MUST BE SACKED
AND
CHARGED FOR SEDITION & CONTEMPT
By Matthias Chang
Conduct Unbecoming of A Judge
Justice Datuk Ian Chin must be sacked for conduct unbecoming of a judge and prosecuted for sedition and contempt.
My grounds for calling such actions to be taken against the Judge are as follows:
A Unsubstantiated Allegations
The so-called disclosure made by Justice Datuk Ian Chin and published by the Star and New Straits Times, that the former Prime Minister threatened the judiciary has been contradicted by two judges as at 11th June 2008, namely:
Datuk Shaik Daud Mohamad Ismail, former Court of Appeal Judge
“It is a real shock. I do remember the (then) prime minister conveying the message about higher damages in defamation suits but not of any threats of removing judges via tribunal.”
(Emphasis added)
NST 11th June 2008
At page 6
A serving Judge (Name not disclosed in NST)
“Tun Eusoffe Chin (then Chief Justice) had invited (Tun) Dr. Mahathir (Mohamad) to personally address judges at the 1997 judges’ conference at a hotel in Shah Alam. The former PM did say that the government would not introduce a law to cap damages awarded to a party in a defamation suit and left it to judges to control it. He did also raise (Datuk) Ian Chin’s election petition argument, which the former PM said was “against us”. However, we did not speak up because the majority of senior judges felt that Chin’s ruling on that case was legally flawed. There were about 70 judges at the meeting but I think the majority of us, including Chin, were not influenced by what Dr. Mahathir said. I feel Chin took the opportunity to speak from the Bench because he thought Dr. Mahathir was responsible for blocking his promotion”.
(Emphasis added)
NST 11th June 2008
At page 6
It stands to reason, from the above statements, that Justice Datuk Ian Chin had no basis whatsoever in making the wild allegations against the former prime minister.
It is an indictment against the integrity of Justice Datuk Ian Chin that a serving judge is of the view that Justice Datuk Ian Chin’s wild allegations against the former prime minister may be actuated by malice and or self-manufactured delusion that his promotion was blocked by the former prime minister.
Any reasonable man and woman, in the light of the above wild allegations, can only come to the conclusion that Justice Datuk Ian Chin is not only, not deserving promotion, but to be appointed to the high office of a judge in 1992.
Reference to the term “Boot Camp”
To refer to a conference of judges and judicial officers on the 26th – 30th May 1997 as a “Boot Camp” to be “indoctrinated” is to use language unbecoming of a judge.
Bringing the Judiciary Into Disrepute
By making unsubstantiated the allegations against the former Chief Justice and the former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Datuk Ian Chin has scandalised the entire judiciary and it is submitted that he has also committed contempt of court.
Questionable Motives
On reading Justice Datuk Ian Chin’s statement, one cannot but question his motives.
All we need to ask is the simple question, “Why now?”
If Justice Datuk Ian Chin is a man of principle, he ought to have made a police report and it is a lame excuse to say that “We went to the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it would be his word against that of the Chief Justice.”
If, in fact his allegations are true, as a judge upholding justice and truth, Justice Datuk Ian Chin should have faith in his own integrity and his fellow judges that ultimately truth and justice will prevail.
But, instead he makes excuses and his action is that of a coward and a man without principle.
In the circumstances, I called upon this disreputable judge to an Open Public Debate on the issues raised in his Open Court Statement within a week from the date hereof.
If he refuses, I am calling him a coward, a liar and a man unfit to continue in office as a judge.
And I challenge him to hold me in contempt of his court in making this challenge!
And I am warning Justice Datuk Ian Chin that I intend to lodge a police report against him on his unfounded allegation on the expiry of my notice to him to accept my challenge!
The courage of Justice Datuk Ian Chin’s convictions will be tested by the courage of my convictions!
A Challenge to the Current Chief Justice
If the current Chief Justice was present in the said conference, I demand as a citizen and a lawyer (and lawyers are officers of the Court) to know from the Chief Justice whether the allegation that the former prime minister threatened the judiciary is correct.
