By Daniel John
I must I was flabbergasted to read Tun Mahathir Mohammad’s statement that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s intention to hiolod a rally against his conviction on January 9 was an attempt to attack the judiciary in Malaysia.
My dear Tun, you were the one who wrote a poem Melayu Mudah Lupa (Malays Forget Easily) which ended with the words: Ingatlah / Ingatlah / Ingatlah / Wahai bangsaku / Jangan mudah lupa lagi / Kerana perjuanganmu belum selesai (Remember / Remember / Remember / O my people / Forget easily no more / Because you struggle is not yet over).
You also wrote a book with the same title. So why have you forgotten so fast that you were the one who destroyed the Malaysian judiciary in 1988? The story how you destroyed the career of Tun Salleh Abbas is still fresh in the minds of Malaysians. That legal saga had become the heinous story of how Malaysia had succumbed to the lowest of the lows in its legal history, which had become a really ugly international scandal.
What Anwar is doing, out of desperation to tell the world of the injustice of the way his Sodomy 1 and Sodomy II trials were carried out, has to be multiplied a million times to equal the gravity of what you have done to the Malaysian judiciary.
Rather than going into the ugly details myself, allow me to quote parts of the write up an unidentified online writer who summarised the facts from the book May Day for Justice, by Tun Salleh Abas with K. Das (Kuala Lumpur: Magnus Book, 1989) for the benefit of Malaysians who have missed the book.
How Mahathir destroyed the Malaysian judiciary
1. The destruction of judicial independence
Mahathir was continually upset with the Judiciary because the verdicts in a number of cases went against the Government. According to Deputy PM, Datuk Musa Hitam, one of his favourite slogans was "Hang the Lawyers! Hang the Judges!" From 1987, he intensified his verbal attacks against the Judiciary in the news media, making damaging statements which clearly demonstrated that he did not understand the role of the Judiciary as being independent from the Executive and Legislative arms of Government. That the Judiciary exists as a check-and-balance against the excesses of the Executive appeared to have been a concept he never fully grasped. Instead, he accused judges of the sort of political interference that would result in confusion and loss of public confidence in the Government. Hence, to curtail the powers of the Judiciary and subsume it beneath the Executive became one of his cherished dreams.
In April 1987, after an UMNO leadership contest in which Mahathir very nearly lost to Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, there were allegations that several delegates who had voted were drawn from branches not properly registered under the Societies Act 1966. An appeal was filed by eleven UMNO delegates to have the elections declared null and void. This was a very serious matter for Mahathir because if the appeal succeeded, fresh elections would have to be held and he might lose. The matter finally came before Justice Harun Hashim of KL High Court who ruled that under the existing law, he had no choice but to declare not just the elections invalid, but the whole of UMNO an unlawful society as well. The country and, more particularly, UMNO, went into a state of shock.
In most modern democracies, a political catastrophe of this magnitude would have resulted in the immediate resignation of the party's President and Prime Minister. But Mahathir did not resign. He informed the country that the Government would continue running the country. Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and Tunku Abdul Rahman called for a vote in Parliament to establish Mahathir's legitimacy but those calls were ignored.
Mahathir then set in motion the machinery to form a new surrogate party called UMNO Baru. His opponents, however, wanted the old party revived. The eleven UMNO delegates then launched an appeal in the Supreme Court to have the 1987 elections alone declared illegal and the party not an unlawful society.
Mahathir fully understood the danger to him of this pending appeal. He had to act quickly. In October 1987, he launched the notorious Operation Lalang in which at least 106 people were arrested and detained without trial under the ISA, including three very articulate critics, the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, political scientist Dr. Chandra Muzaffar and leading lawyer Karpal Singh.
The official reason for the arrests was that a highly dangerous security situation had arisen but this has been strongly disputed as nothing more than a shameless fabrication. The broad sweep included even environmentalists and Consumer Association spokesmen.
Four of the most outspoken newspapers - The Star, The Sunday Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh - had their publishing licences suspended. When, after five months, the papers were free to publish again, they were no longer the same.
Mahathir's next move was to push through Parliament far-reaching amendments to the Constitution so that the Executive gained in power enormously at the expense of the Judiciary.
There was general indignation at this rude behaviour which shocked a good many people. The indecent haste and the fact that the amendments were made at a time when the Government's main critics were in detention, including the Opposition Leader and six vocal MPs and outspoken newspapers demoralized added further to the appalling injustice of the situation.
Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's beloved first Prime Minister, put it succinctly: "It was legal, but was it just?" Others noted angrily that the Constitution had been raped once again. In a speech, the outgoing President of the Bar Council, Param Cumaraswamy, said:
"The Prime Ministe's vile and contemptuous allegations, and the accusations levelled at the Judiciary and our judges left many shocked beyond belief. His speech which was full of venom, hate and spite with no substance whatsoever, illustrated his complete and total ignorance of the role of the Judiciary and the judicial process itself. He has indeed defiled and defaced the Constitution.
It is surprising that those 142 MPs who voted in favour, after taking the oath that they would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, had no compunction about destroying one of its basic structures."
Next, after having curbed the independence of the Judiciary, Mahathir set about destroying its integrity. This was the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in 1988, a move which Tunku Abdul Rahman described as "the most shocking story in modern legal and judicial history,"
2. The destruction of judicial integrity
By March 1988, Mahathir's scandalous and violent public attacks on the Judiciary had so provoked the judges that Tun Salleh was obliged to call a conference. Twenty judges met in the Supreme Court one week after the debilitating and shameful Constitutional amendments were made. By unanimous agreement, a letter was drafted to the King (also the Sultan of Johore) and copied to all Sultans, expressing disquiet over various comments made by the Prime Minister. The letter was delivered on 25 March. Three days later, Tun Salleh was suspended from his official capacity by the King on recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Tun Salleh's suspension came after he refused to bow to Mahathir's pressure to either resign or retire, even though financial inducements were offered, including mention of a lucrative job in the International Development Bank in Jeddah. The initial reason given for the suspension was that the King had taken great displeasure over the letter Tun Salleh had written on behalf of all judges.
It is difficult to believe that the King wanted Tun Salleh removed purely because he had protested about the public insults directed against the entire Judiciary by the head of the Executive. In any event, royal displeasure would not be a constitutionally valid ground for dismissal. Indeed, Mahathir advised the King as much in a letter written four days after this probably fictitious audience; however, the Prime Minister went further in the same letter to say that he would investigate Tun Salleh for any evidence of misbehaviour.
In any event, the King did not clear up the mystery and, in an audience with Tun Salleh, actually asked the latter to step down without giving reasons although the Conference of Rulers had already asked for his reinstatement. Amazingly, Tun Salleh was suspended and a Tribunal set up to determine his fate before any formal charges were laid.
The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a Lord President. While the Tribunal need not be an inappropriate means, its composition was to say the least, disgraceful. It was composed of six acting and retired judges, although the Constitution required an odd number to prevent deadlock. Of these -four from Malaysia, one from Sri Lanka and one from Singapore -only the Sri Lankan enjoyed a rank comparable to Tun Salleh's. This was contrary to the very reasonable dictum that one should be tried by one's peers rather than one's juniors. The fact that two retired Lord Presidents of Malaysia were available but not invited was glaring. There were grave conflicts of interest with three of the Malaysian judges that should have disqualified them from sitting: Tan Sri Abdul Hamid who was next in line to succeed as Lord President and who had also participated in the conference of 20 judges which resulted in the letter to the King; Tan Sri Zahir who, being also the Speaker of the Lower House, was beholden to Mahathir, the principal complainant in the matter at hand; and Tan Sri Abdul Aziz who, although a former judge, was then a practising lawyer and, more incredibly, had two suits pending against him at that time. But Tun Salleh's objections were ignored and when the Bar Council issued a statement calling for the Tribunal to be re-constituted, both the New Straits Times and The Star refused to publish it. Further, it was decided that the Tribunal would sit in closed sessions although Tun Salleh had requested a public hearing.
The charges, when finally published, were manifestly absurd. Running over 12 sheets of paper, it was clear that quantity had been substituted where quality was lacking, and some of them actually related to Tun Salleh's behaviour after suspension. Many of them related to his speeches and press interviews, whereby sinister meanings were imputed to various innocuous comments that he had made.
To cite an instance, in a speech at the University of Malaya, he had said: "The role of the courts is very important to bring about public order. If there is no public order there will be chaos in this country and if there is chaos, no one can feel safe" On this basis, Tun Salleh was charged with making statements criticizing the Government which displayed prejudice and bias against the latter.
