The present President seems to be quick-to-gun, shooting blindly and wildly at the wrong targets for the wrong reasons. She stands ridiculed in jumping the gun on the standing of the panel appointed to investigate the Lingam tape saga. As it later became apparent, it was a toothless and evasive “mark-the-time” group that never had credence from day one. Then she goes blah, blah, blah heaping accolades on the appointment of Zaki as a Federal Court judge, who had, on his own admission, lacked the integrity and credibility to head any impartial positions when he was cited for his misadventures in his personal life through the alleged mishandling of his second marriage related matters.

While I would not comment on how the Bar views her views and comments, she had obviously become a liability to the general public, as the govt (opportunism) seems to endorse her views as that reflecting of the public.

In a casual survey among 100 streetwise respondents that I had carried out, only 2 heard of the Bar Council. While I would not go as far as labeling the BC as an exclusive and elite club of junkies, it would seem that it is out of touch with the common man. If it had not been pussy-footing, our judiciary would not have gone to the doldrums as it is today. That the pathetic state of the judiciary is an observed and generally accepted view is no doubt, much blame has to be assigned to the BC.

Championing rights – maybe of a selected few or its own members but when it comes to the common folks, well let them walk on the streets and do their homework to know the reality (perhaps, they know already) instead of their show-off march to the Palace of Justice.

[Nazri warned that “a probe into the clip will come to nothing if the whistleblower does not come forward to verify its authencity.” He added that if the witness failed to appear, “we can conclude that they are lying”.]
==========================================

This is my comment:

As Jonah said in the article, Malaysia’s Great Law Pretenders, http://broadsidemalaysia.wo…, the present judicial scandal parallels the one in 1996. Instead of investigating those implicated in the judiciary, the government at that time were investigating whether the 112 charges in the poison pen letter were true and they wanted to know who was the whistleblower. Syed Ahmad Idid finally admitted that he was the whistleblower. What happened? He was castigated, forced to resign, called a liar, because the police and ACA said there were no truth in his allegations. The judges including CJ Eusoff Chin were cleared of Syed Ahmad’s allegations.

So, what is going to make the present scandal any different?

As Jonah pointed out, the lawyers, in particular the Bar Council, have to be blamed. As one lawyer questioned in her comment on the Malaysian Bar website: “Are lawyers really standing up for Justice?” All the “hoo ha” so far is all for show and for nothing. If the BC is serious in wanting a cleanup of the judiciary, it should immediately convene an EGM and,

1) demand that the CJ and the judges implicated resign immediately;

2) demand that the PM set up a tribunal to impeach the CJ and the judges if they do not resign;

3) get the Disciplinary Board to issue a show cause letter to Lingam giving him seven days to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

4) demand that the next CJ must be a person of impeccable character;

Why has the BC not done this? Why has the DB not done anything yet?

Our local news media and the majority of our bloggers have not highlighted this. The local news media are more interested in supporting the government. The bloggers are more interested in running down the government.

Come on, the BC is at fault. Lawyers have themselves to blame if they remain the silent majority and allow the BC to play its game of hyprocisy. We all know why, don’t we? Every lawyer out there would like to be in Lingam’s or Zaki’s shoes: powerful and filthy rich. Many of them still have mouth gapping at the RM12 million fee that Perwaja Steel paid Lingam for being its legal adviser. The PM with his multi-billion ringgit grandiose investment development projects can dish out rich conveyaning work to lawyers. Every one knows this. So, nobody wants to get on the wrong side of the PM — except a few who openly oppose the government in politics and human rights activities.

Salam,

I posted this comment on the Malaysia-Today site which I think should appear here because it is a comment on your article.

The article presents a fair reporting of what is happening in our country that pleases nobody. The problem with the local news media and bloggers are that the former is pro government and the latter is anti government. There is no one who takes the middle ground. Even Malaysiakini plays the adversary of the government. It is high time that we have bloggers like Jonah of Broadside Malaysia.

Jonah has raised some pertinent questions which the Bar Council, its president and their supporters have not answered:

1) Why did the BC call for a Royal Commission and not condemn the so-called independent panel?

2) Why didn’t the BC and its president question the integrity of the panel members who, history shows, have a questionable reputation?

3) The March or walk or stroll was supposed to present memos to the PM. Why was it held when they know that the PM was away?

