YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir,
Allow me to correct a mistake which I made in the previous comment of this blog.
I mentioned that the ISA detention camp under Tun's Administration was nothing more than a looter's house which required a hungry and weak-minded detainee to pay RM20 for a piece of Roti Canai, which would have its delivery been taken place at 2:10 am early in the morning, after a promise had been made by the family member of the detainee for making payment outside the detention camp.
A friend of mine who was the former ISA detainee just reminded me that RM20 was a wrong price, that was a overly understated price. The correct price was RM200 per piece of Roti Canai. However, RM200 per piece was the price in 1998. I guess the Price of a piece of Roti Canai in ISA detention camp must have gone up very high now in the midst of the high inflationary pressure. Therefore, I stand to correct my mistake!
May I know, is this Tun's justice?
Onlooker
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Judge's Misconduct
JUDGE'S MISCONDUCT
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at July 1, 2008 6:21 PM
When the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice said that if I had "proof of (Justice Ian) Chin's alleged misconduct and report the matter to the police or the Chief Justice" it became clear that the honourable and learned de facto Minister had not bothered to study the matter concerned. He was happy to comment and dismiss a complaint against the judge based on what he read (incorrectly) in the Press.The report to the police had already been made by the people aggrieved by (Justice Ian) Chin's biased judgement and it had been extended to the Chief Justice, the former Minister in the Prime Minister's Department and to the Prime Minister himself. Receiving no response the complainants had extended it to the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) as well. It is this report that the Government or its agencies should take action on. It details clearly the unethical behaviour of Chin.
I heard about the report from a relative of the people who made the charge after Chin made his "explosive revelation". The complete set of the report and related papers were sent to me. I also received the same report from lawyers involved in the case after Chin's revelation.
I mentioned the police report without elaborating on it in my rebuttal because I needed time to study it.In his statement from the safety of his court on June 24th, 2008 Chin said, "Dr Mahathir by waving the supposed police report the way he did lent support to the generally held view that this Prime Minister kept a docket on everyone useful but with a skeleton in their cupboard so that he can manipulate them on pain of disclosing the skeleton. I thought only the STASI of the then Communist East Germany do such a thing but then it was done for the benefit of the State not for an individual. In my view he is trying to exploit the general believe to wave that supposed police report to get the public to believe that I have committed something unlawful which he is privy to and which the public is not unaware (?) so that my integrity could be put under suspicion to make what I have revealed unbelievable. Let me declare to the public that I am as clean as a whistle and my life is an open book". (From notes of Proceedings - Special Mention of Case June 24th, 2008)
In the same notes he stated "I have prepared in advance what I have to say today and had mailed copies of the same to the lawyers of the parties before today in case I meet with an accidental death and both counsels have agreed in the event of that happening, the statement I had sent them would be regarded as having been pronounced in court". It sounds very much that Chin was afraid of being killed (by accident). Readers can make their own interpretation of what he implied. His statement would be his final word on the matter (before he dies).
Yet in the court of June 24th he said (vide proceedings of court) "I have since amended certain parts of that statement and counsel should delete the copy I had sent them and the one that counts is the one appearing in the following pages".
It is obvious that he did not think carefully about what he wanted to say and found it necessary to amend a statement which the court would have accepted as his final statement to the court had he accidentally died. Can such a sloppy judge be believed?
Be that as it may we must accept that the following record of proceedings on June 24th on his statement truly record what he said in court as different from his written statement to the counsels.The most significant element in his statement of June 9th 2008 in open court is that regarding my alleged threat against judges.Whereas that statement the record stated, "The then Prime Minister went there (to the Judges Conference) to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so it was still done", yet in his statement on June 24th he said (as recorded in the proceedings of June 15th);"Now to the matter of the veiled threat. Dr Mahathir did not say that he will remove judges by referring to tribunal in those express words. You must know what went on before to appreciate what message he was attempting to convey in his devious way and to look at the subsequent events to put what he had said in the right perspective." This sentence again displays Chin's failure to find the words to prove that there was a threat. He finally resorted to saying that the Prime Minister uttered the veiled threat by "dropping words to that effect here and there". What words which "when dropped here and there" becomes a veiled threat?He was so positive about the veiled threat on June 9th but on June 24th he seems to be unable to find words to show that there was a "veiled threat". Can people trust a judge who makes assumptions based on "words here and there"?
Surely if I made a veiled threat, other judges must have heard it and as one former judge said, "he would be shocked and would remember it". But no one else seems to remember it. Chin ranted against the judge who denied there was a threat, claiming he knows who the judge was and abusing him. Again he makes conclusion based on suspicion.Accusing me of having a docket on everyone so that I can manipulate them is fantasy of the highest order. Certainly I did not have a docket on him. What I got was given to me after his statement on June 9, 2008.He has the Government and the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice on his side. They should be able to prove that I had this "docket" or that I had used police report to threaten anyone. Show me one case.
In the case of Anwar, the police reported to me about his bad morals and after consulting my colleagues and the UMNO Supreme Council, I took action to remove him. I did not keep these reports in order to threaten him.
Now of course he has another police report and it would be interesting to see how Chin's friends in the Government will deal with it.
In any case Chin should be happy that the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice has decided (not the Attorney General whose job it is to examine the case) not to set up a tribunal or to do anything.
Chin appears to be unsparing in bad-mouthing other people from the safety of his court. He called me a "devil incarnate" and suggested that I behave like the East German Secret Police (STASI).
I wonder what the legal profession thinks about judges calling people names in their courts, people who are not even connected with the case being heard, and certainly people who had never been given a chance to be heard.
If this is the new standard then what people say about the deterioration of the judiciary must be true.
I have no intention to make any police report on the misbehaviour of Judge Ian Chin. It would be an exercise in futility under present conditions.
I leave it to the public to judge. If anyone had had a police report waved in his face during the 22 years I was Prime Minister, please make a police report.
If the police have evidence of a docket which I kept, please show evidence of this.
I pity the people who have to be tried by Chin. His fertile mind can conjure evidence where there is none, and he can pass sentence based on this. It is Chin's Justice.
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at July 1, 2008 6:21 PM
When the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice said that if I had "proof of (Justice Ian) Chin's alleged misconduct and report the matter to the police or the Chief Justice" it became clear that the honourable and learned de facto Minister had not bothered to study the matter concerned. He was happy to comment and dismiss a complaint against the judge based on what he read (incorrectly) in the Press.The report to the police had already been made by the people aggrieved by (Justice Ian) Chin's biased judgement and it had been extended to the Chief Justice, the former Minister in the Prime Minister's Department and to the Prime Minister himself. Receiving no response the complainants had extended it to the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) as well. It is this report that the Government or its agencies should take action on. It details clearly the unethical behaviour of Chin.
I heard about the report from a relative of the people who made the charge after Chin made his "explosive revelation". The complete set of the report and related papers were sent to me. I also received the same report from lawyers involved in the case after Chin's revelation.
I mentioned the police report without elaborating on it in my rebuttal because I needed time to study it.In his statement from the safety of his court on June 24th, 2008 Chin said, "Dr Mahathir by waving the supposed police report the way he did lent support to the generally held view that this Prime Minister kept a docket on everyone useful but with a skeleton in their cupboard so that he can manipulate them on pain of disclosing the skeleton. I thought only the STASI of the then Communist East Germany do such a thing but then it was done for the benefit of the State not for an individual. In my view he is trying to exploit the general believe to wave that supposed police report to get the public to believe that I have committed something unlawful which he is privy to and which the public is not unaware (?) so that my integrity could be put under suspicion to make what I have revealed unbelievable. Let me declare to the public that I am as clean as a whistle and my life is an open book". (From notes of Proceedings - Special Mention of Case June 24th, 2008)
In the same notes he stated "I have prepared in advance what I have to say today and had mailed copies of the same to the lawyers of the parties before today in case I meet with an accidental death and both counsels have agreed in the event of that happening, the statement I had sent them would be regarded as having been pronounced in court". It sounds very much that Chin was afraid of being killed (by accident). Readers can make their own interpretation of what he implied. His statement would be his final word on the matter (before he dies).