If not, whether the Chief Justice intends to advise the Yang Di-Petuan Agong and the Prime Minister to convene a Tribunal to investigate into the misconduct of this despicable judge and to recommend his dismissal and to hold the said judge in contempt of court.
A Challenge to Ambiga
I read with disgust the press statement of Ambiga, the President of Bar Council which presupposes that what Justice Datuk Ian Chin disclosed in Open Court was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If the allegation by the said judge is found to be without basis whatsoever, I am challenging Ambiga to have the courage of her convictions to lodge a police report against the said judge and to lead another “walk to the Prime Minister’s office in Putrajaya” to demand that the said judge be dismissed.
Ambiga, I have previously issued a challenge to you for a public debate.
I am now issuing another challenge to debate on the statement of Justice Datuk Ian Chin. You are to reply within 48 hours from the date hereof.
If you refuse, forever hold your tongue and desists from making stupid press statements concerning the judiciary. You sound like an opportunist and you act like one.
A challenge to Judges
I am sick and fed up of judges who have no guts to speak up when in office and to live up to their oath of office.
Judges demand an independent judiciary but are unwilling to make sacrifices to ensure its independence. It is such silence in the face of such outrages misconduct by a fellow judge that confirms the public’s perception that judges are opportunists and cowards.
Why make spurious allegations now and not before?
The problem of the judiciary is to be found within the judiciary. Don’t blame third parties for your sordid state of affairs!
To Fellow Malaysians
You may have noticed by now, that whenever the Badawi Regime has a crisis eg. The UMNO crisis following the General Election disaster and now the oil price fiasco, the Badawi spin doctors would attempt to divert your attention with allegations against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
This happened just before the General Elections with the setting up of the Royal Commission and the wild allegations against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
This is another side show to throw your mind and anger away from the oil price hike to a non-issue by a frustrated old Judge who cannot even lie properly.
This judge is angry because he covets the post of Chief Judge of Sarawak and Sabah. He cannot understand why Tan Sri Richard Malanjun was promoted to the post instead. He blames the former prime minister but he care not to examine is infantile behaviour. And now, the desperate politicians are taking advantage of his stupidity for their political ends!
Don’t fall for this insidious tactic of the Badawi Regime and the blogs and websites fronting for Anwar Ibrahim.
p/s reproduced from BIGDOG's blog.
4 comments:
One prostitute cries 'rape' and claimed was raped more than a decade ago and was still living in fear.
(My hymen tear still bleeds - IT alleged while pretending as a priest now)
Hearing the delayed 'cries', a serving prostitute (still got zzzHaid)says there is no need for a Royal investigation as prostitutes were meant to be raped under the previous administration.
Another two OLD reluctant-to-retire prostitutes have come out with their bald guns blazing.
The two senile whores used to camouflage as Champions of the Human Race, at times parading naked for world.
They had their share of limelight but since the two had become old, senile and practically worthless ... they have now re-branded.
Now the two tick like clockwork to prostitute their soul.
It is all because during their heydays as 'THE whores' in the country, a handsome young man
shunned them for their low morality.
The young man has equally aged now, but the whores - Karp and Parm' are still 'burning with vengeance' to teach the gracefully aging young man a lesson for shunning them.
Karp and Parm are presently moonlighting as Prostitutional Advisors to a man who thinks he is the Prime Minister.
And the man who thinks he is the Prime Minister thinks that Karp and Parm are Saints sent by his saviour.
The two reluctant-to-retire whores are now on an aggressive recruitment drive to rope in all the prostitutes who have been shunned by the aging young man to together champion their LOST CAUSE.
p/s Now the two whores are happy because they are Screwed and are finally paid huge sums which they could have only dreamt of during their heydays.
What a brothel of an administration !
Justice Ian Chin: Guilty of Misconduct
I refer to the allegations by Ian Chin, High Court Judge, Sibu, Sarawak reported by New Straits Times (11th June 2008) with the headline ‘’Dr M threatened judges…’’ and ‘’Judges Boot Camp’’ The Star (11th June 2008).
