TUN SALLEH
GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY
FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT?
Found Guilty, But Still Not “Guilty”
It is incredible that after more than twenty years, the issue is still a matter for debate.
In the normal course of things, especially in trial matters, when an accused has exhausted all his legal rights and is found guilty, the matter of his guilt is deemed “settled”. The guilty party has to serve his punishment and then move on.
But in the case of Tun Salleh, the issue of his guilt still lingers on.
Why?
I blame it on the failure of the government at the material time to explain adequately to the people the reasons for the setting up of a Tribunal to investigate into the judicial misconduct of Tun Salleh, the former Lord President of the then Supreme Court of Malaysia.
This has led to the present sorry state of affairs concerning the Malaysian judiciary. How else can we explain that Pak Lah and his spin doctors can still exploit a “dead” issue to divert the attention of the people from his failures as a Prime Minister and the corrupt practices of his family in the process of amassing a fortune worth US$ billions?
Till today, the principal players involved in the events leading to the dismissal of the former Lord President have failed to explain and or rebut adequately the criticisms levied against them. I refer to Tan Sri Abu Talib, the former Attorney General who brought the charges against Tun Salleh upon a complaint from the Agong, Tun Hamid Omar, the former Lord President who succeeded Tun Salleh and presided at the Tribunal, and last but not least, the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. They owe it to themselves to mount a rigorous rebuttal to all the misperceptions and insinuations that have been orchestrated against them over the years.
I can say this because at the material time, I played a critical role in defending the judiciary in general and Tun Salleh in particular in several EGMs and AGMs of the Malaysian Bar. I had in a recent article expressed my regret in defending Tun Salleh.
Maybe this explanation for my stand in withdrawing my support for Tun Salleh will in some measure lift the veil and bring to light the critical issues that led to the dismissal of Tun Salleh.
But the ultimate responsibility to make things absolutely clear rest with the aforesaid principal players, and if they allow the present state of affairs to continue, they cannot then blame Pak Lah and his spin doctors for exploiting the issue to their advantage and opening themselves to be ridiculed further by their critics and political enemies.
Matters of Perceptions & Misperceptions
My motivation for rallying to the defence of the judiciary was simple enough. On hindsight and reviewing the events at the material time, and without the benefit of material facts that have since come to my attention, I am still of the view that my actions were justified.
Why?
I am a lawyer, with over thirty years of experience under my belt and by training, “conservative” in matters relating to the law.
It can be said without fear of contradiction that generally in most democratic countries, judges are held in the highest esteem and often times reflect the crowning achievement of respected practitioners who have mastered the skills of the craft. They must be of good character, well-versed in the law and of impeccable integrity.
So, when judges gathered together in conference with Tun Salleh, the then Lord President, to discuss in strict confidence about the alleged “comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the judiciary”, one can only conclude that matters must be very serious and antagonistic, and the conflict between the executive and the judiciary had come to a head.
Given the status enjoyed by the judiciary in Malaysia and the seniority of judges present at that meeting, it would not be unreasonable to empathise with the predicament faced by the judges, and for lawyers to instinctively rally to their cause.
While on the one hand, we respect the right of anyone, including the executive to criticize a judgment e.g. for not interpreting the law in accordance with the intentions of Parliament (a valid criticism), it cannot be right for any executive in any country to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
So, when the judges made that allegation against the executive, and there were no serious or effective efforts by the executive to explain that while reserving its rights to criticize, there was no intention to undermine the independence of the judiciary, lawyers were led to believe that the conflict was beyond the mere criticisms of erroneous judgments. This conclusion may well be misplaced and or incorrect. But nevertheless, it was the perception of a large number of lawyers.
How else can we explain the rigorous defence of the judiciary by the members of the Malaysian Bar at the material time?
I held that view on the facts available at the material time.
The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth
I have since discovered that the events that led to the dismissal of Tun Salleh were not as he explained in his book, “May Day for Justice”.
Tun Salleh’s contention was that his complaint to the Agong aroused the anger of the then Prime Minister that led to this “unconstitutional dismissal”.
How many Malaysians have read this complaint?
In fact, it was an earlier complaint against the Agong himself by Tun Salleh that triggered the demand by the Agong that Tun Salleh be dismissed for writing a scandalous and imprudent letter.
For reasons best known to the former Prime Minister and the former Attorney-General, this first letter was not made a subject matter of a charge of misconduct against Tun Salleh. I trust that in the near future, this matter will be brought to the attention of the public so as to dispel any illusions as to the reasons why the then Agong directed the former Prime Minister to dismiss Tun Salleh.
The second letter by Tun Salleh to the Agong alleging executive interference in the judiciary exacerbated the already precarious relationship between Tun Salleh and the Agong.
If, as alleged by Tun Salleh, it was the former Prime Minister who orchestrated the events that led to his dismissal, the letter of 5th May 1988 from the former Prime Minister to the Agong [which is reproduced in full below] will debunk this preposterous allegation.
———————————————————————
“[Customary salutations]
Your Majesty,
With all respect, I refer to Your Majesty’s Command that appropriate action be taken against Y.A.A. Tun Dato Haji Mohd Salleh bin Abbas on account of his letter to Your Majesty and to Their Royal Highnesses the Malay Rulers which was shown to me when I was in audience with Your Majesty on the 1st May 1988 at the Istana Negara.
I have been advised by the Hon’ble the Attorney-General that I cannot take any action against him except in the circumstances allowed by Article 125 (3) of the Federal Constitution. That Article allows termination of the appointment of a judge only on the ground of his behaviour or for other causes which clearly show that he is unable to discharge his functions properly. I will therefore investigate and examine the position of Y.A.A. Tun Salleh, and if there is evidence of any behaviour or other causes, which, in my opinion, clearly show that he is no longer able to discharge his functions as Lord President properly and in an orderly manner, I shall then make an appropriate representation to Your Majesty. In the meantime Y.A.A. Tun Salleh must be allowed to continue in service.
[Customary Conclusions]
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Dated 5th May 1988”
(Emphasis added)
—————————————————————————–
It is clear from the underlined words (and in spite of Tun Salleh’s protests in his book) that it was an order/command from the Agong that Tun Salleh be dismissed.
It is also equally clear that the former Prime Minister followed to the letter of the Constitution before taking any action as opposed to an immediate response and adherence to the Agong’s command. He was also duly advised by the then Hon’ble Attorney-General.
Additionally, the former Prime Minister did not suspend Tun Salleh upon receiving the command from the Agong, pending investigations.
So, how can it be said in the light of the aforesaid, that the former Prime Minister orchestrated the events that led to Tun Salleh’s dismissal?