Yet in the court of June 24th he said (vide proceedings of court) "I have since amended certain parts of that statement and counsel should delete the copy I had sent them and the one that counts is the one appearing in the following pages".
It is obvious that he did not think carefully about what he wanted to say and found it necessary to amend a statement which the court would have accepted as his final statement to the court had he accidentally died. Can such a sloppy judge be believed?
Be that as it may we must accept that the following record of proceedings on June 24th on his statement truly record what he said in court as different from his written statement to the counsels.The most significant element in his statement of June 9th 2008 in open court is that regarding my alleged threat against judges.Whereas that statement the record stated, "The then Prime Minister went there (to the Judges Conference) to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so it was still done", yet in his statement on June 24th he said (as recorded in the proceedings of June 15th);"Now to the matter of the veiled threat. Dr Mahathir did not say that he will remove judges by referring to tribunal in those express words. You must know what went on before to appreciate what message he was attempting to convey in his devious way and to look at the subsequent events to put what he had said in the right perspective." This sentence again displays Chin's failure to find the words to prove that there was a threat. He finally resorted to saying that the Prime Minister uttered the veiled threat by "dropping words to that effect here and there". What words which "when dropped here and there" becomes a veiled threat?He was so positive about the veiled threat on June 9th but on June 24th he seems to be unable to find words to show that there was a "veiled threat". Can people trust a judge who makes assumptions based on "words here and there"?
Surely if I made a veiled threat, other judges must have heard it and as one former judge said, "he would be shocked and would remember it". But no one else seems to remember it. Chin ranted against the judge who denied there was a threat, claiming he knows who the judge was and abusing him. Again he makes conclusion based on suspicion.Accusing me of having a docket on everyone so that I can manipulate them is fantasy of the highest order. Certainly I did not have a docket on him. What I got was given to me after his statement on June 9, 2008.He has the Government and the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice on his side. They should be able to prove that I had this "docket" or that I had used police report to threaten anyone. Show me one case.
In the case of Anwar, the police reported to me about his bad morals and after consulting my colleagues and the UMNO Supreme Council, I took action to remove him. I did not keep these reports in order to threaten him.
Now of course he has another police report and it would be interesting to see how Chin's friends in the Government will deal with it.
In any case Chin should be happy that the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice has decided (not the Attorney General whose job it is to examine the case) not to set up a tribunal or to do anything.
Chin appears to be unsparing in bad-mouthing other people from the safety of his court. He called me a "devil incarnate" and suggested that I behave like the East German Secret Police (STASI).
I wonder what the legal profession thinks about judges calling people names in their courts, people who are not even connected with the case being heard, and certainly people who had never been given a chance to be heard.
If this is the new standard then what people say about the deterioration of the judiciary must be true.
I have no intention to make any police report on the misbehaviour of Judge Ian Chin. It would be an exercise in futility under present conditions.
I leave it to the public to judge. If anyone had had a police report waved in his face during the 22 years I was Prime Minister, please make a police report.
If the police have evidence of a docket which I kept, please show evidence of this.
I pity the people who have to be tried by Chin. His fertile mind can conjure evidence where there is none, and he can pass sentence based on this. It is Chin's Justice.
Repent, and Begin to Seek God!
YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir,
Your following sentences are referred:
'In any case Chin should be happy that the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice has decided (not the Attorney General whose job it is to examine the case) not to set up a tribunal or to do anything.
Chin appears to be unsparing in bad-mouthing other people from the safety of his court. He called me a "devil incarnate" and suggested that I behave like the East German Secret Police (STASI).
I wonder what the legal profession thinks about judges calling people names in their courts, people who are not even connected with the case being heard, and certainly people who had never been given a chance to be heard.
If this is the new standard then what people say about the deterioration of the judiciary must be true.'
Tun, why do you have to get angry with Judge Chin when you think that Judge Chin has bad-mouthed you? Don't you remember that you were also a shrewd Prime Minister before who liked to name-call people as "Pengkhianat", "Rumour Monger", "Singapore Agent", "Israelite Agent", "American Spy", "Sodomizer", "Womanizer", "Chinese Chauvinist", "Communist Sympathizer", "Terrorist", and so forth. I believe many former ISA detainees and the current ISA detainees would also have the same kind of urge like Judge Chin has of wanting to name-call you a "devil incarnate".
During your 22 years' iron fist reign of Malaysia, you have indiscriminately made use of the callous draconian law to detain the people whom you saw as the threat to the stability of your political regime. The ISA detention which you initiated in the past had indeed led to family breakdown and financial predicament of many innocent people. ISA detention camp during your reign had never ever been a holy place which you could be proud of. The ISA detention camp under your administration was nothing more than a looter's house which required a hungry and weak-minded detainee to pay RM20 for a piece of Roti Canai, which would only be delivered at 2:10 am early in the morning, after a promise had been made by the detainee's family member to pay the bill outside the detention camp. It is certainly quite reasonable for some righteous people to suggest that you did behave like the East German Secret Police (STASI).
Your veiled threat posed on a former Yang Dipertuan Agong in order to compel him to sign the Constitutional Amendment for the establishment of Special Court was the hard proof of your behaving like STASI.
The deterioration of judiciary is nothing new in Malaysia. Tun, can you still remember about the cases of vain effort complaints on police brutality and rape cases involving the policemen in the police lock-up during your tenure of the PM's office? The origin of the deterioration could actually be traced back to the old days when you reigned Malaysia like a tyrant. Therefore, with your past history of behaving like a tyrant, you have indeed lost the rights to claim that you are a good man and you have lost the legitimacy to put the blame on your successor and to hold him responsible for the deterioration of judiciary in Malaysia.
Tun, if you have already realized the wrong which you did in the past and you wish to repent on your past wrongdoing, then I will be most willing to uphold you in prayers. I pray and ask Almighty God to dispense His merciful grace upon you and to deliver you from the bitterness which you suffer now. I pray that God may set you free with His forgiveness and loving-kindness since God will never foresake anybody who really shows a true repentance and who has the wishful will to seek God for the truths and ways of life. Amen!
Onlooker
Your following sentences are referred:
'In any case Chin should be happy that the Honourable the de facto Minister of Justice has decided (not the Attorney General whose job it is to examine the case) not to set up a tribunal or to do anything.
Chin appears to be unsparing in bad-mouthing other people from the safety of his court. He called me a "devil incarnate" and suggested that I behave like the East German Secret Police (STASI).
I wonder what the legal profession thinks about judges calling people names in their courts, people who are not even connected with the case being heard, and certainly people who had never been given a chance to be heard.
If this is the new standard then what people say about the deterioration of the judiciary must be true.'
Tun, why do you have to get angry with Judge Chin when you think that Judge Chin has bad-mouthed you? Don't you remember that you were also a shrewd Prime Minister before who liked to name-call people as "Pengkhianat", "Rumour Monger", "Singapore Agent", "Israelite Agent", "American Spy", "Sodomizer", "Womanizer", "Chinese Chauvinist", "Communist Sympathizer", "Terrorist", and so forth. I believe many former ISA detainees and the current ISA detainees would also have the same kind of urge like Judge Chin has of wanting to name-call you a "devil incarnate".
