The poor and chaotic situations in Sabah are collective ‘efforts’ for both the federal and state governments for more than three decades.

The illegal immigration issue in Sabah is widespread, it’s a shame that the government are not doing much to coup with this… but is it fair for Badawi and Umno to shoulder all the blames? What were the likes of Yong Teck Lee doing all these years (including his Chief Minister terms) to deal with this issue?

Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang, Nik Aziz, and all the Kadazan-Dusun chieftains… what have they done for the past decade or two for the Sabahans? Nik Aziz never care, LKS only knows how to complain, and Anwar only started to care because he can become a PM. All these people (including some Sabahan leaders) are just as idiotic as everyone else when it comes to issues in Sabah, none of them are any better than Badawi when it comes to social welfare for Sabahans.

If the federal government is not doing well enough to help the state, by all means kick their ass… the only question is, why wait until now? The ass should have been kicked long time ago. So, if the BN government had won big again this term, SAPP and YTL would still remain silent and enjoy their honeymoon isn’t it?

Don’t just blame it on the federal leaders my fellow Malaysians, have a look at your local politicians as well. And if you think Badawi is idiot, think what Mahathir, Anwar and the local leaders had done for you.

Would you choose to save billions of dollars from the subsidy to improve infrastructures (schools, hospitals, public transports etc.) or to continously using it to make Malaysians happy?

Ask me anytime, and I will tell you that we should abolish the subsidy system completely… probably not in one shot, but definitely in near future. The money could be better spent elsewhere than to pamper Malaysians with cheap petrol.

The problem with our government is always on how they would spend those extra moneys… the wastage and corruption have given them some bad reputation in recent years; and it’s understandable that lots of Malaysians no longer have faith with them.

But let’s say Anwar has took over the government, and let’s assume he is an absolutely clean and capable politician… do you think he should abolish the subsidy and use the money to build something else, or to reduce the petrol price instead?

So, same question to Anwar too, who constantly promised to reduce the petrol price. Does he believe that it’s the right thing to do to reduce the petrol price, or is it just a gimmick to gain popularity so that he can become the Prime Minister? Would he not prefer to use those money to build the future instead?

Politicians are never clean… an absolute honest man can never be a politician.

Not sure if any common citizens would want to read through the 191 pages though; a few of the key highlights have been published in major newspapers anyway…

1. The video clip was authentic;

2. Lingam was having a phone conversation with former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim;

3. Lingam was actively involved in the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as President of the Court of Appeal, with the possible aim of his further appointment as Chief Justice;

4. Lingam had asked his close friends tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya and subsequently, President of the Court of Appeal;

5. The phone conversation indicated Lingam’s ‘uncanny knowledge’ of what could be considered as matters protected under the Official Secrets Act; and that,

6. Tengku Adnan appeared to be Lingam’s ‘source’ in the Prime Minister’s Department. [Thestar]

Meanwhile, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has ordered a thorough follow-up on all the findings made by the Royal Commission of Inquiry as well as the 14-minute recording… which they probably should have done at the first place.

The reformation plans are mostly focusing on improving the effectiveness and transparency of ACA, but there are a few big questions that remain unanswered. The biggest question is probably on how authoritative the ACA could be after the overhaul.

It’s reported that the final say on prosecution still lies on the Attorney General. Now, what would happen if the AG has ordered to stop an investigation prematurely?

The current AG Abdul Gani Patail has done it before, and who are going to stop AG from doing it again? And what freedom is ACA actually having if this situation is allowed to happen in future?

The reformation has to go hand in hand with other authorities, and there are lots of complications that need to be cleared to ensure a really independent ACA that could operate without any interference. Getting the right people to lead the ACA is another debatable issue too.

It’s a long way to go obviously, but it’s better than doing nothing. We’ll see how things are improve as time goes by.

