Mahathir's "Secret
Power" had help from the Singapore Government -
when he tried to have a stronger grip on an independent Malaysian
Judiciary, who was prepared to exercise its
Constitutional Duties to check the mistakes of the
Government.
In the process of challenging the Malaysian Judiciary, Mahathir
filed charges against the Lord President of the Malaysian Judiciary
(equivalent to our Chief Justice), the Chief Justice of Sabah, and
the Chief Justice of Sarawak.
All three were unceremoniously removed from their office by an act
of Parliament - (which amounted to a Parliamentary Revolt in total
disrepect of the constitutional process ), with the Lord President
position abolished, and a new position called the Chief Justice of
Malaysia formed.
The previous Lord President and his two brother Chief Justice of
Sabah and Sarawak were pressed ganged into a mock trial, with
judges drawn from Commonwealth Countries - but all the judges that
were 'borrowed' from the Commonwealth Countries were all known
'Pro-Government' Judges, and compliant to political
instructions.
It is surprising that after Singapore had helped Mahathir in his
1988 battle to survive a Judicial Challenge, he became ungrateful
in his attitude towards the Singapore Government.
Extracted from The Star, 23 August 2006, Wednesday
Edition:
Comment: Questions worth
asking
23 Aug 2006
Santha Oorjitham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EIGHTEEN years after former Lord President Tun Mohd Salleh Abas and
two Supreme Court judges were sacked, many members of the legal
community feel the judiciary has yet to recover fully.
Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has received
poison-pen letters alleging corruption in the judiciary.
Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Shaikh Daud Md Ismail has said
that whether corruption started before or after 1988, it "seemed to
surface" after the removal of Salleh.
Relations between the Bench and the Bar, which were frozen after
the judicial crisis, have not completely thawed.
Malaysian Bar president Yeo Yang Pohs call last week for "a
thorough re-examination of the events of 1988" could be a step
towards truth and reconciliation. And in supporting the Bars
proposal at a press conference today, Salleh has laid out some of
the thorny questions that should be tackled.
His first question was about the judicial authority of the courts:
"Where is the power?" he asked, claiming that since the 1988
judicial crisis, "the Government has tried to clip the power of the
judiciary."
In 1988, Article 121 of the Federal Constitution was amended so
that judicial power which was originally vested in the High Courts
was restricted to "such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred
by or under federal law". This, Salleh said, removed judicial
authority.
Next, he turned to the power of judicial review, to deal with
"complaints by the rakyat" against "wrongdoing and abuses of
power".
Ouster clauses in various Acts in Malaysia such as the Printing
Presses & Publications Act and the Police Act make the
decisions of ministers final so that they cannot be questioned in
court. "Where can you go?" asked Salleh. Some lawyers point out
that there is still scope for judicial review although it is now
more limited.
He supported Yeos call but stressed that making amends to him and
his fellow judges was not as important as restoring the judiciary
and rule of law. Malaysia claims to have rule of law, he noted:
"What kind of law?"
If the country really wants to be governed democratically and in
accordance with law, he said, provisions of the Constitution
relating to the judiciary which had been amended should be "looked
into and amended so that we would be in line with all other
democratic countries".
The statute of limitation period is over. Salleh is not suggesting
legal action: "It is too big for the courts to decide," he
said.
But the legal questions asked by the former Lord President are
worth serious consideration as part of ongoing efforts to clearly
mark the separation of powers between the executive, judicial and
legislative branches of Government.
Revisiting the issues raised by Salleh, including the subject of
judicial authority and judicial review, could help the process of
strengthening the judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nazri: No reason to
reopen the case
23 Aug 2006
KUALA LUMPUR: The sacking of a Lord President and two Supreme Court
judges in 1988 will not be reviewed. And thats final.
Minister in the Prime Ministers 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 therell
never be any finality. Theres no way were 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.
A six-member tribunal comprising four Malaysian judges, a
Sri Lankan judge and a
Singaporean judge were appointed to decide the
case.
When asked on allegations that the tribunal was a "kangaroo court",
Nazri replied: "How can it be a kangaroo court? The judges were his
peers. Are you saying that they were paid? You mean to say you can
make deals with judges? I dont think so. No sane judge will make a
deal to implicate his own brother judge."
Regretably, Nazri was not honest
enough to admit that four of the Malaysian judges had "sold their soul to the Devil", and
the other two Judges from Sri Lanka and Singapore - were both
obedient and dutiful servants of their respective
governments.
The cards were already stacked against the persecuted honorable
Lord President of the Malaysian Court and his two brother
Justices.
That was the darkest hour for the Malaysian Judiciary, which will
remain clouded by this grave injustice if Nazri and the present
Chief Justice will not re-visit the circumstances and methods
employed to remould an Independent Judiciary into one that is
compliant to the Executive Branch.
Singaporeans have alot to learn from these events.