During your 22 years' iron fist reign of Malaysia, you have indiscriminately made use of the callous draconian law to detain the people whom you saw as the threat to the stability of your political regime. The ISA detention which you initiated in the past had indeed led to family breakdown and financial predicament of many innocent people. ISA detention camp during your reign had never ever been a holy place which you could be proud of. The ISA detention camp under your administration was nothing more than a looter's house which required a hungry and weak-minded detainee to pay RM20 for a piece of Roti Canai, which would only be delivered at 2:10 am early in the morning, after a promise had been made by the detainee's family member to pay the bill outside the detention camp. It is certainly quite reasonable for some righteous people to suggest that you did behave like the East German Secret Police (STASI).
Your veiled threat posed on a former Yang Dipertuan Agong in order to compel him to sign the Constitutional Amendment for the establishment of Special Court was the hard proof of your behaving like STASI.
The deterioration of judiciary is nothing new in Malaysia. Tun, can you still remember about the cases of vain effort complaints on police brutality and rape cases involving the policemen in the police lock-up during your tenure of the PM's office? The origin of the deterioration could actually be traced back to the old days when you reigned Malaysia like a tyrant. Therefore, with your past history of behaving like a tyrant, you have indeed lost the rights to claim that you are a good man and you have lost the legitimacy to put the blame on your successor and to hold him responsible for the deterioration of judiciary in Malaysia.
Tun, if you have already realized the wrong which you did in the past and you wish to repent on your past wrongdoing, then I will be most willing to uphold you in prayers. I pray and ask Almighty God to dispense His merciful grace upon you and to deliver you from the bitterness which you suffer now. I pray that God may set you free with His forgiveness and loving-kindness since God will never foresake anybody who really shows a true repentance and who has the wishful will to seek God for the truths and ways of life. Amen!
Onlooker
Monday, June 30, 2008
Judicial Independence lays path towards Universal Justice
By Onlooker on June 29, 2008 11:17 PM
I am confused by the comment from Kampong Boy that 'personally this (judicial independence) does not benefit the rest of us.'
The case of G.W. Bush vs. Al Gore of the US may sometimes be cited as an irony of American judicial independence. Generally speaking, the judgement of this case is just the result of a simple majority of grand jury making a court decision which reflects the electoral situation of the contemporary American politics. No matter what, this example can be viewed as a few rotten branches dropping from the dead tree which stands in the big jungle. If American judicial independence can be analogous to a big jungle, then I would be happy to appreciate the beauty of this jungle from the whole perspective of a green canopy instead of focusing only on the ugliness of one or two dead trees.
If true judicial independence is allowed to exist in Malaysia, I believe those former ISA detainees of 1987's Op Lallang Arrest would stand a good chance to get even with the federal government and might be granted a favourable court ruling which requires a handsome amount of compensation be paid by the federal government to the former ISA detainees. Only a judiciary system which works independently free of interference or intimidation from the Executive Branch will have the total integrity to allow the former ISA detainees to take the federal government to court for a case of wrongful arrest. As a matter of fact, the happening of ISA arrest in Op Lallang was deemed by many as a plot of Tun Dr. Mahathir in the capacity of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I hope Tun Dr. Mahathir will spare some of his valuable time to tell us about his side of story of Op Lallang.
I believe that all men are born equal before law. If the federal government has to resort to the bitter way for purpose of restoring peacefulness to the society during a racial tension situation by temporary taking away the personal freedom of the ISA detainees in the name of greater good of the society, then the ISA detainees should also be given the opportunity to redress their grievances by taking the federal government to the court of law for a fair trial in due process of law.
In Malaysia the chances for an ordinary citizen (inclusive of Kampong Boy) to be wrongfully arrested by the police are always there for questioning. When such case of wrongful arrest by police has to happen on anyone of us, the only effective way to take the corrective measure is relying on the independent court of law which comes along with the existence of judicial independence. This is one example of how the judicial independence can benefit the ordinary people of Malaysia.
Let's be firm in taking up the position for defending the time-proven principle of judicial independence whenever we involve ourselves in a poltical movement for reformation, for judicial independence is the only reliable path towards a universal justice.
Onlooker
I am confused by the comment from Kampong Boy that 'personally this (judicial independence) does not benefit the rest of us.'
The case of G.W. Bush vs. Al Gore of the US may sometimes be cited as an irony of American judicial independence. Generally speaking, the judgement of this case is just the result of a simple majority of grand jury making a court decision which reflects the electoral situation of the contemporary American politics. No matter what, this example can be viewed as a few rotten branches dropping from the dead tree which stands in the big jungle. If American judicial independence can be analogous to a big jungle, then I would be happy to appreciate the beauty of this jungle from the whole perspective of a green canopy instead of focusing only on the ugliness of one or two dead trees.
If true judicial independence is allowed to exist in Malaysia, I believe those former ISA detainees of 1987's Op Lallang Arrest would stand a good chance to get even with the federal government and might be granted a favourable court ruling which requires a handsome amount of compensation be paid by the federal government to the former ISA detainees. Only a judiciary system which works independently free of interference or intimidation from the Executive Branch will have the total integrity to allow the former ISA detainees to take the federal government to court for a case of wrongful arrest. As a matter of fact, the happening of ISA arrest in Op Lallang was deemed by many as a plot of Tun Dr. Mahathir in the capacity of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I hope Tun Dr. Mahathir will spare some of his valuable time to tell us about his side of story of Op Lallang.
I believe that all men are born equal before law. If the federal government has to resort to the bitter way for purpose of restoring peacefulness to the society during a racial tension situation by temporary taking away the personal freedom of the ISA detainees in the name of greater good of the society, then the ISA detainees should also be given the opportunity to redress their grievances by taking the federal government to the court of law for a fair trial in due process of law.
In Malaysia the chances for an ordinary citizen (inclusive of Kampong Boy) to be wrongfully arrested by the police are always there for questioning. When such case of wrongful arrest by police has to happen on anyone of us, the only effective way to take the corrective measure is relying on the independent court of law which comes along with the existence of judicial independence. This is one example of how the judicial independence can benefit the ordinary people of Malaysia.
Let's be firm in taking up the position for defending the time-proven principle of judicial independence whenever we involve ourselves in a poltical movement for reformation, for judicial independence is the only reliable path towards a universal justice.
Onlooker
How does Judicial Independence benefit us?
By Kampong Boy on June 29, 2008 2:27 AM
Comments from Onlooker
"Please allow me to drop a few words here in response to the comment by Hai on June 27, 2008 9:14 PM in this blog.
The article posted by Hai is a good and knowledge-nourishing discussion on Judicial Independence. However, readers are advised to read it within the scope of certain judiciary system which requires the judges to be elected by the registered voters. In most countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, judges are not elected by the ordinary people who have the voting rights. In Malaysia, judges are usually being appointed by the Paramount Ruler, Yang Dipertuan Agong, based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of Malaysia is appointed by the Paramount Ruler with the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Therefore, the freedom of campaigning on judicial independence is severely restricted by the undemocratic system of appointment. The Prime Minister as the head of Executive Branch will usually be reluctant to grant full judicial independence to the Judicial Branch. Therefore, in my personal opinion, a thorough judicial reform in Malaysia seems to be impossible before a thorough political reform can be made happen to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. The dream of Judicial Reform in Malaysia will only come true when the initiative of reform is coming directly from both the salary dispenser (Executive Branch) and the law-maker (Legislative Branch). This initiative may imply that Malaysia needs great courage and strong willingness to accept big changes by approving major overhaul in the Federal Constitution to make it resemble the Constitution of the United States."
To Onlooker:
Do we the mass population really care about this issue. The way we look at it is just political games played by politician that will only benefit them. Personally this does not benefit the rest of us.
Must we always follow the country such as US. They only preach and they do not practice. Please help all of us understand more in the case of Bush and Al Gore and perhaps many others?
Kampong Boy
Comments from Onlooker
"Please allow me to drop a few words here in response to the comment by Hai on June 27, 2008 9:14 PM in this blog.
The article posted by Hai is a good and knowledge-nourishing discussion on Judicial Independence. However, readers are advised to read it within the scope of certain judiciary system which requires the judges to be elected by the registered voters. In most countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, judges are not elected by the ordinary people who have the voting rights. In Malaysia, judges are usually being appointed by the Paramount Ruler, Yang Dipertuan Agong, based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of Malaysia is appointed by the Paramount Ruler with the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Therefore, the freedom of campaigning on judicial independence is severely restricted by the undemocratic system of appointment. The Prime Minister as the head of Executive Branch will usually be reluctant to grant full judicial independence to the Judicial Branch. Therefore, in my personal opinion, a thorough judicial reform in Malaysia seems to be impossible before a thorough political reform can be made happen to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. The dream of Judicial Reform in Malaysia will only come true when the initiative of reform is coming directly from both the salary dispenser (Executive Branch) and the law-maker (Legislative Branch). This initiative may imply that Malaysia needs great courage and strong willingness to accept big changes by approving major overhaul in the Federal Constitution to make it resemble the Constitution of the United States."
To Onlooker:
Do we the mass population really care about this issue. The way we look at it is just political games played by politician that will only benefit them. Personally this does not benefit the rest of us.
Must we always follow the country such as US. They only preach and they do not practice. Please help all of us understand more in the case of Bush and Al Gore and perhaps many others?
Kampong Boy
Initiative Needed for Judicial Reform
By Onlooker on June 28, 2008 8:44 PM
Dear Tun Dr. Mahathir,
Please allow me to drop a few words here in response to the comment by Hai on June 27, 2008 9:14 PM in your blog.
The article posted by Hai is a good and knowledge-nourishing discussion on Judicial Independence. However, readers are advised to read it within the scope of certain judiciary system which requires the judges to be elected by the registered voters. In most countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, judges are not elected by the ordinary people who have the voting rights. In Malaysia, judges are usually being appointed by the Paramount Ruler, Yang Dipertuan Agong, based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of Malaysia is appointed by the Paramount Ruler with the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Therefore, the freedom of campaigning on judicial independence is severely restricted by the undemocratic system of appointment. The Prime Minister as the head of Executive Branch will usually be reluctant to grant full judicial independence to the Judicial Branch. Therefore, in my personal opinion, a thorough judicial reform in Malaysia seems to be impossible before a thorough political reform can be made happen to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. The dream of Judicial Reform in Malaysia will only come true when the initiative of reform is coming directly from both the salary dispenser (Executive Branch) and the law-maker (Legislative Branch). This initiative may imply that Malaysia needs great courage and strong willingness to accept big changes by approving major overhaul in the Federal Constitution to make it resemble the Constitution of the United States.
Onlooker
Dear Tun Dr. Mahathir,
Please allow me to drop a few words here in response to the comment by Hai on June 27, 2008 9:14 PM in your blog.
The article posted by Hai is a good and knowledge-nourishing discussion on Judicial Independence. However, readers are advised to read it within the scope of certain judiciary system which requires the judges to be elected by the registered voters. In most countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, judges are not elected by the ordinary people who have the voting rights. In Malaysia, judges are usually being appointed by the Paramount Ruler, Yang Dipertuan Agong, based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of Malaysia is appointed by the Paramount Ruler with the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Therefore, the freedom of campaigning on judicial independence is severely restricted by the undemocratic system of appointment. The Prime Minister as the head of Executive Branch will usually be reluctant to grant full judicial independence to the Judicial Branch. Therefore, in my personal opinion, a thorough judicial reform in Malaysia seems to be impossible before a thorough political reform can be made happen to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. The dream of Judicial Reform in Malaysia will only come true when the initiative of reform is coming directly from both the salary dispenser (Executive Branch) and the law-maker (Legislative Branch). This initiative may imply that Malaysia needs great courage and strong willingness to accept big changes by approving major overhaul in the Federal Constitution to make it resemble the Constitution of the United States.
Onlooker
A Brief Discussion on Judicial Independence
By hai on June 27, 2008 9:14 PM
Judicial Independence as a Campaign Platform Issues, such as protecting judicial independence, improving interbranch relations, and expanding outreach to the people.
Improving Judicial Selection and "Call to Action" as a blueprint for judicial election reform.
"Good judging is good politics . . . " The people will support judges whom they perceive as independent even if they do not agree with particular decisions. But judges have to talk about judicial independence and make it a campaign issue.
Judges base their decisions on the facts and law presented in each individual case, not on their personal viewpoints on policy issues. Unlike other candidates, judges cannot campaign by making promises about how they'll decide issues. Constraints are placed upon judicial candidates in all states by canons of judicial conduct, and limits are placed on a judge's ability to sit on a case if the judge "decides" the case during a campaign. Judicial conduct also limit the political activities of judges.
The traditional view is that if a judge comments on a pending or impending case, the comments will reduce the litigants' and the public's confidence in the impartiality and fairness of our courts.
A "candidate for a judicial office, including an incumbent judge" shall not "announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues.
Judges and judicial candidates can and should speak on the issue of judicial independence.
Free to Speak on Judicial Independence
Judges and candidates are legally and ethically free to speak about the critical importance of judicial independence. In any judicial-selection system, the best way to ensure judicial independence is to develop the public's understanding of, and respect for, the concept of judicial independence. Lawyers and judges must educate the public on judicial roles and duties. Educational efforts should not be restricted to elections or times of crisis. Judges and lawyers must be community educators using a variety of tools to reach the public, the media, and the executive and legislative branches of government. Public outreach efforts promote judicial independence because they enable citizens to evaluate critical attacks on judges and to value judicial independence.
The points that should be addressed in this education effort are:
• What is judicial independence?
• Why is judicial independence important to you, the citizen?
• What are the threats to judicial independence? and
• How can judicial independence be protected?
What is judicial independence?
"The law makes a promise — neutrality. If the promise gets broken, the law as we know it ceases to exist."
Judicial independence means that judges decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law. Individual judges and the judicial branch as a whole should work free of ideological influence. Although all judges do not reason alike or necessarily reach the same decision, decisions should be based on determinations of the evidence and the law, not on public opinion polls; personal whim; prejudice or fear; or interference from the legislative or the executive branches, or private citizens or groups.
There are two types of judicial independence: decisional independence and institutional independence (sometimes called branch independence). Decisional independence refers to a judge's ability to render decisions free from political or popular influence; decisions should be based solely on the facts of the individual case and the applicable law. Institutional independence describes the judicial branch as a separate and co-equal branch of government with the executive and legislative branches.
Any discussion of judicial independence needs, however, to be joined with a discussion of accountability. It is not only ensures the protection of rights, but also enforces responsibilities. The rule of law holds government officials accountable to those in whose name they govern to prevent abuse of power, and the judiciary is not exempt from accountability. Judges are accountable to the public to work hard, keep their dockets current, educate themselves about changes in the law, and treat each person with respect and dignity. Judges are accountable to represent the judicial branch before the public and other branches of government, and to advocate for court reform.
Why is judicial independence important to you, the citizen?
Judicial independence is a means to an end — the end is due process, a fair trial according to law. Judicial independence thus protects the litigants in court and all the people of the nation.
What are the threats to judicial independence?
Historically, threats to judicial independence have come from the legislative and executive branches. Executive and legislative leaders have at times tried to influence judicial outcomes.
Governmental threats to an independent judiciary are:
• Poor interbranch relationships among the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive, marked by a lack of communication;
• Legislative limits on or curtailment of judicial jurisdiction;
• Legislative refusal to increase judicial salaries; and
• Chronic underfunding of the judicial branch and increasing workload.
