Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Prime Minister! All self respecting and honest lawyers and members of the public are disappointed. No need to state the obvious. But you are dead wrong about the video being released to make people angry with the judiciary.

A better answer would be to say that this video highlights the deficiency in the system and steps must be taken to ensure that this does not happen i.e establishing an independent commission on the appointment of judges. Please sack your spin doctors and advisers as clearly they are wasting your money.

But you know, your answer exemplifies what is wrong with the system. Knowing that the problem exists and refusing to do anything about it. That, to my mind, is a very big sin. I hope you realise this. The sooner, the better.

Question is: are you going to still be silent about this? You have ruled out a special commission so quickly -why?

Go on Prime Minister, make my day!

Dipendra a/l Harshad Rai

Pak Lah, just saying I'm disappointed is not enough. Saying I'm disappointed will not solve anything. Think I've heard you said I'm disappointed so many times but I've never seen anything being done.

I don't understand this, in 1998, the tribunal to remove of Tun Salleh Abas was set up and done very swiftly but this CJ, not even a special commission to investigate?

Please Lah.

Noreen Ahmad Ariff

What Next In The Law - Lord Denning (February 1982)

An Extract:

Lord Denning's book contains a Chapter of a speech he delivered at the Richard Dimblely Lecture:

I A hierarchy of power

1. 'Power tends to corrupt'

You will all know the famous aphorism of that great historian, Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

In all societies there is a hierarchy of power. At the top there may sometimes be a king or a dictator, at other times a president or a prime minister, or yet again a totalitarian party. Below the top there are hundreds of subordinates who wield power of one kind or another. Throughout history you will find instances of power being misused or abused. On occasion the abuse is so great that the only remedy is by rebellion - as of the barons in 1215 or Parliament in 1642. Yet such a remedy is much to be deplored. The rebels are judges in their own cause. In modern times, as often as not they are terrorist - seeking to change the Constitution by violence. The only admissible remedy for any abuse of power - in a civilised society - is by recourse to law.

2. Recourse to law

In order to ensure this recourse, it is important that the law itself should provide adequate and efficient remedies for abuse or misuse of power from whatever quarter it may come. No matter who it is - who is guilty of the abuse or misuse. Be it government, national or local. ... Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy.

3. The judges must be independent

If I be right thus far - that recourse must be had to law - it follows as a necessary corollary that the judges must be independent. They must be free from any influence by those who wield power. Otherwise they cannot be trusted to decide whether or not the power is being abused or misused. This independence, I am proud to say, has been achieved in England. The judges for nearly 300 years now have been absolutely independent - not only of government and of ministers, but also of trade unions, of the press, and of the media. They will not be diverted from their duty by any extraneous influences; not by hope of reward nor by fear of penalties; not by flattering praise nor by indignant reproach. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges.

To prove my point I will take instances, old and new, of the abuse or misuse of power and how they have been dealth with.

II. Of rulers

1. A King

In the days of King James I there was a great judge called Lord Coke who boldly asserted the independence of the judges. On one occasion the King summoned all the judges before him and told them that he proposed to take any cases he pleased away from the judges for decision and to try them himself. He called in aid the authority of Archbishop Bancroft, who declared that it was clear in divinity. Such power, said the Archbishop, doubtless belongs to the King by the word of God in the Scriptures. But the Chief Justice told the King that he had no power to do so, and that all cases ought to be determined in a court of justice. King James replied:

'I always thought and I have often heard the boast that your English law is founded upon reason. If that be so, why have not I and others reason as well as you the judges?'

The Chief Justice replied:

'True it is, please your Majesty,that God has endowed your Majesty with excellent science as well as great gifts of nature; but your Majesty will allow me to say so, with all reverence, that you are not learned in the laws of his your realm of England... with is an art which requires long study and experience before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it. The law is the golder met-wand and measure to try the causes of your Majesty's subjects, and it is by that law that your Majesty is protected in safety and peace .'

King James, in a great rage, said:

'Then I am to be under the law - which it is treason to affirm.'

The Chief Justice replied:

'Thus wrote Bracton, 'The Kind is under no man, but under God and the law.'

That saying reverberated down the centuries. It was the watchword used by lawyers and Parliamentarians to overthrow the pretentious of King Charles I.

James is said, nevertheless, to have tried his hand as a judge, but to have been much perplexed, when he heard both sides, that he abandoned the attempt in despair. He said:

'I could get on very well hearing one side only, but when both sides have been heard upon my word I know not which is right.'

2. A President

It is acknowledged now that President Nixon was implicated in the Watergate affair and the cover-up. He did it so as to further his ambition for a second term. Furthermore, it was the President himself who desired that all his conversations - swear-words and all - should be recorded on tape, and preserved for posterity. It was he who claimed a prerogative of silence so as to keep them secret. Yet, the law overtook him. The Supreme Court of the United States held that he had no such prerogative. He was required by law to disclose the tapes: and this led to his downfall. The Supreme Court applied the same principle to the President as the common law applied to the King when he was our ruler.

3. The Prime Minister

Our ruler now - or, at any rate, the man with the greatest power - is the Prime Minister. He (or now it is she) is appointed in theory by the Queen but in practice because he is the leader of the political party which gains the greatest number of seats at a general election. His power has not been conferred on him by any statute. It is given by unwritten conventions. It is the Prime Minister who nominates all the other ministers, and dismisses them. In theory the appointments are made by the Sovereign: but, as our books on constitutional law tell us, 'As against the Queen, the Prime Minister has the final word.' We have seen it happen in recent times. A Prime Minister, Mr Harold Macmillan no less, dismissed several ministers at a moment's notice. Even the Lord Chancellor was dismissed. He was asked to resign, and was bound, by convention, to comply. It was called the 'night of the long knives.'

Was this a misuse of power? I would not suggest that it was. No one questioned its validity. No one brought an action for unfair dismissal. Its acceptance shows the strong force of the conventions - which have virtually the force of the law.
--------------------------------------------

Thus at these trying times, I strongly urge the powers-that-be to adopt the approaches that have served and worked well for centuries as in the above extract quoted by the late Rt. Hon. Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls.

Yee Seu Kai

"Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi says he is disappointed by the release of a video clip depicting a conversation, allegedly between a lawyer and a judge, on the fixing of judicial appointments," reported the Sun.

On the "important issue," that will "cause a lot of damage to the country's judiciary system," the Prime Minister added: "If the evidence show what transpired in the video was not the truth, action should be taken against those who released the video, as well as all those who lodged ACA reports."

So now, we have the Prime Minister talking about being disappointed about the release of the tape. The disappointment centres on the release, not the veracity or otherwise of the tape. Although the authenticity of the tape has yet to be established, the Prime Minister has prescribed, not promised that action "should (not would, but should) be taken against those who released the video as well as all those who lodged ACA reports if the video is untrue.

So what happens if the authenticity of the video is established. Nothing has yet been said by our Prime Minister.

Earlier, our Attorney-General as the first legal officer of the land, had ruled that "no criminal offence APPEARS to have been committed." While the operative word is APPEARS or SEEMS, I find the statement to be like putting the cart before the horse because the Attorney-General is still getting "further opinion" although the source or sources were not named.

Maybe, this is a damage control mode that has gone awry, as seen by the immediately supervening statement by Deputy Pirme Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak who touched on establishing the authenticity of the tape.

But whatever happens here, please keep our eye on the ball. The ball is still the billions of ringgit that the Auditor-General has reported were wrongly expended.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Excerpt from the Sun newspaper....

"Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi says he is disappointed by the release of a video clip depicting a conversation, allegedly between a lawyer and a judge, on the fixing of judicial appointments.....

"This issue is important as it has caused a lot of damage to the country's judiciary system. If the evidence show what transpired in the video was not the truth, action should be taken against those who released the video, as well as all those who lodged ACA reports.

"I am disappointed. The video was released with the aim of getting the people angry with the country's judiciary system....

Asked whether a special commission would be set up to investigate the case, he said: "There is no need for one."

JOKE of the year. I can conclude from the above :

(i) PM is disappointed

(ii) PM is disappointed because of the release of the video

(iii) PM is disappointed because of the release of the video depicting the rot of the judiciary

WORST still....

(iv) PM disappointed because of the release of the video depicting the rot of the judiciary as the video is aimed to get people angry with the judiciary.

WHAT THE TOOOOOOOOOT..... this is unbelievable when statements like that comes out from the Premier. He should look at it more positively and do the necessary act to correct the rot. Unfortunately he is seen not wanting to do anything except to say "I am disappointed". What a response?

Double error of judgement .... NO ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. Mana boleh? Tetapi Malaysia Boleh.

Damian Yeo Shen Li

Since when it is important to care about the sentiments of the PM. He has been disappointed on various occasions, but yet no action has come out of it. I think the newspapers/press should be more concerned with the disappointment of the Rakyat, since the PM and his government works for the people, hence the term "Public Servant". The exercise of his power gains its sanction from the Rakyat. We ought to remind/re-educate the authorities of this concept.

I was also wondering, how come the PM can with such haste, vigor and the exercise of apparent authoritarian authority dismiss the need for the appointment of the Royal Commission. I always thought that whether a Commission needs to be appointed is depended on the King (YDPA). Does it need the rubber stamp of PM?? I may be wrong, I may have misread the Commissions Of Enquiry Act 1950 (Revised 1973).

Let the Commission look at the evidence, and the circumstances surrounding this fiasco from the very beginning, LETS NOT REWRITE THE FACTS AND HISTORY, justice delayed is justice denied.....

