Malaysian Politics: New Facts: Mahathir sacked Chief Justice
-
New evidence has surfaced that confirms Mahathir's blatant interference in asking his Chief Justice to step down, failing which he will be sacked. Following the dismissal of the Chief Justice, two other Chief Justices of Sabah and Sarawak were also sacked, including five other High Court Judges that form the Court of Appeals were also summarily dismissed.
The incorrigible Mahathir had the audacity to confirm that he had actually performed the evil deed, although the details of the private meeting he had with his Chief Justice is somewhat murky.
The Star, 28 September 2006
Salleh reveals new facts
KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Salleh Abas has expressed his thanks to Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz for agreeing to a review of the 1988 Judicial Crisis should “new and important facts” emerge.
And to fulfil this condition set by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, the former Lord President issued a five-page statement yesterday, “touching on five incidents only in general terms”, which saw his dismissal and that of two other Supreme Court judges.
Among the five incidents were that he had been asked to step down by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad during a meeting on May 27, 1988 after being accused of being biased in the discharge of his judicial duties.
Salleh: ‘I hope the truth will be uncovered’
Salleh claimed he had strongly denied the accusation and refused to resign but Dr Mahathir threatened to have him removed by instituting a tribunal under the Constitution.
During the 1988 Judicial Crisis, Salleh was sacked from his post as Lord President after a tribunal had tried him.
Another tribunal sacked Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah, two of five Supreme Court judges who had ordered a halt to the proceedings against Salleh.
Salleh claimed a “very important officer of the Government” had also paid him a visit on the same day as the meeting.
He said the officer tried to persuade him to resign by promising him a lucrative job in Jeddah as a director of an Islamic bank with “a high salary I could never have dreamed of, coupled with unlimited entertainment and travelling allowances.”
Salleh said the officer, who told him he had been authorised to pass the message to him by a “very important minister”, also threatened him with dismissal and “the ignominy of having to face a tribunal” after he declined the offer.
Apart from the incidents mentioned in his statement, Salleh said there were also other incidents that would emerge if the review were held.
“I hope Nazri will present the proposal to the Cabinet for a review of the 1988 Judicial Crisis so that the truth of this important episode in our nation’s history is uncovered,” Salleh said.
The Star, 28 September 2006 Edition:
Dr M: I personally asked Salleh to resign
PUTRAJAYA: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he had personally asked Tun Salleh Abas to resign from his post as Lord President in 1988 as he thought it was the best move.
He said Salleh had first agreed to step down but a few days later refused to do so, which prompted the Government to take the necessary action to remove him.
“He agreed first, then later on, I don’t know how many days later, he decided that he should not step down.
“Then of course the Government was forced to take action,” he said, adding that Salleh did not give reasons as to why he had decided against stepping down.
Dr Mahathir was responding to a statement by Salleh yesterday, where he claimed he was asked to resign by the former premier.
Salleh also claimed he was offered a high paying job as a director of an Islamic bank in Jeddah if he resigned.
When asked about the job offer, Dr Mahathir said since Salleh had refused to resign, it meant he did not want to take up the job.
When asked if there was indeed such a job offer, Dr Mahathir said he could not remember what he had exactly offered.
“I don’t remember exactly what I offered him but I did ask him to step down so as to prevent any scandal or necessity to take action (against him),” he said, adding that he later started the necessary process to remove Salleh as the Lord President.
“Removal of a judge requires a decision by his peers as required by the Constitution, so we have to abide by the Constitution.
“The Agong thought that it was just a matter of dismissal by me.
“I don’t have the power to dismiss anybody, any judge,” he said.
Dr Mahathir, who is the new president of Perkim, was speaking to reporters here after breaking fast with Perkim members at the Perdana Leadership Foundation here yesterday.
At the event, 40 converts also received cash aid and goodies. -
With new evidence surfacing, the Malaysian Bar Council has stepped in to push for the whole truth to be revealed, despite the present Minister of Home Affairs refusal to reopen the case.
'The tribunal of his peers' were formed with three Malaysian judges from a new crop of Mahathir's appointees, which had included the new Chief Justice; and two other foreign senior Supreme Court Judges from the Commonwealth Countries.
The Star, 29 September 2006
Review 1988 judicial crisis, Bar Council urges Government
PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council wants a review of the 1988 judicial crisis now that former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has admitted that he asked a former Lord President to resign or face dismissal.