More recently, nongovernmental groups have threatened judicial independence using political, social, and economic resources to influence the selection and retention of judges.The danger is that when individuals or groups are highly organized, ideologically driven, and well funded, their self-interest in winning cases overcomes their interest in an independent judiciary.
More specific threats to judicial independence by nongovernmental groups include:
• Inappropriate threats of impeachment prompted by particular judicial decisions;
• Political threats intended to influence a judge's decision in an individual case; and
• Misleading criticism of individual decisions.
The best judges are those who resist threats to judicial independence and actively advocate judicial independence. The basic, underlying safeguard for judicial independence is popular support of the concept.
How can judicial independence be protected?
Public education efforts about judicial independence and judicial selection face a number of challenges, including limited public knowledge of courts and judges, and limited resources to reach a broad public audience.
If judges include judicial independence as a campaign issue in their election and retention campaigns, the public will respond with an eagerness to learn more. The public's appreciation of, and respect for, judicial independence is the best way to ensure that the judiciary will remain independent. Campaigning on judicial independence can educate both judges and the electorate on the importance of protecting fair and impartial courts.
Judicial Independence as a Campaign Platform Issues, such as protecting judicial independence, improving interbranch relations, and expanding outreach to the people.
Improving Judicial Selection and "Call to Action" as a blueprint for judicial election reform.
"Good judging is good politics . . . " The people will support judges whom they perceive as independent even if they do not agree with particular decisions. But judges have to talk about judicial independence and make it a campaign issue.
Judges base their decisions on the facts and law presented in each individual case, not on their personal viewpoints on policy issues. Unlike other candidates, judges cannot campaign by making promises about how they'll decide issues. Constraints are placed upon judicial candidates in all states by canons of judicial conduct, and limits are placed on a judge's ability to sit on a case if the judge "decides" the case during a campaign. Judicial conduct also limit the political activities of judges.
The traditional view is that if a judge comments on a pending or impending case, the comments will reduce the litigants' and the public's confidence in the impartiality and fairness of our courts.
A "candidate for a judicial office, including an incumbent judge" shall not "announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues.
Judges and judicial candidates can and should speak on the issue of judicial independence.
Free to Speak on Judicial Independence
Judges and candidates are legally and ethically free to speak about the critical importance of judicial independence. In any judicial-selection system, the best way to ensure judicial independence is to develop the public's understanding of, and respect for, the concept of judicial independence. Lawyers and judges must educate the public on judicial roles and duties. Educational efforts should not be restricted to elections or times of crisis. Judges and lawyers must be community educators using a variety of tools to reach the public, the media, and the executive and legislative branches of government. Public outreach efforts promote judicial independence because they enable citizens to evaluate critical attacks on judges and to value judicial independence.
The points that should be addressed in this education effort are:
• What is judicial independence?
• Why is judicial independence important to you, the citizen?
• What are the threats to judicial independence? and
• How can judicial independence be protected?
What is judicial independence?
"The law makes a promise — neutrality. If the promise gets broken, the law as we know it ceases to exist."
Judicial independence means that judges decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law. Individual judges and the judicial branch as a whole should work free of ideological influence. Although all judges do not reason alike or necessarily reach the same decision, decisions should be based on determinations of the evidence and the law, not on public opinion polls; personal whim; prejudice or fear; or interference from the legislative or the executive branches, or private citizens or groups.
There are two types of judicial independence: decisional independence and institutional independence (sometimes called branch independence). Decisional independence refers to a judge's ability to render decisions free from political or popular influence; decisions should be based solely on the facts of the individual case and the applicable law. Institutional independence describes the judicial branch as a separate and co-equal branch of government with the executive and legislative branches.
Any discussion of judicial independence needs, however, to be joined with a discussion of accountability. It is not only ensures the protection of rights, but also enforces responsibilities. The rule of law holds government officials accountable to those in whose name they govern to prevent abuse of power, and the judiciary is not exempt from accountability. Judges are accountable to the public to work hard, keep their dockets current, educate themselves about changes in the law, and treat each person with respect and dignity. Judges are accountable to represent the judicial branch before the public and other branches of government, and to advocate for court reform.
Why is judicial independence important to you, the citizen?
Judicial independence is a means to an end — the end is due process, a fair trial according to law. Judicial independence thus protects the litigants in court and all the people of the nation.
What are the threats to judicial independence?
Historically, threats to judicial independence have come from the legislative and executive branches. Executive and legislative leaders have at times tried to influence judicial outcomes.
Governmental threats to an independent judiciary are:
• Poor interbranch relationships among the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive, marked by a lack of communication;
• Legislative limits on or curtailment of judicial jurisdiction;
• Legislative refusal to increase judicial salaries; and
• Chronic underfunding of the judicial branch and increasing workload.
More recently, nongovernmental groups have threatened judicial independence using political, social, and economic resources to influence the selection and retention of judges.The danger is that when individuals or groups are highly organized, ideologically driven, and well funded, their self-interest in winning cases overcomes their interest in an independent judiciary.
More specific threats to judicial independence by nongovernmental groups include:
• Inappropriate threats of impeachment prompted by particular judicial decisions;
• Political threats intended to influence a judge's decision in an individual case; and
• Misleading criticism of individual decisions.
The best judges are those who resist threats to judicial independence and actively advocate judicial independence. The basic, underlying safeguard for judicial independence is popular support of the concept.
How can judicial independence be protected?
Public education efforts about judicial independence and judicial selection face a number of challenges, including limited public knowledge of courts and judges, and limited resources to reach a broad public audience.
If judges include judicial independence as a campaign issue in their election and retention campaigns, the public will respond with an eagerness to learn more. The public's appreciation of, and respect for, judicial independence is the best way to ensure that the judiciary will remain independent. Campaigning on judicial independence can educate both judges and the electorate on the importance of protecting fair and impartial courts.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Dr Mahathir, what moral right have you to comment on a judge?
By ABI on June 28, 2008 11:03 AM
Dear Tun:
Your account of the Ian Chin episode appears to be vivid, but I don't know if your account is "varnished" (to use a Shakespearean expression).
There is a lot of ballyhoo and hypocrisy about your so-called "expose." Your memory concerning this matter seems to be phenomenal and graphic! But why was your memory selective and faded during the Royal Commission of Inquiry hearing? You were suffering from amnesia then!You could not remember anything about the brokering of judicial appointments by your cronies during the hearing! Now your memory has become fantastic all of a sudden!
Where have all your religious and ethical values gone? Gone with the wind? You say Ian Chin is a disgrace to the judiciary! What about your goodself? Your unwarranted meddling with the judiciary; your usurpation of judicial powers have denigrated the reputation of the country. International jurists had lambasted you for all your transgressions in the past.. still your evil deeds have been the topic of discussion throughout the world! The Royal Commission has also called into question your decisions on the appointments of judges during your rule. You are in fact a living disgrace- to the nation! What moral right have you to comment on a judge when you yourself as a prominent leader, a PM of a great nation, had committed grave and unforgivable sins? You had arrogated to yourself the powers of the judiciary by arbitrarily amending the original wording of Article 121 (1) of our sacred, sacrosanct constitution! Where on earth, in a democratic country, do you see the judiciary being subject to the control of the Executive? Isn't that a blatant violation of the time-honoured principle of the independence of the judiciary? Isn't that a stigma,Tun?
Ponder over all these and repent so that your life is peaceful, meaningful and happy. I pray that the Almighty God will help you to get rid of your unjustified anger, envy, arrogance, vengeance; your hatred for people and your despicable "holier than thou" attitude.
You seem to think that only Mahathir is right in everything; is capable of decision-making; is a super human being!