More importantly, why did Tun Salleh refuse to apologise to the Agong for his insolent letter after he was informed of His Majesty’s command that he be dismissed?
Tun Salleh’s 2nd Letter to the Agong
The first letter to the Agong was the proximate cause for the Agong’s command that Tun Salleh be dismissed.
It is clear from the contents of Tun Salleh’s second letter to the Agong that the Agong had an additional reason to demand for Tun Salleh’s dismissal. Tun Salleh had in the letter admitted that he could no longer “discharge his functions orderly and properly” [a ground for dismissal under Article 125 (3) of the Federal Constitution].
So, how can Tun Salleh thereafter complain that there were no grounds for his dismissal and or that his dismissal was unconstitutional?
You be the judge.
I now reproduce the said letter for your perusal.
————————————————————
“[Customary salutations]
Ampun Tuanku beribu-ribu ampun,
I as Lord President on behalf of myself and all the judges of the country beg to express our feelings regarding the development in the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary.
All of us are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the Judiciary, not only outside but within Parliament.
However all of us are patient and do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution. Furthermore such action will not be in keeping with Malay tradition and custom. It is to be remembered that we are judges appointed and given letters of appointment by Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong and also Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Malay Rulers to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. As such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.
Other than that the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly. We all feel ashamed because we are not able to avoid from being looked down by those who do not understand our position under the Constitution.
This letter is an effort to convey our feelings to Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku with the hope that all those unfounded accusations will be stopped.
We beg for forgiveness and mercy.
[Customary conclusions]
Tun Dato Haji Mohd Salleh bin Abas
Lord President of Malaysia.”
(Emphasis added)
————————————————————————–
This letter coming from the Lord President is a scandalous letter by any measure – an ill-conceived and insolent letter.
The Agong is a constitutional monarch. Yet, in this letter, the Lord President, allegedly writing on behalf of the entire judiciary invites the Agong to take up cudgel with the former Prime Minister. The fact that the Agong referred the letter to the former Prime Minister shows that the Agong has a better grasp of his constitutional role than the Lord President, a man well-versed in law.
And given his confession that he is “mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly,” what choice has the Agong but to seek his dismissal?
There were other serious charges against Tun Salleh.
But in my opinion, this alone was sufficient to justify his dismissal as his conduct cannot but be deemed “judicial misbehavior” in the circumstances of the case.
If anyone brought the institution to disrepute and destroyed the integrity of the judiciary, it is Tun Salleh and not the former Prime Minister.
Adding insult to injury, and having accepted the fact that “judges appointed and given letters of appointment by Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong and also Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Malay Rulers”, Tun Salleh showed utter disrespect to the Agong [who convened the Tribunal] by refusing to appear before the said Tribunal to answer the charges.
If, an ordinary citizen is charged with any offences and is required by law to appear before a court of law, how can the highest judicial officer of the country refuse to appear before a Tribunal convened at the behest of the Agong?
And, as no one is above the law, even the Malay Rulers [as under the Constitution, they are required to attend before a Special Court, should they commit any offences], how can Tun Salleh justify his actions in not appearing before the Tribunal to defend himself, even if it is to complain that the Tribunal was not “properly constituted” [which I do not agree]?
Tun Salleh and his legal advisers, comprising very senior lawyers did a disservice to the rule of law by their arrogance.
Conclusions
There cannot be an independent judiciary in Malaysia so long as the myth persists that Tun Salleh was wrongfully dismissed.
Those lawyers and judges who persist in perpetuating this myth are responsible for the current sorry state of the Malaysian judiciary. And to allow Pak Lah and his spin doctors to exploit this myth for their political expediency show all too clearly that their agenda is not to preserve the independence of the judiciary, but rather to advance their own hidden agenda.
MATTHIAS CHANG
19TH MAY 2008
KUALA LUMPUR
The "thirteen million plus Ringgit" guy rambles.... 
Sir,
Well done and well said!
As a layman,I never understood this issue from day one. Too much of a twist-and-turn that made the issue too complicated for me to comprehend. Your commentary untangled those intertwines. It opens up fresh version of the whole story.
Azman Mohd Isa
Shah Alam
God bless you Sir. Please continue to write to expose the dark side of this blatantly evil administration.
Finally something that I have been waiting a long time for, Thank You MR CHANG. This letter should also be sent to the SUN, NST, Utusan Malaysia and even to the Chinese and Indian Newspapers. Can you also reveal the content of the “first letter” from Tun Salleh to The Agung which he conveniently forgot to mention in his book May Day for Justice.
By the way MR CHANG, can you also please send this letter personally to that Zaid who wanted the Government to Apologise to Tun Salleh, this letter will definitely knock some sense into him.
A good piece of writing.
I agree with the call for all the facts surrounding the Tun Salleh Abas episode be made public. This will counter the spin and lies against Tun Dr M that he personally went after Tuan Salleh and the judges.
Truth always gives you an advantage in politics!
Matthias,
All this while, I’ve had reservations about Tun Salleh with regards to this issue – not only he appears to be overly egoistic, but also his “supporters” (for whatever vested interests they have in his “untouchable” status) blind support for him. Now it is very clear and confirms my gut feel that this man is, afterall a human being with his shortcomings… no longer the mythical champion of the Judiciary! On top of that, I was really disappointed with the fact that he accepted the “redemption dinner” given by AAB&Co. and the Bar Council, knowing fully well that his son-in-law manages Scomi with AAB’s son… to me that is the last straw of respect that I have for him.
Sedarlah wahai pemimpin UMNO, kamu semua sebenarnya telah menderhaka bukan hanya kepada Raja-Raja Melayu tetapi kamu juga telah menderhaka kepada Orang Melayu keseluruhannya dan rakyat Malaysia kesemuanya.
*Pengiklanan blog sendiri tidak dibenarkan disini
I am no lawyer but notwithstanding the case against Tun Salleh, the erosion of judicial power in Malaysia was still a blot on the nation and that has to be set right.
