The Mecca Trip with Tajuddin Ramli’s Proxy: No Comment from the Attorney-General

December 2, 2010

No Comment from the Attorney -General on his relationship with Tajuddin Ramli’s Proxy

by Leven Woon Zheng Yang (December 1, 2010)

Attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail has declined to give any comments to define his relationship or friendship with former Malaysia Airlines System chairperson Tajuddin Ramli’s proxy, Shahidan Shafie.

Similarly, Shahidan, a lawyer and former police officer, also refused to comment on the issue when contacted by Malaysiakini. Malaysiakini had asked Abdul Gani on whether he was together with Shahidan on their recent haj pilgrimage to Mecca, but the attorney-general said, “Later you will quote me of saying all this.”

When asked further, Gani replied, “No comment” on whether he wanted to deny the allegations.NONEYesterday, Social Care Foundation chairperson Robert Phang Miow Sin (left) wanted Abdul Gani to go on record to clear up several allegations made on the Malaysia Today website over the adverse public speculation on the AG’s relationship with Shahidan.

This follows an allegation that Abdul Gani had allegedly decided not to take action against Tajuddin, despite recommendations made by former Commercial Crime Investigation Director Dato’ Ramli Yusof.

The allegation that Abdul Gani and his family had shared a trip with Shahidan on the same package was another reason for alarm, resulting in Phang calling for answers.

Phang, who is also a member of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s consultative and advisory panel, said the MACC is entitled to investigate the AG if there was a directive to do so by the Prime Minister’s Department.

The Malaysia Today website had in September and November claimed it was Shahidan who had convinced Abdul Gani not to press charges against Tajuddin.

Tajuddin, who was MAS’ executive chairperson from 1994 to 2001, has been largely been blamed for the national carrier suffering losses amounting to more than RM8 billion, which is mainly due to the move to relocate MAS’ cargo operations from Amsterdam and Frankfurt to a single hub in Hahn, Germany.

MAS had also filed several reports against Tajuddin with the MACC, and the national airline and the government had also initiated a suit against the former MAS chairperson. The entrepreneur had also launched a counter-claim.

‘Allegedly Tajuddin’s frontman’

Shahidan, as alleged by Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin, fostered good ties with Abdul Gani during his days as a police officer in Johor Bahru.

NONEShahidan was allegedly Tajuddin’s frontman and played a major role in new business ventures after the latter quit his post as MAS chairmperson.

The Malaysia Today portal had published records and pictures of the pair’s trip to Mecca under one package. Besides Abdul Gani, his wife and son had allegedly travelled with him on the same package.

It is learnt the charge for the package is said to be RM60,000 per person, and with three persons going the bill would come to at least RM180,000. The Malaysia Today portal also alleges that Shahidan had footed the bill for Abdul Gani’s family.

Meanwhile, Phang said he will resort to “various methodologies” to continue seeking responses from both the AG and Shahidan. “If they still haven’t answered after one month, I will call for another press conference,” he said.—

44 thoughts on “The Mecca Trip with Tajuddin Ramli’s Proxy: No Comment from the Attorney-General

  1. I am not surprised at the A-G’s “No Comment”. This issue, like the Black Eye incident and fabrication of evidence activities of the A-G which are made in an Open Letter by a former Police Office, wont just go away. The tenacious Tan Sri Robert Phang will be pushing for the A-G’s explanation.

    It would appear that the A-G, Gani Patail, has become a political liability to the Najib Government and he can become a major campaign issue for the next General Election, slated to be some time in 2011. That being the case, the Prime Minister may have little choice but to deal with it head on, the sooner the better.

    We cannot afford to keep an Officer of the Law with a cloud(s) over his head. It is reported in the Malaysian Insider(November 24) that Nazri and Rais have been instructed to deal with the A-G and the Black Eye matter. Hopefully, they would ask the A-G to explain his relationship with Tajuddin Ramli’s proxy, Shahidan and answer questions surrounding his recent trip with the latter to Mecca.