ABI
Dear Tun:
Your account of the Ian Chin episode appears to be vivid, but I don't know if your account is "varnished" (to use a Shakespearean expression).
There is a lot of ballyhoo and hypocrisy about your so-called "expose." Your memory concerning this matter seems to be phenomenal and graphic! But why was your memory selective and faded during the Royal Commission of Inquiry hearing? You were suffering from amnesia then!You could not remember anything about the brokering of judicial appointments by your cronies during the hearing! Now your memory has become fantastic all of a sudden!
Where have all your religious and ethical values gone? Gone with the wind? You say Ian Chin is a disgrace to the judiciary! What about your goodself? Your unwarranted meddling with the judiciary; your usurpation of judicial powers have denigrated the reputation of the country. International jurists had lambasted you for all your transgressions in the past.. still your evil deeds have been the topic of discussion throughout the world! The Royal Commission has also called into question your decisions on the appointments of judges during your rule. You are in fact a living disgrace- to the nation! What moral right have you to comment on a judge when you yourself as a prominent leader, a PM of a great nation, had committed grave and unforgivable sins? You had arrogated to yourself the powers of the judiciary by arbitrarily amending the original wording of Article 121 (1) of our sacred, sacrosanct constitution! Where on earth, in a democratic country, do you see the judiciary being subject to the control of the Executive? Isn't that a blatant violation of the time-honoured principle of the independence of the judiciary? Isn't that a stigma,Tun?
Ponder over all these and repent so that your life is peaceful, meaningful and happy. I pray that the Almighty God will help you to get rid of your unjustified anger, envy, arrogance, vengeance; your hatred for people and your despicable "holier than thou" attitude.
You seem to think that only Mahathir is right in everything; is capable of decision-making; is a super human being!
ABI
Friday, June 27, 2008
Press Statement By Tun Dr. Mahathir
PRESS STATEMENT BY YABhg TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at June 27, 2008 3:34 PM
(This statement was issued yesterday, June 26, 2008 in response to Judge Ian Chin's allegations towards Dr Mahathir)
1. On June 10, The Borneo Post reported Judge Ian Chin's "explosive judicial disclosure", about how judges were threatened and sent to Boot Camps by the former Prime Minister.
2. He made these revelations prior to hearing a case, apparently to avoid being accused of bias.
3. What he did not reveal is that there is a police report against him for breaches of Judge's Code of Ethics in hearing a case in which he has a personal interest. He presided on a case involving Dato Syed Kechik without revealing that he believed Syed Kechik was responsible for detaining his father and brother 20 years before.
4. Chin joined Party Berjaya and lost twice. One of the objectives listed in Party Berjaya's manifesto was to expel Syed Kechik from Sabah. (Syed Kechik akan dikeluarkan dari Sabah). As a party member he must know Berjaya's hatred for Syed Kechik. This alone should have resulted in him excusing himself from hearing the case.
5. However, both the Claimants and Defendants in the hearing in 1999 did not seek to change the judge, believing that his being a Party Berjaya candidate would not affect his judgement.
6. It was only later that the defendants learnt about the detentions of his father and brother by the Tun Mustafa Government and that Ian Chin believed Syed Kechik was instrumental in getting his father and brother arrested.
7. John R Cherryman Q.C., lawyer for Dato Syed Kechik (DSK) in a written opinion after Chin J's ruling of September 2, 2004, said inter alia "Looking at these matters in retrospect there emerges a pattern redolent of bias".
8. Cherryman went on to say; "Knowing what we do now, the inference was that the Judge (Chin J) was throughout determined to have revenge against DSK (and corporate Defendants) for his (Dato Syed Kechik's) alleged part in the detention of his family members.
9. When Party Berjaya won the State elections in April 1976, the Berjaya Government cancelled Syarikat Banita's (belonging to Syed Kechik) timber license and on 1st October 1976 published Gazette Notification No 671 on compulsory acquisition of the whole of Zara Project Land of 2,452.74 acres also belonging to Syed Kechik.
10. On 7th September 1977 Banita filed a civil suit against the State Government and on 28th September 1977 Zara filed for the adjudication of compensation claim in respect of compulsory acquisition of its land for "public purpose".
11. The Sabah Government through the Sabah Foundation, Suiswan Sdn Bhd and Seranum Sdn Bhd filed counter claims against DSK, Zara Sdn Bhd and Banita Sdn Bhd.
12. For about 20 years the Plaintiffs and their Solicitors went to "sleep". No court action was taken.
13. Then on October 29th 1996 Justice Tee Ah Siang heard the case involving Originating Summons No 69 of 1977. The judge ordered the payment of RM40,920,011.00 in capital compensation by the State Government to Zara Sdn Bhd with 6 % per annum interest from 20th December 1976 to date of settlement.
14. Then on 6th January 1997, Chin J granted ex-parte Mareva Injunction Orders against the Defendants in suit 351 and 352 in response to the Plaintiffs (Sabah Government) application.
15. The very next day Chin J instructed Registrar to set hearing of Suit 351 on 9th January 1997, i.e. three days after he granted injunction against the Defendants.
16. On 9th April 1997 he delivered judgement on Strike Out Actions, refusing to grant order in favour of Defendants (Zara Sdn Bhd).
17. On 5th February 1999 a joint hearing of Suits 351 and 352 was held before Chin J at the Kota Kinabalu High Court. On 6th September 1999 Chin J delivered his judgement in which he stated on pgs 122-125: "Yes, DSK was from West Malaysia sent to Sabah supposedly to help Sabah politically. Unfortunately, he introduced to Sabah, especially to the then politicians of Sabah, a way to get rich, very rich at that, quickly by way which I have already concluded are wrong in law."
18. Chin J also said in his judgement that "DSK wielded too much power for anyone to believe that any bureaucrat would oppose him". He concluded with dismissing with cost the application of the 2nd Defendant to strike out the injunction.
19. It became obvious that Chin J was biased against DSK. Yet he did not reveal his father's and brother's arrest during the time of Tun Mustafa's Government and his belief that Syed Kechik who was adviser to Tun Mustafa was responsible for this arrest when hearing the case concerned.
20. Following this a police report was made by Pengarah, Zara Sdn Bhd on June 16, 2005 on "Salahlaku Hakim Datuk Ian Chin Hon Chong". (refer to salinan report and 1st page of police report)
21. The report went from Police to Chief Justice Malaysia to Ministers, to the Anti Corruption Agency, to Suhakam (Human Rights Commission) and even to the Prime Minister. No action was taken by any of them.
22. In the meanwhile the cases (DSK, Zara and Banita) went to the Federal Court and a judgement was made on March 25, 2008 and this is what the Federal Court has to say of Chin J's High Court judgement in the Zara and Banita suits.
23. "Without evidence or justification, the learned Judge wrongly held that DSK made these decisions. We find that the learned Judge's findings were based on unjustified inferences, speculation, his own preconceived impressions and prejudice..." and;
"We find the learned Judge's attack on the credbility of SSA (Syed Salem Al-Bukhary , the younger brother of DSK - who represented his incapacitated brother) as unwarranted and does not stand up to examination having regard to the extremely prejudiced view he held about SSA's conduct as apparent in his judgment."
24. This Federal Court judgement is likely to come in support of the alleged "Salahlaku" by Chin J in the Police Report by Zara Sdn Bhd.
25. Action is now more likely to be taken against Chin J for breach of the ethical code of judges when he did not reveal his personal interest in the case he was hearing and not recuse himself.
26. His "explosive judicial disclosures" of June 7, 2008 came shortly after the Federal Courts judgment on Mar 25th 2008 and appears to be a desperate attempt ro deflect the legitimate complain against him by the Defendants of Civil Suits Nos 351 and 352 of 1979 which the Federal Courts' decision seem to support.