“This is an admission of executive interference in the judiciary,” said council chairman Yeoh Yang Poh.
“It mocks the law and strikes at the foundation of democracy.
“The serious implications contained in this admission must surely, in addition to the many other reasons that already exist, make a review of those events of 1988 imperative,” he said in a statement.
Yeoh said a review could not be denied by arguing that there must be “finality” in the case.
He added that a “finality argument” applied to a person seeking remedy and could not be applied to a society seeking the pursuit of truth.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had said that a review of the 1988 judicial crisis would only be made if new and important facts emerged.
Salleh Abas was sacked from his post as Lord President after a tribunal of his peers had tried him.
Another tribunal sacked Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah – two of five Supreme Court judges who had ordered a halt to the proceedings against Salleh.
One came from Sri Lanka and the other from Singapore - both were known to be pro-Government judges, and in this show trial organised by Mahathir, such judges will come in handy in his scheme of things.
The Singapore Judge was heavily biased in the trial of Tan Wah Piow - the USSU President, vs Phey Yew Kok, in the mock incident inside the union premises of the PIEU, and with only PIEU staff as witnesses. -
Err.. Atobe,
Should we be bothered, what Mahatir does to their CJs there??
-
2 people in S'pore and Malaysia should really compete for the "SEA's Bloody Old Fool of the Century" award.
Even the Anwar fracas....I don't believe it. Dr. M is really ruthless, having gone all out to destroy those who stood in his way. Err......well nothing new, we have seen it here too. -
I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
- Rudyard Kipling
Sometimes a dead poet's tale comes back from the grave to haunt your conscious soul. -
Originally posted by ShutterBug:
What is happening in Malaysia in the way Mahathir treat the judiciary reflects to a 'certain degree' the situation in Singapore - in the manner in which the Executive Branch interferes and try to rein in the independence of the Judiciary Branch, in order that it does not mess up the 'entire political scheme of things'.
Err.. Atobe,
Should we be bothered, what Mahatir does to their CJs there??
The fact that the Singapore Government had 'placed on loan' a very obedient Supreme Court Judge to assist Mahathir to achieve his scheme will already have drawn Singapore into Malaysian politics.
This Malaysian cry to correct an injustice to the sacked Malaysian Justices should resonate across the Causeway, as one of our Supreme Court Judge had been a party to this injustice, and Singapore should carry the burden of shame. -
Oh, so Thaksin learnt that move from someone after all.
-
frankly i dont care what they do unless it provides a good laugh.
-
Is there any demostration like those in Taiwan against Mahathir?
-
As this point in time, is there any comprehensive concrete evidence of our executive branch interfering in our judiciary? Or are we still at the "lets start digging stage"?Originally posted by Atobe:What is happening in Malaysia in the way Mahathir treat the judiciary reflects to a 'certain degree' the situation in Singapore - in the manner in which the Executive Branch interferes and try to rein in the independence of the Judiciary Branch, in order that it does not mess up the 'entire political scheme of things'.
The fact that the Singapore Government had 'placed on loan' a very obedient Supreme Court Judge to assist Mahathir to achieve his scheme will already have drawn Singapore into Malaysian politics.
This Malaysian cry to correct an injustice to the sacked Malaysian Justices should resonate across the Causeway, as one of our Supreme Court Judge had been a party to this injustice, and Singapore should carry the burden of shame. -
"SEA's Bloody Old Fool of the Century" award.
hahahaha..... hilarious....
-
Originally posted by wisefool83:
Could the suffix 83 connote the year of your birth, which probably will explain for the innocence in the question asked ?
As this point in time, is there any [b]comprehensive concrete evidence of our executive branch interfering in our judiciary? Or are we still at the "lets start digging stage"?[/b]
Perhaps you should consider reading this article 'The Politics of judicial institutions in Singapore' written by a former long serving Solicitor-General of Singapore, Mr Francis Seow, who was supposedly a 'blue eye boy' of LKY during the early years of Singapore politics.
For you to understand who Francis Seow is, you may have to purchase his book ' To Catch a Tartar ' - in which he has outlined his early relationship with LKY, doing all the biddings 'to fix the opposition' as LKY's Solicitor General, it then detailed the falling out of relationship, and final persecution of someone falling out from the 'Inner Circle' to join the Opposition Side.
This book will give you a clear understanding of the manner in which the Singapore Executive Branch manages the Judiciary and Legislature to give legitimacy to all its actions to perpetuate itself in Singapore Politics.
The Singapore Executive has already interfered in the Judicial Process when it came into power, and one of the first matters on its agenda was to abolish trial by jury.
On another score, it had initially preferred to use the UK Privy Council as a benchmark to which the local legal decisions of the Singapore Courts are to be assessed, giving Singapore Legal System an independent evaluation.
However, when LKY's bitter nemesis in JBJ was aquitted by the UK Privy Council of the charges, and also found the Singapore Judges to have committed errors in their written decisions, LKY immediately moved his single party controlled legislature to pass into effect the nullification of the Privy Council as the Final Appellate of the Singapore Judicial System.
Overnight, the initial benchmark was found to be irrelevant to Singapore's International Standing in the Legal Community, and LKY argued that the Privy Council has no consequence to Singapore's social, political and legal environment - as the Members of the esteemed Privy Council considered to be ignorant of local values - as if legal standards of justice are different and can be bent according to the sophistication of a society.
Another instance of the Executive interference with the Judiciary was when a Subordinate Court Judge was moved from his position to be a Solicitor in the Attorney's Chambers, and this came soon after 'Judge found that JBJ had no case to answer', and acquitted JBJ accordingly. -
While Judicial System in Malaysia remains backlogged, it is attempting to reform itself into a more independent judiciary as it attempt t clear a backlog of cases.
Will Malaysia lead the way in making its Judicial System more answerable to its Citizens, by liberalising rules in which citizens are charged for contempt for criticizing the Judiciary ?
Is the Singapore Judiciary above repoach and criticism ?
Extracted from the New Straits Times : Editorial
Editorial: Clarifying contempt
29 Sep 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS much as it has the last say in matters of law, the Palace of Justice is not above reproach. Malaysians expect the judiciary to take public concerns into account, like any other branch of government.
However, there are limits to discussing the conduct of judges, who have the power to take action for contempt when anyone has insulted the court or judicial system, refused to obey an order of the court or interfered with the process of justice. When to take contempt action and what penalties to impose are up to the judgeÂ’s discretion.
In MalaysiaÂ’s legal history, what constitutes an insult to a judge has yet to be spelled out. At first, contempt proceedings were used sparingly. But the 1990s saw a spate of such cases, with custodial sentences against lawyers, journalists and litigants. The Malaysian Bar set up volunteer "fire-fighting" teams in all the states to defend lawyers who had been ordered to show cause. Lawyers have argued that they should not be cited for doing their job and have pointed out that contempt action slows down court proceedings. In 2000, they proposed a Contempt of Court Act. When Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah was sworn in as chief justice in December that year, he said part of his agenda would be to reduce the numerous citations for contempt.
The number of such cases has dropped dramatically since, but there is still a need to establish clear guidelines on what constitutes contempt of court, its procedures and penalties. WednesdayÂ’s comment by Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram is a further sign that judges are moving away from over-reliance on contempt of court proceedings. In setting aside a fine imposed by a lower court for contempt, the judge said that such action should only be taken in the rarest of cases as judges were not beyond criticism.
Sri RamÂ’s remarks are an indication that judges are now less sensitive and will only use contempt proceedings in cases where they are meant to be used. His comments can be called on as a precedent for the future. Sri Ram also said that if the court were to act on erroneous affidavits, there would be a flood of contempt of court cases. Contempt jurisdiction aims to protect the judiciary and the legal system, maintaining public respect. Employed frivolously, it would erode that respect, instilling instead an undemocratic notion that the Bench answers to no one but itself. -
Hmmm... please pardon my ignorance.. wasn't aware the "rot" is so deep...Originally posted by Atobe:What is happening in Malaysia in the way Mahathir treat the judiciary reflects to a 'certain degree' the situation in Singapore - in the manner in which the Executive Branch interferes and try to rein in the independence of the Judiciary Branch, in order that it does not mess up the 'entire political scheme of things'.
The fact that the Singapore Government had 'placed on loan' a very obedient Supreme Court Judge to assist Mahathir to achieve his scheme will already have drawn Singapore into Malaysian politics.
This Malaysian cry to correct an injustice to the sacked Malaysian Justices should resonate across the Causeway, as one of our Supreme Court Judge had been a party to this injustice, and Singapore should carry the burden of shame. -
interesting..
any more? -
so was this before or after anwar case? or did it had any effect on anwar's case back then? this is getting more interesting than i thought...
