Do take the trouble to understand before you find fault with the judges of the Court of Appeal

by N H Chan

Before you go about judging the judges of the Court of Appeal on their five minute oral decision which they handed down on Friday, May 22, 2009, please bear in mind the wise words of the most liberal of American judges, judge Learned Hand who once wrote - The Spirit of Liberty, p 110:

… while it is proper that the people should find fault when the judges fail, it is only reasonable that they should recognise the difficulties. … Let them be severely brought to book, when they go wrong, but by those who will take the trouble to understand.

I shall now try to help you take the trouble to understand the oral findings of the Court of Appeal. First of all we will look at what the New Straits Times, Saturday. May 23, 2009 has to say:

PUTRAJAYA. … In allowing the appeal by Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir that he was constitutionally appointed as menteri besar by the sultan on Feb 6, Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif said there was no clear provision in the state Constitution that a vote of no confidence against Nizar must be taken in the assembly.

Raus, who sat with Datuk Zainun Ali and Datuk Ahmad Maarop to hear submissions on Thursday, said Nizar had on February 4 made a request to the sultan to dissolve the assembly under Article 16 (6) because he no longer enjoyed the support of the majority assemblymen.

He said Nizar had no choice but to resign once the ruler declined to dissolve the assembly.

“There is no mandatory or express requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of no confidence to be taken in the legislative assembly.” Raus said in a five-minute oral ruling before a packed court room.

That was all. That is the gravamen of the five minute decision. What the Court of Appeal has said above as reported in the New Straits Times had also been said by Mr Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court in his well considered judgment - 78 pages on A4 paper. This is what the High Court judge said, at p 30:

It is not in dispute that His Royal Highness had exercised the royal prerogative in this case pursuant to Article XVI (2) (a) and (6) of the Perak’s State Constitution. However the applicant [Nizar] is not asking the Court to review His Royal Highness’ prerogative to appoint the respondent [Zambry] as MB Perak or His Royal Highness’ prerogative to withhold consent to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly. The applicant concedes that the two royal prerogatives are not subject to review and non justiciable. That is the reason, the applicant [Nizar] said, His Royal Highness was not made a party to the present disputes.

And at pp 36, 37 Abdul Aziz J also said:

Under Article XVI(2) of the Perak’s State Constitution His Royal Highness shall appoint as Menteri Besar a member of the State Legislative Assembly who in His Royal Highness’ judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the State Legislative Assembly. …

I never had any doubt that the exercise of the royal prerogative to appoint a Menteri Besar pursuant to Article XVI(2) Perak’s State Constitution is solely based on personal judgment of His Royal Highness and that His Royal Highness may resort to any means in order to satisfy himself and accordingly to form his judgment as to whom who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the State Legislative Assembly that he can be appointed as the Menteri Besar to lead the Executive Council.

I also have no doubt that His Royal Highness has absolute discretion with regard to the appointment of a Menteri Besar and the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly. This is plain and obvious from the reading of Article XVIII (1) and (2) (a) and (b) of Perak’s State Constitution.

The High Court judge even agreed, at p 37:

… that if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the State Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council, …

So then, how could the Court of Appeal overrule the judgment of the High Court when the higher court substantially agrees with the judgment of the High Court? The newspaper report is not very clear on this point as we are still unaware of the reason for overruling the judgment of the High Court judge.

However, according to the report in the New Straits times, Raus JCA did say, “There is no mandatory or express requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of no confidence to be taken in the legislative assembly.” So what if there is no provision for a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly. The High Court had found that Nizar is still the Mentri Besar. To overrule the decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal must explain why the judge of the High Court was wrong in finding that Nizar is the Mentri Besar.

The newspaper had even suggested that it could be implied in the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the Ruler had sacked the incumbent Mentri Besar Nizar:

The unanimous Court of Appeal ruling yesterday seems to suggest that a head of state can sack the incumbent head of government once it was determined that the politician ceased to command the confidence of a majority of the elected representatives.

The newspaper is wrong. That was not the finding of the Court of Appeal. In any case the monarch has no power to dismiss a Mentri Besar - there is no provision for it in the Perak Constitution.

The trial judge Abdul Aziz J in his judgment has explained why he found that Nizar is still the Mentri Besar. This is how he puts it - see p 54 of his judgment:

It is true the request may be made only under two provisions of Perak’s State Constitution i.e. Article XVI(6) and Article XXXVI (1) and (2). But the circumstances under which the request can be made is unlimited. The request under Article XVI(6) is specific to a situation where the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority in the State Legislative Assembly; whereas under Article XXXVI (1) and (2), [the] situation is unlimited. It is up to the Menteri Besar to choose his time to make the request. However once a request is made under whichever of the two provisions, it is entirely up to His Royal Highness’ discretion whether to grant or [not to grant] the consent to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly.

Then at pp 56-58 the High Court judge comes to this conclusion:

In my view it is alright if His Highness takes upon himself to determine who commands the confidence of the majority in the State Legislative Assembly that he can appoint as the Menteri Besar. Such determination however is only good for the purpose of appointing a Menteri Besar pursuant to Article XVI(2)(a) Perak State Constitution. This is so because that provision speaks of ‘who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority’. The language use therein requires the exercise of a personal judgment on His Royal Highness.

But the same thing cannot be said with regard to Article XVI(6) in deciding whether the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. In this case His Royal Highness, through his enquiries has judged that the respondent [Zambry] has the support of the majority. But that finding does not necessarily mean His Royal Highness can form an opinion that the applicant [Nizar] ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly. One reason for this is that the expression ‘in his judgment’ is not used in Article XVI(6). … I am of the view that just because His Royal Highness had formed a judgment that the respondent [Zambry] is likely to command the confidence of the majority for the purpose of Article XVI(2)(a) to appoint the respondent [Zambry] as Menteri Besar it does not mean that His Royal Highness’ opinion or judgment is applicable in deciding that the applicant [Nizar] ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. In another word, one cannot say that because His Royal Highness has judged that the respondent [Zambry] is likely to command the confidence of the majority in the Legislative Assembly therefore the applicant [Nizar] ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. I would say that the personal opinion or judgment of His Royal Highness is irrelevant to the construction of Article XVI(6). The [other] reason is that Article XVI(5) Perak State Constitution states that the Executive Council shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. Under Article XVI(2)(a) the Menteri Besar is appointed to preside over the Executive Council. Article XVI(6) speaks of “If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative Assembly …”. Reading these three provisions in Article XVI Perak State Constitution it is logical and in fact Article XVI(6) requires it to be so, that it is the Legislative Assembly that determines whether it has confidence in the Menteri Besar as the Head of the Executive Council. The Legislative Assembly may make the determination through a vote of no confidence against the Menteri Besar. (The Emphasis is mine)

It seems to us ordinary folk that the Court of Appeal has missed the point. They decided that Zambry was properly appointed Mentri Besar under Article XVI(6). That is not correct - he could only be appointed under Article XVI(2)(a). Since there cannot be two Mentri Besar and Nizar the incumbent Mentri Besar has not resigned and, further, since the legislative assembly did not decide if he has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, Nizar, unquestionably, is still the Mentri Besar of Perak.

Nizar’s case was that Article XVI(6) speaks of “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”. The poser is who is to decide “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly” under Article XVI(6)? Certainly not the Ruler because the phrase “in his judgment” - which is used in Article XVI(2)(a) - is not used in Article XVI(6). If it is not to be the Ruler then who is to decide “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”? The answer is in Article XVI(6) itself - only the Legislative Assembly itself could decide if the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.

Article XVI(6) clearly states that the Mentri Besar who no longer commands the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly “shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council”. This has to be done “unless at his [the Mentri Besar’s] request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly. But Mentri Besar Nizar could not admit that he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly because he would not know until a vote has been taken at the Assembly to determine so. Only the Assembly itself would know if a vote is taken to determine whether the Mentri Besar has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.