Whatever the intention and the timing of Pak Lah to revert the judiciary to its originbal status in 1987, it is still most welcome, aprt from the apology to Tun Salleh if what is written by you above is correct.
exactly which part of that letter to the Agong are deemed to be disrespectful and warrant the decision for outright dismissal? TDM and Mstthis Chang is just looking for lame excuses to divert responsibility and there are absolutely nothing in that letter to indicate that Tun Salleh Abbas is disrespecting the Agong and the Constitution? are you all blind or retarded? and Matthias Chang believe in the authenticity of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion and a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. such people should be locked up in a mental institution and not be taken seriously. umless of course, most readers of this right-wing blog are stupidly right-wing enough to actually accepted that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. in that case, there is no hope for you all and TDM hate-mongering is right up your alley. you people are marriage made in hell (heaven has no place for hate mongerers)
part mana di dlm surat tun salleh abbas menunjukkan ketidakhormatannya pada agong. boleh translate dlm bahasa melayu tak?
tahniah fahrenheit!
bagi saya hanya anda seorang sajalah di sini yang faham dan mengerti tentang apa yang anda baca mengenai tulisan saudara Matthias Chang di sini. saya meragui sama ada saudara Matthhias Chang sendiri faham akan isi kandungan surat kedua yang ditulis oleh Tun Salleh Abas. bagi pendapat saya apa yang ditulis oleh Tun Salleh Abas di dalam surat keduanya kepada Agong mencerminkan betapa merendah dirinya beliau serta menunjukkan betapa tingginya budi perkerti beliau semasa “berbicara” dengan Agong dan bukannya mengatakan ketidakupayaan akal fikirannya. inilah budi perkerti mulia dan tingginya akhlak Tun Salleh Abas. inilah budaya yang dimiliki oleh orang melayu sejati. syabas fahrenheit.
untuk saudara Matthias Chang (andainya saudara membaca ulasan ini)belajarlah daripada yang arif dan jadilah manusia yang berprinsip untuk menegakkan kebenaran yang sebenar-benarnya dan cinta untuk melakukan kebaikan.
what is in the 1st letter? I heard about TSA complained about construction noise at night, near his residence, coming from the DYMM’s private palace. Not sure how true.
fahrenheit terimalah realiti,
inilah yg betul.
apa yang betul? saudara bingung ke bodoh ke.. which part of the letter is disrespectful to the Agong? since you like to assume i don’t understand the letter, why don’t you point it out directly? those sentences underlined and highlighted are in no way disrespectful unless your English ability are so weak you cannot understand them.. and Matthias Chiang is a hote mongerer like his godfather for believing in the authenticity of the PROTOCOL OF ELDERS OF ZION. this is a fact. he said it himself in his first published book available in all major bookstores.
Syabas Matthias Chang, very well presented. Now the picture looks much, much clearer. There seems so much sin in the present Executive to feed the fires of hell that even the highest Fahrenheit in the thermostat cannot but burst into flames
I must admit I am not a lawyer; perhaps you can give some insight to the following questions/ comments:
1. Can it be coordinated for Tan Sri Abu Talib, the former Attorney General who brought the charges against Tun Salleh upon a complaint from the Agong, Tun Hamid Omar, the former Lord President who succeeded Tun Salleh and presided at the Tribunal and former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to be present together to mount a rigorous rebuttal to all the misperceptions and insinuations that have been orchestrated against them over the years? If yes, then they should present themselves in front of a press conference with the local and international press media. If for one reason or other such as due to health reasons, then they just be present but the text of rebuttal be read by their representatives.
These disclosures and exposures should be blown big to serve a multiple of objectives amongst which to explain to the UMNO grassroots as well as to the public local and overseas the kind of evil leadership that is at the helm of the country and for the members of parliament to do nothing expected by their electorate. So UMNO members please heed the advice of TDM – leave the party as independents and come back to the fold when PM leaves office.
2. Can this 3 persons or representatives of any citizen group file a suit against the Minister Zaid Ibrahim and the Prime Minister of Malaysia for willfully, maliciously and fraudulently attempting to misrepresent the public, the people of Malaysia on the Salleh Abas case and the misuse of public funds to serve their ill intended purposes as well as funding the dinner function and as justification of the ex-gratia payments or whatever legal grounds you as a lawyer knows best.
This would put to jam the Executive’s ill intended reforms until the truth prevails. The costs from this legal suit could be recouped from the Government coffers if the case is worthy to be won. This is on the assumption the Executive is not above the law and the purpose is amongst others to keep the public abreast that our judiciary system should not submit the kind of reforms initiated by ill intentions.
3. What kind of sinister crookedness do we have in Tun Salleh who said that TDM orchestrated the events that led to his (Salleh’s) dismissal when documents proved otherwise? Where can Tun Salleh hide himself if he is god fearing after accepting the falsity of the gala dinner and accepting the ex-gratia payment? Semua dah bongkar; Zaid nak tipu siapa lagi? Resign Zaid, you are a sham to the country, race and religion!
4. Waiting for the release of the 1st letter – let’s see the way the Lord President wrote the insolent letter to the Agong so that we can concur with the actions of the Agong.
I heard the 1st letter was like written by a ‘bangsawan’ to a peon; such disgrace for a person once at the pinnacle of our judiciary system. If the present Executive has shown much disregard and cannot work with the Rulers Council, I see no reason for withholding the release of the 1st letter provided Tun has met and got the consent of the said Agong then perhaps as good courtesy. Respect others and you will be respected, this present Executive fails to understand and his arrogance will be the key factor that will bring him down just as God had punished Iblis.
5. Yes I totally agree “There cannot be an independent judiciary in Malaysia so long as the myth persists that Tun Salleh was wrongfully dismissed”.
How do we now exhume the 20 year case again when the AG office has said it’s closed and no apology required? Perhaps with public pressure from 1 & 2 above, the AG office will reconsider reopening the case.
It’s a bit late; I have to wake up early tomorrow to send the kids to school. But for sure, I’ll give comments on the 2nd part of your discourse.
Bravo, brother, bravo.
Bravo my ass.. you guys must be retarded.. which part of the letter signify disrespect on the part of Tun Salleh to the Agong? are you all retards certain you understand English?
Memang Salleh Abas telah disabitkan bersalah oleh Tribunal yang ditubuhkan menurut peruntukan Perlembagaan. Melalui suratnya, Salleh Abas minta YDP Agong campur tangan dengan memihak kepada badan kehakiman dalam apa yang disifatkannya sebagai campur tangan eksekutif. YDP Agong adalah Raja Berperlembagaan yang tidak harus dilibatkan dalam pertikaian sedemikian. Itu sebab dikatakan surat ini kurang (w)ajar.
Dalam surat tu dia sedar pulak dia dilantik oleh YDP Agong dan Majlis Raja-Raja. Tapi bila pihak yang lantik dia tubuh Tribunal untuk bicarakan dia, dia tak mahu iktiraf Tribunal dan tidak mahu menghadirkan diri untuk menjawab. Merendah diri ke merendahkan Tribunal dan pihak yang menubuhkan Tribunal, serta Perlembagaan yang memperuntukkan sedemikian.