Besides, reforming ACA is one thing… I think we need to overhaul our law and constitution regarding corruption as well. I believe there are many loopholes in our current system that could be exploited without breaking the law. ACA would be helpless in these situations regardless of how independent they are.

I was just about to write some stories about Zakaria (before knowing the news) about his influence in causing the BN downfall in the election… guess I will have to cut it short now.

Most of you would have known about the infamous Istana he built in 2006, and all those dubious property deals that he was involved… some quarters actually dubbed him the King of Klang for his arrogance, and for the fact that nobody could touch him even though he had been misusing his power as (ex) Klang municipal councillor for personal gain.

Although Zakaria didn’t participate much in the election, his infamous saga has played a landmark role in influencing the public thoughts, which showed that the top BN leadership was doing nothing much (or incapable) to stop corruption, and that the culprits could easily get away with some easy punishment.

People have begun to realise that Badawi and his BN co. are not going to fulfill their promise made in 2004 of making corruption-fighting their prime priority. Along with a few other cases like Rafidah’s AP issue, the people’s confidence was shaken, which in the end played a crucial role in the 12th General Election.

I don’t want to be too critical to a dead man though; the fact that thousands of people have paid their last respects to Zakaria since early morning shows that this man must had done something good in his life… rest in peace.

From Bernama…

The judgement in a civil suit awarding RM10 million in damages to corporate figure Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun was written by lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam, the Royal Commission of Inquiry was told today.

Lingam’s former secretary, L. G. Jayanthi said it was subsequently incorporated as the official judgment of the then High Court judge, Datuk Mokhtar Sidin who heard the case.

She made this revelation in her statutory declaration which was produced at the inquiry, affirming that the contents of her statutory declaration were true.

Jayanthi, 45, said that between November and early December 1994, she and two other colleagues, Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman who also worked as secretaries for Lingam, were ‘detained’ by their boss to type a confidential document.

She later discovered that the purpose of their ‘detention’ was to prepare and type a judgement in relation to a civil suit brought by Tan against seven defendants, namely Haji Hassan Hamzah, Saw Eng Lim, the late M.G.G Pillai, V. Thavanesan, Dr Barjoyai Bardai, Media Printext (M) Sdn Bhd and Ling Wah Press Sdn Bhd.

“Lingam was dictating from some handwritten notes, the draft judgment in that case, for Sumanti to type.

“I was seated somewhere in the vicinity of the office and every now and then, Lingam would order me to get various reported judgements from the library to be incorporated in the judgment,” said Jayanthi, adding that the lawyer completed dictating the full judgement about 3am, before the judgement was printed out for Lingam to read.

“Lingam then corrected in red ink on certain pages of the draft judgement such as pages 3,7,9,19,24,28,32,35,39,40,42. Sumanti then did the corrections accordingly, and made a copy of the said draft judgment in a floppy disk which was to be given to Justice Datuk Mokhtar Sidin by Lingam,” she said.

Jayanthi said she later discovered that the judgment as was written by Lingam, was fully incorporated as the official judgment of the said judge.

“I must stress here, that when Lingam was dictating the judgment that night, he was aided by his brother, Datuk V.Sivaparanjothi and Adam Bachek and W. Satchithanandan.

“I have kept Lingam’s handwritten corrections of the draft judgement in my possession until handing it over, together with the corresponding formal judgement, to lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah on the same date which I handed over the other exhibits,” she added.

Questioned by conducting officer Datuk Nordin Hassan on why she kept all documents and photographs of the holiday trip of Lingam and former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin, Jayanthi said before she resigned from the firm, Satchithanandan advised her to keep all the document because according to Satchithanandan, Lingam was a dangerous and vengeful person.

Jayanthi also revealed that she had booked the flight tickets for both Lingam and former chief justice Eusoff Chin for their infamous New Zealand holiday in late 1994, which Lingam and Eusoff Chin have claimed that they met coincidentally.

Kenneth was found guilty in 2003 for murdering Linda Lee in August 2000. He was later sentenced to death in 2005 after an appeal by the prosecution. [Thestar]

I don’t know how many death row prisoners are granted clemency each year; I don’t know how the lucky people are chosen; and I am not sure if Kenneth Lee deserved the mercy.

I am just curious… if Kenneth Lee is not the grandson of HS Lee, would he be granted clemency? Or perhaps… if he is not from a rich family (money can do A LOT of things), would he be granted clemency?

It seems like something fishy is happening, but heck… I am not ready to go against the WISDOM of our Yang di-Pertuan Agong yet; I better stop pointing fingers now.

I felt sorry for Linda’s family though; they don’t deserve this.

FYI, Monsoon Cup is the last stage for this season’s World Match Racing Tour, a Grade 1 event recognized by the International Sailing Federation (ISAF). Although sailing is not popular in Malaysia, the event is not as insignificant as some politicians claimed.

I can remember the criticism about organising F1 in Malaysia prior to the first race in Sepang, but organising the F1 race is probably one of the best decisions Malaysia has made in the 90s. The return is not just the financial gain during the race, but involves global branding which could help attracting foreign visitors (and probably investors) constantly.

The popularity of sailing is probably far behind motor racing, but it does attract a special niche of people, and the impact of the Monsoon Cup should not be taken lightly. Thousands of foreigners will be flocking to Terengganu, and the event will be covered by foreign press and shown in popular sport channels like Sky Sports, Eurosport and ESPN etc. It does put Malaysia on the global map for good reasons.

Is it worth spending RM300 million for Monsoon Cup?

The arguments however, are on the cost of organising the event, and how the money was spent. It’s said that the event would cost RM250-300 million, funded by Wang Ehsan i.e. the royalty from oil and gas for the state of Terengganu. [Read more from MP Kit and MP Ronnie]

RM300 million might be worthwhile investment for Monsoon Cup if the fund is spent at the right places, but the biggest problem with government funding issues is the lack of transparency… Malaysians are constantly kept in the dark on how the money was spent, thus speculation about possible corruption is inevitable.

- Does the RM300 mil involved the building of public infrastructure, or does most of it went into the pocket of the organizers and some rich and (in)famous?

- How the organiser is profiting from the event? Does the organiser have to face any financial risks running the event or that they are guaranteed to make money from the government funding?

- What’s the backing behind government’s decision to release the fund? Was personal relationship involved (hint: KJ, son-in-law of Badawi)? Was there any proper research to backup the proposal of organising the event?

Many questions will remain unanswered. Yes to Monsoon Cup… but nay to government’s fund management.

Ramli, 55, the country’s third highest ranking police officer hauled up to court by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), claimed trial to all the three charges.

In the first charge, he is alleged to have not declared an office lot located at a building in Megan Avenue II at Jalan Yap Kwan Seng here and another office lot on the same floor of the building.

The properties, worth about RM1 million, were held under the name of his two sisters — Rohmah @ Hasmah Yusoff, 58, and younger sister, Roslina Yusoff, who were directors of Bonus Circle Sdn Bhd, an investment holding company.

In the second charge, Ramli is alleged to have not declared the 154,000 shares he had in PERMAJU Industries Berhad, a property company.

For the third charge, Ramli, as a public officer and a police commissioner holding the post of Commercial Crimes Investigation Department director, was bound by the law not to be involved in business as stipulated under Regulation 5(1)(a) of the Public Officers Regulations (Conduct and Discipline) (Amendment) 2002 but was involved in business in his capacity as a director of Kinsajaya Sdn Bhd, a real estate company.

Ramli has claimed that he is being framed.

I hope ACA is doing thorough investigation on these matters, and not simply charging some VIPs because the election is near and the BN government wants to buy some votes for their pathetic anti-corruption effort.

I previously wrote about how ACA was doing amateur investigation and letting people off the hook rather easily… but doing amateur investigation and charging the wrong person is far worse than that.

I am not suggesting if Ramli is guilty or not… I just felt that a person with his experience in fighting commercial crimes should know better in hiding his assets and business involvements IF he does possesses. Having shares and businesses under his name is weird; it’s like inviting for charges.

Ramli has to be really stupid or arrogant to commit these mistakes… or perhaps there are other explanations for that.

“50 Years of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law”

Assalamaualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

Salam Sejahtera.

Bismillahi Rahmanir Rahim.

This year marks the 50th year of our nation’s Independence. It is also the 50th year of our Merdeka Constitution.

Malaysia and its people have every reason to celebrate this joyous occasion as the country prospers as a constitutional democracy with a constitutional monarchy in the form as established by the Merdeka Constitution in 1957.

Not all countries that achieved their freedom at the end of the colonial period are today able to celebrate their independence with pride. Some are under military rule, whilst others have had their institutions undermined or even abolished.

The 50th anniversary of our independence is therefore an appropriate moment for all of us to reflect upon the strength of our constitutional system. As we rejoice in our success, It is important to be alert to the pitfalls of failure if proper regard is not given to our constitutional mechanisms.

We must ever be mindful that written constitutions are mere parchment pieces.

It is important that there must be, in the hearts and minds of those who are entrusted to administer and uphold the constitution, a belief in the values and principles that animate the august document.

I had occasion to observe when sitting in the Federal Court in 1977 that the “constitution is not a mere collection of pious platitudes”. I spoke then of the 3 essential features of our constitution. I said:

“It is the supreme law of the land embodying three basic concepts: One of them is that the individual has certain fundamental rights upon which not even the power of the state may encroach.

The second is the distribution of sovereign power between the states and the federation…

The third is that no single man or body shall exercise complete sovereign power, but that it shall be distributed among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, compendiously expressed in modern terms that we are a government of laws, not of men.”

The prescription that “we are a government of laws, not of men” describes the basic principle that runs through our entire constitution-the principle of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is the defining feature of democratic government. In delivering the eleventh Tunku Abdul Rahman lecture in November 1984, I again defined it as follows:

“The Rule of Law means literally what it says: The Rule of the law. Taken in its broadest sense this means that people should obey the law and be ruled by it.

But in political and legal theory it has come to be read in a narrow sense, that the government shall be ruled by law and be subject to it.

The ideal of the Rule of Law in this sense is often expressed by the phrase “government by law and not by man””

In a speech delivered in Kuala Lumpur in April 2004, Lord Woolf spoke of the ‘Rule of Law’,

“The Rule of Law is the rule by the laws that govern a true democracy.
They are the laws that provide for a proper balance between the protection of human rights and the interests of the State. Laws which an independent and responsible judiciary can enforce to protect all members of society from abuse of power.”

The reference by Lord Woolf to the role of the judiciary is highly significant. I wish to state with all fortitude that without a reputable judiciary-a judiciary endowed and equipped with all the attributes of real independence-there cannot be the Rule of Law.

All countries, including those that are totalitarian regimes, have courts. But as I observed previously:

“The [mere] existence of courts and judges in every ordered society proves nothing; it is their quality, their independence, and their powers that matter.”

In matters concerning the judiciary, it is the public perception of the judiciary that ultimately matters. A judiciary loses its value and service to the community if there is no public confidence in its decision-making.

In this regard the principal quality a judiciary must possess is “impartiality”. Lord Devlin said of “judicial impartiality” that it exists in two senses-the reality of impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. He emphasized that the appearance of impartiality was the more important of the two.

Impartiality also means that judges are not only free from influence of external forces, but also of one another. No judge however senior can dictate to his brethren as to how a decision should be arrived at.

It is of the essence of a judge’s character that he must be a person of unquestionable integrity who brings an unbiased mind to his task. Like Caesar’s wife, he should be above suspicion.