Humbly

Vicknaraj Thanarajah

Let us all try to be as objective as possible. There are many questions in my mind.

Although I am very disappointed with what the video tends to insinuate, we have yet to actually listen to what Tun Fairus has got to say. We have pre-judged him. Was it really him at the other end.

If one listens very very very carefully and don't make judgments, Lingam seems to be totally in control in the phone conversation, not pausing at all and not allowing the other side to say anything. Does he really control and call the shots here? How did he get so influential? Remember it was him who had released the vacation photo with Eusoff Chin? He was proudly showing off his cables.

For all we know, Lingam was probably trying to show off to the guy who videotaped it WHO and HOW influential he was. There was after all evidence of the wine bottle that would suggest that he was pretty ... welllllll....... mentally incapacitated.

It was only towards the end of it, that there were the right right right correct x5 yes x6. I sincerely doubt the authenticity of the video recording. I believe that Mr Anwar Ibrahim has a hand in it. It seems political.

Why did it take 4 years before the video get out? And if I am not mistaken, in 2002, my telephone would not be able to record 14 minutes straight.

So until these questions are addressed, we shouldn't jump the gun and make knee jerk reactions.

Nik Elin Nik Adb Rashid

ps. Dear Tun Fairus, If you are reading this, I hope you consider appointing me direct to the Federal Court too!!!

PM: I'm disappointed.

Me too, with you YAB.

Lim Sey Wee

Hi Nik

I hope Tun - is it Fairus or Fairuz - reads your endearing posting and that you are on your way to the Federal Court soon. Do remember me for the elevation party and do remember to add colour and glam to that otherwise drab place. But wouldn't it have been easier, and more certain, to have a suitable call placed by the power broker - at least then you could have sent for your tailor knowing that things are moving.

But seriously does it matter if Lingham is in control - have you ever seen a Tamil movie and heard the lead actor speak. Maybe he is or was in control and anyway people in control are like that - they seldom let others get a word in edgewise. The wine bottle? Now, that is interesting - I saw it too but thought that it had yet to be uncorked. And seriously, darling, a bottle of wine seldom leads to mental incapacity - a loser tongue, joviality, greater control yes - but not mental incapacity. And if he was showing off by being able to make such a call then that proves the point, doesn't it?

And what of the multitude of 'rights' and 'corrects' and 'yeses' at the end? What of them? You mention them but do not say anything - now play the conversation in your head, the control freak speaks and speaks and speaks and at the tail end the sop at the other end repeats and repeats and repeats and gets all the corrects and rights in response. Haven't you ever been in a conversation like that?

You can doubt the authenticity of the clip - that is your right. And that stand will certainly bolster your 'ps' application to Fairus [or is it Fairuz?] - But to suggest that Anwar did it? You believe? Why? How? Now isn't that equally a knee jerk reaction without basis, grounds or any foundation. Isn’t your allegation an unfounded defamatory accusation? You do not want anyone to come to knee-jerk reactions but then why are you doing it? Anwar released it, yes. At a press conference. Others were there. What would you have done in his place having been handed a clip that shows an attack of judicial grand mal of such magnitude?

But seriously do you think Anwar got Lingham to read out a 14 minute script - see the lip sync.... Or perhaps or its going to be suggested that Keadilan organised a talent hunt for Lingham look-alikes and.... See how it all becomes ridiculous to permutate.

So just take the clip at face value - it has astounding implications for the judiciary and judicial decisions rendered in the interim. A bedrock institution of democracy has been shaken to its foundations. You are disappointed? Haven't you had clients come to you and ask about the impartiality of the judiciary? I have and have been able, hand on heart, to say to them that I know of no reason to question the impartiality of His Majesty's judges. That was fine until now. And in a flash things have changed. This clip suggests that I have been living in a dream world all this while and that the reality is very different.

Let the lead actors answer - if they wish. Let them matter be independently investigated as it should be and quickly. But do you really have faith in the AG and the police doing it? I want the truth out there. I want the mess cleared. I want the excision of the corrupt and the corruptors.

And please when you send me the invitation to your elevation party can you spell my name correctly? And will Fairus [or is it Fairuz] be there?

The Bar Council will be deep in its deliberations about now. Have a great day!

Manjeet Singh Dhillon

When our PM took office, he promised transparency. He wanted to stem out corruption. He then set up a Royal Commission to review PDRM's worsening corrupt practise. To-date the biggest suggestion of that Royal Commission ie to form IPCMC has yet to take off.

Now - we have this clear and obvious proof of manipulation of the highest order, and he is disappointed with the person who released the clip and not the contents of the conversation.

