I refer to Malaysiakini report, Nazri: Because I am his minister . For a person who has a law degree, I am surprised that our de facto law minister has failed to understand the concept of the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive.

Protocol wise, the head of the judiciary is equivalent to the head of parliament, that is the speaker of the House and to the head of the executive, the prime minister of the country. The chief justice doesn't report to Nazri Abdul Aziz, who is only responsible for table and chairs of the judiciary (as what was said by a former chief judge eloquently when he had a tiff with the de facto law minister then, Rais Yatim)

Nazri Aziz cannot claim that he is the chief justice's minister as he, Nazri, is only in charge of the judiciary's assets, manpower, budget and nothing more. The chief justice cannot expect to wriggle his way out of the Lingam tape controversy by whispering only to Nazri about his non-involvement in this telephone conversation with the senior lawyer.

The ball is now at the feet of the chief justice to come out clean. If his conscience is clear, he should call for a press conference to defend his integrity and sue the persons who are alleged have defamed him by releasing the telephone video. Our judiciary is on the trial right now and the chief justice is in the dock to defend his suitability to remain in office failing which he should either resign or be removed from office for serious dereliction of duty.

It seems that the enforcement of the law in this country is being compromised by those entrusted to prosecute. They are flawed in their characters and are beholden to third parties like puppets on the strings.

As for the rest of the common people who don't have guardian angels to 'fix' our lives for the better (pun intended), I suppose it's a dog life with the rising inflation and rampant corruption by those who are running the country now.

After 50 years of independence, one would think that we should be heading for a civilised society where the rule of the law is fully observed. Instead it is the opposite.