Another statement of his, "In a democratic system, the courts play a prominent role as agent of stability but they can perform this function only if judges are trusted," resulted in the charge that he had ridiculed the Government by imputing that it did not trust the judges. These charges were doubly ludicrous in the light of Mahathir's many poisonous attacks against the Judiciary.
It is not surprising that Tun Salleh, after reading this catalogue of fantasy crimes, refused to appear before what was so evidently a kangaroo court. The Tribunal, after refusing representations made by Raja Aziz, Tun Salleh's leading counsel, that it had no constitutional validity to sit, chose instead to proceed so hastily that it wound up deliberations, including the examination of witnesses with just four hours work. As it prepared to issue its Report, Tun Salleh's lawyers sought an urgent stay of proceedings in the High Court. This would normally be granted immediately at the least possibility that an injustice may be about to be done but, here, events turned into utter farce.
Instead of immediately reaching a decision as expected, the presiding judge, Datuk Ajaib Singh, after the court had been in languorous session the whole day that Friday, adjourned hearings for 9.30 am the next day. On Saturday however, the judge emerged in court only at 11.50 am and, even then, postponed hearings again for the Monday! In desperation, Tun Salleh's lawyers, knowing that the Tribunal could easily release its Report before then, sought the assistance of Supreme Court judge, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman, in his Chambers. The latter agreed to hear them in open court in half an hour's time and called a quorum of all remaining Supreme Court, one of whom, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop, refused to sit. The soap opera reached an apogee of ridiculousness when Tan Sri Abdul Hamid, head of the Tribunal and Acting Lord President, gave orders for the doors of Supreme Court to be locked and for the seal of the Supreme Court to be secreted away!
Undeterred, the five Supreme Court judges ordered the policeman on duty to open the door forthwith. After less than half an hour, the Court ordered the Tribunal not to submit any recommendation, report or advice to the King. Tun Salleh's lawyers were typing the Order to serve personally to the Tribunal at Parliament House when news arrived that the gates of Parliament House had been locked! At this point, Justice Wan Suleiman rose to the occasion and, calling the office of the Inspector General of Police, told a senior officer that any impediment to serving the Order would constitute contempt of court. The gates of Parliament swung open and, at 4 pm, Raja Aziz and his team served the Order to the Tribunal members who were found to be still hard at work on a word-processor that Saturday afternoon. All six members accepted service without complaint…. four days later, all five Supreme Court judges were suspended. Almost every rule that was broken to suspend Tun Salleh was broken again to suspend them. The prohibition order they had made were revoked within days. A second Tribunal eventually reinstated three of the judge: Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoff Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah but Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Edward Seah were removed from office.
The UMNO Eleven case was quickly dismissed. The removal of Tun Salleh also saw the resignation of Deputy PM Datuk Musa Hitam who, according to popular wisdom, could no longer stomach Mahathir's ways.
DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN
Advisor, UK-Based Human rights foundation Malaysia
Mahathir=Melayu ciplak=Mamak from Kerala.
ReplyDeleteYa perjuangannya tidak akan pernah selesai kerana hidup kaya raya perlu diteruskan jika tidak maka hilanglah Ketuanan Melayu ciptaan Mahataik!
Bolehkah kalau Mahathir tidak berakap lagi tentang perkara2 yg Mahathir telah rosakkan?
Bolehkah wahai mahathir yang mudah lupa?
Mahathir penjenayah terbesar negara dengan kegiatan politiknya yang diktator!
ReplyDeleteDialah perosak kedaulatan undang2 dengan rasuahnya di badan kepolisan negara hingglah keperingkat pemutusan kes oleh hakim.
Anggap saja mahathir ini sampah negara! kerana dialah negara khususnya Sabah banyak menderita.. mahathir tidak kurang dari hanya seorang bajingan professional.
Tun Salleh tulis surat pada Agung dan semua sultan memaklumkan yang mereka tidak setuju dengan PM tu kenapa?Saya tanya adakah perbuatan itu betul atau salah?Jadi salah ka Mahathir bertindak atas mereka yang cuba memalukan PM seorang pemimpin kerajaan yang di pilih rakyat?
ReplyDeleteHakim tidak berhak memalukan PM kepada Raja dan sekiranya berlaku maka PM juga mempunyai hak untuk bertindakbalas dan bukan dayus menghadapi segala tindakan Hakim terhadap beliau.Memalukan PM adalah sama dengan memalukan rakyat yang memilih beliau.
