PM Department must explain why QC Cherie Blaire was accorded First Lady’s privileges
Queen’s Counsel Cherie Blare (Cherie Booth) made a surprise appearance at the Federal Court’s hearing for Fawziah Holding’s appeal over her representing the company in the Metramac case in Putrajaya yesterday.
I watched over the TV news that she was escorted by security officers from Britain and local Special Branch personnel.
QC Cherie Booth was given VIP treatment. She was driven to the Palace of Justice in a black BMW bearing the crest of the Prime Minister’s Department.
Now, the question is: “Who is who?” Why the Prime Minister’s Department gave VIP treatment to QC Cherie Booth? She was after all at Putrajaya as a QC for her application to appear before the Federal Court. Cherie Booth was not paying a visit to the Palace of Justice as the wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The British authorities did the same. They were providing VIP treatment to QC Cherie Blaire, a rare privilege for any attorney. The British public may want an answer from their Prime Minister’s Department.
We are often caught in such a situation and sometimes the no clear line is drawn up to handle such situation. In this case, (Malaysian and British) taxpayers’ monies are spent to provide VIP treatment to an attorney out for a private job-related duty.
This is a conflict of interest situation and it would be prudent for politicians to avoid.
The Prime Minister’s Department owes Malaysians an explanation.



Sometimes I wish the DAP have better geared leaders. There’s no ingredient in blabbing about what others are driven in, or what VIP treatment is given to thought-to-be unworthy figures. You surely can’t see what this Cherie Blair is all about and why she is present here.
Comment by Jimmy Goh — Friday, 16-06-2006 @ 03: 29.15
I am guessing Fawziah wants a high profile foreign media exposure.
I suppose she is coming up against pretty heavy weight opponents. Having Cherie Blaire on her side would put pressure to have a high quality arguments and judgment in the court.
Jimmy,
It is obvious than Mr. Chon pick on a minor, yet still accountable matter. It is still tax payer’s money.
Comment by lee wee tak — Friday, 16-06-2006 @ 16: 08.29