In reply to the letter Wong TC's 'Investigation could be detrimental to the judiciary' (June 13), actually, the real title of the letter should be 'Investigation could be detrimental to the caller '.The Malaysian judiciary is not in a very good shape right now. This is a fact, and even BN acknowledges this. By suggesting a cover up, whose interests are you trying to protect?

The judiciary's? This can't be. Anyone with elementary powers of reasoning will realise that uncovering corrupt practices like this is essential towards the rebuilding of our battered judicial institution.

A good house can't be built without strong foundations, nor can a tree grow tall without healthy roots. Right now, our judiciary's foundation has been hollowed out and its roots have rotted due to years of abuse. What justice Muhammad Kamil Awang did is exactly what is needed to turn this country around.

Does Wong honestly feel that Malaysians would be worse off if this incident was thoroughly investigated, the people responsible charged and put in jail, and the judiciary cleaned up, than if this incident was covered up, slowly forgotten, and the perpetrators left in their positions of utmost importance?

The only other option would be that, you are trying to protect the interests of the perpetrators. The reasons you provided as to why the police should not investigate, is also inconsequential. For the sake of argument, I shall tell you one by one why none of them hold any water.

1) Whether a judge can find another judge for contempt on a episode which happened two years ago?

This is not only contempt, but obstruction of justice and corruption to the highest degree. The powers and responsibilities vested in this position are immense, and if the said caller is guilty (and he is not until proven otherwise), he will be a threat to the safety of all Malaysians and to this nation. Would you feel safe if your bank hires thieves to guard your money?

2) If the telephone conversation was not taped, a simple denial that such a conversation took place would suffice on the part of the person alleged to have interfered.

Then why is the denial not forthcoming? And you must remember, the allegations did not come from someone in your neighbourhood Kopi tiam but from a learned justice. Anyway, it is the police and the prosecutor's job to investigate, not mine or yours.

3) Even if believed, what would the impact be on the judiciary for such a revelation? What is the implication on cases decided in the past in which there were such interferences? Will the cases be opened for re-trial?

The impact on the judiciary will be like a breath of fresh air after years of staying in downtown KL. And yes, if proven, all cases tainted by this judge should go for re-trial. In fact, this in itself would be a very good reason to investigate.

4) What is the implication on the reputation of other judges coming out as witnesses to whom such directions had been given but unlike justice Muhammad Kamil Awang, did not disclose them (until now as witnesses) and how would they explain why they did not disqualify themselves from hearing the cases then?

Corruption and lies have a tendency to build up like a stack of cards but they crumble with the slightest whiff of truth. Again, only those involved should be worried. That said, neither you nor I need to be concerned about how they are going to explain, because it is not our job to hear it.

5) Then again the judge of a higher ranking who allegedly interfered could say he was just expressing a legal opinion from an administrative superior to his other brethren as to why some cases were likely to be a waste of public funds in the sense there was really no case in law.

Yes, I guess he could say that. He could also say that he was just talking in his sleep as well.

6) There is also a counter argument - why wasn't the allegation brought out at the time it was made two years ago, and if now, why through a judgment to which such an irregular incidence is strictly extraneous and may be construed (as it is done now by the side to which judgment was delivered against) as possibly presiding judge's partiality in deciding the case?

I have difficulty comprehending this argument, sorry.

And finally, Wong said: "What good does it do to our judicial institution or for that matter the government, but only to satisfy the thirst for blood of many whose agenda is to hound the perpetrator especially when he had held high office and also the government (because if found guilty, it will raise the question why such a person was allowed by the government to hold such high office in the first place?)"

Wong has answered part of the question yourself. One of the main reasons we should investigate is exactly why such a person was allowed by the government to hold such high office in the first place?

Wong is also partly correct about the thirst for blood of many, except that it is to quench the thirst for justice of all Malaysians, and whose agenda is to have a government that doesn't abuse its taxpayers, that we should investigate this matter thoroughly, with all available resources at our disposal, and leave no stone unturned.