Chief Justice Eusoff Chin must be counting the days to his retirement. He has another month before he calls it quit. No doubt, he expects a quiet retirement. It may not be so.

Only weeks to his pension, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Rais Yatim has unwittingly triggered a row on judicial impropriety, especially Eusoff's much-talk-about hobnobbing with a prominent lawyer.

Ironically, the spark to the spat came from, of all people, an Australian journalist who asked the question which no local journalists dare ask.

Last week, in an interview aired by Australia's Radio National, journalist Di Martin queried the de facto law minister about a set of incriminating photos which depict the Chief Justice holidaying in New Zealand with V.K. Lingam, a lawyer who acts for a number of top business leaders including Berjaya Group chief Vincent Tan.

Rais said that Eusoff had been ticked off for conduct unbecoming of a judge. No wonder, the country's top judge is incensed with the minister's seemingly loose tongue.

According to Eusoff, it was coincidence that he "bumped" into Lingam on the way to a zoo while on a week-long Christmas holiday in New Zealand. He added that he has documents to prove that he paid for his trip and threatened to sue anyone who claimed otherwise.

Still, many questions remain unanswered.

For example, did Eusoff and Lingam and their families take the same flight to Auckland, and did they stay in the same hotels while in New Zealand, and did they also travel together on their return journey to Malaysia?

If the answer is "yes", surely all this cannot be mere coincidence?

No one knows the origins of these infamous photos, which show not just Eusoff and Lingam posing for the camera, but also their wives and children. Apparently veteran journalist M.G.G Pillai found a set of these photos in his mail box in 1998. And he was quick to harness the power of the Net to expose the scandal (See [#1] No Shrugs Please, We're Malaysians [/#]).

Soon after they appeared, the photos became the talk of the town among the legal fraternity. But for two years, the existence of the photos was greeted with a deafening silence from the government. It was Rais who broke this mafia-like omerta on the issue.

To Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the judiciary's reputation is impeccable.

"No one should question the independence of the Malaysian judiciary and its ability to make decisions freely because it has proven that it is not beholden to the government," he said after his nemesis was put on trial for corruption and sodomy charges in 1988.

Perhaps much of our judicial system is free as Mahathir claimed. But the acid test of judicial independence rests on cases in which the government has vested interests. In these, it has failed the test time and again.

Indeed, no one has ever been successful in the courts, either as the plaintiff or defendant in civil suits or the accused in criminal cases when they are acknowledged enemies of the government and its cronies.

And if the damning photos are not proof enough, then Malaysians have the right to ask: What else will it take to convince the government that not all is well with our judiciary?

Eusoff must now step down and a public inquiry be held. Obviously, there is little public confidence in the opaque probe by the Anti-Corruption Agency and Attorney-General Mohtar Abdullah, who incidentally said to be a likely candidate to fill Eusoff's shoes.

But Mohtar is no better. He, too, was featured in a family snapshot in similar "eyebrow-raising" circumstances, where he was photographed holidaying with, yes, Lingam, and his boss, business tycoon Tan. The photo was said to be taken somewhere in Italy.

Indeed, Mohtar should have resigned a long time ago. As far back as 1994, I wrote in a column in The Sun urging him to quit after his decision not to proceed with legal action against former Malacca chief minister Rahim Thamby Chik - Mahathir's blue-eyed boy - for allegedly having sex with an underage girl (See [#2] Where is justice? [/#], Oct 27, 1994, The Sun ).

The morning the article appeared, both the editor and myself received a dressing down from the editor-in-chief.

Apparently, the editor - who gave the green light to the column - was told to do some damage control. The day after, the newspaper ran a piece written by a "staff writer" to "apologise" for my "emotional outburst". (See [#3] Let's not prejudge the A-G [/#], Oct 28, 1994, The Sun )

Later, Mohtar, in reaction to the calls for his resignation, vowed that he won't bow to such demands.

"People's perceptions may not be the same as my perception...We do not work to please people. We do it in the interest of justice. Whether people are happy or not, all we are concerned with is that justice be done," he said.

True, justice must be done. But surely Mr Attorney-General, justice must also be seen to be done. Mohtar, who was a former senior judge, should know better. So should Eusoff.