Doing as I wish

Sorry I don't remember but I did as I pleased

Dr.Mahathir's statement at the Royal Commission Inquiry:

"I normally don’t explain the reasons why I make (the) decisions. I listen to a lot of people (but) I make my (own) assessments and decisions. I don’t explain to anybody,not even to the chief justice who made the recommendations to me".

It is frightening to know that we have been ruled for over 22 years by a Prime Minister who never consulted or discussed with anybody over his important decisions that affected the nation.He is a man who still believes that he is always right and can never be wrong.What does this smack of? Dictatorship?Now we understand why we are plagued with all the problems we have today.

I think Mahathir has taught us a very important lesson in life. Say "I cannot remember" to get out all your trouble.

Dr.Chris Anthony

Dr M: I don't have to explain why

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz Malaysiakini,Jan 17, 08 5:44pm

Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad began his witness testimony at the royal commission of inquiry to investigate the VK Lingam tape by robustly giving his assurance that he was prepared to answer all questions put to him.

Mahathir, the ninth witness to appear before the commission on the fourth day of the inquiry, said this would include even those questions that were "not directly pertaining to or within the ambit" of the commission’s tasks.

This is the first time that Mahathir was made to account under oath for his actions while in power.

“He will answer all questions put to him to the best of his ability, even though in law - from our perspective as lawyers - they are not relevant or within the terms of reference of this commission,” said Mahathir’s lawyer Tunku Sofea Jewa, reading out a statement.

From that point onwards, however - and following preliminary questions to confirm certain letters between him and former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah - Mahathir appeared evasive in answering the questions asked.

Throughout his testimony, Mahathir’s response to several questions was that he could not remember or recall enough to answer them.

In an answer to a question from Anti-Corruption Agency chief prosecuting officer Nordin Hassan whether he was influenced by any party in the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as chief justice of Malaya, Court of Appeal president and chief justice - the judiciary's top three posts - Mahathir spoke only vaguely of gathering views and opinions from several quarters.

“In any approval (of a judicial appointment), I would hear people speak - even though I don’t ask - their views, at social meetings. I take these into consideration, but the decisions are my own,” said Mahathir, who was dressed in a dark grey jacket and sea-blue tie.

“I don’t have to tell anyone as to why I made those decisions,” he said.

Mahathir, who appeared calm and smiled at times, said the reasons for his decision was “something I don't tell people”.

When pressed for further clarification, the former premier quickly added that he could not remember or recall.

‘I’m not aware’

This was evident when he was asked for the reasons behind the rejection of senior lawyers Andrew Chew and Zainudin Ismail as appointees to the High Court.

Chew and Zainudin were seen as people aligned with Mohamed Dzaiddin but against the ‘camp’ of Ahmad Fairuz and former attorney-general Mohtar Abdullah.

Nordin: Can you clarify the reasons you did not agree to their (Chew and Zainuddin) appointments?

Mahathir: I don’t remember the reasons.

He said he was also not aware as to whether the rejection of Chew and Zainuddin was because the latter had questioned the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz and Mohtar.

Nordin: Is it true, according to the transcript (of the Lingam tape), that the nomination of Zainudin was rejected because he condemned the appointment of Fairuz and Mohtar?

Mahathir: I am not aware.

This was mentioned by Lingam in the 14-minute video, which is now the subject of the commission's investigation.

True enough, as Lingam had contended, the two lawyers were later dropped when the appointments to the High Court were officially announced two months later.

Asked by Nordin whether the late Malek Ahmad had been rejected for the position of chief judge of Malaya (CJM) in favour of Ahmad Fairuz because of his “anti-PM” stance as alleged by Lingam in the tape, Mahathir said no.

“He was rejected, but not because of this.”

Later on, when asked by Mohamed Dzaiddin’s lawyer Wong Chong Wah about the Malek rejection, Mahathir said he could not recall.

Wong: Before Tun Ahmad Fairuz was recommended to be the chief judge of Malaya, Tun Dzaiddin recommended (in a letter) Malek Ahmad. Do you recall that?

Mahathir: I cannot remember precisely, but there was a lot of talk. I listen to a lot of people.

Wong: You cannot remember that Dzaiddin had recommended Malek Ahmad to be chief judge of Malaya before Tun Ahmad Fairuz?

Mahathir: I did hear talk of the possibility that Malek had been recommended.

Wong: Do you remember that Dzaiddin had recommended Malek?

Mahathir: I cannot remember him recommending him (Malek) to me... I don’t remember whether I agreed or not. I have read the letter from Dzaiddin, but I don’t remember whether I agreed or didn’t agree on the appointment of Malek.

Lingam had said the following in the second part of the 14-minute video.

So Dzaiddin really wants to go… Don’t worry. Dzaiddin recommended Malek Ahmad to be chief judge of Malaya. But we went and 'cut', 'cut', 'cut', 'cut' - I and Tengku Adnan and Vincent told PM. I stop him for now because he is anti-PM. We put Fairuz in. And we put… I told you three months ago he became CJM [Chief Justice Malaya]. He said, “Don’t believe.” Then he got it. He rang up to thank me.

'I don't have to explain why'

Taking up the same line of defence when questioned by Bar Council observer Christopher Leong, Mahathir however adopted a more belligerent stance.

Not only could he not remember the precise arguments for or against overriding the recommendations of Dzaiddin as the then chief justice, Mahathir backtracked on his earlier declaration to 'answer all' and said he did not have to explain to anyone regarding his decisions on judicial appointments.

“I have my own reasons. After hearing what people say, I form my own conclusions. The prerogative is with me. I don’t have to explain why,” said Mahathir.

“Usually, I ask officers... what they say about these things, I take into consideration and rely on their proposals... I cannot remember precisely what was being talked about. I take these things into consideration, (including) the views of the then chief justice, and I make my decisions,” he added.

When asked for more details about the sources of his information that formed the basis for his decisions, Mahathir said they ranged from ACA, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, civil servants and police personnel.

“I have to make sure the candidate that I decide on is the right candidate in my opinion,” he said.

The clincher came when commission panel member Mahadev Shankar asked Mahathir if he had discussed the appointments with Mohamed Dzaiddin before finalising them.

Mahadev: Were your reasons for rejecting Malek discussed with Dzaiddin?

Mahathir: I normally don’t explain the reasons why I make (the) decisions. I listen to a lot of people (but) I make my (own) assessments and decisions. I don’t explain to anybody.

Mahadev: Not even to the chief justice who made the recommendations to you?

Mahathir: No.

In all Mahathir spend one and a half hours this morning in the courtroom.

He also brought a panel of three lawyers to assist him during his testimony - apart from Tunku Sofea, they are Yaacob Hussain Merican and N Chandran.