2. Ian Chin is reported to be sitting on the bench last Monday to hear an election petition filed by Wong Hus She the defeated DAP candidate for Sarikei parliamentary seat and the Barisan Nasional candidate Ding Kuong Hing who won the said seat by 51 votes.
3. It is quoted that before the start of the proceedings whilst sitting on the bench, Ian Chin ‘’anticipated a motion for his recusal, Chin took the step to disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware of but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed’’. Both sides did not object to Ian Chin to recuse as the presiding judge.
4. Instead of proceeding to hear the petition, Ian Chin used his position sitting as a High Court Judge on the bench, to make malicious, disparaging and outrageous allegations against the former prime minister that ‘’ Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad threatened to punish the judiciary in 1997 for decisions he disliked. He referred to two cases he had presided over in February 1997- a libel suit and an election petition – the decision with which the then Prime Minister was apparently displeased’’.
5. Ian Chin is also quoted to have said that Dr. Mahathir at the judges conference about a month later ‘’had to issue a thinly veiled threat to member judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before’’.
6. Is this the functions and duties of a judge to make malicious, disparaging and outrageous remarks against the former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad or anybody else for that matter and hide behind the cloak of judicial immunity instead of commencing to hear the election petition proper fixed for the day.
7. I have been taught, trained and made to believe as a practising lawyer that judges have to exercise prudence, patience, decorum and not to be seen to make malicious, derogatory and disparaging remarks when sitting on the bench. This constitutes a blatant act of misconduct by Ian Chin. Sitting as a judge on the bench, Ian Chin is clearly seen not to be impartial and displayed his biasness and prejudice by making such remarks from the bench.
8. Since Ian Chin ‘’anticipated’’ a motion for his recuse it is apparent that he knew from the start that there was a great feeling on his part of biasness, prejudice and partiality within himself in hearing the election petition and therefore should have automatically recused himself from hearing the petition.
9. Instead, he chose to abrasively and boldly make the malicious, derogatory and disparaging allegations from the bench when there was no indication of the counsel for both the parties to make objections. It is very obvious that the remarks made, were made deliberately and with malice aforethought, laced with cowardice when he said of the former PM- ‘’now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore, dispel any fear which any judge may have of him……’’.
10. Ian Chin has not only shown bias, prejudice and partiality as a judge sitting on the bench but has also thrown himself into the political arena or has a political agenda when he declared that ‘he had twice stood unsuccessfully for election as a BN candidate in the 1980s in one of which he lost to the DAP’’ and ‘’the petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of the party to which he belongs’’.
11. Ian Chin’s malicious, disparaging remarks against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad clearly stems from his frustration and disappointment in not being promoted. This is clearly spelt out when he said ‘’ and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof’’ and as a blatant excuse to use and distinguish two cases- M.G.G. Pillai (1995) and Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon anors (1997) as well as setting aside the ‘’victory of BN’s Mong Dagang in the 1996 state polls in the Bukit Begunan seat’’. Ian Chin is also quoted to have said that ‘’Dr Mahathir had expressed unhappiness over the decision. After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel. He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.’’-this was supposed to have been said at a judge’s conference. Furthermore Ian Chin is reported to have said that ‘’ He approved of it and he later made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.’’ Thus, due to his frustration for not being promoted, Ian Chin has completely exaggerated, debase and thrown aspersions of incredibility not only against himself but other fellow judges and the whole of the judiciary in particular in the eyes of the public.
12. A sitting judge is quoted to have said that ‘’ There were about 70 judges at the meeting but I think the majority of us, including Chin, were not influenced by what Dr Mahathir said. I feel Chin took the opportunity to speak from the Bench because he thought Dr. Mahathir was responsible for blocking his promotion.’’ It is apparent that Ian Chin is under delusion and facing a mirage in making such disparaging, derogatory and outrageous allegations against Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Even Tun Dzaiddin has said that he ‘’ does not recall what was said at the 1997 judges conference and this was echoed by Tan Sri Lamin Yunus and in particular Datuk Shaik Daud Mohd Ismail who said that ‘’It is a real shock. I do remember the (then) prime minister conveying the message about damages in defamation suits but not of any threats of removing judges via a tribunal.’’ A serving judge was also reported to have said that ‘’but I think the majority of senior judges felt that Chin’s ruling on the case was legally flawed.’’