    In the meantime, let us not forget that lawyer Rosli Dahlan is still not acquitted by the Courts, although there are no grounds to find him guilty of the charges against him by the MACC. I will continue to write about this victimisation of a respected lawyer.–Din Merican

  2. Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, Nazri Aziz, has defended the A-G. Sickening to hear that. I know for a fact that this Shahidan character is close to Zahid Hamidi, Nazri himself and UMNO’s Rauf and others too. They are all part of the UMNO mafia and Shahidan has gotten them all by their cojones.

    God Help this country when you have characters like these men are in power or in the corridors of power. It is no small wonder that Tajuddin Ramli is walking free, having no accountability for the loss of RM8 billion when he was MAS Chairman. Nothing will change unless the rakyat realises that their apathy will ruin this wonderful country.

    Mr.Merican, I understand from reliable sources that you know Nazri very well and are a great admirer of Nazri’s late father, Tan Sri Aziz Yeop. Please see Nazri and find what he is up to. His apparent support for the A-G will tarnish his image as a very effective Minister in charge of Parliament and Law. Isn’t he the one together with Rais Yatim, who has been asked by the Cabinet to investigate the Black Eye incident (read Malaysian Insider report, November 24, 2010).

  3. Who pays the A-G’s salary and his perks. Taxpayers of course. Money is from halal and non-halal sources. Aren’t taxpayers Malaysians and Malaysian companies (of there are foreign companies). The A-G should know that he is supposed to oversee the justice system and protect its integrity and be above politics. No, he is in cahoots with politicians in power and their cronies like Shahidan.

    No comment from him, of course. Not matter which you look the A-G is caught in a Catch-22 situation. He should not have been in the company of Shahidan on the Mecca trip. He could have gone to do his Haj with others who are tainted with corruption or with his family. There is something smelly about this whole matter.

    Nazri? Well, he is an enigma. He contradicts himself at every opportunity. But that is the way to survive in the rough and tumble of UMNO and Malaysian politics. Be a good sandiwara performer with silat skills. I think Nazri has learned to do that by studying characters like Mahathir. Dia pun nak cari makan.

  4. Yes…the A-G no comments is expected but is heartening to know that Tan Sri Phang will not back down but is pursuing other ways.

    Will be interesting to analyze if whether the A-G is actually a “Paper Tiger” and the supposedly grip on the cojones of most politicians is just an “illusion” that could be easily dispersed (countered)…the final analysis for the Be-End should be this A-G is too heavy an excess baggage to carry in the crucial 13th dump & ditch him…the sooner the better !!!

    Hidup Malaysia !!!

  5. There is a misconception that our Attorney General who is appointed by the Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister is accountable to us. That is not the case. He is not even answerable to Parliament.

    Certainly not to members of the Cabinet.

  6. The AG ‘shall hold office during the pleasure of the Agong’ and can only be dismissed on ‘like grounds and in like manner’ as a judge of the Federal Court : Article 145 (5) and (6) Federal Constitution

    Very strong words.

  7. As RPK use to say,there are those who has sinned, goes to a Holy place, and come back sinless.
    So in the eyes of God, they may be now clean and sinless as a new born baby, please, our laws do not supersede that of God’s .
    Ministers and public figures in the civilize world,Japan or Korea or even China resign over the simplest of issue, like uttering some words that are not politically correct.
    In Bolehland, those accused of alleged corruption, racism, etc, carries that as a badge of honour. Its like thumping their chests and say “hoi, say makan suap, apa you boleh buat?”

  8. I would like to ask Phang how he came by the implied assertion that the AG is accountable to the Prime Minister’s Department rather than the Prime Minister directly.

    The proper way would be to remove the AG under Article 145 (6) if you can find the grounds.

  9. Mr. Bean,

    Get this straight the A-G is not above or below the law. He must defend himself against allegations of unethical conduct and any suggestions of impropriety. It is not relevant he reports to the Prime Minister or not. He must explain himself or resign.Public confidence in him is now zilt.

