成立皇委会没咨询赵家让人觉得虎头蛇尾，总检查署申请司法审核让人怀疑诚意不足

我对全国总检察长丹斯里阿都干尼对赵明福验尸庭作出“悬案”裁决向上诉庭上诉申请司法审核判赵明福自杀而感到失望。

虽然总检查署有权向上诉庭申请司法检讨，但是这个动作让人觉得联邦政府企图干扰皇家调查委员会的调查工作，或者是联邦政府有意拖缓皇委会的调查工作，无意让真相大白。

有关方面，包括首相纳吉必须立即针对总检查署申请司法检讨向公众作出完整交代，尤其是总检查署向上诉庭申请把此案推向“自杀”的方向审理。

首相纳吉上星期宣布成立皇委会时并没有咨询赵家，这让人觉得联邦政府虎头蛇尾。如今总检查署向上诉庭申请司法审核，让人们更怀疑联邦政府诚意不足。

纳吉不能以为国阵在上周日的丁能补选以更大的多数票凯旋而骄傲自满。纳吉更不能因为国阵在三个华裔选民占大多数的选区以微差多数票获胜而以为华裔选票已经回流给国阵，或者以为国阵无需在来届大选只需依靠5至10巴仙的巫裔和印裔选票回流给国阵而无需依赖华裔选票获取国会三分之二大多数议席。

反之，纳吉不能向巫统和联邦政府内的种族狂热分子妥协，而必须不分政治立场和族群，以行动落实“一个大马”政纲，让赵明福的冤案能够早日水落石出。

300 protest Bar's 'conversion' forum

[Taken from Malaysiakini.com]
Aug 9, 08 9:41am

About 300 protesters have gathered outside Bar Council headquarters demanding that the lawyers group halt its controversial forum on ‘Conversion to Islam’ this morning.

The Bar Council today, adhereing to the advice of the police - and an angry mob at its doorstep - wrapped up its half-day forum on 'Conversion to Islam' at 10am, an hour after it had started.

Earlier about 300 protesters have gathered outside Bar Council headquarters demanding that the lawyers group halt its controversial forum on ‘Conversion to Islam’.

A leader of the protesters - PKR Kulim-Bandar Baharu parliamentarian Zulkifli Noordin - declared the abrupt end of the forum as a victory for them. By 10.40am, most of the protesters have dispersed.

The open forum on the sensitive religious issue kicked off at 9am but angry protestors have given organisers half an hour to cancel the event.

About 15 police officers and an Federal Reserve Unit truck have been deployed to the area and the road leading to the Bar Council office where the forum is held has been closed.

In the bid to diffuse the situation, the police have told Bar Council to wrap up its forum by 10am.

The protesters, many of whom are from Muslim welfare organsation Perkida and Islamic party PAS, shouted, “Hancur Bar Council” (Crush Bar Council), “Hidup Islam” (Long Live Islam) and “Batal forum” (Cancel the forum).

They are carrying placards saying “Jangan cabar Islam” (Don’t challenge Islam) and “Bar Council, Don’t play with fire”.

Among the protest leaders seen in the crowd are PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub and Zulkifli.

The protesters, many of whom came just before the forum began, later decided to sit down in front of the Bar Council building and vowed that they would not budge until the event had been cancelled.

Some threatened to storm the building to physically stop the forum.

One speaker pull out

Among the speakers at the forum was syariah lawyer Mohd Haniff Khatri Abdulla. Mohd Haniff represented the Federal Territory’s Islamic Religious Council in the case of R Subashini. K Shanmuga and Ravi Nekoo, who were counsel for Subashini and S Shamala, respectively, also spoke.

The forum is moderated by Zarizana Abdul Aziz of the Women's Centre for Change.

However, one speaker has pull out - former Syariah judge and currently the Federal Territory Islamic Department’s syariah prosecutor Dr Mohd Naim Mokhtar.

Malaysiakini: Explosive claims linking Najib to Altantuya

For those who want to cut short the story, you can follow Malaysiakini's report as below:

Explosive claims linking Najib to Altantuya
Soon Li Tsin Jul 3, 08 1:00pm

Private investigator P Balasubramaniam has made shocking claims that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had links with murdered Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.
MCPX

He revealed that Najib had also informed his close associate Abdul Razak Baginda that inspector-general of police Musa Hassan would 'take care' of the murder case which implicated Abdul Razak.

He further revealed that his evidence linking Najib to the murdered Mongolian was removed by the police and prosecutors during the murder trial - a move seen to protect the DPM.

These shocking revelations were made by Balasubramaniam in a statutory declaration which he filed on July 1 and was revealed by PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim in a packed press conference this morning.

Balasubramaniam was the PI hired by Abdul Razak to ‘handle’ Altantuya, who had apparently come over to Malaysia in 2006 to settle some financial issues with Abdul Razak.

Soon after Altantuya was found murdered in an isolated site in Shah Alam, Selangor.

'Matter will be resolved ... be cool'

In the statutory declaration, Balasubramaniam said he was told by Abdul Razak on Najib's links with Altantuya. These include:

* Abdul Razak had been introduced to Altantuya by Najib at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
* Najib informed Abdul Razak that he had sexual encounters with Altantuya and that she was partial to anal intercourse.
* Najib wanted Abdul Razak to look after Altantuya as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the DPM.
* Najib, Abdul Razak and Altantuya had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
* Altantuya wanted money from Abdul Razak as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

Meanwhile, during the course of his investigation, Balasubramiam said Altantuya made some disclosures including:

* She met Abdul Razak in Singapore with Najib.
* She also met Abdul Razak and Najib at a dinner in Paris.
* She was promised a sum of US$500,000 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris.
* Abdul Razak had initially bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
* Her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
* Abdul Razak had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father is a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
* Since Balasubramaniam disallowed her from meeting Abdul Razak, she hoped that he could arrange for her to meet Najib instead.

The former special branch officer also revealed that Abdul Razak had SMSed Najib on the day he was arrested over Altantuya's killing and had received a reply from Najib stating that the matter will be taken care by the IGP.

According to the private investigator, Najib's SMS said: “I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool.”

Details that implicate Najib

Balasubramaniam said he had give the information to the police and the prosecution team when they took his statement but was surprised that all mention of Najib were eventually removed from the police statement which he reluctantly signed.

Asked why he signed the police statement if it did not contain details that implicate Najib, he said he did so under duress.

In his statutory declaration, Balasubramaniam said he was held in the police lock-up twice during the investigation into the murder - the first time for five days, the second, seven days.

“If you have experience in the cell, you will definitely sign the statement. I wanted to go out, I have three children.

“For no reason, they put me in the lock-up. Why was I arrested when they can just call me in to take a statement from me,” he said.

His lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu (photo, right) told reporters that the reason why Balasubramaniam made the statutory declaration two days ago was because the prosecution has wrapped up their case against Abdul Razak without raising his revelations.

Balasubramaniam who was the first prosecution witness in the trial, was not asked about Altantuya’s connection with Najib when the hearings began in June last year.

“He was waiting for prosecution to ask but they never did so that’s the reason why he’s surprised and that’s why he came up with the statutory declaration.

“This press conference is to bring into light the available evidence and to tell the police and prosecution that Balasubramaniam is at their disposal at anytime,” Americk said.

Americk stressed that the statutory declaration is not a statement of the truth but a statement of what was said to him by Abdul Razak and Altantuya.

“We’re not saying what he heard is absolute gospel, this must be distinguished. Balasubramaniam is not in the position to determine what is true or not,” he said.

Najib had previously said that he never knew and had never met Altantuya.

Frenzy of conspiracy theories

Meanwhile, Anwar said that it was evident that the police and the prosecution team, especially IGP Musa Hassan and attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, have hidden relevant information in the Altantuya murder case.

He was worried that they would do the same in the ongoing probe into the sodomy allegation made against him by his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Last Saturday, Saiful lodged a police report alleging that Anwar had sodomised him which sparked of a frenzy of conspiracy theories among the public especially after photos of the former with Najib's special officer Khairil Anas Yusof surfaced online.

“Najib believes that I am doing this (to bring him down) which is not true. He fears that I would continue to use the Altantuya case to embarrass him and lead to his downfall.

“That’s why I suggested that I strongly believe that the AG, IGP and Najib are involved in these new attacks against me,” he said.

Two days ago, Anwar lodged a report against Musa and Gani for fabricating evidence in his trials 10 years ago.

Pressed whether he had more concrete evidence suggesting actual links between Najib and Altantuya, Anwar said "yes".

“We will adduce further evidence soon. This is not the end. I just want to test not only the nerve but the commitment by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that everything should be (professionally investigated).

“I want to reiterate. There is nothing personal here. I have evidence, I will submit it, be it evidence against Najib or Abdullah,” he added.