Now that you have understood the five-minute decision of the Court of Appeal as well as the well considered judgment of the trial judge, you should be able to severely bring to book the judges of this Court of Appeal since you are now aware if they have done wrong.

Before I sign off, I wish to say a few nice words to the High Court judge. Mr Justice Abul Aziz Abdul Rahim is a fantastic judge. The judgment, especially the piece on the interpretation of Article XVI(6), is so good that it has persuaded me to change my mind on my view of Article XVI(6). If you remember my first article, I have expressed an opinion on Article XVI(6). Now I know I was wrong - and I have to thank Abdul Aziz J for showing me the way.

Why no Federal Court written judgment on Perak

by N.H. Chan




MAY 19 - Do you know why the Federal Court is not giving a written judgment in the Perak debacle?

The answer can be simply put. It is because Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution is written in unambiguous language which even a child can understand.

As I have said before in an earlier article that the words, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”, mean what they say.

Nothing can be plainer than that. No one in his right senses would try to interpret the obvious meaning of the words in Article 72, unless he wants to say the words mean something else. But the Federal Court was not prepared to do that. And the reason is because they do not want to be known as Humpty Dumpty judges.

Remember Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrol’s, “Through the looking Glass?”:

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

So the judges of the Federal Court did the unthinkable. They blatantly refused to apply the constitutional provision as it stands. They ignored it altogether.

But by so doing they have committed the cardinal sin of not administering justice according to law. It is the duty of every judge, indeed it is his only function, to administer justice according to law. And the law, in this context, is Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

Said Lord Denning, What Next in the Law, p 319:

“Parliament is supreme. Every law enacted by Parliament must be obeyed to the letter. No matter how unreasonable or unjust it may be, nevertheless, the judges have no option. They must apply the statute as it stands.”

Since the judges of the Federal Court, especially the infamous five, have refused to apply Article 72 (1) as it stands, they have, as a result, impaled themselves on the horns of their own dilemma.

They have, so to speak, placed themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea. Either way their position is untenable. By refusing to apply Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution as it stands they would be guilty of a misuse of power.

As put by Lord Denning, ibid, p 380:

“May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it and do so knowingly, they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And, in this country, this could be a ground for the judges to be removed from office. This is what section 2 of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 says:

2. (1) This Code of Ethics shall apply throughout the period of his service.

(2) The breach of any provision of this Code of Ethics may constitute a ground for the removal of a judge from office.

And section 3 (1)(d) says:

3. (1) A judge shall not -

(d) conduct himself dishonestly or in such a manner as to bring the Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit thereto;

Judging by the unfair treatment of Nizar in his encounter with the Federal Court, public opinion has no doubt that the judges of the Federal Court has brought discredit to the Judiciary. The words of section 3(1)(d) are so clear and easy to understand that we do not need any court of law to explain it to us ordinary folk. We know what the words mean.

By not administering and applying the law, which in this case is the supreme law, of the land as it stands the errant judges have brought discredit to the judiciary – a ground for their removal from office.

And if the Government of the day failed to listen to the voice of the people then they have placed themselves in jeopardy of losing the next general election or any by-election or any State election in the future.

And finally, what about Ramly JCA the judge who had acted with indecent haste when he granted a stay to Zambry of the well-considered judgment of Abdul Aziz J.

Zambry was appealing against the High Court judge’s declaratory order in favour of Nizar. Like the judges of the Federal Court, he has not given any reason for his decision.

Ramly JCA granted the stay of the declaration which Nizar had obtained against Zambry. The judge was unable to explain why he granted the stay. As any lawyer will tell you it is unusual to stay a declaratory order. If such a stay is to be granted, there are legal arguments to be considered from both sides and the judge will have to say why he prefers the argument of one side as against the other.

The people’s perception of him as an unfair judge is the same as that of the errant judges of the Federal Court. Ramly JCA is in no better position than his seniors in the Federal Court.



* N H Chan is a retired judge who last sat in the Court of Appeals.

What is at stake in the Perak crisis

razaleigh.com | Tengku Razaleigh’s official weblog




The Perak crisis is a tragic comedy of errors and bad political judgment that reflects a failure of political leadership. As it continues to spin out of control, it damages our democratic system of governance. To all intents and purposes, one of our most prosperous and developed states has been reduced to a failed state, with a possibly illegal state government in place. This is a condition that can propagate outwards to the rest of the country.

I stated at the beginning of this crisis that by our Constitution, a change of government can only be brought about by democratic means, which is to say, through the ballot box or through a formal vote of confidence in the elected Legislative Assembly. These are the constitutionally mandated means by which the people decide on their government. Any other means of changing the government is unconstitutional and undemocratic, and subverts the basis upon which we are a civilised society.

We now have reason to fear the loss of the people’s confidence in the Constitution, in democracy and in our constitutional monarchy. Responsible political leadership must support rather than destroy the confidence of the people in these practices and institutions. In particular, powers reserved for the Legislative Assembly, which represents the sovereign will of the people, cannot be taken away under any circumstances by anyone. This foundational constitutional principle has been affirmed by the Court. We are all sworn to uphold it. Those who do not understand or accept this principle have no place in government.

Some issues can be solved by a court of law, but the Perak crisis is not one of them. The back and forth events of the past week demonstrate this fact abundantly. The Perak crisis cannot be solved by a decision of the Court because it is at heart a political rather than a constitutional problem. There is really no doubt about what the Constitution says. What is now unclear as a result of an ugly series of manoeuvres is whether Perak has a legitimate government, and there is only one way to resolve that issue. Perhaps our political leadership has not understood how important it is that the people’s voice must prevail, and be seen to prevail, in the choice of their government.

The only solution to the Perak crisis now is for the State Legislative Assembly to be dissolved and free and fair elections held. At this stage there is no other way to restore both public confidence and constitutional legality to the Perak state government, and by extension to our entire system of government. Our survival as a democratic and constitutional monarchy depends on our acceptance of the judgment of the people as expressed in free and fair elections. Any attempt to circumvent that judgment betrays the basic principles and values upon which our nation and incidentally, UMNO itself, stand. I appeal for wisdom and a broader concern for the wellbeing of our country.



Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
Member of Parliament, Gua Musang

dissolve the Perak state assembly

Written by razaleigh hamzah
razaleigh.com | Tengku Razaleigh’s official weblog


On Feb 7, I wrote that a shameful scene was unfolding in Perak and maintained that despite the “takeover” of the state government by Barisan,

"according to the Constitution, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is Menteri Besar until he resigns of his own accord, or is removed by a vote of no-confidence in a formal sitting of the assembly. The Constitution makes no provision for his removal by any other means, including by petitions or instructions from any other authority.

Today, after three months and yet more shameful scenes, the High Court affirmed the same elementary principle, and held that Datuk Seri Nizar has been and remains the Menteri Besar. As Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim put it: “He is, and was, at all material times the chief minister of Perak.” The High Court also ordered Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir and his executive officers to vacate their offices, and rejected an application from Zambry for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal.

The High Court has thereby affirmed the primacy of the Constitution.

This judgement brings to a head some of the consequences of our constitutional misadventure in Perak.

The government led by Datuk Seri Zambry was all along illegitimate and all decisions and contracts made by that government are without legal status. The cascade of illegalities we warned of must now be unwound painfully. This includes the deplorable events of May 7 in Ipoh. It means the resolution to replace the Speaker was brought by an illegal state government.

The Sultan, and the monarchy itself, is embarrassed by this episode, as well as by a systematic programme by some to inflame this issue into one of race and treason. Such attempts only hurt the institutions they claim to protect, and they hurt Umno and BN. The real issue was always the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and the monarchy is protected in its role of upholding the primacy of the Constitution and the will of the people.

We now hope that the Sultan agrees to dissolve the Assembly. This is the decent thing to do, but also the only way out of a crisis which has already spiralled out of Perak, damaged the rule of law, compromised the judiciary, the police and the state civil service, and damaged the monarchy in public opinion.

Umno is not well served by leaders that place short term political objectives above the Constitution. Our ideals are cheated when the monarchy we claim to protect is brought down to the level of desperate political manoeuvres that discredit us at home and abroad. We have no future as a party if we are seen as being against the people rather than for them. Those unable to rise above narrow party interests to understand what happens to a country when a government loses respect for the law might still like to consider this: it is better for BN to risk state elections that we may lose rather than to lose the entire country by being seen to be opposed to decency, the rule of law, and the will of the people.

The mystery of the missing confession

Monday, 04 May 2009 01:47

We met early April at La Bordega in Bangsar. Bull suggested I should instead sign a Statutory Declaration, as that would be stronger. They can ignore my article but they can’t ignore a Statutory Declaration. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin From the 12th to the 22nd September 2008, I was detained at the Police Remand Centre (PRC) where most ISA detainees spend their first 60 days of detention. Suddenly, on the morning of the 22nd, I was told that my interrogation, which was held from the 17th to the 21st, is going to end and that they have to finalise their report that same day. That was the first surprise. I was supposed to sign my statement the following day -- on the 23rd. Instead, I was packed off to Kamunting the morning of the 23rd without being allowed to sign the statement cum confession. That was the second surprise. What was it that the higher-ups were so scared about that they wanted to keep my confession cum statement from those who were supposed to review it and decide whether I can be released or should be sent to Kamunting for further detention? I really don’t know because they never told me. Anyway, here is part of my interrogation by the Special Branch -- what they asked and what I replied. The last time you were detained for 54 days, is that correct? Yes, it was from 11 April to 6 June 2001. I think it was about 54 days. You were not sent to Kamunting right? That’s correct. That’s because you cooperated. So if this time you also cooperate then there is a good chance you will also not be sent to Kamunting. You might be allowed to go home like the last time. (I just nod) We find your Statutory Declaration very hard to believe. Why do you say that? Well, we don’t think what you said about Rosmah being at the murder scene is correct. How do you know? It is highly unlikely. Rosmah is very rich. She has plenty of money. Why would she want to take the risk of going there personally? She can pay someone to do the job. No need for her to go there herself. Well, that’s what I was told, that she went there personally. We don’t think so. It doesn’t make sense for her to go there herself. Okay, if you say so, but I know what I was told. Who told you? Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin. He is the number two in the Special Branch of the Military Intelligence. Yes, we know who he is. So, that means you can ask him yourself then since you know him. But how do you know he was telling you the truth? He could be setting you up. I admit I don't know Lt Kol Azmi that well. But he is always in Ku Li’s office. He is very close to Ku Li. And Anwar Ibrahim also knows him very well. So you are not really that close to Lt Kol Azmi. That means you don’t know whether you can trust him. We feel he is setting you up as the fall guy. Maybe if I had to just trust him then I wouldn't dare take that risk. I mean; I don’t know him well enough to trust him all the way. But the person who introduced us is a very old friend. I’ve known him for about 45 years, longer than I’ve known my wife. And I trust my friend. My friend gave me his personal assurance that the story is legit. Who is that friend? Nik Azmi Nik Daud. We call him Bull. He works for Ku Li. I also asked Din Merican to check with Anwar whether I can trust Lt Kol Azmi with my life. Those were the exact words I used. What did Anwar say? Anwar replied you should never trust anyone with your life. However, Lt Kol Azmi’s information is very reliable. I also asked John Pang, who also works for Ku Li, to check with Ku Li whether Lt Kol Azmi’s information is reliable. I told John what Lt Kol Azmi told us and asked him to inform Ku Li about it. John confirmed that Lt Kol Azmi told Ku Li the same thing and that the information is reliable. So that is why you signed the Statutory Declaration? No. Actually, initially, I wanted to just write an article, like usual. But Bull asked to meet first before I write anything. So we met early April at La Bordega in Bangsar. Bull suggested I should instead sign a Statutory Declaration, as that would be stronger. They can ignore my article but they can’t ignore a Statutory Declaration. Then you signed it? No. I still did not sign it yet. I was worried about the repercussions. We would be forcing the government to act and they might come down hard on me. As Bull said, they can ignore my article but they can’t ignore a Statutory Declaration. Bull called for a second meeting on the Sunday before I signed the Statutory Declaration. We met at the Selangor Club Dataran Merdeka for lunch. And then? I told Bull I was a bit worried about signing a Statutory Declaration because the government will surely arrest and charge me if I do. I felt an article would be safer. But Bull disagreed. He felt an article was not strong enough. Bull said if anything happens to me they would go to court to testify that what I had signed is the truth. Bull assured me they would not allow me to rot in jail. So, on the 18th June, I signed the Statutory Declaration. Are you sure they will come forward to testify in your trial? That’s what Bull told me and I trust him. As I said, I’ve known him for 45 years. Okay, let’s see whether they do or not. But we think they will not. They will not come forward to testify at our trial. Maybe. Maybe what you say is true. I don’t know. Let’s see. After all I have already been charged and my trial will soon start. Let’s see whether they keep their word and testify at my trial. But I am confident they will because they have given me their assurance. We believe you have been set up as the fall guy. Maybe they want to get rid of you. I don’t think so. Anyway, we will know soon enough once my trial starts. It is going to be a most interesting trial indeed once the truth surfaces. Don’t you think so? Didn’t Najib’s people approach you to make a deal? You mean to buy my silence? Yes, they did. Who? Datuk Jamaluddin Jarjis. JJ? Yes. When? It was not long after I was charged for sedition, before I signed the Statutory Declaration. JJ phoned and said he wanted to meet. I knew he was working for Najib so I agreed. We met at the car park outside Kelab Taman Perdana. My wife drove me there and waited at a distance. She was worried that it may be a trap and she wanted to be cautious in case they were setting me up, or something like that. JJ arrived about 6pm and asked me to get into his car. He was alone. I waved to my wife and signalled her to go home and she wrote down JJ’s car number plate in case I disappeared or whatever. We drove to a roadside stall in Jalan Ipoh and sat there and talked. JJ told me that Najib had asked him to meet me to make a deal. I asked him whether Najib really knows we are meeting and whether he had endorsed or sanctioned the meeting and JJ replied that our meeting was on Najib’s instructions. We spent about an hour talking. The bottom line is he wanted me to stop writing about Najib and Altantuya. He also asked me whether I could delay my sedition trial until Najib becomes the Prime Minister. Once Najib is installed as Prime Minister they will drop the charges against me. I will also receive a monthly allowance of RM30,000 for my cooperation. He didn’t say for how long though. I asked him how to delay the trial and he replied I can always get a medical certificate to confirm I am not fit enough to attend trial. I told him if I delayed the trial then the legal costs would increase and he offered to pay all the legal fees. He asked me to get my lawyers to issue an invoice and he would pay the cost, whatever it may be. I told my lawyers about this incident so that at least some other people know about it. So, what happened to the deal? Soon after that I signed my Statutory Declaration. That was my way of saying no deal. After that they arrested me and charged me for criminal defamation. I suppose that was their way of replying to my reply. Wouldn’t it have been better for you to accept the deal? After all, Najib is soon going to be the Prime Minister. Maybe. But it’s too late now isn’t it? I have already burned my bridges behind me. The above is a small portion of my questions and answers session with the Special Branch over the five days of interrogation. This, plus a lot more, was compiled into a report, which I was supposed to sign on the morning of 23 September 2008 -- but which never materialised for some strange reason. I am probably the first ISA detainee in almost 50 years who made a statement (confession) but was never asked to sign it.