When time does not heal
So here we have a Royal Commission of experienced legal minds finding sufficient cause to invoke numerous laws but the Attorney General not being able to sustain the momentum and initiate a prosecution.
By DAVID D. MATHEW/MySinchew
There is one particular habit prevalent in this country which threatens to destroy its soul. It is the habit of not completely dealing with an issue in the hope that time will heal.
When an issue blows up, there is a period of denial with the standard “I do not have all the facts with me” reaction trailing just behind. This is normally followed by the “we are looking into this matter” response. Then there is the “we take this very seriously” progression.
If the public does not stop demanding for action after about two weeks or perhaps more, cue the setting up of special task forces and Royal Commissions. At this point, there is sometimes yet another trick up the sleeve. This would be the often hazy and pitiable terms of reference given to the special task forces and Royal Commissions.
Some months will pass, evidence will be taken and then the all important Laporan Rasmi or Official Report will be released.
Sadly these reports are often very shy. It takes an almighty effort just to gain access to them and when you manage to do so, it may only be available for about two weeks or so. Some of these reports also come in small quantities. Chances are that by the time you get to the counter, all the copies would have been snapped up.
Then comes the icing on the cake. This would be the “keep our fingers crossed and hope the public will forget” segment. During this time, there may be some mutterings about how the ball is in the Attorney General’s court and so everyone has to just wait.
Sometimes the person or body at the centre of the report will flatly reject and dismiss the recommendations contained therein. Sod the King’s men, we have decided that their suggestions are unnecessary.
Days will then come and go with no urgent action because the public clamour is not so loud anymore. The long drawn out affair has made them weary.
Sometimes these issues die a natural death and at other times, half baked attempts (also known as a compromise) are made to right the problem. Recently, we were treated to the “not enough evidence to do anything about the issue” response. Sorry King’s men, thank you for your conclusions and recommendations, but you guys were wrong. No further action is required on the matter.
This was the government’s announcement in response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry which investigated the (pause here for breath) video clip recording of images of a person purported to be an advocate and solicitor speaking on the telephone on matters regarding the appointment of judges.
In a written reply to a question posed to him, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz told Parliament last Wednesday that “the attorney-general’s chambers decided there was no further action required.”
Let us just refresh our memories to appreciate the poverty of this decision.
In December of 2007, a Royal Commission was officially constituted by order of the King in accordance with the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1950.
The Royal Commission was specifically ordered to identify the speaker and the persons mentioned in the conversation and determine whether any act of misbehaviour was committed by the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip. Should such person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour, the Royal Commission was to recommend any appropriate course of action to be taken against them.
The Commissioners found that the person speaking on the phone was Dato’ V.K. Lingam and that he was speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato’ Sheikh Abdul Halim. The Commissioners also found that the content of the conversation in the video clip is true in substance and in material particulars.
In case anyone has forgotten, the Commissioners also categorically stated that there was “sufficient evidence of misbehaviour.” Most importantly, the Commissioners found sufficient cause to invoke the Sedition Act 1948, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code.
It is important to bear in mind that the Royal Commission comprised of, among others, a former Chief Judge of Malaya, a former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, a former Court of Appeal Judge and a former Solicitor-General.
So here we have a Royal Commission of experienced legal minds finding sufficient cause to invoke numerous laws but the Attorney General not being able to sustain the momentum and initiate a prosecution.
This is not a happy state of affairs.
The Royal Commission also suggested that fresh investigations be undertaken in the light of the testimonies of V.K. Lingam’s brother and also his former secretary. Not much has come out of this suggestion.
Concrete action must be taken against those responsible for the second most deadly attack on the sanctity of both our Constitution and the legal system. In a hundred years, the spectre of the video tape will still haunt the judiciary’s image if justice is not served.
As human beings we may forget but time will never heal the rotten state of affairs permitted to remain unrepaired. Future generations will be the ones that suffer the consequences.