4) Why has the BC called for a Judcial Appointments Commission to ensure transparency in appointing judges who are impeccable in character and at the same time welcomed Tan Sri Zaki Azmi’s appointment as Federal Court judge, radically by-passing convention and other more capable senior judges when Zaki’s reputation is questionable on record?

6) Why hasn’t the Bar expressed its reservation to the likelihood that Zaki may be made the Chief Justice?

As far as I understand in the appointment of judges, whether in Britain, USA or India, a person whose character is suspect, no matter how minute, will not be even considered for any judicial post because judges are supposed to be of impeccable character.

Why has the BC and its president compromised with the government?

And the BC and its president have conveniently avoided discussion of the appointment of the next Chief Justice. The president only made a half-hearted statement late yesterday buried underneath a topic on the non-existence whistleblower Act only after Broadside Malaysia highlighted the issue. This shows how little importance the BC and its president accord to the appointment of the Head of the country’s judiciary.

The BC and its president are not beyond reproach. They are not only accountable to the 13,500 members who elected them and who they represent but to the 26 or 27 million Malaysians who look to them for legal recourse and the judiciary for justice.

If any of you here have a conscience, can you say the Malaysian Bar is not at fault? Let’s put aside our prejudice and political inclinations and think for one moment as right-thinking citizens of this country.

Salam

if i were AAB i would go ahead n set up the RC, bcos all these rots happened during his predecessor’s watch – ahmad fairuz was appointed by TDM, “on the advice of vincent tan after consulting vk lingam”, so even if there’ll b a lot of scandals being exposed as a result, AAB wont b affected – TDM would.

so, politically, it doesnt really strike at AAB directly if anything scandalous were to b uncovered by such RC. his recent appointment of 2 senior judges were apparently well-received by many (not least according to u, Jonah), including the rulers. so, as far as his ‘track record’ in senior judicial appointments goes, it’s still acceptable, unlike his antics in all other aspects of his administration.

so, he should take this opportunity to strengthen/rescue his now almost forgotten image of ‘the reformer’. revamping the whole judicial branch of the government might even win back a lot of critics for him, despite all the ‘no action’ on the ‘20 vip corruption files’…

with election coming, setting up a RC would to a very large extent reignite people’s hope in him like what happened when he just took over before the last election.

AAB – r u listening????? (wake up, it’s getting late…)

————————————————————

on ms sreenevasan,

how come our lawyers have elected such a loose cannon as leader?? or maybe she just likes to act like a dictator n dislikes consultation??

A content analysis points to the other person being Ahmad Fairuz, although this may prove to be inconclusive.

I find Jonathan Tan’s talk about the Bar EGM fixed for Oct 6 being postponed to avoid a no-confidence motion against Bar President Ambiga Sreenevasan to be totally mischievous.

For the information of Jonathan:

(1) The Bar EGM was to be called by the Bar Council. Its postponement was tactical since the three-man panel had yet to publish its report and so the Oct 6 date was premature.

(2) The Walk for Justice was held on Sept 26, and not Oct 26, as Jonathan Tan claimed.

(3) The online poll is never binding on the Bar Council. It is just an indication of how Malaysian Bar members feel on an issue.

(4) The Bar Council is not the same body as the Disciplinary Board. The DB exists as a separate body. Membership of the DB has also been questioned because many lawyers seem to be appointed and re-appointed way past their use-by date.

(5) Your contention that the lawyer numbered only 1,000 and the other thousand was made up of Opposition activists is disputed. You know you are in no position to give further and better particulars. I put it to you that there were more tha 2,000 marchers, including activists from the NGOs.

A content analysis points to the other person being Ahmad Fairuz, although this may prove to be inconclusive.

I find Jonathan Tan’s talk about the Bar EGM fixed for Oct 6 being postponed to avoid a no-confidence motion against Bar President Ambiga Sreenevasan to be totally mischievous.

For the information of Jonathan:

(1) The Bar EGM was to be called by the Bar Council. Its postponement was tactical since the three-man panel had yet to publish its report and so the Oct 6 date was premature.

(2) The Walk for Justice was held on Sept 26, and not Oct 26, as Jonathan Tan claimed.

(3) The online poll is never binding on the Bar Council. It is just an indication of how Malaysian Bar members feel on an issue.

(4) The Bar Council is not the same body as the Disciplinary Board. The DB exists as a separate body. Membership of the DB has also been questioned because many lawyers seem to be appointed and re-appointed way past their use-by date.