NOV 9 - Question: Just what was Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz doing in Parliament today?
Answer:
a) Retrying the V K Lingam video clip case before a different forum.
b) Pretending as if the Royal Commission into the V.K. Lingam video clip did not reach any conclusions on the judge-fixer and his band of brothers.
c) Finally ending the charade about the government’s intention to really get to the bottom of judge-fixing scandal.
d) All of the above.
After going through the Minister in the Prime Minister’s answers in the House, you would have to say that the correct answer is “d”.
a) Retrying the V K Lingam video clip case:
Nazri’s excuse in Parliament for why no action was taken against lawyer Lingam for fixing the appointment of judges sounded more like an impassioned plea before a judge.
“I am here to stress that there is nothing to stop the prime minister from receiving suggestions from any party. Should anyone act to advise the prime minister on the appointment of judges, the act itself cannot be taken as an offence, ‘’he said, referring to the infamous clip of Lingam conspiring to fix the appointment of judges.
The only problem with this defence is that it was raised by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and it was dismissed by the panel.
The commission ruled that action ought to be taken against Lingam and others implicated in this scandal, including former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim. The conversation by Lingam – which implied that judicial appointments could be traded like cattle – at the very least, brought disrepute to the judiciary.
Of course, a prime minister is entitled to obtain advice from his friends and aides but, in this case, the commission noted that former deputy minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan had direct influence in the appointment of judges and concluded that the process of judicial appointment was open to manipulation by the Executive and private citizens.
b) Pretending as if the Royal Commission did not reach any conclusions
A couple of the judges implicated in the eight-minute video clip telephoned Nazri sometime in 2007 and denied any involvement.
Today the minister tried to airbrush Tun Ahmad Fairuz out of the episode, noting: “I am not denying that it was Lingam in the tape. But I am also saying that there are a lot of conmen in this world. Who knows, he might have just acted when he was calling the so-called judges to impress.’’
He goes on to say that “unless it’s clear that the action by Lingam was clearly aimed at conspiring to subvert the judiciary or made to get favours … (but) the findings of the commission found none of it.’’
Nazri must not have been paying attention to the deliberations of the commission and the subsequent scathing report made public. Based on witness testimonies, the commission concluded that Lingam was speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
Also, there was evidence that those who had conspired to fix the appointment of judges had breached the Sedition Act, noted the commission.
Based on the commission’s findings, the Bar Council instituted disciplinary proceedings against Lingam.
c) Ending the charade about getting to the bottom of the judge-fixing scandal.
Nazri’s answers in Parliament puts a full stop to a charade which began in mid-2007, when the Opposition went public with the V K Lingam video clip.
Once he realised that he could not skirt around the damning evidence of judge-fixing, the then Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi agreed to set up a three-man panel to verify the authenticity of the clip. By doing so, he hoped to isolate what had become a major embarrassment for the government.
When it became obvious that nothing less than a royal commission would hush the critics and allow him to take the high ground, he announced the setting up of five-member panel headed by the former Chief Judge of Malaya, Haidar Mohamad Noor.
Once again, the idea was to take the initiative away from the Opposition and convince Malaysians that the government was serious about reforming the judiciary.
But day after day of shocking testimonies at the inquiry and amnesia by some of the main actors in the episode had an effect on many in Umno/Barisan Nasional. They were convinced that Abdullah had erred by allowing this case to go before a royal commission. They believed that, instead of going down the transparent route, the government should have just stayed silent on this clip. In time, they argued, the Malaysian public would have forgotten about the case.
By going down the commission of inquiry route, the clip episode had become a festering sore, a symbol of decaying institutions in Malaysia, they argued. This same constituency did not want the report to be made public and certainly were dead set against dredging up the past. But they pretended to play along.
Nazri ended this two-year-long charade today.
MI
09/11/09
Answer:
a) Retrying the V K Lingam video clip case before a different forum.
b) Pretending as if the Royal Commission into the V.K. Lingam video clip did not reach any conclusions on the judge-fixer and his band of brothers.
c) Finally ending the charade about the government’s intention to really get to the bottom of judge-fixing scandal.
d) All of the above.
After going through the Minister in the Prime Minister’s answers in the House, you would have to say that the correct answer is “d”.
a) Retrying the V K Lingam video clip case:
Nazri’s excuse in Parliament for why no action was taken against lawyer Lingam for fixing the appointment of judges sounded more like an impassioned plea before a judge.
“I am here to stress that there is nothing to stop the prime minister from receiving suggestions from any party. Should anyone act to advise the prime minister on the appointment of judges, the act itself cannot be taken as an offence, ‘’he said, referring to the infamous clip of Lingam conspiring to fix the appointment of judges.
The only problem with this defence is that it was raised by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and it was dismissed by the panel.
The commission ruled that action ought to be taken against Lingam and others implicated in this scandal, including former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim. The conversation by Lingam – which implied that judicial appointments could be traded like cattle – at the very least, brought disrepute to the judiciary.
Of course, a prime minister is entitled to obtain advice from his friends and aides but, in this case, the commission noted that former deputy minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan had direct influence in the appointment of judges and concluded that the process of judicial appointment was open to manipulation by the Executive and private citizens.
b) Pretending as if the Royal Commission did not reach any conclusions
A couple of the judges implicated in the eight-minute video clip telephoned Nazri sometime in 2007 and denied any involvement.
Today the minister tried to airbrush Tun Ahmad Fairuz out of the episode, noting: “I am not denying that it was Lingam in the tape. But I am also saying that there are a lot of conmen in this world. Who knows, he might have just acted when he was calling the so-called judges to impress.’’
He goes on to say that “unless it’s clear that the action by Lingam was clearly aimed at conspiring to subvert the judiciary or made to get favours … (but) the findings of the commission found none of it.’’
Nazri must not have been paying attention to the deliberations of the commission and the subsequent scathing report made public. Based on witness testimonies, the commission concluded that Lingam was speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
Also, there was evidence that those who had conspired to fix the appointment of judges had breached the Sedition Act, noted the commission.
Based on the commission’s findings, the Bar Council instituted disciplinary proceedings against Lingam.
c) Ending the charade about getting to the bottom of the judge-fixing scandal.
Nazri’s answers in Parliament puts a full stop to a charade which began in mid-2007, when the Opposition went public with the V K Lingam video clip.
Once he realised that he could not skirt around the damning evidence of judge-fixing, the then Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi agreed to set up a three-man panel to verify the authenticity of the clip. By doing so, he hoped to isolate what had become a major embarrassment for the government.
When it became obvious that nothing less than a royal commission would hush the critics and allow him to take the high ground, he announced the setting up of five-member panel headed by the former Chief Judge of Malaya, Haidar Mohamad Noor.
Once again, the idea was to take the initiative away from the Opposition and convince Malaysians that the government was serious about reforming the judiciary.
But day after day of shocking testimonies at the inquiry and amnesia by some of the main actors in the episode had an effect on many in Umno/Barisan Nasional. They were convinced that Abdullah had erred by allowing this case to go before a royal commission. They believed that, instead of going down the transparent route, the government should have just stayed silent on this clip. In time, they argued, the Malaysian public would have forgotten about the case.
By going down the commission of inquiry route, the clip episode had become a festering sore, a symbol of decaying institutions in Malaysia, they argued. This same constituency did not want the report to be made public and certainly were dead set against dredging up the past. But they pretended to play along.
Nazri ended this two-year-long charade today.
MI
09/11/09
1 comment:
Someone is getting lots of $$$$$$$$ to cover up,wow! malaysia boleh!
Post a Comment