Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh Saga. To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you haveobviously regained your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding of the Royal Commission on the Lingam tape.
I must confess that I was not moved to post anything about the Tun > >> Salleh issue as everybody and his dog has apparently written about it. However,> >> after having read your latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write> >> this reply, just to put things on record and in proper perspective.> >>> >> It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of > >> manipulation.. When everything else fails, what better way than to stoke racial > >> sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in Johore Bahru> >> recently when you quite irresponsibly pointed out that the Malays are > >> the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to continue. You then> >> quickly followed it up in Japan when you again reminded the Malays to> >> unite and be strong because, according to you, other races are now > >> asking for many things and questioning Malay rights. Samuel Johnson's > >> 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' would normally be a cliche to repeat,> >> but in your case, I would make an exception. Just change the word> >> 'patriotism' to 'racialism' and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.> >>> >> When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim, > >> I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the> >> tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal.> >>> >> How very convenient of you, Dr M. Of course you had conveniently> >> overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as> >> the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the> >> truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh> >> Abas removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter> >> complaining about His Majesty's renovation work. So, are you now blaming> >> the King, may I ask? That is the first question which came across my > >> mind while reading your post.> >>> >> The second question is this. Since when have you become a Royalist so > >> much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The King > >> had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a letter over> >> some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it up with a> >> tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal Constitution? > >> You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very same> >> Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the powers > >> of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the tribunal at > >> the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the fearless > >> Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for Royal assents to any bill of > >> law before it could effectively be the law of the country by amending the> >> Federal Constitution, had suddenly become so subservient to the King in> >> relation to the sacking of Salleh Abas?> >>> >> The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is, of course, > >> not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise > >> from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The > >> question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? > >> If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writing such > >> a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY?> >> If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty,> >> why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King?> >> W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter> >> has appeared and becomes an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about> >> that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during> >> the Lingam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last > >> week about the same letter?> >>> >> Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about > >> this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks.> >> By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your belligerent> >> attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state > >> mass media, that is the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and > >> the Malays Rulers.. The whole propaganda machine was used to smear the King> >> and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown > >> on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed > >> in newspapers.> >>> >> Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda> >> machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the> >> Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang> >> Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about> >> how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be.> >> And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the > >> King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas?> >> Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King > >> said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody else> >> who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and> >> dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?> >> Dr M, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that> >> everybody else is stupid! You then mention in your blog that it was your> >> opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not > >> fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it > >> that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord> >> President who was photographed with a certain lawyer overseas? Wouldn't> >> that constitute a wrongdoing?> >>> >> That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the> >> media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or > >> how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had > >> written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a wrongdoing> >> which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a> >> Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of > >> you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events> >> during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?> >>> >> You now charge, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had> >> interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the > >> law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented. Dr M, I remember clearly in > >> one speech, you likened the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would > >> now say it was all in jest.> >>> >> Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a> >> decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would > >> deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know> >> that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms,> >> namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably > >> to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase 'check and> >> balance' was missing from your administrative lexicon which was probably> >> reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.> >>> >> Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the> >> judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to > >> take away 'judicial powers' from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M, that> >> Malaysia would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth (I say> >> Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems)> >> whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature > >> says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was,> >> and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy..> >>> >> Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's> >> stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is > >> stupid! You somewhat deny that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do > >> with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a> >> full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a> >> balance of probability, otherwise.> >>> >> Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul> >> Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this> >> character later in this post.> >> On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended,> >> Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any > >> application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date> >> to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. > >> That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges> >> comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself> >> and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas.> >>> >> How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to> >> his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond > >> me or my intellect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the > >> appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court> >> Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny> >> brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact> >> Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post.> >>> >> If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I > >> ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to> >> postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed > >> to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord> >> President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?> >>> >> Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the> >> statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the > >> presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him> >> (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his > >> bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal.> >> He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could> >> remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the > >> meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your > >> attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to> >> say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during> >> the meeting when asked by the tribunal members.. If he was so sure that > >> he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why> >> then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO> >> case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of> >> embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask> >> Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief> >> Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely,> >> partial and momentary lapse of memory.> >> On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the > >> sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under > >> appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your> >> blog Dr M? And let the people who read it judge the matter after having> >> been fed with all relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are> >> relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own > >> purpose and objectives.> >>> >> I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time for > >> me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh> >> Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was> >> suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the > >> event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh > >> Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously> >> conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be > >> done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you> >> forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?> >>> >> Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the> >> King date 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really> >> know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the > >> renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of > >> the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the> >> King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I > >> will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had > >> failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this > >> letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on> >> 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid> >> Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the > >> said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of> >> Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal.> >>> >> Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that> >> Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the> >> renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend> >> all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the> >> same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be > >> its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, > >> how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its > >> Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd> >> question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to> >> understand it, let alone grasp it.> >>> >> Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time> >> Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the > >> work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They> >> brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your> >> action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME > >> magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt> >> proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as > >> the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge> >> remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of> >> separation of powers.> >>> >> Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process> >> of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as> >> usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all> >> the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over > >> a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of > >> course you then had to accuse 'certain Judges' as interfering with politics. > >> You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a> >> level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you > >> do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying> >> down while waiting for pension?> >>> >> You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the > >> chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration> >> system. As much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh > >> Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which > >> he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and > >> collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the attacks leveled> >> against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him > >> to lodge a police report over the matter?> >>> >> By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politician is> >> trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you, > >> of course, forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your> >> blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated > >> the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the> >> law along Islamic legal principles against the multi-racial and> >> multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in> >> your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of> >> losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published > >> by you in your blog?> >>> >> Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim's or Abdullah> >> Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody> >> would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version> >> is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story. > >> And let the people, and history, be the judge.> >>> >> Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)? The> >> beauty is that it is a set of laws common to all the people. That means,> >> when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would > >> know. The common people. Me, and your readers..
By Tun Salleh