    Minister Nazri deals with the A-G at the behest of the Prime Minister. He should haul the A-G before him and seek the latter’s explanation. If Nazri can’t–and he supposed to be one of the toughest mnisters in the PM’s Department–I think, Nazri is letting his links to Zahid, Rauf and Shahidan to get in the way of his better judgment with respect to ethics of his legal profession.

    In England, judges and the Attorney General are sensitive about their relationship to the general public since that there is a strong possibility that it could impair their judgment and impartiality. That judges belong to a club where they interact among themselves.

  10. If so difficult to remove him…how about “suspending” him from “active” duty … whilst investigations are being carried out…a nice way to imply that the noose is being tightened to “hang” him and let him sit and sweat in his sinecure knowing his end is near…think that will be more “tormenting”!!!

    Hidup Malaysia !!!

  11. Mongkut Bean,

    If there is political will to allow full investigation, there will be enough evidence to get the A-G under Article 145 (6) of the constitution which states:

    “(6) The person holding the office of Attorney General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Supreme Court”.

    Read this piece by Hector:


    22 years of Dr Mahathir’s reign as Prime Minister of Malaysia is coming to an end, and it is apt for us now to review the impact that it has had on the Malaysian Judiciary and also the doctrine of separation of powers, essential for good government and to prevent a over- concentration of power on any one of the three bodies of government – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.


    After obtaining independence from the British in 1957 until the mid 80s, the Malaysian Judiciary built a reputation of being independent and impartial, and was held in high esteem by members of the public. There was, it seems, no accusation of judicial improprieties, corruption, bias and/or judicial misconduct during this period. After Independence, one still had a right of appeal to the Privy Council if they were aggrieved with the decision of the Federal Court, but as time passed fewer and fewer appeals were taken up to the Privy Council and this can be taken only as an indication of the public satisfaction and appreciation of the competency of the Malaysian Judiciary. Finally, it was decided towards the end of the 70’s that this right of appeal to the Privy Council be discontinued. The Federal then in early 80s became the final Court of Appeal in Malaysian, and was renamed the Supreme Court.

    When Dr Mahathir Mohamad became the Prime Minister, being the first person without a legal background to assume this position, he too apparently did have a rather high regard for the Malaysian Judiciary. At the advent of his premiership, in a speech made at the opening ceremony of the Asean Law Association General Assembly on 26 October 1982, he had this to say about the Malaysian Judiciary:-

    “I will always respect the Judiciary. We do not expect the courts to be pro or anti Government, only pro the Constitution and pro the law. The Government always considers the Constitution and the law carefully before we do anything so we expect the Judiciary to be free to judge our alleged trespasses without fear or favour, but in accordance with the law, in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure justly and fairly. We shall always respect their judgments…”


    But just several years later, the Dr Mahathir’s feelings about the Judiciary changed. It was intensified with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Berthelsen -v- Director of Immigration, Malaysia & Ors. In brief, the DG of Immigration served a notice cancelling the two-year employment pass of a staff correspondent attched to the Kuala Lumpur office of the Asian Wall Street Journal. The Supreme Court came to a decision that since Berthelsen had not been given the opportunity to make representation regarding the cancelation of his employment pass, the requirement of natural justice had not been satisfied. Accordingly the court quashed the cancellation decision of the DG.

    Subsequently in commenting on the role of the courts, Dr Mahathir was reported in the 24 November 1986 issue of Time magazine, as saying, amongst others,

    “The Judiciary says , ‘Although you passed a law with certain thing in mind, we think that your mind is wrong , and we want to give our intepretation.’ If we disagree, the courts say, ‘We will intepret your disagreement.’ If we go along, we are going to lose our power of legislation. We know exactly what we want to do, but once we do it, it is interpreted in a different way, and we have no means to interpret it our way. If we find that a court always throws us out on its own interpretation, if it interprets contrary to why we made the law, then we will have to find a way of producing a law that will have to be interpreted according to our wish.”