It is said that public confidence in the judiciary is based on four evaluating criteria. They are:

(1) the principle of independence of the judiciary;

(2) the principle of impartiality of adjudication;

(3) the principle of fairness of trial; and

(4) the principle of the integrity of the adjudicator.

How does our judiciary measure today against these criteria?

Sadly I must acknowledge there has been some disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years and in the more recent past. In 2004, I had stated that it grieved me, having been a member of the judiciary, whenever I heard allegations against the judiciary and the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary.

Recently there have been even more disturbing events relating to the judiciary reported in the press. We have also witnessed the unprecedented act of a former Court of Appeal judge writing in his post-retirement book of erroneous and questionable judgements delivered by our higher courts in a chapter under the heading “When Justice is Not Administered According to Law”. There are other serious criticisms.

I am driven nostalgically to look back to a time when our Judiciary was the pride of the region, and our neighbours spoke admiringly of our legal system. We were then second to none and the judgements of our courts were quoted confidently in other common law jurisdictions. As Tun Suffian, a former Lord President of the then Federal Court, said of the local judges who took over from the expatriate judges after Merdeka that the transformation was without “any reduction in standards”.

Admittedly society is more complex today and the task of judges may be more difficult then what it was before, but the values I speak of are universal and eternal.

There is no reason why judges with the assured security of tenure they enjoy under the Constitution should not discharge their duties impartially, confidently and competently.

Judges are called upon to be both independent and competent. In these days, judges must ever be mindful that the loss of independence can come from many sources, and not just from the executive. Therefore, judges must piously resist the lure of socializing with business personages and other well connected people. They may discover at their peril that they have compromised themselves in the cases that come before them with the unedifying spectacle of recusal applications.

Nothing destroys more the confidence the general public, or the business community has in the judiciary than the belief that the judge was biased when he decided a case, or that the judge would not be independent where powerful individuals or corporations are the litigants before him.

Confidence in the judiciary may also be eroded where the business community perceives incompetence in decision-making. A judgement in a banking or commercial transaction that is contrary to the established norms or which is incomprehensible in its reasoning is bound to give rise to suspicion and loss of confidence.

It therefore becomes apparent, that our attempts to establish ourselves as a leading financial and commercial center will fail, if we do not have a competent judiciary to decide on complex commercial disputes. In this regard, it is utmost importance that the foreign investor have faith in the competence and integrity of our judiciary.

The international foreign investor also expects a speedy resolution of their cases before the courts. Delays cause a loss of profits to the business community. In the recent World Bank survey on resolution of commercial disputes, Malaysia ranks poorly, 63 amongst 178 economies. A similar report by the US State Department warns American businessmen to be wary of the slow process of adjudication of cases before the Malaysian courts. This is indeed a poor reflection on our courts.

Countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong, who have a similar legal system and who share similar laws, and whose judges and lawyers are trained as ours, are ranked in these surveys as amongst the best in the world (Hong Kong is placed first and Singapore ranks as fourth in the world).

The reason is obvious: these countries have undertaken major reforms in their court structure and procedures and have introduced more efficient and transparent commercial courts so as to attract the foreign investor.

Maybe it is also time for us to consider such changes in our legal system and introduce a strong central commercial court in Putrajaya as in London, with especially trained judges who are familiar with the new and ever changing commercial laws and their developments, so that we too can become the center for the resolution of commercial disputes in the region.

I should point out that mere cosmetic changes alone would not suffice. If we wish to achieve this goal, it is imperative that major reforms are introduced. Many other countries have taken such steps to establish specialized commercial courts. Recently, the Dubai Commercial Court (where one of our own former Chief Judge has recently been appointed to sit as a judge in this new court), and the Qatar Commercial Court have been established.

I know that judging is an arduous task calling for a good mind and a capacity for hard work. The inevitable consequence of incompetence is delayed judgments and backlog in cases leading to all round dissatisfaction.

