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

The de facto Law Minister has missed the point raised by Bar Council again!

What we are asking is not to sack the CJ but rather to investigate the truth of the statement made in the video clip. How many time do we need to remind him? Anyway it was contained in the Memorandum delivered to the PM. Did he take a look of it? Or he just ignore it?

Please, Minister, get your facts correct before you speak again. Otherwise you have to correct yourself every time you open your mouth.

Tan Pean Khoon

I have just listened to the above video clip.

The Minister says that it is interference when a Prime Minister takes action against the CJ. This is, at last, clear ministerial admission that what happened in 1988 was an interference with the Judiciary. What a relief!

There are other comments made in the video clip that may misguide the uninformed or the uninitiated, thus tempting a response.

But, wait a minute, we should not do so yet. First, we must verify the authenticity of this video clip. Until then, we must take it that no ministerial comments have been made. The video appears to have been edited. From the 36th to the 52nd seconds, another person suddenly appears on the video. Could it have been doctored? We must find out first. For the time being, as far as I am concerned, there is no crisis in the ministry. Must verify the tape first. Must verify the tape first.

Yeo Yang Poh

Mr Minister after watching the above interview, it is my humble view that your views are unacceptable for it being devoid of any merits. Why is it that you cannot see or do not want to see what the majority of the bar is saying. What clash of personalities? Why is it so difficult to understand that any reasonable and right thinking person would want the infamous video clip to be investigated as to its content. Mr Minister it is not about who recorded the video clip. The primary concern should be to ascertain whether if the contents of the clip are true.

Your arguments about inadmissible evidence is shocking to say the least.The matter has not reached the trial process YET! It is merely in its investigative stage. Surprisingly you have already concluded at this very initial stage that it is inadmissible!

Mr Minister, The above interview clearly amplifies the kind of resolve that you and (as you say) your PM have in wanting to investigate this fiasco.

I humbly request that you reconsider your "learned" views and right the wrong. Let you not be remembered as the Malaysian version of that character from "MAD" magazine. What was his name? Alfred E. Neuman?

Visvanathan Murugiah

The government must and should be proactive. The matter was brought before the cabinet which was chaired by PM. The decision can and should have been made then and there. Why procrastinate? If the government and the PM is serious in protecting the whistleblowers in this case and in future cases, I ask for commitment in the form of action. Make a decision to protect all whistleblowers now. Why does the cabinet has to wait for the panel to request then only consider?

The inaction on the part of the PM and the cabinet may be construed, rightly or wrongly, as a lackadaisical attitude towards the whole incident. My concern is that if the panel would come up with the conclusion that they cannot proceed further due to lack of co-operation from witnesses, they would then say case closed!

Kelvin Ng Sin Huat

I cannot figure out why the whistleblowers choose to be 'out in the cold' themselves.

After all the support from the President of the Bar, and all the concerned Malaysian Lawyers, I sincerely hope that all efforts expanded so far to prove the 'truth and nothing but the truth' have not been in vain.

Tan Peek Guat

Is this what he said? Because we can't get along with the CJ ... and we don't like that individual.

So, the Bar Council made everything up .... quite defamatory in my view and as a member of the Bar, I feel that [my] reputation has certainly been tarnished.

Kerry Sin Yoong Ming

My dear Yang Poh

Actually, I have successfully resisted the temptation to comment on the many statements of the Minister for quite some days because I do not think it worth my while.

According to him in the tape the authenticity of which has not been verified, the judicial crisis of 1988 was never an issue until the Bar Council, through you, as the then president, "suddenly" brought it up. I really do not know how such Ministers face the likes of Tun Salleh and even our former Inspector-General of Police, Hanif Omar.

As I have said, time and again, my Muslim friends tell me that after forty, we prepare for our return journey to our Maker. I take it that our Minister is 40 or more. Maybe, he will not be returning and so need not prepare for the journey.

I cannot imagine someone like that talking the way he did during the Puasa month. He knows what he has done.

On another plane, maybe, we should get the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka to restore the words "malu" or shame and "jujur" or honesty in the latest edition of Kamus Dewan, its authoritative dictionary. Let them also expand that word by giving it the conceptual meaning that used to be a part of our culture. Let them also expand the concept of "kejujuran di dalam kehidupan awam" or honesty in public life.

My dear Visvanathan

Please do not equate our Minister with Alfred E. Neuman. Neuman sets out and holds out to be mad. Our Minister never does that. On the contrary, he was serious, seriously making serious statements, except that the serious statements turn out to be insane.

I cannot help compare him to his many predecessors but, then again, what is the basis of comparison? Even Khir Johari, who never had the benefit of a law degree, did much, much, much better. And what I like about Khir is that he is basically an honest and ever helpful politician, not that I was helped in any way, mind you.

What I do know is that had I got into any difficulty and had I needed his help, he would have not just come forth but he would have sprung forth - in all honesty. I count myself blessed to have been able to meet the late Khir and shared some moments of his great life of selfless service.

Put it this way, had Khir made such a mistake, he would never have blamed his Press or Political Secretaries. He would be jantan enough to own up and shamed the devil himself.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Mr. Yeo Yang Poh, did you not listen to the video clip before you walked 'for justice'?.....and led the concerned lawyers in doing so?

Being the immediate past president of the MALAYSIAN BAR, it would have been better for you to have made your statement jointly with the present president - as a show of unity, support and respect for our MALAYSIAN BAR as a whole - just as in the same manner as ALL concerned lawyers had walked (for Justice) - ALTOGETHER, and NOT ALONE!

Tan Peek Guat

My dear Peek Guat

Yang Poh, in the posting above, was referring to the Malaysiakini video-clip of Nazri. Nazri, in that video clip, alleged that the judicial crisis of 1988 was not an issue until Yang Poh, as Malaysian Bar president, "suddenly" brought it up.

I certainly take strong umbrage to that statement. I am sure that most lawyers are still concerned about the judicial crisis of 1988, when I was not even a lawyer.

It needs closure, a right closure, an appropriate closure, especially now that Tun Salleh Abas, one of the Judges maligned in the crisis by the Master of Executive Dominance, then beseiged by his political enemies in Umno (not Umno Baru) is still alive and the other surviving maligned Supreme (now Federal) Court Judge Dato George Seah is on his last legs of his life.

This nation must be brave enough to acknowledge its mistakes. It must be jantan enough. It must be honest enough. We owe it to future generations.

As for immediate past president issuing joint statements with the incumbent president, I totally disagree. The president has done her job. She alone and her Exco members are strong enough to send the right signals.

As Yang Poh said at the EGM, he would never indulge in the activities of the Bar Council unless the situation warrants such indulgence. That he came for the walk is sufficient signal sent.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng