Steven Gan
Sep 25, 07 6:20pm
Seven years ago we thought we had him. The evidence was
incontrovertible. There were photos of him and then chief justice
Eusoff Chin, looking very much like two buddies having a fun time on
a pleasure boat in Lake Wakatipu.
But the 1994 photos alone, which have been posted on the Internet for
many years, were not good enough. After all, the two claimed to have
innocently 'bumped' into each other while on holiday.
So we produced more evidence - this time showing that the two flew on
the same flight during their week-long trip, first to Auckland then
Christchurch. And it wasn't just being on the same plane, both were
either in business or first class.

At the time of the controversial New Zealand holiday, influential
lawyer VK Lingam was representing tycoon Vincent Tan in a law suit
against veteran journalist MGG Pillai, whose appeal in the Federal
Court, the country's highest bench, was heard by a three-member panel
headed by Eusoff himself.
The late Pillai must have felt vindicated by the latest expose. After
all, the court had ordered him to pay RM2 million in damages. One can
almost see Pillai - who eventually did not pay a single sen to Tan -
smirking from where ever he is today.
Pillai was not the only one sued by Tan and Lingam for the temerity
to suggest that the duo have an inside track with the judiciary.
Others slapped with defamation suits included top lawyers Tommy
Thomas and Param Cumaraswamy, the former United Nations special
rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
Also hit was Asian Wall Street Journal's Raphael Pura. In his
defence, Pura dropped a stunning bombshell - he alleged that the High
Court judgment on the Pillai case was in part written by Lingam
himself. He had evidence to prove it, but this was thrown out of
court in double-quick time.
Same cast of characters
When Malaysiakini ran the story in 2000, there were repeated calls
for a royal commission to probe the matter. The Bar Council sought an
emergency general meeting but it was barred from holding it after a
court injunction. Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang demanded
a special session of the Parliament to discuss the controversy.
Sound familiar?
Indeed, the same cast of characters were involved in last week's
disclosure of the grainy eight-minute video showing Lingam brokering
the appointments of top judicial men.
Also featured was his well-connected tycoon friend, Tan. By 2002 -
the year the video was taken - Eusoff had already retired. It was his
protégé, Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, who is embroiled in this
scandal. Playing the supporting role is Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, a
junior minister but a trusted aide of then prime minister Dr Mahathir
Mohamad.
Together they were the untouchables - the masters of the Malaysian
universe, so to speak. Apparently, they still are.
Cake walk
The government took pains to cast aspersions on the authenticity of
the video. And while a few grudgingly concede that the video may not
be 'doctored', still, you can't really prove who was at the other end
of the line, can you?
But that should be a cake walk for the police. All they need to do is
to obtain the telephone records of both Lingam and Ahmad Fairuz to
see if any number matches. Simple really.
The 13,500-strong Bar Council has called for a full-blown royal
commission to examine the rot in the judiciary since the sacking of
chief justice Salleh Abas in 1988.
Rightly so, the investigation must begin with the Salleh episode and
go beyond it.
There were other equally serious cases which ought to be re-opened -
the Ayer Molek controversy, the 'poison pen' letter by former High
Court judge Syed Ahmad Idid, the case involving then High Court judge
Muhammad Kamil, who publicly admitted getting telephone directives
from Eusoff over an election petition, and the trials of ex-deputy
premier Anwar Ibrahim - the man who revealed the Lingam tape.
Clearly, the three-member independent panel announced by Deputy Prime
Minister Najib Abdul Razak today - and restricting the probe to
examining the authenticity of the Lingam tape - falls way too short.
An inquiry of this magnitude requires nothing less than a royal
commission.
Something's rotten
It was Lingam who was involved in the Ayer Molek company share
dispute, where he manipulated the court system in such a way that the
case went before a 'friendly' High Court judge. Not surprisingly, he
won.
However, the Court of Appeal later described the lower court decision
as 'an injustice' and ticked off Lingam, who was representing one
of the parties in the complex commercial dispute, for being
'unethical', and accused him of bringing the administration of
justice into disrepute.
NH Chan, one of the three judges who heard the appeal, resorted to
quoting Shakespeare's Hamlet, 'there is something rotten in the
state of Denmark', to press his point. He was obviously referring to
the High Court commercial division, then housed in Kuala Lumpur's
Wisma Denmark.
The plot thickened when the case went up to Federal Court. The three-
member panel which heard the appeal was headed by none other than
Lingam's holiday buddy, Eusoff. To pad the numbers, Eusoff included
a High Court judge on the panel. This was unconstitutional as the
judge was not qualified to sit on the Federal Court bench.
Predictably, Eusoff and his colleagues overruled the appellate court,
ordered the comments against Lingam be expunged and berated the Court
of Appeal judges for bringing the administration of justice into,
yes, disrepute.
The dark era
Interestingly, in the explosive video featuring him, Lingam
unabashedly proclaimed that his action was for the sake of the country.
"We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of PM and
for the sake of the country. Not for our own interest, not for our
own interest. We want to make sure the country comes out well," he
declared.
It's been 20 years since Salleh and two other top judges were
unceremoniously sacked. Three others were suspended but later
reinstated. That episode was a watershed in our judiciary, kicking
off a dark era where justice goes to the highest bidders and
litigants can choose the judge before whom they wish to appear.
Almost a generation has suffered because of our 'tidak apa'
attitude to the judicial crisis. Here's another chance for us to
make amends.
We have missed the boat - not once but twice. Indeed, for the sake of
the country, we cannot afford to blow this one chance. Only then will
our country 'come out well' but probably not the way Lingam had
intended it to when he made the remark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment