Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's outburst, upon his return from Japan, on the current judicial crisis involving Chief Justice Eusoff Chin is shocking. Instead of dealing with the facts, he launched a completely irrelevant and illogical attack on the Bar Council and made wild accusation against the critics.

The crisis at hand is that defacto law minister Rais Yatim has openly rebuked the Chief Justice for improper conduct based on certain available evidence. The Chief Justice furiously denied the charges and gave his version of the story. Then new evidence emerged which raise serious questions on the Chief Justice's version of events. The Chief Justice has failed to refute the new evidence, in spite of calls on him to do so.

Meanwhile, amidst public outcry for action, the Bar Council called for a meeting to decide on a motion to set up a tribunal or royal commission of enquiry to investigate the allegations on the Chief Justice.

What should a good prime minister do facing this situation upon his return from an overseas trip? We would expect him to look into the facts, and if the facts so justify, institute action on the Chief Justice in accordance with the Constitution.

And how does the Malaysian Constitution deal with a wayward Chief Justice? The setting up of a tribunal to conduct the necessary investigation and thereafter to make recommendation to the King, as suggested by the Bar Council and demanded by the public.

And what did Mahathir do upon his return from Japan? An angry attack on the Bar Council! He accused the council of wanting to get rid of the Chief Justice, and likened this to his own action in removing former Lord President Salleh Abas in 1988.

He said, "The last time when we took action to remove the Lord President (Salleh Abas), it was the Bar Council which condemned us. Now it wants a judge who will be on his side."

He added if the Bar Council could accuse the government of removing a judge (meaning Salleh) who was unfavourable to the government, the council could now be accused of doing the same (meaning removing a judge who is not favourable to the council). "What's the difference?" he asked.

Putting it more plainly, Mahathir seemed to say, "If you can condemn me for sacking Salleh, I can now also condemn you for trying to sack Eusoff."

Is Mahathir suggesting that the Bar Council's alleged attempt to remove Eusoff is as damnable as his action to sack Salleh? If so, then he is admitting his own guilt in sacking Salleh.

If he still insists his sacking of Salleh is above board, then what's wrong with similar action by the Council (in removing Eusoff)? Hence, Mahathir is either admitting his sacking of Salleh is wrong, or saying the Bar Council's alleged attempt to remove Eusoff is right.

Mahathir's confused logic aside, the awful fact is that the Chief Justice is implicated in gross misconduct, the evidence of which is convincing enough that even the defacto law minister thought fit to rebuke him in public. With the high profile tit-for-tat between the justices and the defacto law minister and the uncovering of incriminating new evidence, it has escalated into a scandal of international proportion, and caused public confidence in the judiciary to plunge to its lowest level.

Under these circumstances, it is the height of irresponsibility on the part of Mahathir to attack and accuse, without making even one single reference to the facts of the case.

In typical Mahathir style, he attempted to divert attention from the facts of the case by wildly attributing this crisis to the existence of a "political agenda". The basis of his observation? That this incident should have been brought up only now, so long after it happened. He further accused his critics of ill intention to pit the government against judges, so that the judges will get angry and decide against the government.

Firstly, it is not true to say that this incident is brought up only at this time. The compromising photographs that implicate Eusoff have been public knowledge through the Internet for the past two years. Opposition and critics have clamoured for action by the authorities ever since, but to no avail.

The Asian Wall Street Journal attempted to submit an amended affidavit in a defamation lawsuit with similar evidence but was rejected by the High Court on technical ground. Former opposition leader Lim Kit Siang tried to introduce a substantive motion in Parliament in November 1999 for Eusoff to appear before the Dewan Rakyat to defend himself, but was brushed aside.

All this while, the Barisan Nasional leadership and the entire government machinery including Eusoff himself steadfastly played deaf and dumb on this scandal, until it was commented on by Rais in Australia earlier this month.

Secondly, the issue facing Mahathir is not whether there is any politics in this judicial scandal. It is whether there was impropriety in Eusoff's conduct as Chief Justice, and whether his activities in question are criminal in nature.

The facts of the case as they stand now are needed further investigation. That is why the Bar Council is moving for a tribunal. And that is also why the public is demanding that the government act speedily to fulfill its obligation to the people. No amount of irrelevant rhetoric by Mahathir can change that.

Mahathir has fooled the people many times in the past. As loyal citizens of this country, let us resolve that he shall not succeed this time.

KIM QUEK is a freelance writer and a contributor to Harakah .