KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 13 — Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Nazri Aziz admitted today he had made a mistake in saying last week that six former Supreme Court judges, the main characters in the 1988 judicial crisis, were not sacked
Read Nazri admits mistake about former judges
It is not so much an issue whether they were sacked or otherwise, it is about the millions of taxpayers money paid to them. It is not an issue whether they were advice to retire or otherwise, it is more about these niggling questions at the back of my head on why they are still being paid with the ex-gratia payment despite being receiving pensions (let us call it "monthly compensation" instead of pension since generally from what I know a sacked employee is not entitled for pension) on the instruction of the king all the while. All that for what? Is it just for the sake of making the current regime to look better than the previous one. All that for the sake of ensuring "superficial" grand legacy for someone that has been sleeping on the job for the past 5 years? Or is all that money (I repeat, taxpayers money) just for the sake of flaunting the current government's judicial "more-cosmetic-than-substance" reforms?
Those are the issues that you must address Mr. De Facto Law Minister. Revealing the payment made is not the end of the road for transparency and accountability.
You can't always get away with an answer such as "that is not my problem" all the time.
Updated 7.30pm
Read Nazri admits mistake about former judges
It is not so much an issue whether they were sacked or otherwise, it is about the millions of taxpayers money paid to them. It is not an issue whether they were advice to retire or otherwise, it is more about these niggling questions at the back of my head on why they are still being paid with the ex-gratia payment despite being receiving pensions (let us call it "monthly compensation" instead of pension since generally from what I know a sacked employee is not entitled for pension) on the instruction of the king all the while. All that for what? Is it just for the sake of making the current regime to look better than the previous one. All that for the sake of ensuring "superficial" grand legacy for someone that has been sleeping on the job for the past 5 years? Or is all that money (I repeat, taxpayers money) just for the sake of flaunting the current government's judicial "more-cosmetic-than-substance" reforms?
Those are the issues that you must address Mr. De Facto Law Minister. Revealing the payment made is not the end of the road for transparency and accountability.
You can't always get away with an answer such as "that is not my problem" all the time.
Updated 7.30pm
4 comments:
Salam Tuan Lawyer,
Money offered, judges kept quite, then Zaid walked, and now Nazri has got to do the talk.
Do have a peep at my latest posting,
http://the-antigonist.blogspot.com/
Wassalam.
Antara perkara utama untuk selesaikan kes ini kepada satu tahap minima pertikaian ialah menubuhkan satu TRIBUNAL KHAS untuk:
1- Mengkaji semula keputusan Tribunal yang lalu sehingga pemecatan 6 hakim tersebut.
2- Mengkaji semula tindakan kerajaan membuat pembayaran pencen yang sepatutnya mereka tidak layak.
3- Mengkaji semula keputusan kerajaan membuat pembayaran ex gratia.
Dan ini termasuklah memperbetulkan keadaan dan menjelaskan kepada rakyat:
1- Kelayan DYMM YDP Agong mencampuri urusan kerajaan dengan mengarahkan pembayaran pencen.
2- Membuat siasatan kenapa kerajaan membiayai satu majlis makan malam Majlis Peguam
Siasatan juga kena dibuat berkaitan peranan bekas Menteri Kehakiman dan Perdana Menteri serta kabinetnya samada terdapat salahguna kuasa dalam pembayaran ex-gratia tersebut dengan menyembunyikan jumlah pembayaran untuk pengetahuan umum sebelum ini.
Panel Tribunal Khas ini juga wajar dari kalangan tokoh dan ilmuan yang bebas pengaruh mana mana pihak termasuk tokoh tokoh tertentu dari luar negara.
Sir, well said!
Can all other sacked gov. employees now ask for pension from the govt., since a precedent has been set ? After all judges seem always to look for precedents when delivering judgement. How come the King who sacked them, suddenly decided to give them pensions.. Did he have second thoughts on this actions?
Post a Comment