Kalau dulu ramai aku sendiri keliru kerana menerima gambaran yang tidak lengkap mengenai kes Salleh Abas, semakin lama semakin jelas gambarannya. Bila dia tulis kata Dr. Mahathir terkejut mengetahui dia belum sampai umur 60 dah jadi Ketua Hakim, kedudukan tertinggi dalam bidang kerjaya itu, dah nampak dia memang jenis yang meninggi diri. Bila dia terima undangan kerajaan dan Majlis Peguam untuk majlis makan malam, tak kisahlah dia pakai kasut buruk ke kasut baru, itu memang menepati egonya. Bila sahih hubungan Shah Hakim Zain dengannya, jelaslah memang menantu cukup berkuasa pada masa sekarang.
Tribunal yang sabitkan dia salah, Majlis Peguam dan pihak eksekutif boleh bebaskan dia. Perlembagaan mana yang diikut?
Fahrenheit, boleh tak berbudi bahasa bila memberi komen? It will not make you right by being abusive.
Sesungguhnya saya kesiankan Fahrenheit. Beliau kelihatan hendak menunjuk bahawa penguasaan Bahasa Inggeris baik sangat baik.
Dalam hal ini kita janganlah mencari salah orang, atau berbahasa kasar. Apabila timbul masalah sebegini rupa kita balik kepada kitab Allah.
Saya tahu TSA telah ke Mekah menunaikan Umrah dan berdoa dihadapan Kaabah akan kebenarannya. Tapi Allah tidak menyebelahi orang yang salah.
Agong ketika itu adalah Sultan Iskndar, dan walaupun beliau tidak berkelulusan undang-undang beliau begitu teliti apabila mengambil tindakan.
Bahasa yang digunakan kepada DYMM Agong dan Raja-Raja Melayu berbeda dengan surat biasa kepada rakyat biasa.
TSA mengaku tidak dapat menjalankan tugas dengan baik dan ini membawa kepada pengertian bahawa beliau LEMAH.
Kita guna pakai ayat yang digunakan. Tidak boleh buat andaian dan ada tersirat dibaliknya.
Apabila diberi peluang hadir dihadapan Tribunal beliau enggan memberi keterangan.
Sebagai orang Islam, apabila Sultan murka, kita sepatutnya minta ampun. Lihat contoh YAB MB Perak.
Walaupun kita kejr kemajuan, tetapi adat resm Melayu mesti dipelihara. Jangan Ingat kita sahaja yang pandai.
Sya bersetuju dengan tindak TDM. Kalau beliau bermusuh, sudah pasti TSA digantong kerja serta merta. Tetapi sebagai Islam jati, TDM tidak gopoh mengambil tindakan. Sila hemati surat TDM kepada DYMM Agong, banyak berupa nasihat dan berkualiti berbanding surat TSA kepada DYMM Agong
Maaf Farhenheit, saya lihat awak terlalu bencikan TDM dan tulisan awak terlalu emosi. Bertenang !
DeanKL
oh Geez,
Dear Mr.Chang. Mahatir Mamak is history now. You can stop carying his b***s.
If you have nothing good to write, please dont corrupt others.
[…] Tun Salleh: Guilty or not guilty for judicial misconduct? TUN SALLEH GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY< […]
You are blatantly attempting to re-write history and using spin-control. Tun Salleh’s letter to the King showed the desperation of a Judiciary that has no voice in the public domain; they cannot do so to avoid being political. You say that you are a lawyer, then tell us what recourse does the Judiciary have if the PM crosses the line of constitutional propriety by criticising the Judiciary? Does the Judiciary as one branch of the Government have any avenue to respond to such criticism? Usually the recourse is via the Opposition. But until March 8, 2008, did the Opposition have any voice? Whatever the Opposition said in defence of the Judciary in 1988 was completely drowned out. You have to be fair. Do not try to re-write History.
Fool
Where is the first letter. How about making ALL the facts transparent.
Why not publish a scanned copies of the originals.
How did you come by these letters by the way? Mamak gave them to you because ….
matthias chang, cut the crap already. this is no revelation and all you ball carrier can hold it in your pants too.. the full content of the letter may have been made public but the two HIGHLIGHTED sentences have been publicised and been in the public domain for years..
take a look at the the wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salleh_Abas
“”Mahathir was upset with the judiciary’s increasing independence, and in 1988, the government tabled a bill in Parliament to amend Articles 121 and 145 of the Constitution. These amendments disvested the courts of the “judicial power of the Federation”, giving them only such power as Parliament might grant them. The Attorney-General was also empowered to determine the venues in which cases would be heard.[6]
At this point, Salleh Abas, who was then Lord President of the Supreme Court, began making strong statements about defending the autonomy of the judiciary. However, he did not name Mahathir, and spoke in rather general terms. However, Salleh was pressured by his fellow judges into taking stronger action. He convened a meeting of all 20 federal judges in the national capital of Kuala Lumpur. They decided not to directly challenge Mahathir, and instead address a confidential letter to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) and the rulers of the various states. The letter stated, “All of us are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the Judiciary, not only outside but within the Parliament.” However, instead of calling for any direct action to be taken, the letter only stated the judges’ “hope that all those unfounded accusations will be stopped”.[7]
Ironically, the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia), who was also the Sultan of Johor — Sultan Mahmood Iskandar Shah —, who as heir apparent to the Johor throne had been prosecuted by Salleh Abas when he was Public Prosecutor. The Sultan was eventually convicted of homicide and sentenced to six months in jail. It is not known what the King did upon receipt of the letter, but it appears he informed Mahathir, and that they agreed to take disciplinary action against Salleh Abas.
Salleh, who had gone overseas soon after the letter was sent, was summoned by Mahathir upon his return. Salleh later claimed that at the meeting, Mahathir accused him of bias in the UMNO case, and demanded his resignation. Salleh was also immediately suspended from his post as Lord President. Although Salleh initially agreed, when he was later informed that his suspension would be backdated so as to nullify some of his earlier actions in then pending cases such as the UMNO case, he withdrew his resignation. The government then initiated impeachment proceedings against Salleh.[8] Salleh would later claim that the government attempted to bribe him to resign.[9]””
Instead, Salleh asked the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings because of the tribunal’s alleged improper constitution and because the King had been “wrongfully advised”. The Supreme Court, in an emergency session, unanimously ruled that the proceedings be stayed. Four days later, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong suspended the five Supreme Court judges who had issued the order, on Mahathir’s advice. The government announced it would now attempt to impeach those five judges as well for “gross misbehaviour” and conspiring “to make the order”. There were now only four judges on the Supreme Court, two of them also sitting on the tribunal. The government appointed new judges to fill the void, who refused to hear any further motions by Salleh Abas. The tribunal eventually found Salleh guilty, and he was officially relieved of his position. Of the five judges who had supported him, two were convicted, and the other three were acquitted.
***********************************
so, is Matthias Chang going to produce more letters written by those Supreme Court judges to show gross misbehaviour next? do you have any more letters to produce? I thought the main argument in this issue is that Tun Salleh Abbas is being unconstitutional for asking the Agong to interfere in the administration of the government but isn’t the fact that the all the Supreme Court judges being removed are evidence that intereference is one form or another take place. HOW CAN A JUDICIARY BE EXPECTED TO BE INPEDENDENT if they are constantly being reminded they must toe the line or else they will be removed? which part of this issue did you guys not understand. the fact is there is blatant attempt by vested interest to remove whatever challenges they were facing at the time,using whatever means available and necessary.
I am sure all you retards are not retarded enough not to realise whose vested interests are those…
tuan fahrenheit,
kalau ikut ayat yg tuan katakan melambangkan tuan seorang yg kasar, sy tak heran dgn org kasar dlm dunia maya yg lembut ini, sbb itu melambangkan dia tak tahu menggunakan kekasaran pd keadaan yg sewajarnya.
Sy lebih 10 tahun mengawal orang kasar dan melanggar undang2 spt perompak, pembunuh diera botak chin lagi.Tapi sy tau tiada yg kasar di alam siber ini, kalau ada nak menunjukkan perasaan kasar dia sy rasa malulah sikit dgn kekasaran manusia didlm penjara sana, sy yakin kehebatan kasar dia orang itu tak terlawan dgn fahrenheit, apatah lg kalau nak lawan dgn fizikal, dan sy adalah salah seorang yg setiap masa mampu mengawal org yg kasar.
Berbalik dgn kes tun, sy yakin tun tak akan berakhir dgn hukuman secara fizikal sbb itu bukanlah kehendak yg berkuasa sekarang, apa dimaukan ialah tun akan mengalami keaiban.Dan itu memenuhi nafsu manusia sadis utk bersorak sorai diatas keaiban org lain spt manusia yg gumbira dgn keaiban anwar dahulu. Ini diibaratkan proses melampias nafsu bg yg rasa seronok dgn apa yg berlaku.
wassalam.
my language is my style not my substance. focus on the substance of the points I have brought up.. not the style.. your obsession with style over substance reflect the nature of your mentality and one of the reason why you all continue to show blind loyalty to Malaysia’s greatest dictators and his hate-mongering rhetorics.. so, what if a person use formal, beautiful language.. like your beloved TUN if his message is to spread hate and pit one race against another.. why are you all not concerned about his persistent demonising of non-Malays? just because he doesn’t use profanities in his speeches? what a bunch of style-conscious pretentious ballcarriers
syabas atartuk, saya percaya farenheit taklah sekuat mana. Beliau berfikiran kebudakan dengan menjadikan bahasa kasar untuk meninggi diri.
My my my, why does the overpowering stench of losers and ball-lickers emanate strongly whenever I stumbled upon this sad pathetic excuse of a blog??
These are the very people who chose to have their cake when the freedom of expression by the opposition is severly curtailed by the that wrinkly senile ol’ slimeball lizard that answers to the name of Mahathir, and yet now they wanted to eat it too considering how they preach about transparency and integrity when it comes to the reckoning of the corrupted sleazeballs helming the judiciary post Tun Salleh Abas era.
I should give you guys credit for being able to get into this website and reading my comment (x rabun IT lah!)..however your selective myopic fault-finding mission only goes as far as Tun Salleh Abas for so-called “improprities” whereas the fact that his rulings and judgments were praised and given prominence throughout the Commonwealth legal fraternity and cited as references ( I should cite a case here but that would only make you people feel stupider)..
Compared to the blatantly foolish-at-best-but-sinister-at-worst actions of that whore of judge named Eusoff Chin, you guys better pray for a miracle should you ever get summoned in front of him, more so if your adversary in court will be the infamous “dig,dig,dig” V.K Lingam.
As one late judge remarked pointedly, “The worst thing for me right now is to be tried by the judges in Malaysian court.”
so mattias chang admits that TDM sought any means within the distorted (by two thirds majority parliment) Constitution to get rid of the lord president. well done my friend. always give a fool enough rope and he will hang himself. if the constitution were amended to say that each chief justice must have sex with a duck upon confirmation in his job, would that be the thing to do. do not hide behind a constitution that is no longer NATURAL LAW. constitutions can be amended by despotic persons with enough power. let’s change the constitution to make mattias chang have sex with a duck everyday. then let’s see what this bodoh man will say. after all, it’s in the constitution.
First and foremost, I am apalled by your command of the English language. My 12-year-old son can write better than you. Secondly, for someone who claimed to be experienced and educated, your writings are full of shit.
mazlan, your brain need a complete reworking. if it is bahasa kasar, how do someone meninggikan diri with it? are you sure you know what you are talking about? are you from a part of the world where people can meninggikan diri by using profanities? have you been taken your daily dose of Prozac?
I agree with the conclusion of Farenhiet. Where in the letter is offensive?
The trouble with the people involved is that these guys like to play puppet masters. There was so much talk about this incident and yet only now after the present government took up the matter to apologise or something like that did this so call “truth” surfaced. Where were you Mr Chang then? Opps! I forgot it was OSAed.
The whole article is terribly weak. I’m sorry Matthias, are you really a lawyer? There are a few point that I contend –
1. The allegation that the reason for His Majesty to remove the Lord President due to a “first letter” letter is just that, MERE allegations. Without proof – reproduced in its entirety (scanned) NOT just retyped – your allegation is nothing more but the same “preposterous allegation” that you’re article claim to “debunk”.
2. In no way or shape did I read the letter as “scandalous”, “ill-conceived” or “insolent”, I cant think of any reason why anyone with an open mind and without bias/prejudice would think so. I sincerely you are above that.
3. That Tun Salleh himself admitted to being unable to discharge his function as the result of the (alleged) interference as grounds for his dismissal is SIMPLY CIRCULAR REASONING. He was removed on grounds that he’s unable to dispense his work properly as the result of the interference that he alleged wants to remove him from office! Your is reasoning totally ABSURD! I cant help thinking you have an ulterior motive for bringing this up.
Overall I find your article very unconvincing. You have not produced any evidence to support some of your claim (first letter) while the ones that you provide – the rest of the letters – is inadequate. You need to reproduce the letters in its entirety (scan it) to really have a leg to stand on. So far I can see none.
The whole article is terribly weak. I’m sorry Matthias, are you really a lawyer? There are a few point that I contend –
1. The allegation that the reason for His Majesty to remove the Lord President due to a “first letter” letter is just that, MERE allegations. Without proof – reproduced in its entirety (scanned) NOT just retyped – your allegation is nothing more but the same “preposterous allegation” that you’re article claim to “debunk”.
2. In no way or shape did I read the letter as “scandalous”, “ill-conceived” or “insolent”, I cant think of any reason why anyone with an open mind and without bias/prejudice would think so. I sincerely you are above that.
