|
Conflicting views over proceedings |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 27 January 2008 09:29am |
|
 ©The
Sunday Star (Used by permission)
by Shaila Koshy
KUALA LUMPUR: The decision of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam
video clip to hold part of the proceedings behind closed doors on Friday has
drawn opposing views from Suhakam and Transparency International Malaysia.
Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib said the commission had the discretion to
hold any part of the proceedings behind closed doors.
“They are not prohibited from doing so if they decide that it is in the interest
of all parties.”
“The function of the commission is to determine the truth, not to scandalise
people. In this case, the commissioners know best what is appropriate for them
to do.
“Proceedings can be held in camera to prevent innocent people from being dragged
in,” said Abu Talib, a former Attorney General.
After the closed-door session on Day 9 of the inquiry, commission secretary
Datuk Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid had said, “It’s not nice for the news to come out
first and then only it is (evidence) decided whether it is relevant to the terms
of reference.”
That hearing involved submissions on whether lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam’s brother
and Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should be called to
testify on the alleged closeness between Lingam and judges.
The commission had excluded the press and public as lawyers for the proposed
witnesses had indicated they would be touching on certain personalities in the
course of their submissions.
But members of the public who had turned up complained about the lack of
transparency.
“It was an unfortunate decision, from the point of view of transparency,
integrity and accountability,” said Transparency International Malaysia
president Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam.
“This is an issue of wide public interest involving the appointment of judges
and the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must be seen to be done,” he said.
Asked if it was not just as important to protect innocent individuals from being
dragged in, Navaratnam said:
“Where there could be instances of unfair reference to individuals, I would
rather trust the judgment of the chairman and other commissioners to determine
what is relevant in open proceedings.
“If the question asked is inappropriate, they can stop it and if the answer is
irrelevant they can order it expunged. That’s the layman’s approach to it,” he
said.
The Commissions of Enquiry Act allows commissioners to demand all relevant
evidence and examine any person deemed necessary.
The Act also gives them the right to include or exclude the public and press
should they think it necessary.
 |
News/Articles/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Direct Access Mastercard Exclusive Rebates
Malaysian Society does not scandalise others unjustly.
If scandalising happens, it is only because the parties themselves have placed /open themselves to the scandals.
All that is said in the open is justified knowledge for the public's information - so as to know the 'exemplary' conduct of the rich and powerful Malaysians, and assess them accordingly.
Malaysians have got sympathetic ears and hearts too and we Malaysians always know how to 'sieve' the real from the unreal, the truth from falsehood. We may be considerate and peaceful, but not stupid!
Therefore, the Suhakam Charman is not justified in his opinion that some personalities ought to be protected.
Is it because such personalities fall within the rich and powerful categories of citizens and they therefore ought to be protected ?
By his opinion, then, the 'poor and powerless' Malaysians will always be deprived.
Tan Peek Guat