    This passage sparked off a contempt of court action instituted by Lim Kit Siang against the Prime Minister. The High Court, and thereafter the Supreme Court dismissed this action.

    This was followed by the UEM case, which although ultimately at the Supreme Court was a victory to the government, it was only a majority decision with 2 judges dissenting.

    During this time, we also had the UMNO Crisis which followed the contest for UMNO presidency in 1987 which Dr Mahathir, who was challenged by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, won by a very slim majority of 43 votes. Eleven members the challenged the validity of this elections, which resulted in the High Court declaring that UMNO was an unlawful society. The plaintiffs appeled to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was fixed to be heard on 13 June 1988 by a full bench of nine Supreme Court Judges. What was at stake was the political survival of UMNO, the dominant party of the Barisan nasional, and of course, Dr Mahathir himself.


    It was also around this time that not being able to endure ‘the various comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the Judiciary, not only outside but within Parliament, the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas following a meeting with about 20 judges, including Tun Hamid Omar, decided to sent a letter to the King and the State Rulers on 26 March 1988. Following this letter, Dr Mahathir reacted and this led to the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President on 8 August 1988 by the King based on the recomendation of the Tribunal chaired by the then Chief Justice Tun Hamid Omar. It is good to note that the UMNO appeal was also heard on the same day and dismissed the following day.

    Thereafter, based on the recomendations of a Second Tribunal chaired by Edgar Joseph Jr which was set up to look into the conduct of 5 Supreme Court Judges, the King on 4 October 19888 ordered the dismissal of Supreme Court Judges Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Seah.


    In the criminal case of PP -v- Dato Yap Peng, the Supreme Court ccame to the decision that section 418A was unconstitutional on the ground that it violated Article 121(1) of the Constitution, which then provided that the judicial power of the Federation was vested in the two High Courts and such inferior courts as might be provided by federal law. The Supreme Court in that case had amongst others this to say:- “…judicial power to transfer cases from a subordinate court of competent jurisdiction as presently provided by s. 418A cannot be conferred to any organ of government other than the judiciary…” Judicial power broadly defined means “the power every sovereign authority must of necessity have to decide controversies between the subjects, of between itself and its subjects whether the right relates to life, liberty or property”, and this power rightly should and must be vested in the third arm of the government, the judiciary.

    But alas, the Barisan National who had more than 2/3 majority in the Dewan Rakyat and also the Dewan Negara easily was very easily able to amend Article 121 of Federal Constitution, removing the judicial power vested in the courts. Thereafter, the High Courts have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law. This means that the court’s jurisdiction can now be determined no longer by the courts themselves, but by the legislature. The amendment has the effect of allowing parliament to enact legislation limiting or prohibiting judicial review – and over this past 22 years there has been many such amendments to laws that prevent the court from reviewing Ministers and/or government decisions.


    Tun Hamid Omar, who chaired the First Tribunal that recomended the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President, then became the Lord President on 10 November 1988. It is interesting to note that Tun Hamid Omar was apparently at the meeting of judges that decided on the sending of the letter to the King and State Rulers.This was followed with Eusoff Chin, who sat in the Second Tribunal being appointed as the head of the Malaysian Judiciary.

    During this period, there were many controversies which included the infamous Ayer Molek case, the “Poison Pen Letter” in early 1996 which contained 112 allegations comprising of 39 charges of corruption, 21 of abuse of power and 52 of misconduct, immoral and other indiscretions, the Chief Justice holidaying with a lawyer, the disclosure by an an High Court Judge that he received direction (or was that advice?) about a case before him by the then Chief Justice and the greatly discussed cases of Lim Guan Eng and Anwar Ibrahim. A perusal of past issues of Aliran Monthly would enlighten the reader about these issues.

