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.


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.


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.


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.


19TH MAY 2008


Published in: on May 21, 2008 at 09:51  Comments (75)  

The Royal “Omission”: A Wayang Kulit?




by Matthias Chang

Introduction – the Wayang Kulit[i]

I had, in an earlier article entitled “Pak Lah, the Joker and the Lady-in-Waiting” dated the 21st April 2008, exposed the fact that the Royal Commission[ii] was set up by the Prime Minister to divert the attention of the people during the 12th General Elections from the real issues – the misdeeds and corruption of the Abdullah Badawi’s regime. It was a simple blame game by Prime Minister Badawi – that whatever went wrong since he took office in October, 2003, was Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s fault.

The spotlight was focused on the alleged judicial misconduct of some judges. The ruling party’s [Barisan Nasional] mass media carried banner headlines for over a month, spilling over to the period just before the General Elections.

It was a pathetic effort and had no impact whatsoever on the electorate. The anger and mistrust of the Prime Minister and his family was deep and unprecedented. In the result, the Opposition denied the ruling party’s two-third majority in Parliament, as well as taking control of four critical states – Selangor, Perak, Penang and Kedah. It was a disaster for the Badawi regime. The ruling party has never suffered such an electoral humiliation. Throughout the country, people were calling for the Prime Minister to step down.

He refused to assume responsibility for the debacle and to resign but instead blamed the disaster on members of the ruling party for sabotage. Again, he blamed the election fiasco on Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Pak Lah’s spin doctors worked overtime covering the misdeeds of the Badawi regime.

By this time, the deadline for the Royal Commission to submit its report was way overdue. An extension of time was requested, but the report was not submitted within the extended period. Silence! The time had got to be right for its publication. The 4th Floor boys have not given the green light.

Desperately clinging on to power, Pak Lah[iii] used every trick in the book to win back support and popularity. He had willing partners in the Malaysian Bar Council to put up a pantomime.

The Prime Minister conspired with the Malaysian Bar Council to host a dinner for the purpose of making amends with Tun Salleh, the former Lord President of the Supreme Court who was removed from office for judicial misconduct on a complaint from the King. The “gala dinner” was supposedly hosted by the Malaysian Bar Council, but paid for by the Badawi regime.

Displaying false contrition, the Prime Minister offered ex-gratia payments to Tun Salleh and two other judges as compensation for their dismissal, and promised to restore the independence of the judiciary. The Prime Minister’s cronies and lapdogs in the Malaysian Bar Council applauded the Prime Minister’s gestures. Pak Lah was now the champion for the independence of the Malaysian judiciary. The Badawi controlled media went into frenzy. The man who deployed massive armed might to quell massive demonstrations for free and fair elections and the detention under the Internal Security Act of the leaders of the Indian minority movement, HINDRAF, was now lauded as the champion of democracy and freedom.

But Pak Lah’s popularity did not even rise above one notch! The spin doctors have to go back to the drawing board. Control, absolute control was slipping from his hands, and his political goons were in a state of panic.

The Chameleons Exposed

Pak Lah and Ambiga, the Chairman of the Malaysian Bar Council would have us believe that they are the guardians for an independent judiciary.

They take us for fools!

How can anyone take Pak Lah and Ambiga seriously when the man appointed to be the [de-facto] Law Minister, Zaid Ibrahim, was found guilty of corruption by his party’s Disciplinary Committee and declared to be unfit to stand as a candidate for the just concluded General Elections. This scoundrel is now put in charge of ensuring transparency and accountability of the Malaysian judiciary. He went in by the back door!

The present Chief Justice was the Federal Court Judge that acquitted Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the sodomy charges. A courageous judge gave a powerful dissenting judgment, and reminded us that the real victim of the entire fiasco was the driver of the former Deputy Prime Minister and that his evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction of Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy.

Can it be said that the present Chief Justice was given the plum job, as a reward for acquitting Anwar Ibrahim? “This is scandalous”, you might very well say. But was this not the allegation against those judges who were promoted to higher judicial office, that they were promoted because they convicted Anwar Ibrahim for corruption and sodomy. Anwar was convicted for corruption by the High Court [one judge], and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeal [three judges] and the Federal Court [three judges] and on a special review by another panel of the Federal Court [three judges]. A grand total of eleven judges, yet we are asked to conclude that all the judges were bias, under the influence of the executive. If that is the case, how do we explain that in the Review Proceedings by the Federal Court, the late Tan Sri Ahmad Malek [the then President of the Court of Appeal] and Tan Sri Siti Norma [the then Chief Judge of the High Court] whose integrity and impartiality were never doubted by the Malaysian Bar and broad sections of NGOs etc. upheld the conviction?

