What drives Gani Patail?
Gani chose to appear as defender of an “anti-terrorism” law introduced and now abused by the government, and he studiously and pointedly refused to comment on the abuse.
Rama Ramanathan, The Malaysian Insider
On Tuesday, I was saddened by what I saw of Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who was recently evicted from the office of Attorney-General.
Despite years of dedicated service to his political masters, Gani was escorted out of the office and was denied the traditional send-off by colleagues.
I admire Gani’s service like I admire guide dogs for the blind. Guide dogs show blind devotion even to abusive masters. They nobly disregard the moral characters of their masters. They give their masters the benefit of the doubt and remain loyal.
There is, however, an important difference between Gani and guide dogs. One might say that Gani has more skeletons in his closet than there are in a cemetery.
It reminded me that Gani was removed “for health reasons”. Yet Gani, probably because of the skeletons, hasn’t challenged his erstwhile masters.
There is an established procedure for removing someone from service on health grounds. A person so removed is commonly said to be “medically boarded out”.
It is not easy to medically board out a person. A person can only be medically boarded out if a duly established board of medical doctors agrees he can neither perform the duties of his current position, nor lighter duties.
Three decades ago, as a rookie supervisor, I learnt that the operative principles for boarding out a person on health grounds were crystallised in 1976 by Justice Philips. The judge wrote in Spencer vs. Paragon Wallpapers Ltd:
“The basic question which has to be determined in every case is whether, in all the circumstances, the employer can be expected to wait any longer and, if so, how much longer?
“Relevant circumstances include the nature of the illness, the likely length of the continuing absence, the need of the employers to have done the work which the employee was engaged to do.”
On Tuesday, Gani looked to be in glowing health. When asked how he was, he said he was fine and leading an active life.
He said he continued to receive the same treatment regime he had been receiving for some time (before his ejection), at the same frequency.
When he delivered his talk and when he responded to questions, he displayed a sharp, alert mind. Does that sound like a candidate for boarding out? If he is so well, why was I saddened by Gani?
I was saddened because I saw wiliness more than passion for justice, more commonly known as activism.
Gani’s first public appearance after his eviction was in an event organised by the Bar Council. It was a public meeting with lawyers and law students comprising the majority in the audience.
It was deliciously titled “Sosma: Wolf in sheep’s clothing”.