    After the 1988 Crisis, after the Mahathir led assault on the Judiciary, the Judiciary rather than attempting to regain its loss in stature and independence wrongly focused its attacks on the Malaysian Bar and lawyers. The Malaysian Bar who had been steadfast in their struggle for rebuilding of public confidence and the independence of the Malaysian judiciary throughout the crisis and thereafter, became the focus of attack during this period. First, there was Manjeet Singh Dillon, the then Secretary of the Bar Council, who was cited for contempt for an affidavit he affirmed on behalf of the Bar Council. Thereafter, in the courts many lawyers were being threatened with contempt and/or cited for contempt.


    Thereafter, Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin was appointed the head of the Malaysian Judiciary and there was hope that under his leadership, the Malaysian Judiciary would travel the road to regain the quality and stature it once had in the period before 1988. But then hopes were shattered bit by bit. One of the Practice Directions issued towards the end of his term also has the effect of further withering the right of access to a lawyer. After retirement, almost immediately, he went and joined a law firm in the first half of 2003 – this sparked out public discussion and debate as to whether this is proper and its consequence to the public perception of the independence of the Judiciary. The Malaysian Bar felt that there should be a “cooling off period” at the very least, whilst some even felt that retired senior members of the Judiciary (especially heads of the Judiciary) should not take up positions in law firms and/or other companies. The government’s response was to look into amending the Judges Code of Ethics 1994 to include possibly post-retirement. conduct of judges. Despite all that public comments, Dzaiddin continued as consultant in that law firm.

    Now we have a new Chief Justice, but it would be premature to judge him one way or the other.


    Article 125 of the Federal Constitution also gives the power to the Prime Minister to initiate proceedings for the removal of judges. If the Prime Minister represents to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that a judge ought to be removed, “…then the Yang di-Pertuan Agung shall appoint a tribunal..” which will make recommendation to remove or not to remove a particular judge. By the usage of the word “shall” it seems that the Yang di-Pertuan has no choice in the matter but to set up a tribunal. Mahathir, by removing the head of the Judiciary and 2 Supreme Court Judges, had sent a clear message to the judiciary that could be simply stated as “…if you do not do things according to my will, then you too will be moved..” That removal of judges clearly showed that it is not just a possibility and/or a threat but can be come a reality if you don’t behave as you should. The incidents of 1988 has left a deep-seated fear in many of our judges, and over the years since we see that only a few have been able to surmount that fear and have decided judiciously without fear and favour especially in cases involving the government and/or personalities and companies with links to the government.

    Prior to the 1988 Judicial Crisis of 1988, the chairperson of the Malaysian Bar and other senior lawyers were consulted informally by the Lord President on the suitability of candidates before he made recommendation for appointment as judges, but after that this practice stopped.

    Then in 1994 the Federal Constitution was amended to allow for the appointment of Judicial Commissioners (sort of ‘probationary judges’) who had all the powers of the judge but without the any security of tenure, which is a safeguard required to protect and ensure the independence of the judiciary. These Judicial Commissioners are appointed on contract for an initial term of two years, and if found ‘satisfactory’ the recommendation would be made by the Chief Justice (or Lord President as it was known before) to the Prime Minister.

    In the July 2003 issue of the Malaysian Bar’s official newsletter, Infoline, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, was reported as saying that the recent “…promotions of Augustine Paul, Arifin Jaka and Pajan Sungh Gill will be perceived by the public as a reward for having ‘delivered’” Likewise, the appointment of Hamid Omar and later Eusoff Chin as heads of the Judiciary was also possibly perceived by the public as a reward. Public perception.

    An extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar has been called for on 4 October 2003 to discuss this important aspect of judicial appointments and other related matters.