Only last week, I read in a latest Malaysian law report that a case of medical negligence involving a death of a lawyer took 23 years to reach the Court of Appeal. Similarly there have been reports that some judges have taken years to write their grounds of judgements involving accused persons who have been convicted and languishing in death row.

Surely, such a situation cannot be tolerated in any progressive nation.

It will also be appropriate for me to say a few words on lawyers.

The administration of justice is not just the role of the judiciary. I had said previously in July 1984 on the occasion of a farewell dinner speech to the Bar Council on leaving office as the Lord President, that there cannot be an independent Judiciary without an independent Bar. I stated further that the judiciary cannot function without legal profession.

This symbiosis calls for a proper understanding of the relationship between the Bench and the Bar. The Bar and its leadership must ensure there is a high standard of integrity and ethics among its members. A Bar that is riddled with bad practices cannot assist the administration of justice.

In this respect the relationship between judges and lawyers must be a roper and correct one. As I have said earlier, judges are supposed to be no respecters of persons who appear before them. This rule applies not only to litigants but also to lawyers. It is not just a matter of prudence and good practice, but fundamentally one of ethics.

As is often said, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. Whilst the majority of the lawyers discharge their duties as officers of the court with professionalism and dedication, there have been cases of some others who have brought disrepute to the legal profession. There have been allegations against some lawyers that in clear dereliction of their responsibilities, they have either misled the courts, or attempted to choose the judges or courts for their cases to be heard so as to obtain a favourable decision in their client’s favour. This is serious interference with the administration of justice and the process of the court.

There is one further important point that I feel compelled to say.

This deals with a judge’s quality in decision-making. We in Malaysia live in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Our founding fathers accommodated this diversity into our Constitution that is reflected in the social contract, and saw this diversity as strength.

Judging in a diverse society is not an easy task. Judges in many parts of the world face similar difficulties. Those of you who were present at the lecture delivered by Justice Albie Sachs at the Second Tun Hussein Onn Lecture last week will know how the Constitutional Court of South Africa, as the guardian of the constitution, wrestle to arrive at a just decision when dealing with the issues relating to diversity or discrimination.

Judges in Malaysia must be ever mindful that they are appointed judges for all Malaysians. They must be sensitive to the feelings of all parties, irrespective of race, religion or creed, and be careful not to bring a predisposed mind to an issue before them that is capable of being misconstrued by the watching public or segments of them.

I am reminded of the proud accolade of the late Tun Suffian in his Braddel Memorial Lecture in 1982, when speaking of the Malaysian judiciary to a Singapore audience he said:

“ In a multi-racial and multi religious society like yours and mine, while we judges cannot help being Malay or Chinese or Indian; or being Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever, we strive not to be too identified with any particular race or religion – so that nobody reading our judgement with our name deleted could with confidence identity our race or religion, and so that the various communities, especially minority communities, are assured that we will not allow their rights to be trampled underfoot.”

I have found it necessary to speak at some length on these matters because it is my earnest hope that the Malaysian judiciary will regain the public’s confidence and it will once again be held in high esteem as it once was held.

In conclusion, I wish to say as I have said on previous occasion ‘in the judiciary, people place their trust and hope’.

It now gives me great pleasure in officially declaring open the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

I wish all of you a fruitful and meaning full discussion and exchange of ideas.

What are we paying for actually? Even though the contract is cancelled, Gerbang Perdana could not possibly lost nearly RM300 million for a project that they barely started… seems like some idiots will be getting really rich for no good reasons.

It is still remained to be seen if ACA could actually nail the culprits; their integrity and capability are dubious these days… but at least they are doing something on the positive direction this time.

I hope that they are trying to catch the big fish instead of just the small shrimps though… investigation should be done at every level of the alleged bodies, including the ministries if needed.

Update Oct 25 – Lim Kit Siang has an interesting thought that the sudden flurry of ACA activities might be an intensified public relation and replay of the high-profile pre-election anti-corruption action 4-years-ago.