"I may be wrong but ..." why follow

The Star reported, "A retired Federal Court judge has lashed out at Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad alleging that the former premier had wanted to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution because he wanted the judiciary to be under his control.
“I believe the Prime Minister at the time wanted to become a dictator; I may be wrong but this is my conclusion,” Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin yesterday told reporters after receiving ex-gratia payment from the Government for the pain and loss he suffered during the 1988 judicial crisis." Read more.

Although disagreeing on the ex-gratia payment, I do admit that this part is interesting, "I may be wrong but this is my conclusion".

Talk on the dinner table revealed that what we heard and read about Ian Chin J's allegation is just that... allegation. Too bad that he had put it in his judgment, like hiding behind the skirt of immunity as a judge.

Just like what Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin said, Ian Chin J had his own conclusion and he may be wrong. No other judges who were there had this conclusion to make. This is serious! What's Ian Chin J's agenda? How come the de-facto Law Minister supported him right away, without jumping into a "let's form a commission" action to investigate the judge or at least the allegation?

One that points straight to the de-facto Law Minister obviously is the question of him suddenly jumping into Jack Straw model of Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC). And his efforts to rush the establishment. Well, value this... Times Online dated 29 May 2008 reported on Jack Straw and the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill that also "proposes further reforms to the way judges are appointed". This includes powers of direction that "the Lord Chancellor decides he must take the final decision [such as eligibility criteria] and consequently directs the JAC accordingly".

Times Online further reported that "Such powers, if introduced, would seem to run counter to the purpose of setting up the commission. The idea was to inject more transparency, objectivity and independence into the judicial appointments process — and put paid to suggestions of old-boy networks. It was to separate more clearly the roles of the executive and the judiciary — particularly at a time when the latter was being strengthened. Handing back to the Lord Chancellor the role that his predecessors had looks like turning back the clock to patronage and political interference." READ MORE.

So, Jack Straw finally sees some good in the old system now. Are we going to turn back the clock later too? Having originality in ideas sounds good to me.