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.