NH Chan a retired justice of the High Court of Malaysia has been fairly vocal about the so called ‘Perak Crisis” since the Sultan of that state refused to intervene in favour of an ousted state government in Perak earlier this year.

The Perak Crisis created a storm in a teacup as some would suggest and a tempest in the minds of those who have clearly not sufficient knowledge or access to material on similar events of sovereign versus an elected legislature (of the sovereign intervening in the formation and dismissal of governments) in the commonwealth.

To suggest the Malaysian Bar is independent is as incredulous a statement as saying the Pope is married. Elements of the Malaysian Bar right up to its chair have traditionally adopted and taken activist roles in the politics of Malaysia outside of parliament. The last of its presidents or chairpersons and perhaps its most controversial in recent years is better known for her glaring inaccuracies in interpretation of the law and her divisive and highly charged statements about politicians and political issues in colourable form. There is reason to digress here.

An elevated member of the legal profession to the bench is NH Chan. Chan is a man who by his own admission is a black letter law judge. Whats particularly scary about this man (and perhaps worthy of further investigation and a thesis about his time on the bench) i the fact he never misses an opportunity to tell anyone willing to listen that he has sent people to the gallows.

It is however Chan’s unsatisfactory and ill informed comments about the “Perak Crisis” is embarrassing. So too is his analysis of the constitution of Malaysia and the law in the context of that event. Given the situation in Perak in respect of the Sultan’s intervention in the parliamentary crisis  in that state Chan would have been better off saying nothing.

Chan’s general treatment of the Perak Crisis in his analysis appears unbalanced and unnecessarily favourable to a fragmented and highly volatile and disruptive opposition. As a consequence his comments raise some very perplexing and disturbing questions about this ‘Good Samaritan’ his knowledge and experience as a judge. More disturbing is his unabashed relationship with the opposition. Further his reasons for a risky adventure devoid of good judgement needs some light on it to try to understand what made him take sides in this affair. Who paid or induced him to write what he wrote about the Perak Crisis?

Why would someone with a ‘good reputation’ he believes he enjoyed as a judge attempt to vilify the office and the person of the Sultan with his demonstrably unbalanced and inaccurate legal analysis of the Perak Crisis? And why would he risk such an adventure?

It is widely believed that the good judge NH Chan like many other so called libertarians in Malaysia who seek a change of government, albeit through a populist revolution outside of the ballot box, was paid or compromised into doing what he did which he sits quite uncomfortably with now from all accounts. Think the NED (National Endowment for Democracy ) operating in Malaysia through the Merdeka centre and a number of NGO’s who are surrogates and channels for US hegemony in the region.

“Who pays the piper” is a vexed question Malaysian authorities are well aware of the answer to, yet too diplomatic to openly name for fear of raising the stakes in this undeclared war for control of the peninsula.

NH Chan refuses to respond to criticism of his feeble thesis on the subject of his commentary on the Perak Crisis yet he allows for distribution through blogging channels the unabated championing of his cause and title of a “Highly Respected Judge”.

16 thoughts on “WHO PAID NH CHAN?

  1. Why would this much honoured and respected ex-judge accept money from anyone when he is wealthy on his own account?

    He has too much integrity to write propaganda for any paymaster. If they agree with your views, they are clean; oppose it and they are money whores?

    You should ask who pays Utusan and the UMNO/BN MSM to write their racist and religious bigotry rhetoric!

    People like you you would not recognise the solid kind of honest Judge that NH Chan is, even if it hit you n your face!

    When the next elections comes, HRH will feel the fury of his betrayed subjects.

    We are all of 1 race, the Human Race


    1. Why would he accept anything ? I do not know? I make the assertion its up to him to respond. But then again you do not pay people with money alone. I am not interested in your qualification of Utusan Melayu UMNO or the BN. What Chan presented (as a retired judge) is simply an embarassing piecee of work by someone who occupied that regal position of a judge once. Why his work is devoid of any depth in his analysis on such a controversial topic is what I am interested in.

      And it is not just me. To answer your question as to why? Well why would a president of the United States lie, steal, order a burglary, order the death of innocents? why would the leader of another country order the invasion of another country? why would leaders and other ‘people of integrity’ act dishonourably at times?’ we do not know till we investigate, we listen and we dig up information for which they leave clues like a piece of work out of character. The character they say belongs to them.


      1. You seemed adamant about the inaccuracies and lack of depth regarding ex-Justice NH Chan’s constitutional analysis of the Perak debacle. The good Judge has included his arguments whether admissable or otherwise in the related articles. Your goodself on the other hand failed to present even an ioata of counter-arguement or even which portion of the analysis were flawed. On the other hand, your accusations are sweeping and biased to say the least. For one who preaches justice and fair play in your articles, I believe that the just way would be to engage the good judge’s views and not blantantly conclude in the manner you did without proof. Over to you now.


      2. Identify the issues I have failed to address with a counter argument, the generalities that do not address generalities Chan raised and admissible or inadmissible (operative words here) in articles (although I do not understand what is meant in that incomplete sentence of yours. Your use of words like blatant and adamant are gramatically and contextually flawed, much like Chans logic.

        Birds of a feather (or onothological specimens of identical plumage?)

        Gopal Raj Kumar


      3. If such is your line of defence, let me further simplify my humble request – show us where Justice Chan’s flawed and present your views. I hope this would not be lost in translation or are you hiding behind the facade of language?


    1. I won’t indulge you any further than to the commentary of his ‘analysis’ of the Sultan of Perak’s so called unconstitutional conduct. If you find that difficult get someone who understands the constitution and the role of the Sultan to explain it to you.

      Alternatively read what Chan wrote, then come back to the article about Chan here.


  2. GR Kumar, I am reading not law but your writings about flaws in law… you articulate well in language but that doesn’t means that your good English carries weight, the fact and truth. You seem to deny a good judge’s findings. In short bare denial is no good defense. You, instead of answering one Malaysian Malay’s question took a diversion and start blaming the good judge. Why?


    1. you may wish to make your comment directly on the blog. It is a pity the judge is unable to speak in clear concise terms or express himself likewise when writing. I viewed a woeful attempt by this man to quote copiously from English legal history at a function (available on the net) not knowing what he was saying, not being able to say properly what he knew. Colleagues honestly believed he was speaking in Chinese. Whats so good or honourable about him anyway? It is not language (although language is a critical component in law) that allows me toanalyse the flaws (the shamefull elementary ones) in his commentary on the Perak crisis. I do not have to hide behind language. If you have specific criticisms about my analysis then good I ‘d like to hear it. There is not a single bit of criticsm about NH Chan’s embarassing commentary in my article that I cannot sustain or back up with facts or legal reasoning. I don’t do it on this website because not everyone who reads it is a laawyer. Chan is an embarassment and proof of the claim the judiciary is corrupt and incompetent. Corruptio does not in this sense mean taking bribes. Incompetence is corruption. Gopal Raj Kumar


  3. So you admit you are corrupt and so calling me stupid doesn’t hold water. How could an incompetent, I mean a corrupt person can study and evaluate cases without bias? Before I forget, thanks for calling me stupid you intelligent guy, sorry corrupt…


  4. The Unfair Criticisms of N H Chan being paid for his views shouldn’t be dignified with any reply ! Further this loose cannon writer implied that N H Chan and his friends want an outside the Ballot Change of Government ! This is an accusation of Communism in the days of the malayan Emergency 1948-1960’s ! This Writer is clearly unbalanced and should report forthwith to the Tanjong Rambutan Mental Health Check Up Hospital Bahagia ! His paranoic accusations are showing in that there isn’t any shred of probative evidence in what he says! He should withdraw forthwith,its defamatory !!!!!

    GCW Heng Sr


    1. But you’ve just dignified it with a response. The only response so far worth publishing. It appears that NH Chan’s many supporters prefer four letter words and slurs.
      I will therefore allow your comments to be published. The accusation of communism??? well the tactics ar not different to the Malayan Communist party tactics where
      insults and slurs instead of porperly laid out arguments were used to ‘convert’ people to the cause.

      The Kuomintang and its remnants in south east Asia are merely another side of the same coin.

      Getting back to NH Chan it is open to him to sue us for defamation if he feels that is the case. It is then open to us to raise whatever defences are avialable to us
      to defend our article. It further remains open to him to refute the substance of our article on him.

      Finally the question who paid NH Chan is being read too narrowly. Being a south east Asian Chinese (even if you add the recently adopted Americanisation
      of your name with a Sr post nominal) you would by nature look at the money payment interpretation of the title. And is that not what each of your have done to gain any
      ascendency over others especially in Malaysia?



    1. This is a blog in which people write. How much intelligent does one have to be to born with to understand that much. Are you trying to suggest to me that the justification for NH Chan’s nonesense at the behest of another ? if that were the case as suggested in the article “who paid NH Chan?” it may be because someone else may have done the same thing?

      I reiterate my position and hold that in the absence of anything remotely capable of redeeming NH Chan from the depths of his self inflicted ignorant rants and raves in public, he remains an ignorant and incompetant man who ought never to have been elevated to the bench.

      His analysis of the law and his poor articulation of the law, of the position of judges and government and the nexus between the two remains a sminal piece in idiocy.

      take a closer listen to the man at a public conference of opposition politicians and lawyers 2 years ago. Go to youtibe to source the embarasment by the fool. Have a stiff drink or three before you indulge yourself.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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