There is a strong argument in favour of pushing for an investigation into the present debacle. Wong CT, who wrote 'Investigation could be detrimental to the judiciary' (June13), fails to realise that change often comes with a price.

You proffer the suggestion that it is better to acknowledge the problem and sweep it under the rug. I agree in principle, but these are very novel allegations which shake the very foundations of law and order. You would not want a judiciary that cannot keep itself in line. What is balance, if one is out of place?

You also list a set of "tough" questions in favour of your argument that we shouldn't proceed with this investigation. However, at the same time you offered no solution. Is it merely supposed to be food for thought? I think so and I have the answer, whether you are interested or not.

In case you were not aware, what Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang alleged, indicates a manner of subverting the course of justice, which is a crime.

What Eusoff Chin has denied, is very suspect, since he has made known to the public that there was a possibility that he was misinterpreted. Why and how, that we can leave for a later time, but, yes, it is a crime to deny justice.

A judge is an officer of the court. He serves a function, that is, to adjudicate and to ensure that the "rules of engagement" are strictly followed. If he fails in that function by gross dereliction of his duty to the parties of a suit, he could be made liable.

To subject him to contempt proceedings by another judge is not beyond the judiciary's power or anyone's imagination. After all, each profession and group do take care of their own. By your own inference, you seem to suggest that judges may be above the law.

No one is above the law. A suspect judgment avails itself to remedy by appeal, but a judge, if he has stolen or lied or assaulted someone, is still a human and still subject to laws of his fellow men.

Evidence of who is to be believed; you answered it yourself. It's just a wait and see stance, which everyone has to take. I don't think that this would bring disrepute to the judiciary, it only makes them stronger by being accountable and human.

Every judge has a role to play in this investigation, whether they choose to divulge information they have been privy to or not. It is a reflection of their moral fibre and character to do so. Let them sort it out in court or any forum deemed necessary. It is due process, something that the judiciary is familiar with.

The aftermath of this investigation would only serve to instill public confidence to the socially aware. If several judges were "caught with their pants down" in the course of the investigation, well, that's unfortunate because they chose the path they ventured on to, wouldn't you agree?

You might defend them, by saying they had no choice and that their career was in jeopardy, but I'd say, was their career more important to them than their dignity or their soul? Where is the strength of character that we want so badly for judges to engender? I have only seen glimpses of it, faint and merely flickering, it does not shine like a beacon these days.

For a superior judge to "allegedly interfere", he "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".

I don't know what you may think of this argument, but let's put things in perspective here. The case at hand was to sort out an election offence. Several people had competed for a seat. Where is the fairness of competition if you learnt that the victor of your hard-fought game, was quite unfair after all - Akin to a sports person, using banned substances to win a race. There is a cause of action, whatever it may be.

The only thing a superior judge may do is to request that his brethren be expeditious and efficient about it. It is true, public funds are involved, and the longer it takes the more funds are wasted, but to infer that striking out a bona fide claim is in the best interest of the public, only one so warped maybe able to put that into practice.

The judge in this case, made a good point, he is a judge, not a "yes man".Whether this revelation came now or later, it did finally arrive. Maybe it was just the right social climate for him to come forward or maybe it was just that he has proof.

That is a very dangerous thing to have, as we can obviously imagine the peril the said judge has inferred upon himself.

Pandora's box? Or in Mr Lingam's contention at the present Vincent Tan hearing at the Federal Court , "to open to floodgates of litigation"? I think this is something we fear, but floodgates or Pandoras' boxes, start out with the uncertainty of a beginning and subsequently there is no idea or foresight as to a proper framework for the manner in which litigation may proceed, but it is very clear in this present instance.

In this present instance, whoever who made that call to strike out the suits, would have to bear the burden of that incident and pay for the crime.

There is precedent for the Federal Court to set aside its own judgment if founded or based on illegality or subversion. The House of Lords, being the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom proved that point during the height of the Pinochet case recently, that it may do so and without any hesitation.

On the other hand as our Parliament is not bound by its predecessor, why should the Federal Court be? Setting aside its own judgments is a power that is complemented by the power to make judgments.

If you can make something, are you trying to tell me than you can't unmake? It is a balance that is so, anything else is an aberration.

More importantly, the judiciary is not above the law, no one is. Change is often a difficult process, but it is paramount if one wants to achieve its objectives. Please bear that in mind.