    In my opinion, Mahathir believed that the Executive must lead and all others follow. He seem to have not grasped the importance of the doctrine of separation of power and/or the need for a strong and independent judiciary. Similarly as the head of UMNO, the dominant party in the Barisan National coalition which had always enjoyed more than 2/3 majority in the Dewan Rakyat and also the Dewan Negara (both together with the Agong being the Legislative), Mahathir effectively also had control of the Legislative. In his time as prime minister, Dr Mahathir has successfully removed and/or weakened all possible checks and balances including the Agung and the Judiciary.

    There has been an erosion in the powers of the Malaysian Judiciary, particularly with the 1988 Constitution amendment which withdrew judicial power which was previously expressedly vested in the hands of the Judiciary only.

    From Independence until the 1988 Judicial Crisis, the stature, quality and independence of the Malaysian Judiciary was highly acclaimed but ever since then there has been an erosion, in reality or at least from the perception of the man in street. Public confidence in the Malaysian Judiciary has been on a decline, to the extend that many a person who may have had a legitimate cause of action against the government and/or persons, bodies and companies associated with certain personalities in the executive have not come to the courts to pursue their claims.

    Dr Mahathir, as Prime Minister, as provided for in the Federal Constitution plays a very important role in the appointment of the Chief Justice (or Lord President as it was then known), and also in the appointment of the other Judges. In the past 22 years as Prime Minister, he has naturally had an effect on the Malaysian Judiciary be it in terms of the membership and composition of the judiciary. After all, all judges are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agung, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. Other than for the appointment Chief Justice , the Prime Minister has a duty to consult Chief Justice and/or the heads of the different courts depending as to which court the judge is being appointed to. All the Prime Minister has to do is consult, but the Yang di-Pertuan Agung apparently from the words used has no choice but to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. He chose the “suitable” ones, but then some of these judges proudly has from time to time demonstrated rare courage through their decisions, and alas now may be considered “un-suitable” in the eyes of the Prime Minister.

    But then, the Judiciary is also to be blamed. Judges, and when the accept this office they must put aside all these preferences, bias and prejudices and uphold justice without fear or favor. They must not be pro or anti Government, only pro the Constitution and pro the law. They must not be pro the big companies or pro the small man in the street, only pro justice, pro human rights. They must not bother about tomorrow, about possible repercussions from the powerful, about their chances of elevation to higher courts and judicial office. They must never forget the oath that they have taken which includes “…I will faithfully discharge my judicial duties in that office, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia [not the Prime Minister, not the Executive, not the government], and will preserve, protect and defend its Constitution….”

    The words of recommendation in the Justice In Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000 Report prepared by an international mission led by the International Bar Association must be taken heed by the Judiciary which, amongst others, stated :-

    “We recommend that the judiciary does all in its power, in the wider interest of justice, to counter the harshness of repressive legislation and overbearing action on the part of the executive. That is the role of the judiciary when faced with repression no matter where it comes from…In the present situation and in light of the experiences of 1988, this will require great courage. Even still, we consider it essential if the reputation of the judicial system in Malaysia is to be restored to what it was and what it should be.”

    We, the ordinary citizens of Malaysia, is also to be blamed for what has happened to our Judiciary for we have gone election after election to the ballot box and returned the Barisan National government with more than 2/3 majority, thus enabling them to amend our Federal Constitution and during the Mahathir era some of these amendments have contributed to state of our Malaysian judiciary as it is today.

    Charles Hector (September 19, 2003)

  12. It is possible to impeach the A-G as we we can with judges (e.g. Tun Salleh Abas under dubious grounds) if there is political will. But it would save the country another embarrassment if the A-G just resigns.

    The credibility of the A-G Chambers and the Judiciary is at all time low, given what happened under Mahathir (as shown by Charles Hector, written in September, 2003). This man from Kedah (there are good men from Kedah as well) destroyed the Judiciary and emasculated our system of governance. No wonder Malaysians who can think for themselves despise Mahathir Mohamad. Our country is now bearing the burden of his decisions and actions.