In so far as Ambiga is concerned, she is by far the biggest hypocrite. While advocating that appointment of judges must be transparent and preferably, by a Judicial Appointments Commission, she was all praise for the recent appointment of Tan Sri Zaki as a Federal Court Judge when he had no prior judicial experience, albeit a senior lawyer. He is also a high profile member of UMNO, the backbone of the ruling Barisan Nasional. And within months he was elevated to be the President of the Court of Appeal, the second highest judicial office, succeeding Tan Sri Ahmad Malek. Zaki leaped over many senior and long serving Federal Court judges.

And this was one of the major complaints of long-serving judges, that they have been by-passed without due consideration.

But there were no criticisms from this hypocrite of this very unusual appointment.

She demanded a Royal Commission to investigate into the alleged impropriety in the appointment of judges, specifically the appointment of the former Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz, but she condoned the appointment of Zaki by Pak Lah. Can she be trusted? You be the judge!

What is her agenda? No doubt, time will tell!

Send In The Clowns – the Royal Omissions!

The Royal Commission made a very mischievous finding when it stated:

“In the final analysis, having regard to the totality of the evidence and for the reasons stated, we are of the view that there was, conceivably, an insidious movement by Lingam with the covert assistance of his close friends, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular, the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya and subsequently as Court of Appeal President.

“In the process, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was also entangled. That possibility was ominous when examined against the factual circumstances surrounding the rejection of Malek Ahmad as Chief Judge of Malaya. Their ultimate aim or purpose could not be ascertained with exactitude, given the limitation under the (commission) terms of reference. It could be related to the fixing of cases as submitted by counsel for the Bar and others. Certainly, it is reasonable to suggest that it could not be anything but self-serving”.

I concur with Justice NH Chan that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” It is the rotten state of the Royal Commission, and the cowardice of its members that we need to address.

In making the above statements, especially when casting aspersions on Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the members of the said Royal Commission were irresponsible and their motives must be questioned and investigated.

My reasons are as follows:

1. “That possibility was ominous …” These words show all too clearly that the members of the Royal Commission have jettisoned a fundamental principle of law – that any crime must be proven beyond all reasonable doubts. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities.

There is no burden of proof in law based on possibilities. When we indulge in possibilities, we venture into the realm of speculation. This, we cannot allow. Coming from the Royal Commission, it is an unmitigated disaster and its integrity cannot but be questioned!

The members of the Royal Commission have every opportunity to question Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as to the reasons for his acceptance and or rejection of any recommendation by the Chief Justice of any judicial appointment (as provided for the Malaysian Constitution). Having failed to solicit an answer to their liking, the Royal Commission went on a frolic and indulged in pure speculation and possibilities.

This is disgraceful and conduct unbecoming of the members who were the former Judge of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the High Court and Chief Justice of Borneo.

Adding insult to injury, these former senior judges proceeded to speculate that the rejection of Ahmad Malek as Chief Judge was somehow associated with the “fixing of cases”. No evidence was cited to support this inference. This allegation was by way of submission by lawyers from the Bar.

A submission not grounded on cogent evidence (direct or circumstantial) cannot be a basis for any inference of guilt or wrongdoing. I am appalled that the Royal Commission based its findings on mere supposition:

“It could be related to the fixing of cases as submitted by counsel for the Bar and others.”

2. In their report, the members of the Commission conveniently ignored the fact and as provided by the Federal Constitution that every appointment must first be grounded on a recommendation by the Chief Justice to the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister is not obliged to accept each and every recommendation. If it was otherwise, the Federal Constitution would not have provided that the Chief Justice “recommends” to the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister advises the Conference of Rulers, the advice of which must be adhered.

Taking the bulls by the horns, even if the Prime Minister had received views from other sources [whether unsolicited or otherwise] it can be said without fear of contradiction, that since 1981 when Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad became the Prime Minister, every appointment to the High Court, the then Supreme Court, and the present Court of Appeal and Federal Court and the appointments of Chief Judge, President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Justice were made following the recommendations of the presiding Chief Justice.

It cannot be the case of the members of the Commission who were former judges that their appointments as judges and elevation to higher office were brought about by undue influence and or manipulation, since they were all appointed by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on the recommendation of the then presiding Chief Justice. If they question the manner of appointment by the Prime Minister, are we to be invited to question their own appointments?

And since aspersions have been cast on the integrity of Tun Eusoffe Chin, surely, and it is only fair, that we must also question and challenge all appointments and elevation from the time of Tun Dzaiddin till to day! The detractors and critics of Tun Mahathir Mohamad cannot have it both ways!

Dzaiddin testified before the Commission that he “disliked” Tun Eusoffe Chin, the former Chief Justice. Yet he was recommended to be the successor by the latter. Did Dzaiddin lobby for the post? Was pressure exerted on Tun Eusoffe Chin to appoint Dzaiddin?

I, for one, would like to know which judge (if any), in the opinion of the members of the Commission were not properly appointed between 1981 and 2003 and their reasons thereof. And whether, if such appointments have taken place, they had voiced their concerns and or taken action to remedy the situation in accordance with their oath of office.

If not, they are hypocrites and cowards!

3. “Their ultimate aim or purpose could not be ascertained with exactitude…”

Yet, the members of the Royal Commission can come to the above conclusions that Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had improper motives in the appointment of judges.

The Commission confesses that it could not “ascertain with exactitude”, because of the limitation of the terms of reference. That being the case, what right has these former judges to venture into pure speculation and cast aspersions on the former Prime Minister, unless they have ulterior motives?

It is to be recalled that when Counsel for Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, informed the Commission that Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was able and willing to answer any questions [to testify beyond the terms of reference of the Commission] relating to the appointment of judges and the judiciary, the Commission told the Counsel, that it would only permit questions that came within the terms of reference of the Commission.

Is this not a sinister move on the part of the Commission, given their findings referred to above? Having rejected outright Tun Mahathir’s willingness to testify beyond the terms of reference so as to establish the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the Commission now indulges in “possibilities” and speculation, because they cannot venture beyond the terms of reference. This is absolutely disgusting!

In the circumstances, is it fair and proper for the Royal Commission, having disallowed questions and answers that may shed light on these pertinent issues, to then indulge in pure speculation as to the intentions of the former Prime Minister in exercising his Constitutional authority in the appointment of judges, following the recommendations of the Chief Justice?

It is also clear from the notes of proceedings, that there were factions within the judiciary, and that many aspired to be the Chief Justice. Far from being collegial, the relationship between senior judges was often antagonistic. There was no love lost between the two former Chief Justices, Eusoffe Chin and Dzaiddin.

Not having the courage of their convictions to confront Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on the above issues, they retreated to the secrecy and comfort of their chambers to insinuate, speculate and implicate without any basis whatsoever that Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was somehow involved in the fixing of cases and or that he appointed judges contrary to his constitutional authority. In fact, the demeanor of the members of the Commission was subdued and accommodative.

This is wayang kulit! And a sinister one at that.

Should Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad be blamed for any inexactitude in the ascertainment of the motives and purposes of the relevant Chief Justices, when making their recommendations, if the members of the Commission who were former senior judges refused and or did not know how to ask the pertinent questions and chose instead to speculate on possibilities?


One need not examine the entire report to come to the conclusion that in so far as to the findings relating to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad are concerned, the above exposé is sufficient to make the case that the members of the Royal Commission have failed to conduct the enquiry fairly.

I would assert that the Royal Commission had misconducted the entire proceedings and its members misbehaved in such a manner as to bring disrepute to the Commission itself and that its findings cannot be deemed to be objective and fair.

A mere denial by a witness is taken as evidence of culpability. But when a member of the Commission was accused of corruption, witnesses critical to the allegation were not called upon to testify. After a short adjournment, a bare denial from the member of the Commission was sufficient to dispose of the allegation and the rejection of the demand that the said member disqualify himself from further deliberations, notwithstanding the allegation was made by a former Chief Justice against the member of the Commission.

Further Actions To Be Taken

I am confident that the public would want to know the following:

1) Why was Dr Joseph Eravelly, the critical witness not called to testify as to the truth and or falsity of Tun Eusoff Chin’s and Datuk Lingam’s allegations of impropriety against a member of the Commission?

2) Was the solicitor Robert Lazar’s assistance sought to coach the said witness in his intended testimony?

3) Notwithstanding his bare denial, that he did not lobby Datuk Lingam for appointment as a Judge, will there be a further investigation as to this allegation?

4) If Datuk Lingam is charged for “lobbying” for the appointment of certain judges, would the following lawyers be charged as well for doing the same, but for different set of judges to be appointed, namely:

a) Raja Aziz Addruse

b) Tommy Thomas

c) Robert Lazar

d) Ambiga Sreenevasan

which took place severally at the British High Commissioner’s official residence and at the Kuala Lumpur Bon Ton restaurant?

5) Likewise will the judges who have lobbied Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad for their own appointment and promotions and for the appointment of other judges, be charged accordingly?

6) Will the government investigate the British High Commission for its efforts to ensure that certain judges be appointed and or promoted, for which I am willing to testify before any court?

7) Will there be an investigation into the past and present members of the Malaysian Bar Council who are and or have been intelligence assets of the British and American intelligence services?

The judiciary is a den of vipers consisting of antagonistic factions and whose members vie for the top jobs and seek the help of lawyers to further their ambitions.

It is the members of the judiciary who are to be blamed for the rot within the institution and not the former Prime Minister, if truth be told.

It is a disgrace.

The misconduct by the members of the Commission has aggravated the already tarnished image of the Malaysian judiciary.


18TH MAY 2008


[i] The term “Wayang Kulit” is the Malay term for Shadow Play.

[ii] The Royal Commission was set up to investigate into a tape recording of an alleged conversation between a lawyer and a judge regarding the appointment of the latter to higher judicial office.

[iii] “Pak Lah” is the nickname for the Prime Minister.

*Versi Bahasa Melayu



Pengenalan – Wayang Kulit

Didalam tulisan saya yang terdahulu bertajuk “Pak Lah, Badut dan Wanita Dalam Penantian” bertarikh 21 April, 2008, saya telah memperlihatkan bahawa Suruhanjaya DiRaja telah ditubuhkan oleh Perdana Menteri dengan tujuan untuk mengalihkan perhatian rakyat semasa Pilihanraya Umum Ke12 dari isu sebenar – salahlaku dan perlakuan rasuah didalam rejim Abdullah Badawi. Ianya satu permainan mencari salah yang mudah yang dimainkan oleh Perdana Menteri – apa sahaja kesalahan yang berlaku selepas dia mengambil-alih tampuk pemerintahan pada October 2003, semuanya disebabkan oleh Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Perhatian ditumpukan kepada tuduhan salahlaku beberapa orang hakim. Akhbar-akhbar pro-kerajaan (Barisan Nasional) menjadikannya berita utama selama lebih sebulan dan berterusan sehingga sebelum Pilihanraya Umum.

Ianya satu usaha yang lemah dan tidak membawa sebarang kesan kepada pengundi. Perasaan marah dan sangsi terhadap Perdana Menteri dan ahli keluarganya amat mendalam dan akibatnya ialah keputusan yang tidak pernah terjadi sebelumnya, pihak pembangkang berjaya menafikan majoriti dua-pertiga di Parlimen selain mengambil-alih pemerintahan di empat negeri penting – Selangor, Perak, Pulau Pinang dan Kedah. Ianya satu musibah bagi rejim Badawi. Parti pemerintahan tidak pernah mengalami keputusan yang begitu memalukan. Diseluruh negara rakyat menyeru supaya Perdana Menteri meletak jawatan.

Namun, dia tidak mahu bertanggungjawab keatas keputusan buruk dan tidak mahu meletakkan jawatan. Sebaliknya, dia menyalahkan musibah tersebut keatas ahli-ahli parti-parti komponen yang dituduhnya melakukan sabotaj. Sekali lagi, dia juga menyalahkan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sebagai sebab keputusan pilihanraya yang buruk yang menimpa parti pemerintah. “Spin doctors” ataupun kaki-kaki putar Pak Lah pun bekerja keras untuk menutup kesalahan dan penipuan rejim Badawi.

Ketika itu, tarikh tamat untuk Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya untuk menyerahkan laporan sudah berlalu. Permohonan untuk melanjutkan tempoh telah diberikan namun laporan itu masih gagal disiapkan apabila tempoh lanjutan itu tamat. Tidak seorangpun bersuara. Jelas, penerbitan mesti pada masa yang sesuai. Budak-budak tingkat 4 belum memberi lampu hijau.

Terdesak untuk kekal memegang kuasa, Pak Lah menggunakan semua muslihat yang ada untuk mendapatkan balik sokongan dan untuk terus berkuasa. Dan Majlis Peguam Malaysia bersedia secara sukarela untuk menjadi rakan untuk berdrama bersama-sama.

Perdana Menteri telah berkonspirasi dengan Majlis Peguam Malaysia untuk mengadakan majlis makan malam untuk berbaik-baik dengan Tun Salleh, bekas Ketua Hakim Negara yang telah dipecat kerana salahlaku kehakiman akibat dari laporan tidak puas hati dari Yang diPertuan Agong. Majlis makan malam yang sepatutnya dihoskan oleh Majlis Peguam Malaysia telah ditanggung oleh rejim Badawi.

Mempamerkan penyesalan palsu, Perdana Menteri membuat tawaran bayaran sagu hati (ex-gratia) kepada Tun Salleh dan dua orang lagi bekas hakim sebagai pampasan keatas pemecatan mereka dan turut berjanji akan mengembalikan kebebasan kehakiman. Kroni-kroni Perdana Menteri dan pengampu-pengampu didalam Majlis Peguam Malaysia pun menyanjung usaha-usaha Perdana Menteri. Pak Lah pun dinobatkan sebagai jaguh kebebasan kehakiman. Akhbar-akhbar perdana dibawah kuasa Badawi pun turut beria-ia. Maka manusia, yang menghantar pasukan yang lengkap bersenjata untuk menyekat demonstrasi-demonstrasi yang mahukan pilihanraya yang bersih dan telus serta menahan dibawah ISA pemimpin-pemimpin Hindraf, telah dinobatkan sebagai jaguh demokrasi dan kebebasan.

Namun, populariti Pak Lah tidak meningkat walau satu noktah sekalipun! Kaki-kaki putar sekarang terpaksa menilai kembali strategi mereka. Pegangan, pegangan mutlak semakin terlepas dari tangan Pak Lah dan samseng-samseng politiknya didalam keadaan bercelaru.

Ketemu Sesumpah

Pak Lah dan Ambiga Pengerusi Majlis Peguam Malaysia mahukan kita untuk mempercayai bahawa mereka adalah penjaga kepada kebebasan kehakiman.

Mereka menganggap kita bodoh!

Bagaimana boleh sesiapapun mengambil Pak Lah dan Ambiga secara serius bila orang yang dilantik sebagai Menteri Kehakiman (de-facto), Zaid Ibrahim, telah didapati bersalah kerana rasuah oleh jawatankuasa disiplin Umno dan didapati tidak layak untuk bertanding sebagai calon didalam Pilihanraya yang baru lalu. Manusia sebegini sekarang dilantik untuk memastikan ketelusan dan akauntabiliti kehakiman negara. Dia yang dapat kedudukan menerusi pintu belakang.

Ketua Hakim sekarang adalah hakim yang membebaskan bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri Anwar Ibrahim dari tuduhan sodomi. Tetapi ada seorang lagi hakim yang berani yang memberikan keputusan yang bercanggah yang telah mengingatkan kita bahawa mangsa didalam kes tersebut ialah pemandu kepada bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu dan apa yang telah dinyatakan olehnya dimahkamah sudah cukup untuk mempertahankan keputusan menghukum Anwar Ibrahim atas tuduhan sodomi.


Bolehkah kita membuat andaian bahawa Ketua Hakim sekarang mendapat kedudukan yang begitu tinggi adalah sebagai hadiah kerana melepaskan Anwar Ibrahim? “Ini adalah satu skandal” – mungkin itu reaksi yang akan timbul. Tetapi bukankah ini tuduhan-tuduhan yang dilemparkan kepada hakim-hakim yang naik pangkat bahawa mereka dinaikkan pangkat kerana mendapati Anwar Ibrahim bersalah atas tuduhan rasuah dan sodomi. Anwar didapati bersalah kerana rasuah oleh Mahkamah Tinggi (seorang Hakim). Penghakimannya disokong oleh Mahkamah Rayuan (tiga orang hakim) dan Mahkamah Persekutuan (tiga orang hakim) dan juga dalam penilaian semula oleh satu panel Mahkamah Persekutuan (tiga orang hakim). Sejumlah 11 orang hakim membuat keputusan diatas kes itu dan kita masih lagi disogokkan dengan anggapan kesemua hakim-hakim itu berat sebelah dan dipengaruhi oleh eksekutif. Jika itulah tanggapan, bagaimana kita mahu menjelaskan bahawa didalam penilaian semula (review proceedings) oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan, Allahyarham Tan Sri Ahmad Malek (ketika itu presiden Mahkamah Rayuan) dan Tan Sri Siti Norma (ketika itu ketua hakim Mahkamah Tinggi) yang mana integriti dan sikap tidak berat sebelah mereka, yang tidak pernah diragui oleh Majlis Peguam dan kebanyakan NGOs dan lain-lain badan, tetap menyokong keputusan terdahulu?

Berkaitan dengan Ambiga, dia adalah hipokrit terbesar. Didalam mendokong ketelusan didalam perlantikan hakim dan seharusnya menerusi Suruhanjaya Perlantikan Kehakiman, dia disebaliknya telah beria-ia memuji-muji dan menyokong perlantikan Tan Sri Zaki sebagai Hakim Persekutuan walaupun Zaki tidak pernah mempunyai pengalaman sebagai hakim meskipun dia seorang peguam yang berpengalaman. Disamping itu, Zaki juga seorang ahli Umno yang ternama. Didalam tempoh beberapa bulan dia telah dinaikkan sebagai presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, kedudukan kedua tertinggi didalam kehakiman, mengambil-alih dari Tan Sri Ahmad Malek. Zaki telah melangkaui ramai hakim-hakim yang lebih senior dan berkhidmat lama sebagai hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Perkara ini adalah salah satu rasa tidak puashati hakim-hakim yang telah lama berkhidmat kerana mereka telah di ketepikan tanpa apa-apa pertimbangan.

Namun tiada kritikan mengenai perlatikan yang luarbiasa ini dari sihipokrit ini.

Ambiga telah mendesak diadakan Suruhanjaya Kehakiman untk menyiasat tuduhan-tuuhan terdapat salahlaku didalam perlantikan hakim-hakim, terutamanya perlantikan bekas ketua hakim Tun Ahmad Fairuz tetapi, dimasa yang sama dia tidak membangkang perlantikan Zaki oleh Pak Lah. Bolehkah orang sebegini dipercayai? Anda sendirilah menghakiminya.

Apakah agendanya? Jangan ragu, akan sampai masa bila semuanya akan menjadi jelas!

Kehadiran Badut-Badut – Perselindungan DiRaja!

Suruhanjaya diRaja telah membuat beberapa penilaian yang jahat apabila ia menekankan:

“Didalam analisis terakhir, setelah mengambilkira secara menyeluruh bukti-bukti dan sebab-sebab yang dinyatakan, kita berpendapat terdapat, secara dirancang, satu gerakan bermuslihat yang tidak berniat baik oleh Lingam dengan bantuan sulit oleh rakan-rakan karibnya, Vincent Tan dan Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, untuk mengaitkan diri mereka secara aktif didalam perlantikan hakim-hakim, khususnya perlantikan Ahmad Fairuz sebagai Ketua Hakim Malaya dan seterusnya sebagai Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan.

“Didalam proses itu Dr. Mahathir Mohamad telah turut terbabit. Kemungkinan buruk itu tidak dapat diketepikan apabila dinilai disamping fakta-fakta keadaan yang menyelubungi penolakan Malek Ahmad sebagai Ketua Hakim Malaya. Tujuan atau pencapaian akhir yang mereka mahukan tidak dapat ditentukan dengan tepat disebabkan oleh had-had rujukan yang ditetapkan (untuk suruhanjaya). Ianya mungkin bersabit dengan menetapkan keputusan kes-kes seperti yang diajukan oleh peguam dari Majlis dan lain-lain. Yang pasti adalah munasabah untuk disimpulkan bahawa usaha-usaha tersebut adalah untuk kepentingan diri”.

Saya bersetuju dengan Hakim NH Chan bahawa “something is rotten in the state of Denmark (bidalan Inggeris untuk menunjukkan sesuatu yang amat tidak baik sedang berlaku).” Yang amat buruk dan busuk ialah keadaan Suruhanjaya DiRaja dan sikap penakut ahli-ahlinya yang perlu kita bincangkan.

Didalam membuat kenyataan-kenyataan diatas, terutamanya dengan memburuk-burukkan Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya DiRaja adalah tidak bertanggungjawab dan niat serta tujuan mereka mesti dipersoalkan dan disiasat.

Alasan-alasan saya adalah seperti berikut:

1. “That possibility was ominous – ataupun kemungkinan buruk itu…” Perkataan-perkataan ini menunjukkan dengan jelas bahawa ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya DiRaja telah membuang prinsip asas perundangan – apa-apa kesalahan mestilah dibuktikan menlangkaui kesangsian yang munasabah – beyond all reasonable doubts. Didalam kes-kes sivil, beban pembuktian adalah pertimbangan kebarangkalian – a balance of probabilities.

Tidak terdapat beban pembuktian yang disandarkan kepada kemungkinan. Jika kita bersandarkan kepada kemungkinan, kita akan memasuki ke dalam dunia spekulasi. Ini tidak boleh kita benarkan. Dan jika ini telah datang dari Suruhanjaya DiRaja, ia akan mengundang bencana dan integriti (Suruhanjaya) perlu dipertikaikan!

Ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya DiRaja mempunyai peluang sepenuhnya untuk menyoal Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad berkaitan dengan penerimaan atau penolakannya terhadap sebarang cadangan perlantikan kehakiman oleh Ketua Hakim (sepertimana yang termaktub didalam perlembagaan). Setelah gagal mendapatkan jawapan yang sesuai dengan kehendak mereka, Suruhanjaya DiRaja telah bertindak membuat andaian berdasarkan kemungkinan dan spekulasi semata-mata.

Sikap ini adalah amat memalukan serta tidak bersesuaian dengan ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya DiRaja yang terdiri dari bekas hakim Mahkamah Rayuan, Mahkamah Tinggi serta Ketua Hakim Borneo.

Lebih memalukan lagi, bekas-bekas hakim ini seterusnya membuat spekulasi mengenai penolakan Ahmad Malek sebagai Ketua Hakim yang dikaitkan dengan “menetapkan kes-kes – fixing of cases.” Tiada bukti yang berikan untuk menyokong pandangan ini. Tuduhan ini adalah dari penggulungan oleh peguam-peguam dari Majlis Peguam.

Penggulungan yang tidak didasarkan oleh bukti yang jelas (secara terus atau berdasarkan keadaan – direct or circumstantial) tidak boleh menjadi asas untuk mengaitkan kesalahan atau salahlaku. Saya amat terkejut dengan tindakan Suruhanjaya DiRaja yang memberi keputusan berdasarkan andaian semata-mata:

“Ia mungkin berkait dengan penetapan kes-kes (fixing of cases) sebagaimana yang dihujahkan oleh Majlis dan yang lain-lain.”

  1. Didalam lapuran mereka, ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya telah dengan mudah mengenepikan fakta serta peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dimana setiap perlantikan mestilah terlebih dahulu berdasarkan cadangan dari Ketua Hakim kepada Perdana Menteri dan Perdana Menteri tidaklah terikat dan terpaksa menerima setiap cadangan. Jika tidak, sudah pasti Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak menetapkan supaya Ketua Hakim “mencadangkan –recommends” kepada Perdana Menteri. Tetapi Perdana Menteri menasihatkan Persidangan Raja-Raja dan nasihat itu mestilah di patuhi.

Seterusnya, jika Perdana Menteri telah menerima pandangan dari sumber-sumber lain (samada dipinta atau sebaliknya) boleh dinyatakan tanpa ragu-ragu bahawa semenjak tahun 1981 apabila Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad menjadi Perdana Menteri, setiap perlantikan ke Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Agong yang dulu, Mahkamah Rayuan sekarang dan Mahkamah Persekutuan, perlantikan-perlantikan Ketua Hakim, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan Ketua Hakim Negara telah dibuat dengan cadangan-cadangan Ketua Hakim Negara ketika itu.

Mungkin keadan disebaliknya dengan ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya yang terdiri

dari bekas-bekas Hakim dimana perlantikan dan kenaikan pangkat

mereka adalah kerana manipulasi dan pengaruh kuat kerana mereka

semua dilantik oleh Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad berdasarkan cadangan

dari Ketua Hakim Negara ketika itu. Jika mereka (ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya)

mempersoalkan cara perlantikan oleh Perdana Menteri, adakah kita

dijemput untuk mempersoalkan perlantikan mereka sendiri?

Lanjutan dari tindakan mereka mempersoalkan integriti Tun Eusoffe Chin, maka adalah adil jika kita mempersoalkan dan mencabar semua perlantikan dan kenaikan dari masa Tun Dzaiddin sehingga hari ini. Pengkritik-pengkritik dan mereka yang tidak bersetuju dengan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad tidak boleh mendapat kesemuanya mengikut kehendak mereka!

Dzaiddin memberitahu Suruhanjaya yang dia tidak menyukai TunEusoffe Chin, bekas Ketua Hakim Negara. Namun, dia (Dzaiddin) telah dicadangkan oleh Eusoffe untuk menggantikannya. Adakah Dzaiddin melobi untuk jawatan itu? Adakah terdapat tekanan keatas Tun Eusoffe Chin untuk melantik Dzaiddin?

Saya ingin tahu jika hakim-hakim (jika ada) berpendapat bahawa ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya telah tidak dilantik dengan cara yang betul diantara tahun 1981 hingga 2003 dan sebab mengapa mereka berpandangan demikian. Dan jika telah berlaku perlantikan sedemikian, adakah mereka telah menyatakan bangkangan mereka ataupun mengambil tindakan untuk membetulkan keadaan bersesuaian dengan sumpah perlantikan mereka.

Jika tidak, mereka ini hipokrit dan penakut.

3. “Tujuan atau pencapaian akhir yang mereka mahukan tidak dapat ditentukan dengan tepat…”

Namun ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya DiRaja telah membuat kesimpulan bahawa Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad mempunyai niat yang tidak baik didalam perlantikan hakim-hakim.

Suruhanjaya mengakui yang ia tidak dapat menentukan dengan tepat kerana had-had yang ditetapkan terma-terma rujukan (terms of reference). Jika itulah sandarannya, apakah hak bekas-bekas hakim ini membuat spekulasi serta andaian-andaian buruk terhadap bekas Perdana Menteri kecuali jika mereka mempunyai niat jahat disebaliknya.

Perlu diingatkan bahawa peguam untuk Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad telah memberitahu Suruhanjaya bahawa Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad bersetuju dan bersedia menjawab apa-apa soalan (melangkaui terma-terma rujukan yang dihadkan kepada Suruhanjaya) berkait dengan perlantikan hakim-hakim serta badan kehakiman. Suruhanjaya telah memberitahu peguam bahawa hanya soalan-soalan yang terangkum didalam terma-terma rujukan Suruhanjaya sahaja yang akan dibenarkan.

