TUN SALLEH ABBAS REVEALATIONS: DR MAHATHIR AMENDED & ENACTED ONE-Sided Laws for ABSOLUTE Power; DISMISSAL of JUDGES – A Great Fraud on JUDICIARY
The events that happened in 1988 were a great shock to many at that time. The government of the day for expediency and seeing the judiciary interfering with the running of government amended and enacted draconian laws to give the ministers absolute powers on all decisions which cannot be questioned and challenged in court. The craze for power is no justification for doing so.
But alas, the past is being constantly recreated by each individual as attitudes and associations change. This is an actual recreation, not a symbolic one. Just like the child is indeed still within the man, but he is not the child that 'was', for even the child within the man constantly changes
Time as you experience it is an illusion caused by our own physical senses and so it seems to you that one moment exists and is gone forever.
If only we could grasp and understand everything in the universe exists at ONE TIME, simultaneously. The past is seldom what you remember it to be, for you have already rearranged it from the instant of any given event.
But at least we could exonerate the judges involved and free them from the stigma of blame, untrustworthiness and wrongdoing. By a Royal Commission? Justice George Seah has stated "history will exonerate me for taking a stand" in his 5-part piece in the Malaysian Bar website, titled Crisis in the Judiciary - The Hidden Story,
Salleh: Reveal truth about judicial crisis; Soon Li Tsin Aug 22,
Extract quoting Tun Salleh Abbas:
"The truth is that the dismissal and the suspension of my five colleagues was a great fraud on the judiciary and you cannot cover the truth to something fraudulent. Somehow things will emerge ... It will come out eventually. That is natural."
____
Extract quoting Tun Salleh:
...Before the judicial crisis, we were the best judiciary east of
________
Please support Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/55752
Q&A: Disillusioned but not bitter; Aug 22,
The following is an abstract of the press conference called by former Lord
President Salleh Abas at the National Heart Institute.
* Why are you calling this press conference?
On the 17th of this month, the newspapers asked me for comments on the proposal by the Bar Council chairperson (Yeo Yang Poh) to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis that took place in 1988.
At that time, I was absolutely not aware (of it) because I have not read the papers. I can tell you, I haven't read the papers in a long time - it's difficult to get papers there (Bukit Payung, Terengganu). I don't read the Malay papers because I cannot read fast enough so I struggle. It's not easy to get English papers. I only read them when I get to town.
Anyhow, the newspapers have been pressing for a statement when I wasn't even aware that such a statement was made by Yeo Yang Poh. Somebody showed me The Sun so I read it, but I still don't want to make a statement.
So I'm making a statement now to put a rest to it and hoping that no more questions would be asked about my attitude or my comments. It's all there in this three-page statement. I am prepared to answer questions only on this subject and not on any other subject. Don't ask me questions beyond this subject.
* On judicial review and ministerial power
The court at one time had power which we called judicial review dealing with the complaints by the rakyat against the wrongdoing of the executive. In
wrong that the government is doing.
The Courts of Judicature Act was also amended to take away the power of the judiciary to have a judicial review, and also a number of legislations, there is always a provision to the effect that the decision of any minister with certain things shall be final and shall not be questioned in court. Finish. Where are you going to go?
The clear example is, of course, press freedom. If something happens, and the government doesn't like it, legislation is passed and it's there. You then want to appeal to the minister but the minister will make a decision which will be covered by that law and cannot be questioned in court.
Even in the Police Act, for example, if the people want to have, or hold, a meeting or a rally ... you have to apply for a permit. If the permit isn't given - the OCPD would usually keep it to the last minute, or refuse altogether - there is a provision in the Police Act where you can appeal to the chief police officer but the officer can make a decision that it is final and cannot be questioned in court. Where is the freedom of expression?
In this country, we say we rule by law. There are three types of law that I was taught at my university - law of altruism, law of reciprocity and law of power. But today, I think the world is moving towards the law of power. Law of reciprocity - the benefit is mutual, the liability is also mutual. But when it comes to law of power, it is one-sided.
* What is the best way to correct the 1988 judicial crisis?
The laws must be amended. We are not talking about how to reopen (investigation into) the judicial crisis yet. To me, if you really want to make this country to be governed democratically in accordance to the law, the laws must be looked into and be amended. Then we would be in line with all other democratic countries.
* Do you have hope that the crisis will be reviewed?
After I got dismissed on
The truth is that my dismissal, and the suspension of my five colleagues, was a great fraud on the judiciary and you cannot recover the truth to something fraudulent. Somehow, things will emerge when you refer (to what happened) in my time, it will strain the record in the future. It will come out eventually. That is natural.
* Would you like the investigation to the judicial crisis to be reopened?
I would like it reopened, of course. The law we had was twisted. This has cost the life of one judge, Eusoffe Abdoolcadeer, who was so disillusioned with the law.
If I'm called to give evidence, I would love to do it. But as it is, it is up to the government. It is a political decision. No matter how much the public wants this matter to be reopened, finally it's the decision of the government; in what form and what manner.
Today, we still have a number of people involved in this crisis that are still alive ... George Seah who is very sick at the moment, Wan Hamzah (Wan Mohamed Salleh), (Mohamed) Azmi Kamaruddin, Abdul Talib (Othman), (Abdul) Hamid Omar - all these players are still here.
However, there is a statute of limitations (where legal proceedings are barred after a number of years). That if you were to go to court, it is too big for the court to decide. I think it's two years against the government or public authority.
* What was the catalyst of this judicial crisis?
I think it all started because of the two (Asian) Wall Street Journal reporters who made comments on certain things and their visa was withdrawn, or something like that. They took this to court. The late Harun Hashim, (who) was the judge at that time, made a very strong comment on the government on the withdrawal of the visa. From then (on), the government started to see that the judiciary was interfering with the executive.
The statement made by the former prime minister (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) against the judiciary all started from there. Some judges felt very unhappy about it. I don't think I can go further than this because if I were to tell the story, it would take months and years to finish it. I even wrote a book on it, May Day for Justice.
* Why have you not said anything before this?
Why should I say anything? Whatever I say, it would not be reported, I know that. That is why I think The Sun described me as media shy. Not without any reason.
I learned a great experience during my suspension that when I make statement, that statement got twisted and truncated that so much so an entirely different version came out. Because of that, I'm 'very shy'. I have to be very careful. The reporters are very good but the decision-making is with the editors and the editors would cut and put their own version.
But now I think the press seems to be a little bit better. And even then I am very cautious. That's why I did this statement. I don't want to talk to the crowd because I know I cannot remember what I say and they would be quarreling (over) what I say or what you say is wrong. But now you cannot quarrel because this is all black and white here.
* Do you see any positive changes from the present government compared to
Mahathir's government?
There is a certain amount of liberality in the present government. I think the press is a bit better and liberal now. We can see also there are few articles and incidents where the reports made are adverse to the government. In those days, this was not possible.
* What do you think about the judicial system?
The judicial system is there. But they are limited and shackled. We still have the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and magistrates but their powers are limited.
* Do you feel bitter about the whole episode?
I am not bitter. The first few months maybe a little disillusioned and unhappy, and then I got over it. After that I went to
* How do you describe Tun Mahathir?
I have no comment. You know your own answer, don't ask me.
* How would you describe the judiciary now?
That I have no comment. I think you all know that one.
* So Tun, can you tell us what your life is like now?
I go to the kebun (orchard) once a week. I live in Bukit Payung. It is 11 kilometres from the town centre in Kuala Terengganu. I live on a farm about three quarters of an acre where I built my house. Then I plant fruit trees and they are all fruiting now. I also build two cemented pools to rear fish. But I have never eaten the fish. I have plenty of them and I like to feed them. It's a very soothing experience.
* Do you agree with public perception the people have no recourse?
There are some recourse but not full recourse as there ought to be. Before the judicial crisis, we were the best judiciary east of
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz said there were no solid reasons to re-examine the case.
"We cannot keep on questioning past issues, otherwise there’ll never be any finality. There’s no way we’re going to re-open this matter," he said, commenting on a Press conference given earlier yesterday by former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas.
"He was tried by his peers. A panel of international judges was called. If we open this case, what other cases are people going to ask us to re-examine?"
In a case which many saw as a judicial crisis, Salleh was dismissed for misconduct in 1988 together with former Supreme Court judges Datuk George Seah and Datuk Wan Suleiman Pawan Teh.
The press conference as reported in the NST
Salleh breaks 18-year silence;
New Straits Times (by Minderjeet Kaur)
KUALA LUMPUR: Breaking an 18-year silence, former lord president Tun Salleh Abas yesterday charged that the powers of the courts had been curbed.
