Comment on Tun Mahathir’s response to revelations by Justice Ian Chin

Tun Mahathir has responded to Justice Ian Chin’s revelations made during the course of legal proceedings. This is my comment on his response. Instead of paraphrasing parts of his response and then commenting on them, it is simpler, and makes easier reading, for me to reproduce his entire response, and post my comment after the relevant passages, in italics.

Tun Mahathir’s posting on his website:

1. I have not commented earlier on Justice Dato Ian Chin's (Chin J) exposé about my misdeeds because I needed time to recall events which happened more than a decade ago and to find documents which may give credibility to my explanations.

My comment: I wish he had taken more time to recall events and find documents before he testified at the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Lingam tape. Perhaps then he might not have answered: “I cannot remember” to so many questions. Or perhaps he did take a lot of time trying to recall events and to find documents, but came up empty handed? In any case, he produced no document that “might give credibility to his explanations” before the Commission.

2. I am grateful that some judges and ex-judges have refuted what Chin J said about my threatening judges. The Singapore Straits Times (not my favourite paper) seems more willing than Malaysian papers to report how Chin J's colleagues were stunned by his statements.

My comment: (a) If I am not mistaken, the few judges who have so far spoken, one anonymously, said that they did not recall what Chin J says had taken place. That is not entirely the same as saying that what is alleged definitely did not take place. Experience teaches us that no one person’s recollection of an event long ago can be perfect or complete, and that different persons present at the same event seldom have identical recollection of all parts of that event.

(b) The fact that there is more than one version of recollection of what had transpired is precisely a good reason why a thorough Enquiry is needed, when it involves a matter of immense public interest. It will help put the record straight.

(c) Mahathir also implies that foreign newspapers appear to be fairer or more balanced in their reporting than Malaysian papers. This I absolutely agree. I too get the impression that the former PM is now fair game in the mainstream media, when once the opposite was true; and that reports adverse to many current leaders do not get the same open treatment as those that are unfavourable to Mahathir. I agree that this is not fair at all. The media must be made free and fair. Free, however, must come first; for fair will then be compelled to follow. I share Mahathir’s criticism of our current mainstream media, and I hope that Malaysians will push for reform in that aspect.

3. One Court of Appeal judge told the Straits Times, “I asked my brother judge who was on the bench with me this morning whether he remembered the incident, and he asked me the same”. Neither of them did. Nor did retired senior judges Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, Tan Sri Lamin Yunus and Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail, who were quoted in the New Straits Times.

4. About the “thinly veiled threat” to remove judges, the Straits Times reported “Several judges have since disputed his version of the event”.

My comment: This is precisely why we need a full Enquiry. What is a “veiled threat” can sometimes be a matter of degree, as well as a matter of interpretation. For instance, I am of the view that what Mahathir says in his paragraph 20 below is a thinly veiled threat. I find it a most unbecoming statement, when made against a sitting judge concerning something that took place in a court proceeding. In my view that statement will only persuade readers to believe the allegations made against Mahathir. Even if he did not issue a veiled threat those years ago (which is something that awaits enquiry and determination), he has just done so!

5. Those contacted by the Straits Times “did not remember him (the ex-PM) issuing a threat to sack judges who did not take his view”.

6. A serving judge who was present at the conference said: “There was nothing like that at all. It would have been so shocking that I would have remembered it”.

My comment: It is very much related to the issue of credibility. Chin J has come out in the open. So has Mahathir. So should this anonymous judge.

7. It seems that except for Chin J, no one else heard the threat. I attended only one judges conference and I remember I talked on two subjects:

1) The mandatory death sentence on drug traffickers

2) Litigation

I explained the need to deter drug trafficking through the most severe punishment. There were more than 200,000 addicts in Malaysia. They were practically the living dead and indeed many died prematurely. They were involved in drug related crimes, including murder, rape and even matricide. Malaysia needed to reduce drug addiction but judges were reluctant to pronounce the death penalty. That was why it was made mandatory.

8. On litigation, I talked about the situation in America where huge sums were awarded by judges, including for alleged malpraxis and negligence on the part of doctors.

9. As a result doctors would order costly laboratory and other tests to avoid accusation by claimant’s lawyers that they neglected to give the best service to the patients. To cover all these tests, medical charges are very high in America and the poor cannot pay.

10. Insurance premiums for doctors are also very high and the patients may be bankrupted by high medical fees. I did not want this to happen in Malaysia.

11. At no time did I issue any threat against the judges.

12. As for the boot camp, our military forces may have it. But what we did have were courses on “Tata Negara” or “National Creed” at work camps.

13. At such courses the speakers try to explain Malaysia’s political system with particular reference to the BN concept, ethics and moral values and democracy in Malaysia.

14. Participants included civil servants, corporate leaders, politicians and university staff. I suppose judges also attended.

15. For three to five days the participants stayed at the camps and followed certain programs. This included getting up very early in the morning (for prayers for Muslims), physical exercises and many hours of lectures. One of the chores was to wash your own dirty plates after a simple meal. When I gave talks at these work camps I too wash my dirty dishes. It was part of leadership by example.

16. Thousands of people from all walks of life attended these work camps. There were hardly any complaints.

My comment: Judges should not be asked, let alone compelled, to attend any camp for the preaching of the “National Creed” by the Government or Executive, whatever “National Creed” may exactly mean. A nation is not the same as the Government of the day. A nation’s aspiration does not change with every change of the ruling party. Confusing the interest of the nation with the interest of the ruling party is shocking and harmful. Turning that confusion into a structured programme is unacceptable in a democracy. In my opinion, even civil servants should not be subject to such indoctrination (especially when it is slanted “with particular reference to the BN concept”), let alone judges!

17. I was told by a judge who was in the same batch as Chin J that he absconded before the course was over. Perhaps he did not like getting up early and washing his own dirty plates.

My comment: Another paragraph that I wish Tun had not written. Personal attacks and cheap shots devalue one’s arguments.

18. The course clearly did not have a positive effect on him.

19. I am disgusted with Dato Zaid Ibrahim, Dato Ambiga Sreenivasan and Karpal Singh who immediately assumed that Chin J was telling the truth. Zaid even went so far as to say this is normal, as if I threatened judges all the time.

My comment: I remember reading a remark attributed to Dato Zaid Ibrahim that could be interpreted as he believing the truth of Chin J’s allegations (but Zaid could argue that, like any other person, he had the right to form his opinion). Apart from that, however, I have not read anything that suggests that the other 2 persons have jumped to a conclusion. From what I can gather, they are calling for a full Enquiry. I invite Tun to join in the call.

20. I will be writing a little more on Ian Chin J so that the public will become more acquainted with him. Suffice for me to say for the present that Chin J has a police report against him for hiding his past when hearing a certain case.

My comment: This is the most damaging statement to have been made by Mahathir, damaging, that is, to himself. In my opinion it destroys the credibility of his other contentions. Unless my reading of English is faulty or peculiar, the message that a reader gets from this statement is that Mahathir has more adverse things to say about Chin J, which he has known for some time, and he may want to go public with it soon. This is a thinly veiled threat, in response to what a sitting judge has done in the course of his work! This makes it that much more difficult to believe Mahathir’s denial that he had ever issued verbal veiled threats to judges.

21. The public can then pass judgement on me. But of course if I have to be charged by Karpal Singh, the ardent supporter of Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, that is fine. The world will then know what kind of Government we have.

Malaysian Bar
23/06/08