27. The reference to the threats by the former Prime Minister and his being sent to a Boot Camp had nothing to do with the case he was about to hear or his previous hearing of a case in which he had personal interest. Refer to statement by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, former Attorney-General and current chairman of Suhakam.
28. It looks as if he was trying to curry favour with the Government by demonising the previous Prime Minister whom everyone knows is the bete noir of the present Government.
29. And he was quite right because Government Ministers and the Prime Minister rushed to accept his story as absolutely true. But other judges had refused to endorse his statement about threats by the Prime Minister casting doubt on its veracity. He now "slams a fellow judge in court" but he has not been able to condemn the other judges who also disagreed with him. The Boot Camp was of course not a Boot Camp at all. It was Kursus Tata Negara which had been attended by thousands of civil servants, business executives and politicians, without any complaints.
30. It will be interesting to see whether the Government would set up a tribunal to examine the charges against Ian Chin J.
31. I suspect that it will not. And so this judge who obviously breached The Judges Code of Ethics by "being a judge in his own cause" will simply get away with his unethical behaviour while presiding over a case.
32. The public should question how a person such as Ian Chin J should have been recommended to become a judge. I cannot remember recommending him. He is a disgrace to the judiciary and to the legal profession.
33. Now Chin has changed his accusation of "veiled threat" to "the former premier did not say he would remove judges through a tribunal in those exact words but conveyed the threat by "dropping words to that effect here and there". I wonder what the words are. He will now be thinking and cooking up more stories.
34. This reflects the character of the man who presides over our courts and dispenses "justice". He makes use of his position as a judge and the courts to take revenge for alleged actions against members of his family.
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at June 27, 2008 3:34 PM
(This statement was issued yesterday, June 26, 2008 in response to Judge Ian Chin's allegations towards Dr Mahathir)
1. On June 10, The Borneo Post reported Judge Ian Chin's "explosive judicial disclosure", about how judges were threatened and sent to Boot Camps by the former Prime Minister.
2. He made these revelations prior to hearing a case, apparently to avoid being accused of bias.
3. What he did not reveal is that there is a police report against him for breaches of Judge's Code of Ethics in hearing a case in which he has a personal interest. He presided on a case involving Dato Syed Kechik without revealing that he believed Syed Kechik was responsible for detaining his father and brother 20 years before.
4. Chin joined Party Berjaya and lost twice. One of the objectives listed in Party Berjaya's manifesto was to expel Syed Kechik from Sabah. (Syed Kechik akan dikeluarkan dari Sabah). As a party member he must know Berjaya's hatred for Syed Kechik. This alone should have resulted in him excusing himself from hearing the case.
5. However, both the Claimants and Defendants in the hearing in 1999 did not seek to change the judge, believing that his being a Party Berjaya candidate would not affect his judgement.
6. It was only later that the defendants learnt about the detentions of his father and brother by the Tun Mustafa Government and that Ian Chin believed Syed Kechik was instrumental in getting his father and brother arrested.
7. John R Cherryman Q.C., lawyer for Dato Syed Kechik (DSK) in a written opinion after Chin J's ruling of September 2, 2004, said inter alia "Looking at these matters in retrospect there emerges a pattern redolent of bias".
8. Cherryman went on to say; "Knowing what we do now, the inference was that the Judge (Chin J) was throughout determined to have revenge against DSK (and corporate Defendants) for his (Dato Syed Kechik's) alleged part in the detention of his family members.
9. When Party Berjaya won the State elections in April 1976, the Berjaya Government cancelled Syarikat Banita's (belonging to Syed Kechik) timber license and on 1st October 1976 published Gazette Notification No 671 on compulsory acquisition of the whole of Zara Project Land of 2,452.74 acres also belonging to Syed Kechik.
10. On 7th September 1977 Banita filed a civil suit against the State Government and on 28th September 1977 Zara filed for the adjudication of compensation claim in respect of compulsory acquisition of its land for "public purpose".
11. The Sabah Government through the Sabah Foundation, Suiswan Sdn Bhd and Seranum Sdn Bhd filed counter claims against DSK, Zara Sdn Bhd and Banita Sdn Bhd.
12. For about 20 years the Plaintiffs and their Solicitors went to "sleep". No court action was taken.
13. Then on October 29th 1996 Justice Tee Ah Siang heard the case involving Originating Summons No 69 of 1977. The judge ordered the payment of RM40,920,011.00 in capital compensation by the State Government to Zara Sdn Bhd with 6 % per annum interest from 20th December 1976 to date of settlement.
14. Then on 6th January 1997, Chin J granted ex-parte Mareva Injunction Orders against the Defendants in suit 351 and 352 in response to the Plaintiffs (Sabah Government) application.
15. The very next day Chin J instructed Registrar to set hearing of Suit 351 on 9th January 1997, i.e. three days after he granted injunction against the Defendants.
16. On 9th April 1997 he delivered judgement on Strike Out Actions, refusing to grant order in favour of Defendants (Zara Sdn Bhd).
17. On 5th February 1999 a joint hearing of Suits 351 and 352 was held before Chin J at the Kota Kinabalu High Court. On 6th September 1999 Chin J delivered his judgement in which he stated on pgs 122-125: "Yes, DSK was from West Malaysia sent to Sabah supposedly to help Sabah politically. Unfortunately, he introduced to Sabah, especially to the then politicians of Sabah, a way to get rich, very rich at that, quickly by way which I have already concluded are wrong in law."
18. Chin J also said in his judgement that "DSK wielded too much power for anyone to believe that any bureaucrat would oppose him". He concluded with dismissing with cost the application of the 2nd Defendant to strike out the injunction.
19. It became obvious that Chin J was biased against DSK. Yet he did not reveal his father's and brother's arrest during the time of Tun Mustafa's Government and his belief that Syed Kechik who was adviser to Tun Mustafa was responsible for this arrest when hearing the case concerned.
20. Following this a police report was made by Pengarah, Zara Sdn Bhd on June 16, 2005 on "Salahlaku Hakim Datuk Ian Chin Hon Chong". (refer to salinan report and 1st page of police report)
21. The report went from Police to Chief Justice Malaysia to Ministers, to the Anti Corruption Agency, to Suhakam (Human Rights Commission) and even to the Prime Minister. No action was taken by any of them.
22. In the meanwhile the cases (DSK, Zara and Banita) went to the Federal Court and a judgement was made on March 25, 2008 and this is what the Federal Court has to say of Chin J's High Court judgement in the Zara and Banita suits.
23. "Without evidence or justification, the learned Judge wrongly held that DSK made these decisions. We find that the learned Judge's findings were based on unjustified inferences, speculation, his own preconceived impressions and prejudice..." and;
"We find the learned Judge's attack on the credbility of SSA (Syed Salem Al-Bukhary , the younger brother of DSK - who represented his incapacitated brother) as unwarranted and does not stand up to examination having regard to the extremely prejudiced view he held about SSA's conduct as apparent in his judgment."
24. This Federal Court judgement is likely to come in support of the alleged "Salahlaku" by Chin J in the Police Report by Zara Sdn Bhd.
25. Action is now more likely to be taken against Chin J for breach of the ethical code of judges when he did not reveal his personal interest in the case he was hearing and not recuse himself.
26. His "explosive judicial disclosures" of June 7, 2008 came shortly after the Federal Courts judgment on Mar 25th 2008 and appears to be a desperate attempt ro deflect the legitimate complain against him by the Defendants of Civil Suits Nos 351 and 352 of 1979 which the Federal Courts' decision seem to support.