3. That Tun Salleh himself admitted to being unable to discharge his function as the result of the (alleged) interference as grounds for his dismissal is SIMPLY CIRCULAR REASONING. He was removed on grounds that he’s unable to dispense his work properly as the result of the interference that he alleged wants to remove him from office! Your reasoning is totally ABSURD! I cant help thinking you have an ulterior motive for bringing this up.
Overall I find your article very unconvincing. You have not produced any evidence to support some of your claim (first letter) while the ones that you provide – the rest of the letters – is inadequate. You need to reproduce the letters in its entirety (scan it) to really have a leg to stand on. So far I can see none.
imo, the seperation of powers which is inadequate has and is still causing hell of a problem for our country…
absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is a fact. Eat that!
I have never had doubt what actions made by YABhg Tun M. A wise man, forward looking and the protector of Malaysia from being manipulated by bigger countries.
For me Zaid Ibrahim just like his express bus company ZICO… sending people and goods from “sombody”. A bullshit lawyer he is then, now and ever. I had met him once before he was appointed to “so called” law minister and did say to him..”For me, Abdullah is the most stupid man I have ever met”
Just like his “boss”, Zaid is no better than tha Sleeping PM.
As for Salleh Abbas…. a loser, a sore loser.. I never admire him when some of “his” quarters said in thier books as “Great Malaysian Malay Lord President”.
I have my respect his predecessors including Tun Suffian….
Salleh… Damn U.
And you call yourself a lawyer? Excuse me! Shame on you, Chang! Either you don’t understand Bahasa or you are a total retard who doesn’t understand English. By the way, tell me which part of Tun Salleh’s letter was so disrespectful to your King? And for Hamid to preside the Tribunal was just another mockery. Tell me if the case was not politically motivated. Ever heard of a word called “conflict of interest”, Mr wise guy? In Malaysian politic, the name of the game is like kissing asses or boot licking. With people like you around in the Malaysian court houses no wonder our judicial system is in the toilet.
Saudara Fahrenheit,
Cukup “panas” nampaknya argument saudara dalam bab ini, termasuk your scepticism about the Zionist conspiracy. If you the time, may I suggest you get hold of the book by Jonathan Cook, ISRAEL AND THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATION – IRAQ, IRAN AND THE PLAN TO REMAKE THE MIDDLE EAST. It is written by a Western journalist (so no issue about having a Muslim writing a book on such a topic, which would normally be viewed as “bias”, etc.). It is well grounded with references from publicly available & credible sources. Then, you make your own judgement about the so-called “zionist conspiracy theory”. From your writing/postings, you sound like a very educated person, so this book will be a good food for thought for your grey matter, I’m sure. Good luck!
Huhhh..last minute ditch to save face of a corrupt Tun Mamak.
Despite your 30+ years as a lawyer, I am truly surprised that you failed to grasp the desperationbehind those words of Tun Salleh “…left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
That was a plea by a man who cares for his oath of ofice, to King and country. He was imploring for His Highness to intercede and save the institution. Even a non-lawyer like me, who only had basic Form Five education could see it!
Come on now, Mr Mattias Chang, Sir. Sycophancy of the first degree is the only plausible reason why people like you are prepared to sell their soul. And stupidity brought on by sycophancy is hardly a defence in your plea for mitigation for the lies you try to perpetuate now.
Loyalty is admirable, but trying to turn a lame horse at 82 into a thoroughbred it never was…hmmm, that is the price to pay for blind sycophancy; robs you of reason. And you are displaying symptoms of stupidity brought on by sycophancy for all to see.
I am not surprised with the way you are carrying yourself. Your principle is as light as the feather weight pen you are writing with. And your logic is as pedantic as they come.
I have two serious concerns.
First,when you were defending Tun Salleh at that critical stage as you say, you surely must have read his supposedly second letter(I say supposedly since we have no evidence of a first letter)to the King. You would have at that time known that Tun Salleh has admitted he ‘could not carry out his functions orderly and properly’ such that it justified his removal from the Bench!
Yet for all the world to see you were there bravely in defence of a man a position you now regret.
If I have legal problem I would not turn to you for help. I will probably get sentenced to prison on trumped up charges you cannot get me off since you are such a bad litigator! You are a disgrace to the legal profession.
Secondly, Tun Salleh’s “second” letter would have in your eyes at that material time in 1988 been “scandalous, ill-conceived and insolent” by any measure without any need for time (20 years to be oprecise)to elapse before someone like you turns up to suggest that that was the case NOW!
Well said Matthias. I knew from the way Salleh Abas put on his necktie at the redemption dinner, he is such a ‘sombong bodoh’. I tak akan halalkan duit cukai yang saya bayar digunakan oleh Zaid dan Dollah untuk membayar orand tua ni. Bayar dia buat apa, dia bukan kerjapun!
I am not surprised with the way you are carrying yourself. Your principle is as light as the feather weight pen you are writing with. And your logic is as pedantic as they come.
I have two serious concerns.
First,when you were defending Tun Salleh at that critical stage as you say, you surely must have read his supposedly second letter(I say supposedly since we have no evidence of a first letter)to the King. You would have at that time known that Tun Salleh has admitted he ‘could not carry out his functions orderly and properly’ such that it justified his removal from the Bench!
Secondly, Tun Salleh’s “second” letter would have in your eyes at that material time in 1988 been “scandalous, ill-conceived and insolent” by any measure without any need for time (20 years to be precise) to elapse before someone like you turns up to suggest that that was the case NOW!
Yet for all the world to see you were there bravely in defence of a man, a position you now unashamedly regret.
If I have legal problem I would not turn to you for help. You are a disgrace to the legal profession.
being a lawyer you very well know that the official secret act is already round your neck.chicks like you would have bow down to touch the feet of mahathir to beg for mercy.i appreciate your comments.a police report may be lodged against you if you dont stop these commemts regarding tun salleh
I agree the only — or few — sane voice reacting to mathhias chang’s revelations is contained via:
“On May 22, 2008 at 1:35 am Fahrenheit Said:
Bravo my ass.. you guys must be retarded.. which part of the letter signify disrespect on the part of Tun Salleh to the Agong? are you all retards certain you understand English?”
Fahrenheit Said is corrrect in asking of Mathhias who is just hiding behind “legal jargon” to come to his negative conclusion against Tun Salleh Abas. My reading of English — and I have writen an +Anthology of Poems in English just as background to show I have some crdentials– that Fahrenhet’s Q is valid, and Matthias is duty bound to answer. — YL Chong aka Desiderata
+ Midnight Voices and Other Poems plus Companion Essay “Poetry as a Special Medium of Communication”.
If there is a Patrick Badawi, so also is a Matthias Mahathir. This guy is just a Mahathir lapdog who tried to justify the dictator’s misdeeds. If you are truly concerned with justice, then let’s have a commission and lay everything on the table. Spinning bits here and there with selective “evidences” to discredit others is crap. By the way, are the documents shown above fall under the preview of “official secret act”?
I still have my reservation. I reproduce this sentence you mentioned above…
“And given his confession that he is “mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly,” what choice has the Agong but to seek his dismissal?
Can you please explain what does “our ” in the sentence carry? Does in mean to say that Tun Salleh is mentally disturbed or just a general term to highlight the interference by the executive.
Matthias, 30 yrs of experience is nothing if you can’t read and understand simple words…..are you saying to err is human?
let us have a look at the contents of the so-called ‘first letter’, then we talk. the picture now is still not complete; for me.
btw, precious space r taken up by egoistic individuals re trivial matters like ‘profanities’, ‘..do you understand the english language / bahasa malaysia…’ etc.. stop it lah guys. pls follow golden rule ‘agree to disagree’.
stay focused on your opnions/facts. check your egos before submitting comments.
A very poor attempt to justify something people have known to be wrong with the judiciary since the time of your boss. Nobody will expect you to write something without siding Mahatir.
Aren’t you another wonderful spin doctor?
[…] I read with mild amusement on Tun Salleh Abas’ statement over Matthias Chang article in Big Dog’s blog. His opening statement reads somewhat like this; “Since (Matthias Chang) doubts my […]
God bless you, Mathias. Perhaps you can now explain what you and/or Mahathir did when the Johor Sultan (Agong at that time)killed his poor Indian caddy? Playing gold cannot be classified as an “offical duty” of the Agong. So he did not enjoy immunity, according to Mahathir’s law. Why wasn’t he charged in Court? As a lawyer with 30 years experience (as you claim to have) you must be aware that justice must be done and just as importantly seen to be done. You also know that there is no limitation on murder. Just as important what did you personally do? Did you protest to your boss that there was a cover up as it is widely alleged? When you do that people will sing your praises and not call you a MCA do who was Mahathir’s lickspittle (I personally don’t hold that view of you which is why I am asking to you this question).
well i think he says that the “first” letter was offensive.
but really, this guy is trying to make a tadpole into a fish. ellow, nama lawyer tapi england kaput. The guy and probably the whole judiciary was frustrated. Imagine u are stuck in your office with an annoyingly loud incessantly barking dog. Now imagine your boss sacking you for saying, “I am going crazy over this racket! I cant anything done”.
thats basically what you are saying.. now tell me.. 30 years as lawyer or baru graduate kindergarten? logic hanyut.
Forgot oredi ka how heavy handed TDM can be?
This is what Tun Salleh said:
“I never lobbied for the ex-gratia payment. All these years,I have been living in my kampung for 20 years.
“Suddenly the Government decided to resurrect me and address my innocence,”
Maybe there is an agenda. And taxpayers’ money going down the drain when each of them tries to advance his own cause to the detriment of the other.
As I see it,it is widely said that up to the time of Tun Salleh the Judiciary was independent and after his removal it(Judiciary)was no more independent. Tun Salleh WAS the Lord President and he could have defended the Judiciary against any attack or criticism by anybody and he could choose any forum to voice its (Judiciary)independence. He could also have entirely ignored any attack/critism and carried on his duty without fear or favour.By appealing to the DYMM he was no more independent. He DEPENDED upon somebody.
What is wrong wit what Tun Salleh said in his letter to the King? Dr Mahathir was the attacking the judiciary in the press, both at home and abroad. It is clear that Dr M understood neither the principles of separation of powers as enshrined in our Constitution nor the role of the judiciary being the guardian of the Constitution to protect the people from the excesses of the executive and legislature. Tun Salleh did the correct thing by writing to the King since taking Dr M to task in public would put Tun Salleh in the same boat as Dr M, i.e., people in position who do not conduct themselves according to rule of law. Matthias Chang, of all people, should be have no difficulty in understanding this, given his self-proclaimed greatness in law.
[…] was just informed by Rocky that Tun Salleh has issued a challenge to me in response to my article which was published in MALAYSIA TODAY and […]
I realized how some people who were attacking Matthias Chang using vulgar words etc.. To be honest, I am wondering the age of these people. But wait, age doesn’t represent maturity. Anyway, my only advice to these people is, “talk is cheap” , anyone can post a comment on a blog and pretend as if he knows everything that’s happening behind the wall, or as if he is a genius who is smarter than those playing this political game, or he is a mind reader who can see the hidden truth. The truth is, they are no more than people who read or heard about something somewhere and then running around to shout about something they themselves don’t really understand. Get a life, I am getting sick of reading those bashing comments that definitely not contributing to my intelligence. If you’re such a “caring/smart/intelligent/aware” citizen of Malaysia, make a police report or whatever you think is right, posting a rubbish comments on a blog is completely nothing that worth anyone’s time. In other words “take REAL action”!
Dear Sir,
For a long time I wondered what Is Dr M’s intention in sacking such a top judicial figure. Surely Dr M is not a stupid man to sack people like the Lord President and at the same time undermine his reputation as a leader. Now I know the other side of the story. It is weird that people both local and international jumped into conclusion that Dr.M single handedly brought down the judiciary before listening to all the relevent facts from both sides.Thats is why Dr.M is so cool when people accuses him and ask to be investigated or even charge him in court. Hope to hear the truth and nothing less than the truth from you.
To Marianne D. Plunkett,
evidently you are rather confused or have not understood the post. Tun MM’s reply to DYMM clearly showed his understanding of the law and constituition and Tun Salleh as Lord President should have known better that the DYMM is a constititional monarch.What did he expect? the DYMM to sack Tun MM. Your comments contradict your own points.
I am not surprised with the way you are carrying yourself. Your principle is as light as the feather weight pen you are writing with. And your logic is as pedantic as they come.
I have two serious concerns.
First,when you were defending Tun Salleh at that critical stage as you say, you surely must have read his supposedly second letter(I say supposedly since we have no evidence of a first letter)to the King. You would have at that time known that Tun Salleh has admitted he ‘could not carry out his functions orderly and properly’ such that it justified his removal from the Bench!
Secondly, Tun Salleh’s “second” letter would have in your eyes at that material time in 1988 been “scandalous, ill-conceived and insolent” by any measure without any need for time (20 years to be precise) to elapse before someone like you turns up to suggest that that was the case NOW!
Yet for all the world to see you were there bravely in defence of a man, a position you now unashamedly regret.
