But life moves on, and may I advise that sorry person to get one too. Anyway, I am almost back to my kayteemoc self.
But perhaps a bigger ‘cat and mouse’ game was being played as we suspect from reading Malaysiakini report Dr M's ex-aide: Judge bitter because he wasn't promoted where the former PM’s loyal aide, Matthias Chang counter-attacked Ian Chin, the Sarawak High Court judge who had claimed Dr M as PM had oppressively threatened the Malaysian bench.
image from www.axho.com
Matthias Chang portrayed Chin as a green-eyed monster, almost quipping “Hell had no fury like a
woman judge scorned” – instead he stated Justice Chin has been ‘angry’ because he was not promoted as Chief Judge of Sarawak and Sabah.
He averred that Chin blamed Dr M when Richard Malanjun instead was promoted to the post. Chang sneeringly suggested that Chin ought to examine his infantile behaviour as a possible reason.
Chang then dismissed Chin's claims by citing two judges quoted by New Straits Times on Wednesday as supporting Dr M.
The problem was that one of the judges, still serving, (wisely) preferred to remain anonymous, but alas, 'anonymity' is not an acceptable status for Dr M’s defence ..... unless of course if PKR used such sources to attack anyone because those whistleblowers for PKR (eg. video man in the Lingam tape saga) needed protection ;-)
Anyway, let’s weigh up the pros and cons for Dr M’s case.
Against or the ‘cons’
(i) The whistle blower is a serving judge
(ii) The AAB government is distancing itself from Dr M, as indicated by de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim, who was quoted as saying that he had no reasons to doubt Chin's claims even though two judges, one serving and one retired had spoken up for him.
Hmmm, is the government's 'distancing' deliberate or just convenient? Given the animosity between Dr M and AAB and their not-so-covert war I am inclined to suspect the former.
(iii) The serving judge, who spoke up in support of Matthias Chang’s accusation of a vindictive Judge Chin, has elected to remain anonymous ..... well … probably for good reasons - see (ii) above
(iv) Public opinion as we know of it in the Malaysian cyber world, among the younger set and naturally opposition supporters including AAB’s camp, have already accepted Judge Chin's allegation as the gospel truth, and simultaneously pronounced Dr M guilty as hell, and bugger the lack of evidence or contrary testimonials such as by former Court of Appeal judge Shaik Daud Mohad Ismail and Judge Anonymous
(v) The only person vigorously defending him is Matthias Chang, known to be his loyal aide. That's akin to applying for a job with a testimony from mummy saying what a jolly good lad you are.
For or the ‘pros’
(i) The whistle blowing judge had been silent for more than 10 years but has chosen only now to speak up, just when Dr M and AAB are locked in political combat. Yes, Matthias Chang seized on this observation to question the timing of Chin's revelation, and why Chin had failed to complain of Mahathir's alleged threats with the appropriate authorities instead of speaking out publicly during a session.
Chang asked: "How can he expect the ordinary man to report against corruption when he does not dare to stand up and report to the Chief Justice?”
(ii) There is at the same time a public perception that this revelation could have been a judicious juicy jab by the AAB camp at Dr M to silence him
(iii) Zaid Ibrahim has virtually supported Chin’s allegation, even prior to any proper process to verify the extremely serious accusations against a former PM, therefore (ii) above seems plausible and likely
Has this been the reason why AAB and Zaid had both with indecent haste rejected Lim KS's call for a Royal Commission to investigate Judge Chin's allegations?
(iv) Two judges have spoken up for Dr M, with former Court of Appeal Judge Shaik Daud Mohad Ismail expressing shock at Chin's claims and not remembering Mahathir issuing any threats. The other, Judge Anonymous believes Judge Chin has been vindictive because he was bypassed in the promotions
(v) For the same reason the serving judge, who spoke up in support of Matthias Chang’s accusation against Chin's vindictiveness, has preferred to remain anonymous, his very 'apparent fear of the AAB government' has further fortified the perception in (ii) above
(vi) No other judge has come forth to confirm Judge Chin’s allegation
Well, we are living in a zoo, aren't we, what with one-eyed apes, monkeys, still-spotted leopards, frogs, snakes, donkeys, cows, horses, cats and mice.
Why not organise an on-line poll on whether people believe Dr. M or Ian Chin.
The results are likely to send a clear message to Dr. M and his apologist Dr Maddeus that most people don't trust them any further than they can toss them.
Yawn, yawn, yawn.
donplaypuks, should we? But what purpose would the popularity contest serve in determining the facts of the case? We already know who's popular or not in the Malaysian cyber world. What we want to know is whether Judge Chin's allegation has been true? And as Lim KS proposed, a Royal Commission should be the correct instrument to verify that, rather than an online poll where the truth may disappear, and hatred prevails.ReplyDelete
Challenging Dr.M while Dr.M was still in power would have been suicidal. I guess the lapdog just doesn't get it or refuses to see this fact.ReplyDelete
yeappie, and when did Dr M leave office? May 2008?ReplyDelete
The events took place between 1995 and 1997. Give credit to the judge. He is a lot smarter than people give him credit for. He still has a job today instead of standing in the employment line. It is all about timing, timing, and timing. It's not prudent to strike an opponent when he is untouchable but when there is chink in the armor.ReplyDelete
The jist of the problem lies in our "Asian Value".ReplyDelete
On one side of the fence, we got a bunch of judges, who are afraid to stand up to their principle and afraid to voice up. On the other side of the fence, we have a bunch of little Napolean who I believe committed "kezaliman" in the name of TDM. Who are these little Napolean?
I have a question to these judges? Being senior government servants, they are in position to directly meet TDM, but have they ever made attempt to directly discuss matters and advice Tun Dr Mahathir appropriately in matters related to judiciary? I believe that this is their responsibility, rather than critizing, making statement and collaborating with opposition, behind TDM's back. That would be more effective and more appropriate.
Being experience, senior and wise government servants, it would be unthinkable to consider that they could have given up after one fail discussion...that would be immature!
Why keep harping of things such as fear of being jail, suicidal etc. Who have been jail thus far? Anwar Ibrahim? That was never for speaking up! Don't distort information!
Machiavelli wrote (in "The Prince") that the Prince does not need to be good, but only to APPEAR to be good.
So, you can "borrow a knife to kill someone" (as the Chinese saying goes) and then appear to be magnanimous about it. In the current "battle of the Titans", one uses the the direct approach while the other follows Machiavelli!
Phua Kai Lit