08.06.2000

Chief Justice Eusoff Chin finally spoke, after his prolonged and persistent
silence over serious allegations of improprieties directed at him and at the
Malaysian Judiciary.

But what a disappointment!  He has not only failed to vindicate himself, but has
instead exposed the utter disarray of the present justice system in this Country
by childishly ridiculing the Minister in charge of Law, Rais Yatim.  The latter
had earlier criticised the Chief Justice for his unethical conduct and his
incompetence, in a broadcast from Australia.

CHIEF JUSTICE’S IMPROPRIETIES

The Chief Justice as well as High Court Judge Mohtar Sidin’s scandalous conduct
in relation to tycoon Vincent Tan’s defamation suit against journalist
M.G.G.Pillai was exposed last year.  Eusoff was found to have gone on a
luxurious tour to New Zealand with Vincent’s lawyer V.K.Lingam, while Mohtar
Sidin’s Judgement (ordering compensation of RM 10 million to Vincent) was found
to have been partially written by the same V.K.Lingam.

In spite of documentary proofs of such scandalous behaviour (found in the
Internet and in the Affidavit of Asian Wall Street writer Raphael Pura), and in
spite of widespread and strong criticism from the Opposition Parties and NGOs,
Eusoff and Mohtar and in fact the entire Barisan Nasional Government remained
steadfastly silent.  That prompted former Opposition Leader in previous
Parliament Lim Kit Siang to move a Substantive  Motion in Partliament in October
1999 calling for Eusoff and Mohtar to appear before it to defend their judicial
integrity.  In a typical display of Barisan Nasional’s hegemonist role in
Parliament, that Lim Kit Siang Motion was brushed aside, in clear contempt of
the principles of parliamentary democracy and public opinion.

If Eusoff was innocent as claimed, why didn’t he speak out all this while?  Why
didn’t he take up Lim Kit Siang’s challenge to answer the charges in Parliament?
Didn’t he understand he was duty bound as the highest judge of the land to
defend the judicial integrity of the Country, if in fact the allegations were
false?  Why must he hide behind the protective shield of BN’s parliamentary
hegemony, thus exposing the Country to ridicule by the entire world?  No
honourable chief justice in the world would have chosen to suffer such
humiliation in silence for himself and for his country the way Eusoff did!

It was plain to all that, by keeping silent and by blocking Lim Kit Siang’s
motion in Parliament, Eusoff and the Barisan Nasional leadership hoped to escape
indictment -  like what Barisan Nasional always succeeded in doing over numerous
national scandals in the past, with an ever-compliant public media and conniving
government machinery.  But alas, this game plan was spoiled by a Minister, who
spoke more honestly than usual, encouraged and perhaps pressured under the more
liberal atmosphere in a foreign land.
Forced to a corner by his Minister’s open rebuke, Eusoff had no choice but to
break his silence.

Let us look at Eusoff’s defences.

Eusoff claimed that he was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Agency and the
Police and was subsequently given a clean bill of health by both.  That is some
news-breaking indeed!  The public had never heard of any public announcement to
this effect.  If what Eusoff said was true, wouldn’t the sycophantic local press
and broadcasting stations have promptly trumpeted this great news then?  And
wouldn’t Eusoff have showered his “defamers” with multi-million dollar libel
suits in true “Malaysia Boleh” style, if he was standing on firm ground?

Eusoff also dragged in the former Bar Council Chairman C.V.Das, claiming the
latter was shown the relevant documents and was satisfied with Eusoff’s
innocence.  Was C.V.Das a competent authority to exonerate Eusoff of such
offences?  The very fact that Eusoff brought in Das as his defence only
indicates the paucity of his grounds of defence.

Eusoff also claimed he “bumped into” Lingam in New Zealand by accident, contrary
to Raphael Pura’s Amended Affidavit which claimed the latter had evidence that
Eusoff and Lingam went on holiday together to Christchurch and Queenstown.  If
Eusoff was right and Raphael was wrong, why was the latter’s Amended Affidavit
rejected by the High Court, purely on technical ground?  Since the prime
objective of the Court is to seek truth and serve justice, why was the Court
reluctant to scrutinise such a serious vilification of our judiciary as
Raphael’s accusation of the Chief Justice?  Now that Eusoff has publicly made
his defence against such accusation, a logical solution would be to have
Raphael’s Amended Affidavit examined in the Court.  Is Eusoff prepared to have
the document re-admitted to the Court now?

Eusoff threatened to sue any one who may suggest his trip to N.Z. (in 1994) was
paid for by anyone other than himself.  He flashed his air tickets, hotel bills
and bank statements in front of the reporters as evidence that his N.Z. trip was
self paid.  If Eusoff hoped to establish his innocence in the eyes of the public
by such publicity stunt, he was sadly mistaken.  The stains on our judiciary
have become such a stench that nothing short of a full enquiry by an independent
and competent body would satisfy the Malaysian public.  Is Eusoff prepared to
accept such an enquiry?

On other criticism such as Federal Court’s (chaired by Eusoff) inability to
deliver judgement two and a half years after hearing M.G.G. Pillai’s Appeal in
the Vincent vs Pillai Defamation Judgement, and the piling up of an unbelievable
mountain of pending cases – three quarter of a million, Eusoff’s answers were
anything but satisfactory.  He claimed it was not possible to set any time limit
to complete judgement by the Court and that piling up of court cases is common
in every country (Sin Chew Jit Poh dated 07.06.2000).  Such pathetic and
irresponsible statements from the Chief Justice bespeak the appalling state of
affairs prevailing in our courts today.
 

JUDICIARY Vs LAW MINISTER

During the press conference on 6th June 2000, the Chief Justice and the Court of
Appeal President Lamin Yunus attempted to belittle the position of the Minister
in charge of Law, as a form of retaliation against the Minister’s criticism.
Little did these two top judges realize that by indulging in such childish
squabbles, they had lowered the dignity of the entire judiciary and exposed the
Country to ridicule by the entire world.  This incident also points to the low
quality of our judiciary and reveals the failure of Mahathir’s Cabinet in the
proper administration of justice.  Here are excerpts of the judges’ conversation
with the press.

During Minister Rais Yatim’s interview in Australia, he said “we have intimated
to the Chief Justice in no uncertain terms this is improper behaviour”, meaning
Eusoff’s improper socialising with Lingam.  And Eusoff’s answer to this
criticism is “No one had any dialoque with me.  Never talked to me at all.  Not
only about this.  Not about any other matter as well.”  Who is right?  Eusoff or
Rais?  What is the Cabinet position on this judicial scandal?  Has the Cabinet
any position at all?  Or is it just a short circuit between Mahathir and Eusoff
and the Cabinet is oblivious?  Are Rais’ statements mere empty barks?

Referring to Minister Rais’ functions in relation to law, Judge Lamin said “the
number one here (meaning Eusoff) is above him (meaning Rais).”  Then Eusoff
interjected to say “Rais was only in charge of the Chief Registrar’s Office, and
not law.”  Lamin then added “I suppose when we need tables and chairs or a new
court room, we go to him.”

And so we have the most unbelievable drama unfolding before our eyes: The Chief
Justice is telling the Minister of Law that the latter is fit to rule over
tables and chairs in the courtrooms, but not law.  International magazines and
newspapers must not miss the golden opportunity of capturing this unique
scenario in their satires and cartoons.

As for the Malaysian public, does any one wonder what Mahathir will say over
this apparently strange but actually very revealing episode?  No need to wonder,
it will be buried in due course by the obliging local mass media, with or
without a non-statement from Mahathir.
 

Kim Quek