Malaysia Today - Lingam video case — NFA (Needs Further Action)
Abdullah’s tepid written reply in Parliament yesterday will only provide ammunition for those who charged that the government was never really interested in what the royal commission had to say about the nasty video business.
THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER
If the Abdullah administration wants to spare itself and the Attorney-General’s Chambers from any odium and ridicule, it should spell out clearly the reasons why no action is being taken against three of the four actors in the V.K. Lingam video clip.
In Parliament yesterday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in a written reply that the three cases had been marked “no further action” as there was no evidence to charge them with corruption. He did not identify any of the four individuals.
The problem with that terse reply is that it leaves many questions unanswered, and leaves the administration open to charges of a cover-up.
Who are the four individuals? What section of the Anti-Corruption Act were they investigated under?
How did the A-G reach the conclusion that there was no evidence to charge them? Were the findings of the Royal Commission of any use or did it not meet the threshold of evidence expected in a court of law?
This was not a simple robbery or snatch theft case. The video clip was widely circulated on the Internet in 2007. It showed lawyer V.K. Lingam having a conversation with a senior judge and brokering appointments to the Bench.
Abdullah was forced to convene a three-man panel of investigation after a groundswell of protests about the video clip. When this move did not hush the criticisms, he agreed to the setting of a royal commission.
Considerable resources and time were spent to constitute the commission hearing and much muck was raked up about the alleged shenanigans of outside interference in the appointment of judges.
A few powerful individuals were implicated in the video clip, namely former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Cabinet minister Tengku Adnan Mansor, former Chief Justices Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz, prominent lawyer V.K. Lingam and corporate figure Tan Sri Vincent Tan.
…
By relying on a bare bones written answer, the Abdullah administration has failed the test of transparency and full accountability.
…
If the A-G’s Chambers disagrees with their findings, then Tan Sri Gani Patail should come forward and explain why.
…
By relying on a bare bones written answer, the Abdullah administration has failed the test of transparency and full accountability.
…
If the A-G’s Chambers disagrees with their findings, then Tan Sri Gani Patail should come forward and explain why.
(Just noticed: not sure if it was a deliberate mistake, but NFA should be 'No Further Action', shouldn't it?)
No comments:
Post a Comment