Lets look at the facts:-

1. 1st December 2002 - Fairuz was elevated as PCA

2. March 2003 - he became CJ.

3. He did get his Tan Sri-ship when elevated but eventually, we was awarded "Tun".

All consistent to the conversation.

Listen to the conversation carefully. When Thayalan's name was mentioned, there was also mention of Raja Aziz's name. VK then informed the recipient that there may a campaign against that recipeint. Now - if that recipient is NOT Fairuz, who would it be, who would be so bad that Raja Aziz wants to campaign against??

At this juncture, there is no empirical proof that the video is fake. Instead, it looks and sounds real.

Please - lah, Mr. PM - wake up and save Malaysia from vultures of power, waiting at the corridors of Putra Jaya to manipulate the system for their benefit and not the People.

You said you want Malaysia to be 'Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang' when you took office. So, please show the require quality of a leader and ACT on that. Or else you are no different from those merchants in KL selling fake Rolex watch and trying to convince that the fake Rolex is 'Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang'.

Richard Wee Thiam Seng

My dear Nik Elin and Manjeet

I am fascinated by the thought that nearly 80 hours after the explosive expose of how judges are appointed and promoted, the man pictured in the video has yet to make a statement. The man who is supposed to be at the other end of the telephone conversation has issued a terse two-paragraph statement through his office.

What is even more fascinating is that we have witnessed is a succession of top politicians and top civil servants coming to the fore, making their statements.

Are we being treated to the silence of the sheep? The silence of the sheep appears to have worked in deflecting our focus from the earlier revelations of the auditor-general about how billions of ringgit have been spent - more correctly, mis-spent - in the last year.

I cry for my country. Slowly, my tears are drying up.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

I am disappointed with the statement from the PM. It would seem that he is more interested in proving that the video recording is doctored rather than the authenticity of it! How come he didn't assure us that in the event the recoding is authentic, the culprits would be prosecuted or action taken against them? I think it would be wise for Keadilan to send a copy of the recording to an international, credible and independent body to determine the authenticity. Our government may come up with a finding that it is doctored and start a witch hunt for the whistle blowers!

I believe that if by the time Tun Fairuz retires and there is still no action from the powers that be, the govt will say that it is now academic and let bygones be bygones. Let us then remind the government that the offence committed is a violation of the federal constitution, a breach of the trust placed by us on the government and the Agong as far as the appointment of CJ is concerned and an insult to the office of the CJ and the judiciary as a whole. Such offence must not go unpunished. If AG is not going to do anything and the PM is going to come with the statement "I don't know!" then it is time for a vote of no confidence from the rakyat!

Kelvin Ng Sin Huat

But of course there is no need for a special commission. Our esteemed Prime Minister is going to exercise his POWER to suspend!!

Teo Siew Chin

My dear Nik Elin and MBW,

The observation on the capacity of mobile phones in 2002 made by you, Nik, is right. Also right is the observation made by MBW on digital cameras then which were capable of video-taping.

Let us not argue on those points. Admit these points as givens and focus on the response of the Prime Minister whose disappointment centres on the release of the tapes, not their authenticity or otherwise.

I am more than troubled by such a response since I have always held our current Prime Minister, my fellow Penangite, in very high regard and have always argued that he be given more time to prove himself.

Four years is a long time in politics, however which way both of you want to view this. In that time, we have seen a trial of long promises and short performances.

Like many other Malaysians with the long-term interests of this tanah air kami at heart, I am still waiting for the IPCMC to be set up.

I have also seen the call for a review of the Salleh Abas affair falling on deaf ears and worse. I have also seen the call to set up a Judicial Appointments Commission meeting a similar fate. This explosive expose more than vindicate our Malaysian Bar call for both these initiatives which should no longer be kept in cold storage.

Cheers ... and I am still shedding whatever tears I have for my country. When the atual tears dry up, the metaphorical ones will continue to be shed.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Dear Stephen,

When our tears dry up, I think our hearts will start to bleed. Or it has started without us realising it!

It seems that the government is no longer concern that all these crisis and scandals will affect their position in power. The PM can issue such an irresponsible statements. The AG speaks as if he is not one who is learned in the areas of law! I think if there is a recording of a rapist caught in the act and the victim is somehow blocked from the view, I guess he can rely on the AG not to charge him!

Or perhaps, a person can speak on the phone on seditious or defamatory matters and he will escape the force of law since it is a monologue conversation! I think we can use that as a defence in a court of law nowadays. Not bad since we are supposed to follow their (AG and Fairuz) proposal to abolish the well entrenched common law!

Kelvin Ng Sin Huat

The PM has seen the video clip and he's disappointed with its release. The DPM has yet to see the video clip, neither too has the country's CPO. A bit strange, don't you think, that we lawyers and mere mortals seem to have seen the video clip many times over and posted our comments at length before those 2 have even yet to view it?

Jaspal Singh Gill