  13. “In my opinion, Mahathir believed that the Executive must lead and all others follow. He seem to have not grasped the importance of the doctrine of separation of power and/or the need for a strong and independent judiciary” Charles hector

    And this IS the reason why M’sia is the way it is today. Shrouded in corrupt activities with no accountability of the public service in decision making . Mahathir either didnt grasp it or did and refused to abide by this because he wanted to dictate and do it his way. He singlehandedly destroyed the very essence of Governance and accountability at home. He destroyed our country and the public service mentality and it impacted on the nation as we see it today. We should be mourning this day when he came into power and interfered with the independence of the judiciary as I know alot of Judges and Lawyers are silently mourning the death of the Rule fof Law in M’sia because of him.

  14. This is the very reason why the public service mentality dont care a damn about the people because the leaders at the top are evil and dont care and it trickles down. Then who sufferes ? The people and in the long run they pay the price of a country that doesnt work . They think money is the answer but they are dead wrong, corrupt practices will destroy a country it is a matter of time if not already as shown here by this article and how Rosli Dahlan an innocent man and many many more innocent people,can be imprisoned for nothing. Falsely imprisoned by the very people who are supposed to protect the citizens, their ownn citizens becasue the day Mahathir interfered with the Rule of Law was our day of mourning.Rosli dahlan is the result of what happened in 1988 with the Judicial crisis . This is how it works in life, our actions impact on the a situation over time and the damage will be over a period of time and a long long time to come if things dont change and many more Rosli’s will suffer because of Mahathirs inteferference in 1988. I am SO angry with the Leaders, they have FAILED the people. They have FAILED.

  15. Someone should ask Tun Dr Mathathir about this. Since Tajuddin has implied that he is acting as a goverment agent.

  16. Neither character assasination nor threats of impeachment (from lowlifes like me), are gonna do anything. The only way to get rid of this evil cabal is to vote them out. Take this idealistic hubris of feigned ‘justice’ and plant on moon.

  17. time is flying. people getting old. How many 50 years do you have ?
    While physically you are able to vote for PR.
    at least, things can be sort out and Bolehland can improve and moving forward.

  18. I cannot make this clear enoguh. Rosli Dahlan is the result of years of Erosion of the Rule of Law by way of corrupt practices back home. Administrative Law exist for a reason and that is we the people have to scrutinize the decisions of public servants that are there to serve us. To say we cannot is irresponsible and down right naive. I will say this over and over until everyone who reads Din’s site will have told everyone esle. There is no other way but to Demand accountability from those we elected to serve us the people.

  19. Dear Din,

    Only Rober Phang of the MACC’s Consultative and Advisory Panel has come out openly to ask Ghani Patail to explain. How about the other members?

  20. Other MACC commissioners like Ramon Navaratnam are ass lickers. Just study the list, study their background and you will immediately know why they are chosen in the first place. They want to be in the MACC for prestige reasons. How low and cheap these characters are!

  21. Implicit in the remarks that I made, which the bloghost apparently missed, is that our Constitution needs to be amended.

    And, yes it is about political will, about justice, fairness, transparency, good governance, and more important, about nobody being above the law. It has never been about anything but justice and equality before the law; Article 8 (1) of the Federal Malaysian Constitution – and to students of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment. So far what we have seen are proposals for reforms.

    What is the Chief Judge saying privately amidst this hue and cry? What is the Chief Secretary thinking?

    No. What was Gani Patail thinking when he went on a package ‘tour’ (nothing can be more public than that) of the Holy Land with someone seen by some (or many if you prefer) as his alleged partner in crime? He is the country’s AG for God’s sake. His status is nothing lower than that of the federal judge: Article 145 Federal Malaysian Constitution. He would be better off seen in Patpong doing his shopping.

    Not so much as a meeting with the Prime Minister to whom he is alone accountable has been scheduled because that would lead to more fuel being added to the fire now raging in Din’s blog. Din himself is on fire.

    By the way Din, is there a crime by association in Malaysia? If there is, then it would be easier.

