The curious acquittal of Zahid.

1. When I was working for an international oil company, they had a method of estimating your CEP-current estimated potential. What they think now, what you can become at the end offyour career.

2. Your cep changes off and on. Depending on your performance, professional development, good or bad decisions you make.

3. When you make a bad decision, you regress. Your cep is revised downwards. Unless and until you redeem yourself.

4. That's how I see the cep of the judge deciding zahids case. He amounts to nothing. Right now, he's a ten to a penny. The CJ will perhaps evaluate him accordingly.

5. The bad decision he made not only retard his own professional development but more adversely, the judiciary's good reputation. People's trust and respect for the judiciary, goes southwards.

6. He gives a new meaning to the idiom, one bad apple spoils the whole barrel. He will be mentioned en passant or in legal speak, orbiter dicta, in loose conversation among the talking crowd at the Selangor club or any lawyer's watering hole.

7. At the end of his career, people will just say, he's a retired high court judge with an LLB or bar. That's all.

8. The method which I suggest is called the HAIR method .it's used by large corporations like shell.

9. It's also used by leaders like Lee Kuan yew in assessing leaders for Singapore. Evaluated in the parameters, it's clear the particular judge has no hair.

10. The H stands for helicopter view-the ability to see the big picture from the small. To see the forest instead of the trees.

11. The judge should have asked this question. Is my decision going to elevate trust and respect for the judiciary, or diminish it? Is the acquittal of one crook going to destroy the reputation of the judiciary? I am sorry, the judge has no H

12. The A stands for analytical abilities. The judge ought to have this ability to be able to plough through the serpentine money trail created by zahid. Unfortunately, not enough. As the sumatran say, alang2 tukang, membazir kayu. Half baked intelligence is useless after all.

13. Obviously, the judge has not got the next ability. It's the I or imagination. He asked a stupid question which elicit an inane answer.

14. He asked how can you put sd600 thousand in an envelope?

15. Of course, you cannot in a 4x9"envelope. But have he heard of an A4 sized envelope?

16. Can't he imagine spreading the dough in piles and putting them in an A4 sized envelope? Ask your son or daughter to do it.

17. Definitely, the judge lacks the last quality of the quartet acronym. -realistic, the R making HAIR.

18. Was it realistic to acquit Zahid, when the whole world knows the bloody crook became wealthy by corrupt means. Was the acquittal of wak jahid realistic in the context of reducing corruption? I say reducing, not eliminating, unless you bring the death penalty when convicted for corruption.

19. My friend, Zaid Ibrahim once told me lawyers are like eggs. They are graded into A to C.

21. Madam YAA, I am afraid you have a grade C high court judge.