Saying the Executive had become very powerful, he added the power of judicial review — including against decisions of ministers — should be vested in the courts.
Speaking at the National Heart Institute, Salleh supported the Bar Council’s proposal that the Government review the sacking of three judges, including himself, in 1988.
He appeared optimistic about current trends in the country, saying: "I feel there is more transparency now. People can voice out.
"Newspapers write articles sometimes opposing the Government.
"But, it is also time to review ministerial powers”. At present, it is ‘any decision of the minister shall be final and cannot be questioned by the Court’."
In 1988, Salleh wrote a letter to the King on behalf of the judges expressing disappointment over accusations made by the then Prime Minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad against the judiciary.
Salleh was suspended. Later, five other judges were also suspended, of whom, two (the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawan Teh and Datuk George Seah) were dismissed.
Salleh, who will be 77 on Friday, was speaking to reporters after undergoing an angioplasty.
During the Press conference, he distributed a press statement on issues relating to the 1988 episode which led to a crisis in the judiciary.
"Since the judicial crisis took place in 1988, the Government has tried to clip the power of the judiciary. The way to do it, which I think is absolutely wrong, is to take away the vesting of judiciary authority from the courts.
"At one time, the courts had what we call the power for judicial review which is to receive complaints from the rakyat against wrongdoings and abuse of power."
He said the public should be allowed to take their complaints to the upper courts as practised in
"But in this country, you can’t do that simply because the Government does not want to be tested as to the rights and wrongs of the Government’s doing."
He proposed the laws be amended to allow greater judicial independence.
"For example, if people want to hold a meeting, a rally or a speech, they need to apply for a permit but if the permit is not given by the local police chief, you can appeal to the chief police officer. But his decision is final and cannot be questioned in court.".
After the 1988 crisis, Salleh said he became disillusioned with the law.
"So much so that I never encouraged my children and grandchildren to take up law. I took my comfort and solace in becoming a simple gardener."
Asked how the 1988 crisis took place, he said it started when two Asian Wall Street Journal reporters made certain comments for which their visas were withdrawn. The matter went to court.
"Justice Datuk Harun Hashim then made a very strong comment on the power of the Government to withdraw the visa. The Government started to see the judiciary as interfering with the Executive. A lot of statements were made by the previous Prime Minister against the judiciary. I don’t want to go further than that."
(In September 1986, the Government suspended the publication of the Asian Wall Street Journal and served a 48-hour expulsion order on two of its reporters — John Berthelsen and Rapheal Pura. The Journal challenged the order in court. The Supreme Court ruled on Nov 3 that the suspension of the Journal and the expulsion order on the journalists were wrong. The paper resumed publication and the expulsion order was quashed.)
Salleh said: "Political parties should not be a law unto themselves whereby disputes within the parties are not the subject of judicial review. Thus the parties become judges in their own cause, a clear violation of the principle of natural justice.
"More than this, the appointment and promotion of judges must be transparent if unhealthy frustration within the judiciary is to be avoided."
Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh had said recently that a major mistake which had damaged democracy and the rule of law in the country was the "shameful episode in 1988 when the institution of the judiciary was attacked by the executive, resulting in the unfair and unceremonious dismissal of three top judges, and injuring many more".
Salleh said the council’s proposal to review the matter was for the country’s benefit, "which we want to see being governed democratically and in accordance with the rule of law, so that the system will endure for many generations to come".
He added the Bar Council’s proposal should not be taken lightly as it involved a serious attempt to restore the judiciary to its "former golden era".
On Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz’s statement dismissing the proposal, Salleh said: "Reading (Nazri’s) statement, I can only conclude it was made impromptu, off the cuff, without much study... I thought it was made in haste."
Salleh said he had no personal interest in the investigation, adding any such decision would be "a political decision... It would be up to the Government".
However, if called upon to give evidence, he said: "I would definitely like it."
Salleh: The law we had before was twisted
Q: Why haven’t you said anything before this?
A: Why should I say anything? ...I knew whatever I said would not be reported. That is why The Sun described me as media shy, not without any reason... When I made a statement, my statements were twisted and truncated. A different version entirely came out... The decision makers were the editors who... put their own version. But now, the Press seems to be a little bit better.
Q: You have asked for provisions in the Constitution to be amended. Which provisions are you referring to?
A: In the Constitution, as originally drafted by the Reid Commission and implemented right up to the time of the judicial crisis, there are three branches of the Government. It is a question of vesting of these powers. Legislative authority is vested in Parliament. Executive authority is vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and exercised by the Cabinet in the name of Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The third branch is the judicial authority. Judicial authority is vested in the High Courts and the other courts as well.
Parliament may pass legislation to establish courts other than the superior courts, that is the High Courts in peninsula
Since the judicial crisis has taken place, the Government... has tried to clip the power of the judiciary. The way to do it, which I think is absolutely wrong, is to take away the vesting of judicial authority from the courts.
If you read the Constitution today, there is no such thing as "judicial authority shall be vested in the High Courts or Court of Appeal or whatever court". It says there shall be two high courts. Where is the power?
Q: Do you hold any hope of this (legislation being looked into and amended) happening?
A: I tell you the truth. After I was dismissed on
Q: What is the truth?
A: The truth is that my dismissal and the suspension of five colleagues, two of whom were dismissed, was a great fraud on the judiciary. Somehow or other the truth will emerge.
Q: Was it the law that started the problem?
A: No... but the law that we had before was twisted. It was a clear example of the use of the law of the power. It cost the life of one judge, the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader. He was so disillusioned with the law.
Q: Are you willing to testify?
A: If I am called to give evidence, I definitely would like to do it. But it is up to the Government.
Q: Are there any unanswered questions from the 1988 crises?
A: There are a lot of unanswered questions. But I am not prepared to answer, to give details at the moment. The whole thing is all wrong.
Q: What do you think prompted the crisis?
A: It all started because of the
____
Background (earlier reports)
Tun Salleh Mum Over Investigation Proposal
The media-shy former top judge, when met by reporters, said he had yet to read the Bar Council's proposal and thus had no comment to make.
"Let me read it first...I have not read the report," Salleh said after launching as-Salihin Trustee Bhd, which specialises in Islamic estate planning, at a leading hotel here.
The three judges sacked for misconduct by a special tribunal set up by the then government were Salleh and Federal Court Judges Datuk George Seah and Datuk Wan Suleiman Pawanteh.
Yesterday Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh, in a statement called for a thorough review of the 1988 sacking of the three judges, during the tenure of then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, which he described as the "darkest days for the Malaysian judiciary".
Yeo said an impartial re-examination of the attack by the Executive then on the judiciary was necessary to restore the honour of the judges.
The Bar Council's statement was issued in the wake of the on-going allegations by the former prime minister against his successor Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The Bar Council said the on-going criticism by Dr Mahathir against the current administration had rekindled discussions of the numerous deeds and misdeeds of the government under more than two decades of the previous leadership.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=214227
Bar wants sacking of judges reviewed
Its president Yeo Yang Poh said in a statement that an impartial re-examination of the attack by the Executive on the judiciary was necessary to restore the honour of the judges who “for no more than asserting their independence were so cruelly sacrificed at the altar of political power play”.
He said the re-examination was absolutely crucial, not just for those judges and others who had “suffered at the unseen hands in the perversion of justice”.
The three judges sacked for misconduct by a special tribunal were then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and Federal Court judges Datuk George Seah and Datuk Wan Suleiman Pawanteh.
Yeo said the sacking had brought severe damage to democracy and the rule of law in the country.
PRESS RELEASE: Injustices of the Past
The on-going allegations by the former prime minister against the current Prime Minister, when rid of all its political trappings, do summon attention to important issues such as the freedom of speech and of information, freedom of the press, corruption, accountability, and the like.
In addition to drawing attention to what is currently taking place, it has also rekindled discussion of the numerous deeds and misdeeds of the government under more than 2 decades of the previous leadership. A number of commentators have already pointed out that, while Malaysians support the call for greater freedom, it is ironic that this call should come from the very person who placed tight and suffocating shackles on various forms of freedom during his time, and who was responsible for developing and fostering an environment steeped in intolerance and fear.
The system and the environment that the former prime minister now vehemently attacks are not the new creation of the present Prime Minister. The current leadership in the last 3 years has to some extent loosened a few of the handcuffs on society inherited from before. The proper criticism should be that not enough is being done to quickly undo all the wrongs committed in the past in various areas of governance.
One colossal mistake of yesteryears that has brought disastrous damage to democracy and the rule of law in this country, and one which the Malaysian Bar has for many years stood firmly against, is the shameful episodes that took place in 1988, when the institution of the Judiciary was unjustifiably but successfully attacked by the Executive, resulting in the glaringly unfair and unceremonious dismissal of 3 of our top judges, injuring many more.
Those were the darkest days for the Malaysian Judiciary. Those were the sickest hours of Executive incursion into the Judiciary. The concept of separation of powers was discarded like a piece of dirty tissue. The independence of the Judiciary was trampled upon like some disused doormat. Those shameful events have left gaping wounds in the Malaysian society, from which we are yet to fully recover.
The wounds have neither healed nor closed. Society has suffered, and will continue to suffer, from the gross injustice some 18 years ago, that has given birth to other injustices. Our justice system is not what it once was. It is time to right the wrongs of the past. We can undo the damage caused, but only if we confront and deal with the errors of the past, no matter how painful the process may prove. It will do us no good if we continue to sweep things under the carpet, and pretend that calamity never struck.
The Bar Council calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to cause a thorough and impartial re-examination of the events of 1988 to be carried out, with the view to uncovering the truth, leaving no stone unturned, correcting the errors and injustices perpetrated, and restoring the honour of the judges who for no more than asserting their independence were so cruelly sacrificed at the altar of political power play. It is time to return to them the good name they never deserved to lose, and to make amends for what they had lost for no fault of their own.
This is absolutely crucial, not just for those judges and others who have suffered at the unseen hands of the perversion of justice. This is equally important for the institution of the Judiciary, and indeed for the nation as a whole. History requires the truth, and society demands what is just.
If an independent Judiciary can be savagely destroyed and if those who engineered or allowed the destruction can get away with it forever, then the rest of society has little hope for justice.
Yeo Yang Poh; President; Malaysian Bar;
Tell Us What You Think by Haji Sulaiman Abdullah on 2006-08-16
I salute the timely and courageous call by Yeo Yang Poh, the President of the Malaysian Bar, to the Malaysian Government to re-examine the severe assault on the Judiciary carried out by the Mahathir Administration in 1988.
Three judges of outstanding integrity, ie, YAA Tun Salleh Abas, YA Tan Sri Wan Suleiman, and Datuk George Seah were removed through tribunal proceedings universally condemned as being a travesty of normal principles of fair play, justice, and proper procedure.
It was one of the most shameful episode in our nation's history. So long as this stain is allowed to remain it will forever blot whatever pretensions we have of progress to an open, just, transparent civil society.
While we are re-examinig all the damage caused to our nation by the unbridled ambitions and warped perceptions of one man the 1988 Assault On The Malaysian Judiciary is a glaring injustice that must be courageously tackled and generously redressed.
Justice and the National Interest require immediate action by all concerned parties to respond to the call of the Malaysian Bar!
and the Caravan moves on, a letter in Msiakini
After Dr M, time to move forward; Aug 22,
I refer to the letter Dr Mahathir, please bring back our dignity by Rose.
This is like saying Dr Mahathir, please take my freedom away and instruct us what to do as we do not have any wisdom and have no willingness to learn and grow. In this analogy, people have to realise that we cannot ask for employment but complain about the demands and commitment to work for the boss. It was a choice.
I for one, prefer the current freedom of speech with responsibility and understanding the chaos from this sudden freedom instead of not ever being heard, ignored by my own MP and living in fear of an executive which is ever ready to use the ISA.
I prefer that MPs now can voice their opinions and be heard and that decisions pertaining to the country are no longer made unilaterally by one man alone. I prefer that we now focus on correcting our values, to report corruption publicly, to stop thinking that corruption cannot be avoided.
I prefer that we can now try to undo the positioning of the prime minister as the supreme ruler of
Of course, I admire Mahathir’s intelligence and determination in creating visible icons that we can be proud of in
Unfortunately, he is challenged by people who want to use him and perhaps fears if some hard decisions may cause retaliation.
Which is better? I prefer moving forward. Change has been due for too long now. Now we can improve in other ways and return democracy and the written constitution as our pillars. It may take a while before it is completed, but pursue it we must.
GoTo TOP (Main Page)
posted by multidimid at 1:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home