"I do not see a need for the setting up of a tribunal...," he tells Bernama on arrival at KLIA, fresh from a hunt for Japanese yen.

Oddly, he does not see, but "feels" there is a political agenda to the proposal. This carries intimations of a conspiracy. Mahathir has a keen nose for conspiracy, and finds them everywhere (no pun intended). Critics say he would not acknowledge one if he were a principal member.

To his credit he seems aware that the Chief Justice is accused of something, but seems not to know just what. This is in keeping with his hunting style of uncertainty, "... certain people, in certain places, are doing certain things ... they know who they are". He fears "they" will succeed in "stripping him (Eusoff Chin) of his post".

Mahathir reasons thusly:

1) "The government is pitted against the judge (by "them") to make him angry (very canine in tone}.

2) "It is then 'hoped' (by "them") that a decision detrimental to the government will be made (by the judge)."

Since the government has seemingly volunteered to "pit" itself against the judge, it is difficult to follow this reasoning, shallow though it may be.

The hypothetical legal decision to come is probably a figment, given the circumstances. It is not a detrimental decision that is to be feared. It is any decision at all, if the judge is so injudicious in his social behaviour as the photographs and travel documents displayed.

Mahathir pointed again, this time to the constitution and the laws of the country, which many find strange, because it is widely held that he is ignorant of both. Be that as it may, he again sees nothing to indicate that the Bar Council action is properly supported by the evidence.

Further, he explores a comparison between the contemplated action and the said, "...country's laws and the constitution". "It may not be in accordance," he opines, suggesting that he might bite the legs off the Bar Council.

Having the advantage of age, he recalls a prior event in which a judge was replaced by his own initiative. Noting that the Bar Council had objected to that event, he finds it hypocritical for "them" to change sides now.

Perhaps it is age again. In the earlier instance, it was the procedure that was objected to, the judge being quite acceptable. In this case, totally different, it is the judge who is flawed. His aim seems as flawed as the judge he defends.

Does the old pointer suppose no one notices that his defence of the judge is itself offensive, viewed as protecting the bird he is duty bound to hunt?

In order to distract attention, he points to a conspiracy in another part of the wood, where "they" and "them" unfairly plot against the poor maligned bird.

Failing to mention any cases specifically, he graciously states that the government had not complained about losing any cases. His mind weak, he fails to recall that there have been none.

In what must rank as the debate question of the millennium, he states, "We believe in the independence of the judiciary". This can only mean that he prefers the bird to escape. He confirms this later by referring to a desire for "the freedom of the judges".

The question for the Malaysian public is what to do with an old leader who is no longer of service; worse, a positive hindrance to the hunt.