27. The reference to the threats by the former Prime Minister and his being sent to a Boot Camp had nothing to do with the case he was about to hear or his previous hearing of a case in which he had personal interest. Refer to statement by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, former Attorney-General and current chairman of Suhakam.
28. It looks as if he was trying to curry favour with the Government by demonising the previous Prime Minister whom everyone knows is the bete noir of the present Government.
29. And he was quite right because Government Ministers and the Prime Minister rushed to accept his story as absolutely true. But other judges had refused to endorse his statement about threats by the Prime Minister casting doubt on its veracity. He now "slams a fellow judge in court" but he has not been able to condemn the other judges who also disagreed with him. The Boot Camp was of course not a Boot Camp at all. It was Kursus Tata Negara which had been attended by thousands of civil servants, business executives and politicians, without any complaints.
30. It will be interesting to see whether the Government would set up a tribunal to examine the charges against Ian Chin J.
31. I suspect that it will not. And so this judge who obviously breached The Judges Code of Ethics by "being a judge in his own cause" will simply get away with his unethical behaviour while presiding over a case.
32. The public should question how a person such as Ian Chin J should have been recommended to become a judge. I cannot remember recommending him. He is a disgrace to the judiciary and to the legal profession.
33. Now Chin has changed his accusation of "veiled threat" to "the former premier did not say he would remove judges through a tribunal in those exact words but conveyed the threat by "dropping words to that effect here and there". I wonder what the words are. He will now be thinking and cooking up more stories.
34. This reflects the character of the man who presides over our courts and dispenses "justice". He makes use of his position as a judge and the courts to take revenge for alleged actions against members of his family.
Dr. Mahathir and Judge Ian Chin
YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir,
I refer to your press statement dated June 26, 2008 in response to Judge Ian Chin's allegations towards Dr Mahathir.
'19. It became obvious that Chin J was biased against DSK. Yet he did not reveal his father's and brother's arrest during the time of Tun Mustafa's Government and his belief that Syed Kechik who was adviser to Tun Mustafa was responsible for this arrest when hearing the case concerned.'
Thank you for telling us in the above sentence that Tun Mustafa's Government (a Barisan Nasional Government during early 1970s) allowed a businessman from Peninsular Malaysia, Dato Syed Kechik, to be responsible for the arrest of the father and the brother of Judge Ian Chin. Your confirmation that a businessman was allowed to intervene in the government's decision on a police arrest had really enlightened us. This clearly showed that cronyism in Barisan Nasional Government could be dated back to the days before Tun had become a cabinet member. Therefore Tun should not be blamed for starting cronyism in Malaysia since Tun just followed the tradition of Barisan Nasional that had been passed down from Tun's predecessor in the Government Administration of Malaysia.
If Tun still have time to write addtional blogs, I would appreciate it if Tun could kindly write something on the pros and cons of cronyism so that the younger generations could also be further enlightened and taught to adopt an acceptable cronyism for a better effective government administration.
'34. This reflects the character of the man who presides over our courts and dispenses "justice". He makes use of his position as a judge and the courts to take revenge for alleged actions against members of his family.'
The above sentence indicates that Tun has made a serious accusation on Judge Ian Chin. I wish to advise Tun that by accusing Judge Ian Chin for making 'use of his position as a judge and the courts to take revenge for alleged actions against members of his family,' Tun can actually call for yourself a small trouble if you are being sued in the court for libel or slander.
'19. It became obvious that Chin J was biased against DSK. Yet he did not reveal his father's and brother's arrest during the time of Tun Mustafa's Government and his belief that Syed Kechik who was adviser to Tun Mustafa was responsible for this arrest when hearing the case concerned.'
The above sentence showed that Tun had made use of personal judgement to conclude that Judge Chin 'was biased against Dato Syed Kechik.' As a matter of fact, many people would not simply believe in one side story that Dato Syed Kechik could have so much influence on Tun Mustafa that could further lead to Tun Mustafa's appointing Dato Syed Kechik to hold responsibility for the arrest of Judge Chin's father and brother. Likewise, many people would also not simply believe in one side story that Tun's decision in making the candidate choice of Chief Justice had strongly been influenced by the business tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, who also happened to be the good friend of Tun.
Most Malaysians understood that Tun Mustafa could be made an analogy to Tun Dr. Mahathir: both were political strong men who were capable to impose their strong will on many others within their circle of life. No matter how politically strong Tun was in the past, those days of big political power had already become history in the sweet memoir and those glorious days would never come back to Tun again. If Tun still prefers to live in the past, then I would rather advise Tun that it would be much wiser not to use your vilest tongue to pass poisonous remark on others, lest Tun might become a tough question for Allah someday in the future on whether a decision should be made to send Tun for punishment with tongue cut-off in the purgatory in the last bereavement of Tun.
I refer to your press statement dated June 26, 2008 in response to Judge Ian Chin's allegations towards Dr Mahathir.
'19. It became obvious that Chin J was biased against DSK. Yet he did not reveal his father's and brother's arrest during the time of Tun Mustafa's Government and his belief that Syed Kechik who was adviser to Tun Mustafa was responsible for this arrest when hearing the case concerned.'
Thank you for telling us in the above sentence that Tun Mustafa's Government (a Barisan Nasional Government during early 1970s) allowed a businessman from Peninsular Malaysia, Dato Syed Kechik, to be responsible for the arrest of the father and the brother of Judge Ian Chin. Your confirmation that a businessman was allowed to intervene in the government's decision on a police arrest had really enlightened us. This clearly showed that cronyism in Barisan Nasional Government could be dated back to the days before Tun had become a cabinet member. Therefore Tun should not be blamed for starting cronyism in Malaysia since Tun just followed the tradition of Barisan Nasional that had been passed down from Tun's predecessor in the Government Administration of Malaysia.
If Tun still have time to write addtional blogs, I would appreciate it if Tun could kindly write something on the pros and cons of cronyism so that the younger generations could also be further enlightened and taught to adopt an acceptable cronyism for a better effective government administration.
'34. This reflects the character of the man who presides over our courts and dispenses "justice". He makes use of his position as a judge and the courts to take revenge for alleged actions against members of his family.'
The above sentence indicates that Tun has made a serious accusation on Judge Ian Chin. I wish to advise Tun that by accusing Judge Ian Chin for making 'use of his position as a judge and the courts to take revenge for alleged actions against members of his family,' Tun can actually call for yourself a small trouble if you are being sued in the court for libel or slander.
'19. It became obvious that Chin J was biased against DSK. Yet he did not reveal his father's and brother's arrest during the time of Tun Mustafa's Government and his belief that Syed Kechik who was adviser to Tun Mustafa was responsible for this arrest when hearing the case concerned.'
The above sentence showed that Tun had made use of personal judgement to conclude that Judge Chin 'was biased against Dato Syed Kechik.' As a matter of fact, many people would not simply believe in one side story that Dato Syed Kechik could have so much influence on Tun Mustafa that could further lead to Tun Mustafa's appointing Dato Syed Kechik to hold responsibility for the arrest of Judge Chin's father and brother. Likewise, many people would also not simply believe in one side story that Tun's decision in making the candidate choice of Chief Justice had strongly been influenced by the business tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, who also happened to be the good friend of Tun.
Most Malaysians understood that Tun Mustafa could be made an analogy to Tun Dr. Mahathir: both were political strong men who were capable to impose their strong will on many others within their circle of life. No matter how politically strong Tun was in the past, those days of big political power had already become history in the sweet memoir and those glorious days would never come back to Tun again. If Tun still prefers to live in the past, then I would rather advise Tun that it would be much wiser not to use your vilest tongue to pass poisonous remark on others, lest Tun might become a tough question for Allah someday in the future on whether a decision should be made to send Tun for punishment with tongue cut-off in the purgatory in the last bereavement of Tun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)