  22. The AG is not ashamed of himself despite the clear writings on the wall. This can only happen in Malaysia as those that protect him are not clean either.

    Elsewhere, with just a rumour that proved to be true, the AG would have resign straightaway and in Japan the said person would have committed harakiri.

    The only recourse for the rakyat is through the ballot boxes. Plain simple.

  23. “Get this straight the A-G is not above or below the law. He must defend himself against allegations of unethical conduct and any suggestions of impropriety. It is not relevant he reports to the Prime Minister or not. He must explain himself or resign.Public confidence in him is now zilt.” Sabahan

    Only now zilch? It has been nada since longer than I care to remember. Do not compare Malaysia to England or the U.S.

    You must have heard about Client 9 and the Emperor’s Club VIP — and Ashley Alexandra Dupre of Washington fame whose services could be obtained for the meagre sum of US$1,000 an hour. You know about what the expose did to the Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer at one time the Attorney General of NY state?

    Well, you could say this is akin to spotting Gani Patail doing his ‘shopping’ along Sukhumvit Road. Anywhere else that would have led to his resignation — but Malaysia.

  24. Problem is our politicians and their cohorts in the civil service have skins thicker than buffalo hides. Only fools will resign not when the rewards are too good to ignore.

  25. As a retired general in the Armed Forces, Tok Cik, how would you look on members of the top military brass joining the queue for a tete-a-tete with Ashley Alexandra Dupre at the Emperor’s Club VIP at US$1,000 an hour? Would you call for their resignation?

  26. Te-a-te with Ashley Alexandra Dupre aka Kristen at USD$1000 an hour? I don’t give a damn. That’s their business.

    But at this stage of the game most would prefer to suck up to Rosie than spend time with a high-class whore.

    I know what crosses their minds, especially when their careers are at stake. I did so once. That’s what we call the carma (cari makan) syndrome.

    Btw, there’re many Kristens in KL. All you have to do is ask.

  27. On a lighter note. Direct from Zurich. Russia gets to host the 2018 World Cup and Qatar in 2022. Australia loses out to the Arabs. I’ve guessed as much. Money definitely talks.The people in FIFA…

  28. Is this guy Malay or Gujerati? Is the name ‘Patail’ a corruption of ‘Patel’? There are a lot of Patels here too. The Patels here are doctors and lawyers.

  29. Hi Din,
    You have a very high quality fan club – the intelligence and good sense displayed in their comments are so obviously superior to those of politicians leading the country. And that is the woe that has befallen this once good, if not possibly great, country. In most great countries, the political leaders are among the smartest people and generally in possession of wisdom. In Malaysia, the current crop got to where they are largely because of their association with RM$100 billion MAN, or are immersed in the corrupt culture created by him. They are there to protect one another’s hide. Good and smart people, eg. Ku Li don’t get up.

  30. I would rather this AG commits suicide.. Saves the country alot of $$ and time. The MACC window at Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam would be perfect

  31. Mongkut Bean

    The Patel dominate the hotel/motel market. So next time when you check in to a hotel/motel it may be a Patel Motel.

  32. So the Patels are everywhere! You find many Patels in pharmacies too. When Patels open motels, they must be good only for a short-time. For the busy men on the run, with no time to waste. That one.
    Mongkut Bean, here we are talking about a particular Patail, not Patels.–Din Merican

  33. AG, if the allegations against you are true, going to Mecca a thousand times will not save you in the Hereafter. There are 2 choices for you to make: Repent now or fully enjoy your life on Earth before the eternal suffering begins.

  34. CWS,

    What about Tan Sri (Dr) Ramon Navaratnam? He was President, Transparency International Malaysia Chapter and is also on the MACC Board of Commissioners. He should also make his views known on this Patail matter, instead of always playing safe.–Din Merican

  35. AG mmg ade hubungan rapat dgn Shahidan. Tolong korek psl AG lepaskan kaum kerabat Shahidan yg terlepas dari hukuman gantung krn mengedar dadah.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.