Anwar took the opportunity to point out that he has been informed that mainstream media have been told to black out negative news mentioning Najib.

“We will see tonight whether his name will appear in the news tonight. If it does not appear, it shows that all top level officials are relieved from any offences and those who do not like Umno and Barisan Nasional will be made to look like criminals,” he asserted.

Statutory declaration by P. Balasubramaniam

The following is the full 16-page statutory declaration sign by Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigor P. Balasubramaniam on July 1.

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ... do solemly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force, having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the police field force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the police force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a freelance private investigator since I left the police force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8am to 5pm each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the Oct 5, 2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high-profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On Oct 9, 2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30am informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya notepaper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These three Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On Oct 11, 2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime, I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these three Mongolian girls, but they recognised him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the Oct 14, 2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t, so I called the police who arrived in two patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own private investigator, one Mr Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for US$500,000 and three tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that:

1) He had been introduced to Aminah by Najib Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

2) Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

3) Najib Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the deputy prime minister.

4) Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

5) Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On Oct 19, 2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with three ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “to delay her until my man comes”.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following:

1) That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Najib Razak.
2) That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Najib Razak at a dinner in Paris.

3) That she was promised a sum of US$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris.

4) That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

5) That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

6) That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

7) That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Najib Razak.

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be lance corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plainclothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said “Yes”. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that lance corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

33. After Oct 19, 2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7pm to 8am the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

34. On the night of Oct 20, 2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi police station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the inspector from Dang Wangi police station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi inspector. The conversation lasted 3-4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about Oct 24, 2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumbdrive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 26, 2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under Section 506 of the Penal Code for criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for five days. On the third day, I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for seven days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 19, 2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 am to 6pm everyday for seven consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Najib Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Najib Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Najib Razak and/or his wife.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Najib Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to:

1) State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

2) Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the three accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

3) Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

4) Emphasise the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years, I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

5) Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal
July 1, 2008

準備送敦尤索夫晉·林甘獨立洋房曝光

“司法界談話錄影丑聞”主角拿督VK林甘，1995年準備送給聯邦法院前首席大法官敦尤索夫晉的雙層獨立式洋房曝光。

林甘胞弟迪魯納瑪卡拉蘇日前供證時指出，位于八打靈再也甘榜東姑SS1/38路的雙層獨立式洋房是其兄長林甘名下。1995年，林甘欲把屋子送給尤索夫晉，惟尤索夫晉較后指這間屋子位于險彎處，向林甘表明要更大的屋子。

迪魯納瑪卡拉蘇說，在尤索夫晉和夫人看過這間屋子后，臉露不悅，說此屋位于險彎，恐怕孩子一出去會遇到車禍。

This is the two-storey bungalow alleged to have been offered by Datuk V.K. Lingam to the then Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin in 1995. The bungalow is located along Jalan SS1/38, Kampung Tunku, Petaling Jaya.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape Scandal was told by V.K. Lingam's brother, V Thirunama Karasu. The Royal Commission was also informed that Lingam did not like the house and he wanted a bigger house.

He said that Eusoff Chin and his wife were unhappy with the house as it was located at a dangerous corner and they were afraid that their sons could meet with accident once stepping out of the bungalow.

Confirmed - it's Ahmad Fairuz

Anwar released a longer version of the Lingam Tape, and there is a confirmation that the person Lingam spoke to on another side was none other but the then Chief Justice of Malaya, Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz.

This should be the headline of the press and not the UMNO Assembly. And politically, I think it is a good move for Anwar to release the tape when UMNO is having their assembly in KL - a good move to tight Pak Lah for calling a snap election, which does no good for the country.

My opinion on Sultan Azlan Shah's speech

I am reproducing speech by Sultan Azlan Shah, former Lord President of Malaysia Supreme Court.

I am glad that Baginda speaks out for the people, for the civil society in voicing out the concern of the general public on our dwindling jiduciary system.

The Conference of Rulers will come out with a decision on whether to extend current CJ Tun Ahmad Fairuz's term as Chief Justice.

Any extension of his tenure as CJ will definitely do no good for the country, especially in building up the confidence of the people and foreign investors in Malaysia.

Full text of Sultan Azlan Shah's opening address at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference

Here is the full text of Sultan Azlan Shah's opening address at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference taken from the Bar Council website (www.malsyhaianbar.org.my):

Monday, 29 October 2007, 04:25pm

"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.

Go for Mat Rempit, not Mat Lawyers!

Lawyers March - Photos and Videos

The upbeat mood at the ‘walk for justice’ in Putrajaya belied serious intent - to protest the erosion of judicial independence in light of claims in the ‘Lingam tape’.

The last time that lawyers took to the streets was during the 1988 judicial crisis, when they protested the sacking of then Lord President Salleh Abas.

This morning, after police stopped buses ferrying the protesters to Putrajaya, some 200 occupants got off and walked to the Palace of Justice.

These pictures are taken by Lau Weng San, DAP Selangor Secretary.

These video clips, are also taken by Lau Weng San.

Walk for Justice: "When lawyers walk, something must be very wrong"

Contributed by Malaysian Bar Council Web Reporter
Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 04:41pm

PUTRAJAYA, Wed: "Lawyers don't walk everyday. Not even every month. But when they walk, then something must be very wrong," said Chairman of the Bar Council Ambiga Sreenevasan when addressing a strong crowd of more than 2,000 members of the Malaysian Bar and some concerned citizens at the Palace of Justice before the commencement of the walk to the Prime Minister's office to hand over the Bar's memorandum urging the government to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to probe the state of judiciary and memorandum on the establishment of a judicial appointments and promotion commission.

Earlier, seven buses ferrying members of the Bar and public from Kuala Lumpur were denied entry to Putrajaya. Frustrated with the police tactics which included sending a helicopter hovering above the crowd, Bar Councillor Edmund Bon and lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad then decided to lead the stranded numbering about 200 walking some five kilometres to the Palace of Justice.

When they arrived at about 11.30am, the group was met with a thunderous applause by those who waited patiently for them. The Walk for Justice scheduled at 11.00am then started at about 11.45am with Bar Council members leading the 2,000 plus lawyers and concerned citizens.

As they walked, they chanted various slogans led by Amer holding a loud hailer, shouting: "Who are we?" "Malaysian Bar", the crowd roared. "What do we want?" Amer asked. "Justice" the crowd replied in unison. The humorous part was when Amer shouted, "We are doing this for the sake of the country" and the crowd replied, "Correct, Correct, Correct!" Members also received public support from passers-by who greeted them by sounding their car honks.

The heavily-armed police including the Federal Reserve Unit, however, gave their fullest cooperation with some reporters cheekily remarking that this is perhaps the first time a march like this proceeded without any obstruction.

The press, both local and international including well-known bloggers like Raja Petra, Jeff Ooi and also Patrick Teoh were also there, busy taking pictures of this event of the Bar which happened only for the second time in the 60 years of history of the Bar.

"Today is indeed the greatest day of the Malaysian Bar", declared immediate Past President, Yeo Yang Poh. In fact, early in the morning, Yeo and lawyer Desmond Choi went on to the popular Cantonese FM 98.8 Channel to tell listeners why the lawyers were doing this with most callers calling in to praise the Malaysian Bar Council and members of the Malaysian Bar who decided to do this for justice.

The march stopped at the front gate to the Prime Minister's office at about 12.30pm. The office bearers, Ambiga, Vice-President Raguanth Kesavan, Secretary Lim Chee Wee and Treasurer George Varughese then went to the Prime Minister's office to hand over two memoranda to the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary whilst the crowd continued to stay behind chanting away in support of the four-man delegation.

The weather was perfect when the march started as if God was with us. But when the march ended, the heavens appeared to be crying for the judiciary too pouring down rains of tears whilst members of the Bar and their leaders steadfastly stayed behind, drenched in the rain.

For those who took part in this historical march, they had left Putrajaya today with their heads high for they had done something not just for the Bar but for the country. Most of all, they had walked the talk.

More pictures will be uploaded shortly in the public gallery.

We cannot sweep this major scandal under the carpet and still claim we have a viable judiciary

YB M. Kulasegaran,
Lawyer, DAP MP for Ipoh Barat

We march today to tell Malaysians and the world how low our once vaunted judiciary has fallen in the estimation of lawyers, fellow judges and citizens of the country.

The eight-minute Lingam tape has defrocked and made naked the conspiracy at the highest levels of the judiciary to fix high profile cases and promote like-minded, weak-kneed judges who will be subservient to their masters.

After such a revelation the only way forward is to cut away the cancer and chart a new path. Any other action i.e. closing an eye or sweeping it under the carpet will only prolong the agony and be a great disservice to the next generation.

Malaysians and millions of people in the world have watched the eight minute video clip now freely available on the internet, a clip that has seriously compromised the independence and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary at the highest level.

We cannot sweep this major scandal under the carpet and still claim we have a viable judiciary.

This cancer in our judiciary must be investigated and cleaned up. This is the only way the people can once again begin to have confidence and trust in our judges and the justice system.

It is clear from the eight minute video tape that our judiciary has been compromised for many years and completely made subservient to powerful individuals.

We march to tell the government that an immediate inquiry into the scandal is the only way forward for Malaysia to right the wrongs done and rehabilitate the most important institution in a free and democratic society.

Without a through and open investigation we cannot close one sordid chapter and open a new one.

The rot set in 1998 when we protested but failed to stop the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of than Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman as Supreme Court judges.

We never recovered from the series of body blows to the independence, impartiality, integrity and professionalism of the judiciary that was inflicted by then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and assisted by a cable of cronies.

The vacuum was filled by less then honourable people. Today we are paying the price of our failure.

Now almost two decades later we are faced with a cancer that has grown and spread its tentacles.

Malaysians had hoped that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will deliver his promise to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law – but Abdullah failed to deliver.

After the video expose Ahmad Fairuz is not fit to continue as Chief Justice, as he clearly had never heard and does not understand the meaning of judicial accountability.

National and international confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity and professionalism of the judiciary is at stake. If addressed, the scandal will have a major adverse impact on Malaysia’s efforts to enhance international competitiveness to face the challenges of globalization.

We march today to ensure that the government address not only the scandal of Lingam Tape but the crisis of confidence in the system of justice by setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to repair the damage and heal the deep wounds.

成立司法委员会

大马律师公会上周六晚上召开紧急会议，并针对最新发生的司法黑幕短片作出议决，号召至少500名律师和民众于下周三从布城的“正义殿堂”（Palace of Justice）游行至首相署，以提呈一份备忘录，促请政府设立一个皇家委员会来彻查自1988年起至今的司法界腐败问题。

律师公会果敢迅速的决定在一定程度上不仅反映律师们对我国司法独立日益下滑的不满，同时也是强化成立司法委员会，以公平、透明和具公信力的方式处理法官委任与擢升事项的时候。这也是许多先进国家在处理法官委任与擢升的现代化方式。

还记得大约一个月前我国可能面对的一项宪制危机，既我国司法界第3把交椅——马来亚大法官的职位。自从前马来亚大法官茜蒂诺玛于2007年1月5日退休后，该职就悬空超过7个月之久。

统治者会议召开两次都未能通过新的马来亚大法官人选，主要是首相从首席大法官敦阿末法鲁兹所推荐的人选——哈欣尤索夫——未能通过统治者会议。其中一项原因就是这其中一名最年轻的联邦法院法官自担任高庭法官以来，尚未完成35项民事及刑事判决的判词。

这反映出有关课题带来的宪制危机。

事发不到一个月，我国再发生另一宗司法丑闻。这是一宗涉及司法界最高职位和一名资深律师的丑闻。

令人悲哀的是，为官的一再呼吁人们不要轻易相信短片中的内容，有者语调甚至淡化这部短片，并指短片中显示的仅仅是一名律师和‘另一方’的交谈。

其实，与其证明短片的真伪，倒不如调查短片中所谈到的法官擢升、司法干预、勋衔安排等等丑闻的真伪？如果这些丑闻都是虚构的，短片的真实性不就不证自明了吗？

目前司法界必须进行结构性的改革，已全面恢复人民对司法独立、大公无私及廉正的信心，其中一项重大课题就是法官的委任。现有的制度有许多漏洞与问题，即法官的委任及擢升只由两人，即首相及首席大法官来决定。个中所涉及遴选与委任程序不透明、谘询程序神密化以及没有以预定准则评估人选。

比如说，首席大法官敦阿末法益鲁兹曾经公开指出，任何法官如尚未完成判词将不会获考虑擢升，因为法庭有一项指令说明，如果任何一方要求提出上诉，法官们必须在案件审讯完毕后8周内完成他们的判词。

令人惊讶的是，哈欣尤索夫这名联邦法院法官自从出任高庭法官以来竟累计多达30宗尚未完成判词的案件，而首席大法官诱那边厢并没有否认、也没有发表任何澄清或回应。

如果这名法官累计数达30多宗案件的判词为完成，他如何能够从高庭法官擢升至至联邦法院法官？

成立司法委员会正值此时。