Halim Saad's 'defence' against the damning observations of Justice Gopal Sri Ram in the Court of Appeal judgment in Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd v Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd, made fascinating reading, in that, in respect of two matters, it was a tribute to bluster and lack of reason and common sense.

In one place Halim states that his company, Metro Juara Sdn Bhd ('Metro'), was forced to take over Metramac after the near riot at the Cheras toll plaza, because the government felt that Metramac was in a serious mess and was no longer 'bankable'.

What absolutely confounds readers of this statement is in trying to square the reasons why a company, Metramac, with shareholders who, according to the Court of Appeal, were 'reputable institutions of undoubted financial liquidity' (including AIA, Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Bhd, Lembaga Urusan, Tabung Haji and Mitsui Construction Co Ltd of Japan), could become 'un-bankable', when Metro, a poorly-capitalised private limited company with two shareholders and directors, could?

The answer, according to the Court of Appeal, was rudimentary: the former did not enjoy the patronage of the former finance minister, Daim Zainuddin, whereas the latter did. That conclusion reached by the court remains unscathed by Halim's defence.

In yet another place, Halim turns to the Bible and the Quran, to protest that the court made observations which were critical of him, his business partner and Daim, without giving them a hearing and that this somehow was in extraordinary breach of some universally accepted human or other right.

The truth is that a Malaysian court can only hear parties (and their witnesses) to an action before it. It, generally, does not have the power to call witnesses on its own behest. So, if not tendered as witnesses by the parties to an action, the court cannot hear from everyone in a trial who is implicated by evidence submitted.

Moreover, it is common practice that judges are entitled to make judicial observations about the facts and issues before them and if such observations reveal the possibility of the commission of offences, the appropriate enforcement authorities are statute bound to investigate them and proceed with action, if necessary.

Finally, may I be allowed to observe that one cannot help feeling that the transactions mentioned above, now so acutely condemned by the Court of Appeal, were intended to be scrutinised by the courts of a different era, which were supine, under suspicion of being available to the highest bidder and compliant to the powers that be.

Am I the only one who feels that Malaysian courts are slowly finding their spine and integrity in many areas (but by no means all) under the leadership of a new prime minister?