Skip navigation

The Free Dictionary Online tells me a monologue is:

1.

a. A dramatic soliloquy.

b. A literary composition in the form of a soliloquy.

2. A continuous series of jokes or comic stories delivered by one comedian.

3. A long speech made by one person, often monopolizing a conversation.

On the other hand a soliloquy is said to be:

1.

a. A dramatic or literary form of discourse in which a character talks to himself or herself or reveals his or her thoughts without addressing a listener.

b. A specific speech or piece of writing in this form of discourse.

2. The act of speaking to oneself.

So it is a person talking to himself, no other person involved, you are just expressing yourself to the four walls of the building you are in. You cannot call it a monologue, or a soliloquy, if somebody is present in a room, or you are talking on the phone. If you speaking on the phone and you want that to be called a monologue then you are playing phone as a child will do – pretending to talk to someone not at the end of the line. Somewhat a make believe.

Now that we are clear on the meaning of these words, let us read what R.Nadeswaran has to say in his

Sun opinion column. If the AG thinks V.K.Lingam is playing phone, I dread to think of the consequences of the decision.

AG must ensure probe is fair
R.Nadeswaran

STUDENTS
of the English Legal System which is a compulsory subject for those pursuing a law degree in British universities have to get the rules of natural justice in their heads. Law journals and books describe natural justice as a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions in the determination of just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. The principles include the following guidelines:

» An accused person should be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any charges).

»A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings.

» A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He therefore cannot be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the latin maxim, nemo judex in sua causa: “no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause”.

» Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties – expressed in the latin maxim audi alteram partem: “let the other side be heard”.

» Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party.

» A decision-maker should take into account relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations.

» Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts.

The attorney-general, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, in his initial reaction, was quoted as saying that no criminal offence appears to have been committed in a video recording of a telephone conversation between a well-known lawyer and senior judge allegedly discussing appointments to the Bench. The New Straits Times of Sept 21 last year quoted Abdul Gani as saying that “the lawyer was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to”.

Having already said that, the country’s Number One prosecutor has now been tasked with investigating the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape. Let’s not run away from the fact that without his sanction, no prosecution can be carried out.

For a man whose initial reaction that it was a “monologue” even before having the facts before him, how is he going to undertake the tasks as set out in the commission’s report? Now that the commission has concluded that it was not a monologue as commented by Abdul Gani and that it was former chief judge Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Halim on the other end, what would his reaction be?

Now that the commission has come out with its findings and recommended that investigations be carried out, how would he justify his involvement in such a probe? Will his preliminary views come into question in view of the statements he had made before the commission sat?

There’s a way out for him. He can of course give a fiat and delegate the task to other senior DPPs or Senior Federal Counsel and those persons reporting directly to the prime minister or the law minister.

So what should Abdul Gani do? We cannot decide for him – he and his conscience will have to determine how he would handle this important task in his career as the legal officer of the government. To say all eyes will be on him, will be a gross understatement. Everything he says and does will indicate how the AG’s Chambers treats public perception.

We hope that the AG will study the findings of the commission in detail and arrive at a wise decision.

Advertisements

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: