Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
Perhaps Nazri should go back to law school
Published:  Oct 3, 2007 4:47 AM
Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM

A judge is not accountable to a minister, but is accountable to the public. A judge may not be answerable to the press, but it is the duty of the press to press for justice.

On Nazri: Because I'm his minister

Ahmad Kamal: What an unintelligent response from Nazri to say that "I am his minister" when issuing a denial on behalf of chief justice Ahmad Fairuz.

A judge is not accountable to a minister. A judge is accountable to the public. The duty of the press is report matters of public interest and journalists are duty bound to find out the truth of the matter. A judge may not be answerable to the press, but it is the duty of the press to press for justice.

The system of checks and balances are in place to ensure that the three arms of government perform their constitutional roles. Parliament checks the judiciary, not a minister. It appears that Nazri had inadvertently exposed the truth that some of our judges are not independent and do answer to particular ministers or ruling parties.

Ah Chong: In case the prime minister is not aware of the workings of government; the judiciary is not under the purview of the executive. In most civilised countries, the judiciary, the executive and the parliament are three separate branches of government meant to provide a certain level of checks and balance. If the judiciary is truly independent, then why should its credibility be questioned by an independent panel answerable to the executive and his cabinet?

There is no reason why the judiciary should be allowed to be investigated by an independent panel answerable to the executive. If it had any pride and independence left, it would object to this and insist upon a royal commission of inquiry. But this is not the case. The judiciary has no more credibility. It has no more independence.

On Tengku Adnan: I'm no judicial fixer

Peter: As expected, who would want to admit his own wrongdoings. A drunkard will not admit that he is drunk. A thief will always maintain that he never steal. Even a mad person would claim he is sane.

Now Tengku Adnan has denied that he was a judicial fixer. I believe Pak Lah would agree wholeheartedly. My guess is that Lingam will also denied that he was the person on the tape. His mere denial will somehow absolved him from all the wrongs in the eyes of the powers-that-be.

Finally, without doubt, the mother of all denials is when the independent inquiry concludes that the video recording is not authentic. Then as usual, true to the style of Pak Lah's way of doing things, the case will be closed and forgotten. And the greatest fools will be us, the rakyat.

On No pressing need for royal commission: Khairy

Mike 33: How silly Khairy is. This is the perfect opportunity for the present government to blame the previous government for the ills facing the judiciary. By agreeing to a royal commission, the BN government will in fact get more votes at the next general election than by not agreeing to a commission.

By admitting that there is a problem with the judiciary caused by the previous administration, people will admire their honesty rather their trying to defend an indefensible position.

Lynnet: Yes, Mahathir must face charges. To destroy a whole nation that was once so beautiful to rob its pride, morale, health, security, trust, belief, integrity, honour and the future of more than a generation of good people is worse than what Hitler did!

Please don't feel sorry for this selfish and greedy megalomaniac now that he's in a sorry state (health-wise). I am one who has lived long enough to have witnessed the damage, and I have prayed long enough for justice. God help Malaysia!

On Long walk for justice for 2,000 lawyers

KSN: It was very heartwarming to read and see the lawyers of Malaysia taking a stand and marching, in the heat and rain, and hand over their memorandum to the PM's office.

But why postpone the EGM? The panel set up by the executive has already been criticised for their lack of credibility, judging by the the panel members' past actions and affiliations. Besides their terms of reference is confined to solely on establishing the authenticity of the tape.

But is it necessary to set up a panel to determine the tape authenticity? I am sure the police have the expertise to do that. In the face of these two factors, the EGM should have been held as scheduled - the lawyers can treat he panel with the respect they deserve and tell the government that the Bar will not be satisfied with anything less than what were in their demands.

I am not a lawyer. Probably the Bar has its own reasons to put off the EGM. Anyway, good luck to them and hope that they do not give up this time.