|
Posted by admin
|
|
Tuesday, 03 June 2008 18:17 |
|
1. The Royal Commission is not a court of law and is not supposed to judge and sentence people. But the fact that such commissions are often manned by judges or ex-judges seems to indicate that principles of justice and determination of right and wrong should be based on legal principles.
2. But clearly the Royal Commission on the Lingam tapes has allowed itself the liberty of stretching legal principles in order possibly to achieve a certain objective.
3. One sentence in the report is very telling and I quote, “In the process, Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also entangled. That possibility was ominous when examined against the factual circumstances surrounding the rejection of Malek Ahmad as Chief Judge of Malaya. Their ultimate aim or purpose could not be ascertained with exactitude given the limitation under the (Commission) terms of reference. It could be related to the fixing of cases as submitted by counsel for the Bar and others. Certainly it is reasonable to suggest that it could not be anything but self-serving.”
4. Through these unusual reasoning based on ominous possibility, even though they could not ascertain with exactitude, the Commission concluded that I could be related to the fixing of cases.
5. I am now named as one of those to be investigated by the authorities.
6. I await the investigation which I suspect is possibly intended to incriminate me one way or another.
7. Indeed based on the arguments of the Commission itself I can say that possibly it was set up in order to find something to pin on me, to drag me to court etc and generally humiliate me.
8. Indeed, although I cannot ascertain with exactitude, it may be possible that the Commission members may have been instructed to pin something on me. This is a reasonable suggestion given that for the Prime Minister “it would be self-serving.”
9. This new legal principle that ‘if it is possible then it could have been’ opens a plethora of possibilities. These possibilities should be investigated through Royal Commissions. We would then be able to have further investigations and possibly charge certain people in court. At the very least the Royal Commissions can create doubts regarding the integrity of selected people.
10. For a start I would suggest a Royal Commission to look into the possibilities of lobbying and abuse of position by Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when he was Deputy Prime Minister as is recorded by the United Nations in which he was listed for being involved in the Oil for Food business with Iraq. He is also on record as abusing his position by lobbying the Iraqi authorities in favour of his sister-in-law. Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers and Prime Ministers are prohibited from doing business. Letters of recommendation for sisters-in-law clearly constitute lobbying. READ MORE HERE
 |
The Blogs 