-
Originally posted by 4getmenot:so was this before or after anwar case? or did it had any effect on anwar's case back then? this is getting more interesting than i thought...
During the period leading to March 1988, the Malaysian Government and the Judiciary had clashed over several Government decisions, which were overturned by the Courts as being unconstitutional.
PM Mahathir saw that the Judiciary is moving away from the ambit and influence of the Political Executives, the Malaysian Constitution was amended to subject the Judiciary to Federal Laws and not to the Constitution - {see the referred site - (4). The Judiciary}
The sacking of the Malaysian Chief Justice by PM Mahathir had occurred ten years earlier, in May 1988.
It occurred just about during the time when UMNO was split internally by rival forces, and the Chief Justice was to preside over an application to decide on the 'legal status' of the existing UMNO.
From available records on the www that continue to exist, Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim was prosecuted towards the end of 1998. -
Malaysian Opposition Leader - Mr Lim Kit Siang, in his blog has also lent his voice to call for a retrial of the sacked Malaysian Chief Justice in 1988.
In his comments, he said that 'If only the Chief Justice could do the right thing then, we would certainly be a better Malaysia now.'
It was a shame that the replacement Chief Justice of Malaysia will sit to preside on his predecessor - to judge his own peer - in a show trial to push through the political agenda of acheiving a more co-operative and compliant Judiciary.
It was a shame that the Singapore Government will lend support to Mahathir's scheme, which went unappreciated with the continued strained relationship between Singapore and Malaysia during Mahathir's term
Perhaps, with a more independent Judiciary in Malaysia, Mahathir would not have been an arrogant autocrat to overwhelm all who dare to stand up against him - including Singapore.
Restore honour of victimised judges and judicial independence
Time & Date: August 16, 2006 @ 15: 46.17
Categories: Law & Order General Constitution
Ministers, Members of Parliament and the civil society should speak up in support of the proposal by the Bar Council President Yeo Yang Poh for a re-examination of the 1988 judicial crisis to restore the honour of judges who had been sacrificed and victimized on the altar of political power play.
I would in particular call on three Ministers with legal background to spearhead such a campaign in the Cabinet – Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, who is currently in charge of the law portfolio; and Datuk Seri Radzi Sheik Ahmad and Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim, his two predecessors on the law portfolio.
Rais, in his study on the 1988 judicial crisis in the book “Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia” rightly said that the decision to remove the Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges Datuk George Seah and Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman was “a political one although the modus operandi might seem to have followed constitutional arrangements”. (p. 360)
Describing it as “the biggest scandal that Malaysia has thus faced in the context of the executive wanting to assert supremacy”, Rais said that “the whole episode of removing the Lord President was based on the desire of the executive to have untrammelled say in the direction the judiciary should take in the future”.
Rais should not be ashamed or apologetic for his thesis but should be proud not only for the authorship but the correctness of his analysis of the 1988 judicial crisis.
As a direct consequence of the 1988 judiciary crisis, for over a decade, the Malaysian system of justice became a national and international joke and scandal because it was seen as an engine of oppression and denial of the rights of the people to justice.
The Malaysian judiciary was the constant subject of a series of adverse criticisms by the international legal and judicial community, from the 1989 report entitled “Malaysia: Assault on the Judiciary” by the the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights to the “Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000”, a joint report of International Bar Association, the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association and the International Lawyers’ Union in April 2000.
As I have said often in the past five years, although the rot in the system of justice had been stopped, we have yet to see a full restoration of the system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law.
For this to be effected, far-reaching judicial reform to uphold judicial accountability, independence, impartiality and integrity – whether in reform of the Judges’ Codes of Ethics or a fair and transparent system of making judicial appointments – is called for.
Even an examination of the Malaysian Constitution is necessary if there is to be a full restoration of public confidence in the judiciary.
There should, for instance, be amendment of Article 121(1) of the Constitution to restore the inherent judicial powers and jurisdiction of the courts.
Rais said in “Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia” that the removal of the “judicial power of the Federation” from the High Courts after the 1988 judicial crisis “endangered” the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.
Rais described the removal of the court’s judicial power as “death strokes to judicial independence”, saying that it was “a direct reaction by the executive to the attitude of the courts in certain decisions that went against the government, particularly during the two years preceding the amendment”.
It is time that the Cabinet effect a dual restoration – to restore the honour of the victimized judges and to restore the inherent judicial powers of the courts by reinstating the original provision in Article 121(1) before the 1988 constitutional amendment.