13. Also, the previous presidents and the new president, Ambiga Sreenevasan along with certain members of the Bar Council since the removal of Tun Salleh Abbas for misconduct in 1988 has never agreed with or seen eye to eye with the former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and therefore their senses are clouded and the statement made is provocative to create turbulence within the judiciary which ultimately will lead to more serious judicial crisis.
14. The Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi cannot for all intents and purposes remain silent or close an eye but must take the necessary steps to initiate and set up a judicial tribunal to try Ian Chin for the act of misconduct and not encourage such serious incidences by judges sitting on the bench in the future.
Mohd Yacob Karim
Non-partisan lawyer
Karpal Singh: The politician
Saturday, 14 June 2008
I refer to the police report lodged by Karpal Singh the DAP, Member of Parliament for Bukit Gelugor (NST/The Star-12th June 2008) pertaining to the malicious, outrageous and derogatory allegation made by Ian chin, the High Court Judge, Sibu against Tun Dr. Mahathir when sitting on the bench (NST/The Star- 11th June 2008) .
2. Karpal Singh is not only a politician but also a senior practising lawyer. I am also a senior practising lawyer but the only difference is I am not a politician.
3. Karpal is very quick in making the police report against Tun Dr. Mahathir and I can understand the reasons as he had very difficult times and a running battle in the opposition with Tun Dr. Mahathir the previous prime minister and the president of UMNO for the past twenty two years or so. Therefore he will attempt to take every blow if he can against Tun Dr. Mahathir and hope to succeed.
4. Karpal Singh has always advocated the rule of law and justice. What I can’t understand is as a senior practising lawyer advocating the rule of law and justice he is absolutely turning a blind eye when he clearly knows that Justice Ian Chin has blatantly abused his powers in using the bench to make malicious, derogatory and outrageous remarks against Tun Dr. Mahathir under a cloak of judicial immunity ‘’ in anticipation’’ of objections from counsels for both parties prior to the hearing of an election petition when there was no such objections forthcoming and stepped into the political arena or displayed a political agenda.
5. The rule of law and justice does not begin by a judge using the bench to make malicious, derogatory or outrageous remarks to anybody whosoever. Had Ian Chin made such malicious, outrageous or derogatory remarks against Karpal Singh I am sure he would have forthwith called on the present prime minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi to initiate a judicial tribunal to be set up to try Ian Chin for misconduct or to bring this matter up in parliament to impeach him (I’m sure he is able to obtain the two-thirds majority he requires in parliament as the opposition is now strong). Recently, he made a threat to file a motion to bring Justice Datuk Mohamed Apandi Bin Ali, High Court Judge, Kuala Lumpur to parliament allegedly for a reprimand made against Karpal’s law firm (NST, 18th April 2008) claiming that he can get the two-thirds majority to do so.
6. Why is Karpal Singh turning a blind eye for such a serious act of misconduct by Ian Chin which will not only bring disrepute to judges, the judiciary as a whole in the eyes of the public and the world? (Other judges have also made outrageous and disparaging remarks against another judge when sitting on the bench in the recent past). Is this going to be the trend? It is apparent that the rule of law and justice advocated by Karpal Singh is at his own whims and fancies and to create a bad precedent by judges.
7. Karpal Singh is capitalising on the spiralling turbulent judicial crisis which is actually happening now caused by various factions and the inherent weakness of the present government of Abdullah Badawi which is obviously to his benefit.
Mohd Yacob Karim
Non-partisan lawyer
It is not because I'm a supporter of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi but a more objective in my assessment. the greatest sin of Mahathir is way beyond decription. I mean the complete destruction of all the INSTITUTIONS that we had when we achieved independence in 1957 or 1963. Read this article to understand more ----http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1228&Itemid=31
Post a Comment