Jangan lah di buat perkara ini macam cerita sejarah.Mahathir bertindak benar atas mereka yang sudah hilang tatatertib dan memalukan institusi kehakiman dengan gaya yang tidak professional.
anak petagas nampaknya salah seorang daripada mereka. artikel ini ditulis berdasarkan chronology kes yg berlaku pada masa lampau dan memang layak ditulis berlandaskan tatacara penulisan sejarah. kenyataan balas anak petagas pada saya lebih kepada bersikap kebudak-budakan. Hakim adalah hakim dan PM dalam apa cara sekalipun tidak boleh menjadi hakim. institusi kehakiman wujud utk mengadili kpntingan umum, pm wujud utk mentadbir negara. jelas dua perkara yg berbeza. Menurut kebiasaan luar, negara masih boleh ditadbir biarpun tanpa PM kerana institusi kehakiman boleh bertindak sebagai pemegang kuasa, tapi tanpa institusi kehakiman negara nyatanya akan runtuh kerana PM tidak boleh menjadi hakim. semudah itu. budak tabika pun boleh faham.
ReplyDeleteMahathir ini MUDAH LUPA.Dia yang memutar belitkan kasihan PERUNDANGAN dan memecat HAKIM HAKIM yang JUJUR.Apa lagi ada dengan PERUNDANGAN?
ReplyDeleteMahathir sudah lupa.Dia ini sudah NYANYUK dan sebenarnya dia itu KARUN dan DAJJAL.
Apapun asalkan BUKAN BN UMNO.
Gonzales
Tahi PALAT kaulah Anak Petagas.Siapa itu PM?
ReplyDeleteanak petagas merupakan orang yang tidak tahu apapun sebenarnya.biasalah... nak cakap pasal dia pun..he he he
ReplyDeleteBuat komen macam Hakim itu Tuhan.Hakim itu manusia juga,pandai silap,pandai makan rasuah dan pandai pilih kaseh.Kalau Hakim sudah durjana kepada pemimpin dan bertindak untuk menjatuhkan ketua kerajaan kenapa pula Mahathir tidak boleh bertindak?
ReplyDeleteUbah pemikiran itu ke abad 21 dan jangan tinggal otak itu di zaman purba.Abad sekarang ini siapa salah kena ambil tindakan.Hakim ka,sultan ka so what?
Yang kebudak-budakan ialah komen yang datang dari 'Hakim Kampungan' yang konon negara boleh ujud dengan ketiadaan ketua kerajaan kerana Hakim boleh mentadbir negara.Saya tidak mahu komen tulisan yang bodoh ini kerana ianya tidak akan berakhir.
Kalau mengikut'Hakim kampungan' tidak ada pilihanraya pun negara akan makmur kerana ada Hakim,tidak ada demokrasi pun boleh kerana Hakim boleh mentadbir negara dan Hakim kerana tidak payah berdepan dengan pilihan rakyat akan terus menjadi diktator dan akan terus memerintah selama-lama nya dengan kuku besi kerana demokrasi tidak lagi wujud.Poodah!Otak di otot mungkin.Otak kampung!
Anak Petagas buta! Semua Hakim yang di pecat telah menerima ganti rugi daripada kerajaan atas sebab pemecatan itu di dapati salah.
ReplyDeleteThe job of a judge is to interpret the law approved by Parliament.But if a judge goes beyond such duties and find it fit to criticise the PM then he is playing politics.He should resign and be a politician where he can criticise the PM and the government whenever and wherever he wants.There shouldn't be any politics in court.The PM,Mahathir was right in taking action.
ReplyDeleteSo do the PM. He or she cannot at any ways to cross the border of executive boundary i.e interfere with the judicial institutions businesses. The title as PM of Malaysia is not a sole ticket to get involved in the judicial system what more to be a lord judge above all. He is only a PM, not a PRESIDENT as we are not a republic. Even the US has little history of such incident. At this point, who the one who start the game? I bet it is not the judges. clearly stated that mahathir was angry that the judiciary are not in favor of his government. the rest are history. however all the sucked judges has been paid compensation for their wrongful dismissal and what is this mean? to his literate anak petagas, i do admit it that i'm illiterate/less educated for i never study oversea, but at least i had finished my education here. However, i never agree that a government cannot stand without PM. In time of such crisis, judiciary may became the key entity to manage the country for flash election. thats what i mean. not that the judges will run this country without carry out any election/general election. i never said that the judges can became a cabinet member whatsoever to form a government. as my early quotes, judges is judges. in sort word, in time of crisis, who will maintain the public order? who will interpret the Constitution is there contravention/violation? Can a PM or his cabinet interpret the law/our Constitution? thats the simple questions that his literate anak petagas has to answer. i'm ill-educated so i interpret just like that. owh yeah.....
ReplyDeleteThere are three branches in a government,that is the The legislature,The Executive and The Judiciary.The legislature/Parliament enacts law that is drafted by the government headed by the PM which is called the executive.After a Bill has been passed/approved by Parliament i.e after going through debates in both Houses in Parliament it becomes a law of the country.The judiciary will then have to interpret it in its entirety when it comes before them.
ReplyDeleteThe important aspect of the judiciary is its independence from parliament and the executive branch of government which is the cabinet.It must be seen as impartial in interpreting the laws in its sitting and actions.It must be absolutely free from any interference from any branches of the government and the public whilst delivering its judgement in all cases.
Being such therefore any judge who deviates from such independence and intrude beyond its scope of duties and responsibilities must be seen as failing to perform his duties and responsibilities as a judge.
That I think answered part of your questions and doubts.
Secondly in the present day world there is no country that can stand without a leader.You can call him by whatever names,PM,President,King,Chancellor and so forth but in essence these people are leaders approved and revered by the people.Anyone who appointed himself through undemocratic means are not leaders but tyrants.
Interpretation of the laws differ between countries as to the appointment of leaders.In USA its different than in Britain or Malaysia.In America they have what it called as written laws whereas in Britain and Malaysia we follow conventional laws in the appointment of leaders.
I think I have to stop here and to Hakim kampungan please polish up whatever deficiencies you have.
Hebatnya ko anak petagas.Main copy paste ja ka tu. Hahaha..
Delete@anak petagas, I read with interest your response. I'm not a student of law or politic. Politic drama is always a fun read. You may like to see what others have to say about this
ReplyDeletehttp://thegazerofnavels.blogspot.com/2008/06/tun-salleh-saga-open-reply-to-dr.html
That is not written by me but it is an intesting read. While I respect Dr M for his great contribution to the country, he is still a politician. In history of Sabah, I don't really think he contribute anything profound that I can remember. PM should not be above the law, not in a democracy anyway.
Mahathir is no longer relevant and shouldn't be involved in the country's politics any longer.
ReplyDeleteLet the current government take care of it, those who already retired, just retire in peace.
ReplyDeleteIt needs someone to be brave enough to put aside his/her ego and admit his/her mistakes.
ReplyDeleteKnow the limit. Don't cross the line no matter what post you hold.
ReplyDeleteada positif dan negatif yang telah dibawa oleh Mahathir semasa zaman pemerintahannya. we know that no leaders is perfect.
ReplyDeletesampai sekarang pun Mahathir masih aktif dalam memberikan pandangan2nya. mungkin apa yang baik perlu dipertimbangkan untuk digunapakai pada masa sekarang walaupun beliau sudah bersara.
ReplyDeletebiarlah rakyat yang menilai sendiri Mahathir. masing-masing ada pandangan sendiri.
ReplyDeleteapa pun, Mahathir sudah bersara dan sebarang yang diperkatakan belia sekarang ini ada pandangan peribadi beliau.
ReplyDeleteCerita lama tidak perlulah diungkit lagi. Sekarang ini Datuk Najib perlu meneruskan usaha memastikan kerajaan BN dapat membantu rakyat Malaysia.
ReplyDeletemahathir mmg seorang yang aktif walaupun telah bersara.
ReplyDeletewalaupun sudah bertahun2 meninggalkan tampuk pemerintahan negara, namun masih ada pihak yang takut dengan bisa beliau..
ReplyDeleteI think he should totally retired.
ReplyDeletesekarang ni era Najib, harap2 lebih baik dari pada M.
ReplyDeleteBagus kamu jemput si Mahatai datang Sabah supaya kita boleh keroyok picit butu dia!
ReplyDeletetidak payahlah peduli Mahathir
ReplyDelete