WHO PAID NH CHAN?

A CHALLENGE TO NH CHAN AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES TO RESPOND

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”.