What drives Gani Patail?

On Tuesday, I was saddened by what I saw of Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who was recently evicted from the office of Attorney-General.

Despite years of dedicated service to his political masters, Gani was escorted out of the office and was denied the traditional send-off by colleagues.

I admire Gani’s service like I admire guide dogs for the blind. Guide dogs show blind devotion even to abusive masters. They nobly disregard the moral characters of their masters. They give their masters the benefit of the doubt and remain loyal.

There is, however, an important difference between Gani and guide dogs. One might say that Gani has more skeletons in his closet than there are in a cemetery.

It reminded me that Gani was removed “for health reasons”.  Yet Gani, probably because of the skeletons, hasn’t challenged his erstwhile masters.

There is an established procedure for removing someone from service on health grounds. A person so removed is commonly said to be “medically boarded out”.

It is not easy to medically board out a person. A person can only be medically boarded out if a duly established board of medical doctors agrees he can neither perform the duties of his current position, nor lighter duties.

Three decades ago, as a rookie supervisor, I learnt that the operative principles for boarding out a person on health grounds were crystallised in 1976 by Justice Philips. The judge wrote in Spencer vs. Paragon Wallpapers Ltd:

“The basic question which has to be determined in every case is whether, in all the circumstances, the employer can be expected to wait any longer and, if so, how much longer?

“Relevant circumstances include the nature of the illness, the likely length of the continuing absence, the need of the employers to have done the work which the employee was engaged to do.”

On Tuesday, Gani looked to be in glowing health. When asked how he was, he said he was fine and leading an active life.

He said he continued to receive the same treatment regime he had been receiving for some time (before his ejection), at the same frequency.

When he delivered his talk and when he responded to questions, he displayed a sharp, alert mind. Does that sound like a candidate for boarding out? If he is so well, why was I saddened by Gani?

I was saddened because I saw wiliness more than passion for justice, more commonly known as activism.

Gani’s first public appearance after his eviction was in an event organised by the Bar Council. It was a public meeting with lawyers and law students comprising the majority in the audience.

It was deliciously titled "Sosma: Wolf in sheep’s clothing".

Though established by statute and responsible for vetting and policing lawyers, the Bar is also an activist organisation.

The Bar’s aim is “to uphold the rule of law and the cause of justice and protect the interest of the legal profession as well as that of the public”.

What drives Gani? Is he driven like one of my activist friend, who said:

“When I encountered injustice or inefficiency, whether in the public or private sectors, my first reaction was this is Malaysia, just accept it and be thankful this too shall pass.

“If I, with my connections, knowledge, time and wealth, don’t challenge this, how about those who were less blessed? I thought of drain and street sweepers, rubbish collectors and undocumented persons. I then decided to do something.”

Gani was the A-G. He held the high office. He wielded immense power. He received many honours, including the title of Tan Sri. He has many years ahead of him.

Gani chose to appear first at an event organised by activist lawyers.

Gani chose to appear as defender of an “anti-terrorism” law introduced and now abused by the government, and he studiously and pointedly refused to comment on the abuse.

Sosma has been used to incarcerate Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and Matthias Chang who urged foreign governments to investigate 1Malaysia Development Berhad’s (1MDB) alleged violations of laws in their countries.

Gani chose to appear first as a “faithful public servant” and refused to take personal responsibility for anything.

Gani succeeded in presenting himself, as another wit said, like a slippery eel. He was careful to say nothing original. He mostly quoted from Sosma and from the Hansard record what the prime minister had told Parliament when he introduced Sosma.

Malaysian public spaces are littered with cronies who present themselves as guide dogs. Will Gani instead join the ranks of hounds against unfettered executive power? Will he speak about unfair dismissal? – November 5, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.