Nazri: Senior judge denies talking to lawyer in video clip

Silence is consent!

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:56:03 +0100

The Chief Justice must not delude himself that silence betokened the most eloquent denial. ( I mean he allegedly denied through Nazri that he was the person on the other end of the phone line). Unfortunately , he is wrong - dead wrong. The maxim is : “ Qui tacet Consentiret “. In plain English , Silence is Consent “. So, please , if he keeps quiet, it means he agrees that the allegation is true. Chee Kong Chi - Chee Kong Chi

Judiciary an extension of the Executive?

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:03:54 +0100

I only have tears for the country. The responses that have been coming from the powers that be continue to insult the intelligence of the people. Alas how will it all end? Is the Judiciary today nothing more than an extension of the Executive? What are we as lawyers going to do? Are we going to shirk our duty?Will the country ever recover from this madness? Time will tell. Visvanathan Murugiah - Visvanathan Murugiah

Minister's remark applies either way

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:52:50 +0100

"The minister warned that legal action could be taken against those seeking to undermine public confidence in the judiciary." I truly wonder if the above statement from the minister would cover the CJ as well if the video clip is proven to be authentic. If it is authentic, then Tun Fairuz has seriously tarnished the reputation of our judiciary, undermined and destroyed public and foreign investors confidence in our judiciary with his questionable appointment as PCA and CJ, his decision in Wee Choo Keong's case and etc. Let me take it further. If the clip is proven to be authentic and the Minister fails to take action, he would have failed in his duty as a cabinet minister for failing to arrest such situation. He would be then seen as allowing the public confidence in the judiciary to deteriorate further! Would action be then taken against the Minister himself? Let me take it further. If the clip is authentic, then it has serious implications on the process of bestowing the award of Tan Sri by the Supreme Ruler of the Land, the Agong, since it appears that the"prominent lawyer" in the clip can influence the granting of the Tan Sri award on the CJ. If the Prime Minister , the Minister of Law and the whole cabinet fails to take action accodingly, would that be treason? Can they be considered as having abandoned their duty towards His Majesty and His subjects? But then again, in our "Boleh Land", with such "assurance" from the PM and all other officials, I would not be surprised if the "ever efficient and ever reliable" PDRM comes up with the finding that the clip is doctored, In light thereof, I sincerely hope that the Bar Council or some other political party would engage an international and truly independent expert to determine the authenticity of the clip! Kelvin Ng Sin Huat - Kelvin Ng Sin Huat

READ RELUCTANT POLITICIAN

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:05:50 +0100

My dear Wai Loon Firstly, the use of the term "a senior Judge" can be interpreted as an attempt to play down the issue. Secondly, if you read the Reluctant Politician, you will find Tun Dr Ismail studiedly not contacting Tun Suffian although they knew each other from way back when ... But those were the days, my friend, and we thought they'd never end ... Stephen Tan Ban Cheng - Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Who is this 'senior judge'?

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:45:51 +0100

There is certainly no RIGHT reasons for a judge to explain anything to a minister, but we have it happened in Malaysia although we are still supposed to practise 'separation of powers'...maybe they are just "close buddies" who share each other's ups & downs (from the records, this minister supported that judge's appalling suggestion of abolishing common law system). This minister tried to be intelligent by merely quoting "a senior judge" without more details, and he thinks that we are so dumb and we can't figure out who was at the other line in that clip merely because there was only one person in there, if that is the case, then we would be equally dumb to guess who is the 'senior judge' that he referred to. Another smart minister we have. Shim Wai Loon - Shim Wai Loon

Why go through the Minister?

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:35:31 +0100

"Mohamed Nazri also questioned the motive of the people who exposed the clip as they have released it to the media first before handing it to the police and the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to investigate." The Honorable Minister and the Honorable Prime Minister, in order to remain honorable that is, must ceased to make statements as to the intention of the people who exposed the clip. We are not concern with what their intentions are. The crux of the matter is the authenticity of the clip and if proven to be authentic, what are these Honorable Fellas going to do about it. Assure us that the rule of law will be set in motion and not threaten the whistleblowers! Goodness gracious me! What kind of ministers we have in the cabinet?? “If they want to uphold justice or want to clean up the judiciary, the police and ACA can investigate. Why go to the media...the intention is questionable, for political (mileage) or for a clean judiciary,” he said. They went to the media because they can't trust the independence and impartiality of the PDRM and ACA. It is that simple. You do not need a rocket scientist to tell you that. You don't even need to ask that questions. Your intention in making those statements are indeed questionable, my "honorable" minister! The next time we represent any accused, can we advise our client to call the "Honorable" Minister directly and deny it? Surprisingly, this sort of things has to come from the de facto law minister! Kelvin Ng Sin Huat - Kelvin Ng Sin Huat

Judges answerable to the Executive?

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:37:35 +0100

Now, now, now...I don't quite understand what is actually happening. Are any of our Judges, including the senior ones, are unanswerable to the Law Minister, or even the Prime Minister? I recalled learning about Separation of Powers during my legal studies. Do we actually practice that in our country? Maybe the Law Miniser can enlighten me..as he himself was once a lawyer. Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor - Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor

CEASE AND DESIST

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:51:42 +0100

Concerted attempts will continue to be made by certain elements among the powers-that-be to capture the current heated discourse on the explosive expose that has brought the appointment and promotion of Judges into question. Then, they will control and conduct the course of this discourse. I call on such elements to cease and desist from such a misadventure. Thomas Jefferson had said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. This statement should now be the enduring guide for all Malaysians in the light of what is happening. Never in the history of our first 50 years as a nation has such a sociological given been subjected to public scrunity. Admittedly, calls have been made by several organisations to set up a Judicial Appointments Commission and review the unceremonious sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as the Lord President in 1988. These calls have not only fallen on deaf ears, but have also been met with responses they do not deserve. In the context of the 1988 judicial crisis, I have also said that politicians who have sought short-term gratification by indulging in the politically expedient have inflicted long-term damage on our country and its basic institutions. Even those who have collaborated with such politicians are not free of such guilt. I have written elsewhere that any government invites rebellion if it does not respect the very laws on which is predicated its very legitimacy. From the way the discourse is going, more questions have surfaced than is necessary. For instance, why is the Chief Justice described as "a senior Judge"? And when was the denial given to the Minister? And bearing in mind the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers where the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary are independent organs of State, why is the Chief Justice contacting a member of the Executive to deny? Or is there merely a special relationship between the Minister and the Chief Justice that we are unaware of? I find it totally unacceptable that the Chief Justice has suddenly found it fit not to directly deny in public his scandalous role in the video clip. I find it totally unacceptable that the Chief Justice, no less, has ipso facto breached the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers. This mode of denial is macabre when it is recalled that the Chief Justice had only recently reflected a certain level of articulation in his ill-conceived call for the replacement of the Common Law. I am confident that the Chief Justice is totally capable of speaking for himself. If he fails to convince Malaysians that he has done no wrong, then the only honourable course left open for him is to step down in the interest of our nation. Anything less constitutes a disservice. Stephen Tan Ban Cheng - Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

A Bare Denial Will NOT Do

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:39:55 +0100

1. It contradicts his letter that he has no comments. 2. Putting that aside for the time being, if he denies the conversation (when it is clear from the video who was supposed to be at the other end of the line), then would a bare denial (made through someone else) suffice? Should he not immediately lodge a police report? Should he not take immediate action against the lawyer for scandalising the Judiciary? Should he not support the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry? Does he not want to discover the truth and clear his name in a convincing manner? Yeo Yang Poh - Yeo Yang Poh

Lighten up Minister

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:39:18 +0100

Today is Sunday and the 23rd of September and not a day to be down. How I wish it was the 1st of April and that time stood still forever. Still my morning was made when I switched on the computer and saw first the Hon'ble Minister's observations and second, this joke [reproduced with gratitude]. Their juxtaposition has made the rest of the day bearable. So enjoy!!!!! A Malaysian dies and goes to hell. There he finds that there is a different hell for each country. He goes first to the German hell and asks, "What do they do here?" He is told, "First they put you in an electric chair for an hour. Then they lay you on a bed of nails for another hour. Then the German devil comes in and whips you for the rest of the day." The man does not like the sound of that at all, so he moves on. He checks out the USA hell as well as the Russian hell and many more. He discovers that they are all more or less the same as the German hell.Then he comes to the Malaysian hell and finds that there is a very long line of people waiting to get in. Amazed he asks, "What do they do here?" He is told, "First they put you in an electric chair for an hour. Then they lay you on a bed of nails for another hour. Then the Malaysian devil comes in and whips you for the rest of the day." "But that is exactly the same as all the other hells - why are there so many people waiting to get in?" "Because maintenance is so bad that the electric chair does not work. Then someone has stolen all the nails from the bed, and the devil is a former Government servant, so he comes in, signs the register and then goes to the canteen. Manjeet Singh Dhillon - Manjeet Singh Dhillon

What would you do, if you were him?

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:02:38 +0100

If you were the said Judge, Nazri, would you do the same thing? Zulkepli Bin Omar - Zulkepli Bin Omar