurisdictions. As Tun Suffian, a former Lord President of the then Federal Court, said of the local judges who took over from the expatriate judges after Merdeka that the transformation was without “any reduction in standards”.

Admittedly society is more complex today and the task of judges may be more difficult then what it was before, but the values I speak of are universal and eternal.

There is no reason why judges with the assured security of tenure they enjoy under the Constitution should not discharge their duties impartially, confidently and competently.

Will the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dismiss Sultan Azlan Shah’s increasing “disquiet” about the crisis of confidence in the judiciary as a “false” perception and baseless allegation of one person, in the way he dismissed the concern of Malaysian Bar on the ground that it is no “big deal” as only 1,000 out of 13,000 lawyers or 26 million Malaysians had taken part in the “Walk for Justice” to the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya?

“Bar Council’s conference scores double firsts” was the Sunday Star headline report for the three-day 14th Malaysian Law Conference 2007 themed “50 Years of Merdeka” at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre beginning today.

The Sunday Star headline was right but the “double firsts” will be for completely different reasons.

Last night, I learnt that the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who in a lengthy New Sunday Times interview yesterday asked “Where got crisis of the judiciary?”, will not be closing the Conference on Wednesday as announced in the Conference Programme.

This morning, I learn that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, will be boycotting the Law Conference, although he is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at the opening session from 9.40 am – 10.30 am after the opening by the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah.

Where got judicial crisis? Where got constitutional crisis?

Postscript – The Prime Minister is inviting all participants of the Law Conference to an unscheduled dinner at Hotel Renaissance tonight.

Malaysiakini reported that Abdullah will read his keynote address meant for delivery at the Law Conference this morning at the dinner.

Malaysiakini also reported that Abdullah “cancelled his appearance at the opening ceremony at the eleventh hour to officiate the launch of the East Coast Economic Region project” in Kuala Terengganu.

There is growing concern that to avoid a grave constitutional crisis that will erupt with the extension of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice after Nov. 1, the country may be plunged to another equally grave crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary — the appointment of an UMNO Chief Justice for the first time in the 50-year history of Malaysia, namely Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi.

The appointment of Zaki as Federal Court Judge in early September, which involved an unprecedented “triple jump” without first serving as judge of High Court and Court of Appeal, was the first in the nation’s 50-year history, raising the question whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was paving the way to appoint Zaki as a future Chief Justice.

Nobody questions the legal qualifications and capabilities of Zaki but there are many legitimate questions as to the suitability of his judicial appointment, in particular as Chief Justice.

Is the country going to start the second half-century of nationhood with an UMNO Chief Justice, when for five decades, there had never been any judge who could be said to be an Umno judge in terms of his party membership and his long services to Umno as a political party.

For the past 22 years, Zaki was an active Umno member and lawyer, representing Umno in many controversial and even dubious Umno cases, culminating variously as head of Umno legal advisor, head of Umno disciplinary committee panel and in 2001 as Deputy Chairman of Umno Disciplinary Board of Appeal. Continue reading “Don’t create new CJ crisis with appointment of first Umno CJ in 50 years”

Well done, Haris Ibrahim of The People’s Parliament, for his initiative in launching and submitting 5,036 signatures to the Yang di Pertuan Agong in his online petition for royal intervention for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal on the perversion of the course of justice implicating the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Haris, one of the country’s most distinguished human right advocates, submitted the petition with the signatures to the Istana Negara at 10.35 am this morning — exceeding the 5,000-signature target he had set.

Haris had wound up the signature petition earlier than expected in view of the meeting of the Conference of Rulers on Wednesday, 31st October 2007.

However, Malaysians who wish to support the “Save The Judiciary” online petition can still do so as Haris is prepared to submit a second batch of signatures before the Conference of Rulers meeting — giving a three-day window for a final push for the campaign.

As Haris told the Malaysiakini:

“If there are sufficient signatures, we’ll deliver them to His Majesty’s office so that more Malaysians can express their concerns to the monarch”.

Those who have not endorsed the “Save the Judiciary” online petition should do so immediately.

The question uppermost in many minds is whether the fourth anniversary of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi next week will be marked by his biggest constitutional crisis with the country without a Chief Justice for the first time in 50 years.

It is open secret that the application by Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim for a six-month extension as Chief Justice from November 1 has catapulted the country to the precipice of a national crisis, as it is not only opposed by the Bar Council and the civil society but also by the Conference of Rulers.

In his 55 months as Chief Justice, Ahmad Fairuz had chalked up a catalogue of failures of judicial leadership, particularly:

• His failure to build on the efforts of his predecessor Tun Abdullah Dzaiddin take the country to another critical level to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary in the tradition of the three distinguished Lord Presidents of the country, Tun Suffian, Tun Raja Azlan Shah and Tun Saleh Abas;
• His mishandling of the appointment of a new Chief Judge of Malaya to succeed Tan Sri Siti Normah Yaakob on 5th January 2007 after a six-month extension, resulting in a seven-month stand-off with the Conference of Rulers and a most deplorable situation where the country was left without a proper and lawful Chief Judge of Malaya for over seven months;
• His embroilment in the Lingam Tape scandal to the extent that the Chief Justice has become a “fugitive” from the media and the public, with the Hari Raya party of the judicial and legal service yesterday declared completely “off-limits” for the media just because the Chief Justice was attending and was afraid to be asked questions about his role and involvement in the Lingam Tape scandal!

There can be three scenarios after the meeting of the Conference of Rulers on Wednesday and Thursday: Continue reading “Abdullahs’ 4th anniversary as PM – marked by constitutional crisis with no CJ after Nov. 1?”

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should be fully aware that any extension of the tenure of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice from next month, whether for six or two months, will provoke a new firestorm of nation-wide protests from lawyers, the civil society and Malaysians, plunging the new crisis of confidence in the judiciary which had haunted the nation for the past month because of the Lingam Tape scandal, to its nadir.

It would mean that Abdullah would have a judicial crisis of confidence which is not inherited from the previous Mahathir era, but a complete product of the Abdullah premiership.

Abdullah should avert such a controversy by submitting a nominee as new Chief Justice to succeed Fairuz to the Conference of Rulers next week.

Ahmad Fairuz’ position as an outstanding Chief Justice has not been helped by recent revelation of his poor record in writing judgments, with only four reported judgments in his name in his four years seven months as Chief Justice, — i.e. less than one judgment per year! Continue reading “Ahmad Fairuz’ extension will provoke new firestorm of protests – Abdullah should submit nominee for new CJ to Rulers’ Conference”

I am calling this media conference to issue an Open Letter to the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim that for the national interest and to restore public confidence in the judiciary, he should withdraw his application for six-month extension on his retirement at the end of the month and to give full support for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.

This is my Open Letter to Tun Ahmad Fairuz:

Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim,
Chief Justice of Federal Court,
Malaysia.

Dear Tun,

Withdraw application for six-month extension and give full support for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tape and to restore public confidence in the judiciary

I am taking this unprecedented step of issuing this Open Letter to ask you to act in the national interest and to restore public confidence in the judiciary by withdrawing your application for six-month extension on your due retirement at the end of the month and to give full support for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.

Such an action on your part will avert a new constitutional crisis over your controversial application for a six-month extension as well as a new crisis of confidence in the judiciary.

Former Lord President Sultan Azlan Shah in his postscript to his book “Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance” (pp 399 — 401) in April 2004 had written:

“Sadly, over the past few years there has been some disquiet about the judiciary. Several articles have been written, and many opinions expressed, both internationally and locally, that the independence of our judiciary has been compromised. It has been said that there has been an erosion of public confidence in our judiciary.

“Concerns have been expressed that some judges were not writing judgments, or that there were long delays in obtaining decisions or hearing dates in certain instances. Further, the conduct of certain judges was being questioned in public… Continue reading “Open Letter to Ahmad Fairuz – withdraw application for 6-mth extension and support RCI”

(Transcript of Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim media interview on August 21, 2007 after opening the seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim where he advocated the abolition of Common Law and denied that a Federal Court judge had over 30 unwritten grounds of judgement from High Court days)

Q. Judges having outstanding grounds of decision. What steps have you taken so far in this matter…

Ahmad Fairuz (A.F.) – Well I had checked and I find that the news that say that a judge of the Federal Court has got 30 grounds of decision not written, that’s definitely not according to our record. Our record, we do not have such thing. No Federal Court judge has got such big arrears of grounds of decision to write. We don’t have that in our record. It is something wrong there…

… preliminary investigations showed that that particular judge has read his grounds of decision in open court in the year 2002. He had read but I don’t know what happened after that. We got to check. The grounds of decision had been read, yes, the written grounds, he had already written his grounds of decision, he had read it in open court in 2002, so I am still checking on it lah…

We have not completed our investigations. The preliminary investigations showed that the judge had read his grounds of judgment in the year 2002. So the report is not that right. We have got to check first. I think, you know, it is very dangerous when we said something which is not the truth. In Islam it’s called fitnah. It is very bad. You don’t say anything which is not the truth. You check first then you say it.

So now I am investigating. I found that the judge had read his grounds of decision already in 2002. There must be something wrong somewhere. So we are investigating into it now.

Q. What about other judges? Are you looking into overall… …

A.F. – Overall. Overall. We have got records. We have got records with us as to the judges who have not written grounds of decision. In fact, in the past, judges who have not written grounds of decision have not been promoted until they finished their grounds of decision only then they are being promoted. Right? Continue reading “Fairuz Tape transcript – abolish Common Law”

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. Continue reading “Ahmad Fairuz is not fit to continue for a single day as Chief Justice”

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? Continue reading “Lingam Tape – Another “Three No’s” to Haider Panel’s “Five No’s””

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. Continue reading “Challenge to Ahmad Fairuz – resign as Chief Justice if there is proof he lied and misled Nazri in misleading Parliament with his denial as having advocated abolition of Common Law in August”

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.

Continue reading “Haider Panel on Lingam Tape – greatest service to cause of justice is to resign en masse”

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. Continue reading “Lingam Tape – end the rigmarole of Nazri flip-flops, lameduck Haidar Panel and Cabinet micro-managing of inquiry”

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. Continue reading “Lingam Tape – Nazri’s histrionics powerful reason why RCI needed”

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? Continue reading “Lingam Tape – Nazri’s lame excuse and test for Cabinet tomorrow”

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. Continue reading “Lingam Tape – has Nazri let the cat out of the bag how to end all inquiry?”

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. Continue reading “RCI on Lingam Tape – Tsu Koon should show more backbone to tell PM not “if need be” but “very necessary, now!””

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. Continue reading “Lingam Tape – a grand conspiracy to “kill” it at the technical level on its authenticity?”