If I have legal problem I would not turn to you for help. I will probably get sentenced to prison on trumped up charges you cannot get me off since you are such a bad litigator! You are a disgrace to the legal profession.
Tun MM so-called attacks on the Judiciary were if anyone would care to remember were that judgements passed were not what laws passed in Parliament had its intended interpretations to be. Did Tun MM break any law in these “attacks”? Was he in contempt in that during an on going trial these “attacks” were made to sway a Judges decision? Would not a resignation on the part of the Lord President citing his reasons been more effective and dignified? Would not a collective decision to resign by the five Supreme Court judges citing similar reasons been more principled? Was not Tun Salleh tried by a Tribunal of his peers and found guilty? Are we not now in contempt of a lawfully constituited Tribunal by granting this ex-gratia payment? Are we questioning the integrity of the enpanelled Tribunal? Yes twenty years have since passed but events are still clear if any body would care but refuse to remember.
Please continue writing mr Mathhias. People like me need to know more about the other side of the story. No matter how corrupt u are as accused, at least u are brave enough to write. Those who hate TDM ,let the sin be with them. Hope u can email your article for my collection.
[…] of Malaysia undo the decision of His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong, after a Special Tribunal found Tun Salleh guilty of misconduct of duties and unbecoming as the Lord Presiden…, 20 years ago? By which powers would the Prime Minister of Malaysia now has to undo such […]
Matthias Chang,
Shame on you as one who claimed to have 30 years of legal practices and yet misleading all the readers here by “TWISTING AND SPLITING” that particular sentence into two(2) and read it in isolation to make the ground of TSA’s wrongful and unconstitutional dismissal to be justified and “sound right” to defend your brain drain boss Dr.M.
Tun Salleh’s particular sentence: “Other than that[the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.]
Note(1):”…the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us…”
Analysis: this sentence connotes plural in reference “all of us and left us”
Note(2):”…mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly…”
Analysis: this sentence again connotes plural in reference: “..our function…”
Matthias’s split and twist the sentence: “And given [his] confession that [he is] “mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge [our functions] orderly and properly,” what choice has the Agong but to seek his dismissal?
Even if we are to follow your “split & twist” principle of interpretation then the whole judiciary should be dismisses and not Tun Salleh alone !
My learned friend Matthias Chang, both you and your boss are fool but don’t treat all Malaysians like you both !
My learned friend Matthias Chang,
In order to pass your English comprehension test you must read the sentence in TOTAL
TSA:”the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
Conclusion:
So, it was the the accusations and comments that have brought shame to the Judiciary and left Them mentally disturbed to the extent of Them being unable to discharge Their functions orderly and properly.
But you have distorted that particular sentence by saying that ” He(TSA) is mentally disturbed to the extent of HIM being unable to discharge HIS functions orderly and properly.”
I would say you are good in using the software of “Cut and Paste” BUT utterly failed in your English Comprehension Test !
The correct word is investiture NOT investure when DYMM YDP Agong confers a title.
Thank you. Typo corrected
Dear MattHias Chang,
Form TSAs 2nd letter to the Agung, I gathered it’s obvious that TSA was certainly under enormous pressure caused by none other then TDM himself for reasons not detailed out but TSA summerised them as “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us”. Comments such as “hang the judges first” coming from the PM’s office, especially with humongous UMNOs deregistration hearings taking place in TSA’s courtyard at the time can hardly be taken as just another Mamak stall jokes
TSB full text was…. “Other than that the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly. We all feel ashamed because we are not able to avoid from being looked down by those who do not understand our position under the Constitution”
But you Mr Chang and TDM kept on rambling to no end on half sentence of “…..left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly” and thus distorting TSAs words by omitting words “brought shame” and “feel ashamed”… “malu” or “memalukan” in malay, which doesn’t seem to have same meaning in you and TDMs language and mother tongues.
Moreover if TSA’s abovementioned words is to be taken literarily then shouldn’t the whole of judges including all the 20 federal judges at that time be sacked because TSA said “all of us”…since wordings in the letter was the justification of TSAs dismissal then lets go down with the word puzzles, I am for one.
Back to the 1st letter, (not seen but reasons for TSA sending the letter to the Agung has been made known by TDMs blog), are we suggesting that TSA should have send the letter to the DBKL enforcement officer who will then issue a “stop work order” so that the Agung ceased from causing further inconvenience to his subject?. Didn’t he indeed?
That TSA has not exhausted any other resources prior to sending his “suicidal letter” to the Agung and insulted and angered the Agung immensely that TSA be ordered to the gallows? If TSAs complain is reasonable but found guilty, I will rest this case to God.
Was it TDM born DK or was made DK?
Mr.Hawkeyes, please enlighthen me as what is “DK” means ?
From the (purported) letter:
“”the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
So basically, in layman’s terms, what happened was this: a bully came and started making a ruckus in the nice little sandbox and this pissed the pupils off. They went to complain to the school prefect, who then — instead of confronting the bully as was his legal right and responsibility [given his assertion all this while that the judiciary is independent of the executive] — he decided to (borrowing a popular term from the anti-Mathias crowd) run like a lapdog to the school principal.
Except that the school principal knows his place in the constitution, and referred the matter — as is proper — back to his Prime Minister. Who also happens to be the bully whom the head prefect had been unable to confront directly himself.
Freddie Kevin is right: the only person in this drama so far who did not behave constitutionally was the Lord President himself. He seems confused with regards to the role and power of the Agong. And he didn’t seem to have the balls to stand up for his own branch of the constitutional mechanism. So is it any wonder then that the executive had a (a;;eged) field day?
Again, from the (purported) letter:
“”the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
The Lord President has just said that he is, effectively, weak and unable to even rebutt the actions of the executive. No wonder the Agong saw it fit to dismiss him.
The Heart of the Righteous studies how to answer, but the Mouth of the Wicked pours forth Evil; Understanding is a wellspring of life to him who has it.But the correction of fool is folly. Whenever people let PRIDE control their thoughts and actions, they may SUCCEED TEMPORARILY, but ultimately they are heading for DISASTER !
[…] Chang, a lawyer and former political secretary to Tun Dr Mahathir, continued his lucid attacks towards Tun Salleh Abas. He may have a case there. The judiciary crisis of 1988 story may be far from […]
Mattias Chang is hell bent on discreting Pak Lah although the PM is not the best Malaysia has.It is obvious Mattias will continue to polish the balls of his former oiliticak master Dr M. I have never come across any articles by Mattias condemning the PM in waiting Najis too.
Interesting post.
[…] who were suspended/sacked by the Tribunals."What did Matthias Chang say that riled Salleh Abas? Read here.As Matthias says, "You be the judge".Matthias Responds to Tun Salleh's Challenge[Matthias e-mailed […]