Tidakkan ini satu tindakan yang tidak bertujuan baik dipihak Suruhanjaya apabila dilihat keputusan yang dibuatnya seperti yang tertera diatas? Setelah menolak kesediaan Tun Dr Mahathir untuk menjawab sebarang soalan melangkaui terma-terma rujukan itu untuk menentukan yang benar dan yang sebenar-benarnya, Suruhanjaya itu kini membuat spekulasi berdasarkan kemungkinan kerana tidak boleh melangkaui terma-terma rujukan. Ini amatlah menjijikkan!

Didalam keadaan sebegini, adakah ianya adil dan elok untuk Suruhanjaya DiRaja, setelah tidak membenarkan soalan dan jawapan yang mungkin memberikan peluang untuk memahami isu-isu yang penting ini, dan kemudiannya membuat spekulasi terhadap niat bekas Perdana Menteri didalam melaksanakan kuasanya seperti didalam Perlembagaan berhubung dengan perlantikan hakim-hakim berdasarkan cadangan dari Ketua Hakim Negara?

Adalah jelas berdasarkan nota-nota persidangan, badan kehakiman itu terbahagi kepada beberapa kumpulan dan ramai yang bercita-cita untuk menjadi Ketua Hakim Negara. Selain dari tidak sekata, hubungan antara hakim-hakim kanan selalunya bermusuhan. Tidak terdapat hubungan yang baik walaupun sedikit diantara dua bekas Ketua Hakim Negara Eusoffe Chin dan Dzaiddin.

Tanpa mempunyai keberanian untuk menegakkan apa yang mereka percayai dan menyatakannya kepada Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad berhubung dengan isu-isu tersebut, mereka berundur kedalam kamar-kamar mereka dan secara rahsia membuat telahan-telahan, spekulasi-spekulasi serta membuat tuduhan tanpa asas bahawa Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad terbabit didalam menetapkan ke-kes (fixing of cases) atapun melantik hakim-hakim dengan cara yang bercanggah dengan kuasa beliau mengikut perlembagaan. Malahan, sikap ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya adalah membisu dan bersetuju.

Ini adalah satu wayang kulit! Dan ianya amat jahat dan kotor.

Adakah patut Tun Dr Mahathit Mohamad disalahkan kerana tidak dapat ditentukan dengan tepat motif serta tujuan Ketua-Ketua Hakim Negara berkenaan apabila mereka membuat cadangan jika ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya yang terdiri dari bekas-bekas Hakim Kanan tidak mahu atau tidak tahu bertanyakan soalan-soalan yang penting dan sebaliknya membuat spekulasi berdasarkan kemungkinan.


Seseorang itu tidak perlu menilai keseluruhan lapuran untuk membuat kesimpulan bahawa Suruhanjaya DiRaja telah gagal melaksanakan inkuiri dengan adil terhadap perkara-perkara yang berkait dengan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Cukup dengan membaca penjelasan diatas kita akan dapat melihat kegalan Suruhanjaya itu.

Saya ingin menekankan bahawa Suruhanjaya DiRaja telah menjalankan prosiding keseluruhannya secara tidak betul dan dan salah serta ahli-ahlinya berkelakuan secara salah dan membawa keburukan kepada Suruhanjaya itu sendiri dan dengan itu, keputusan serta penilaiannya tidak boleh diterima sebagai objektif serta adil.

Satu penafian oleh saksi telah diterima sebagai bukti kesalahan. Tetapi apabila seorang ahli Suruhanjaya dituduh rasuah, saksi-saksi penting tidak dipanggil. Selepas penangguhan singkat, penafian cetek dari seorang ahli Suruhanjaya sudah cukup untuk menolak desakan supaya ahli itu menarik diri walaupun tuduhan itu dibuat oleh bekas Ketua Hakim Negara terhadap seorang ahli Suruhanjaya.

Tindakan Seterusnya

Saya yakin rakyat ingin tahu perkara-perkara berikut:

1) Mengapa Dr Joseph Eravelly, seorang saksi penting tidak dipanggil untuk menyatakan samada benar atau tidak tuduhan Tun Eusoff Chin dan Datuk Lingam mengenai salahlaku seorang ahli Suruhanjaya?

2) Mengapakan bantuan peguam Robert Lazar diperlukan untuk membantu melatih saksi itu didalam kenyataannya yang ingin diberikan?

3) Walaupun dia telah menafikan yang dia tidak melobi atuk Linggam untuk dilantik sebagai hakim, adakah akan ada siasatan lanjutan terhadap pertuduhan ini?

4) Jika Datuk Linggam dituduh melobi perlantikan hakim-hakim tertentu, adakah peguam-peguam berikut akan didakwa kerana melakukan perkara yang sama walaupun membabitkan hakim-hakim yang lain:

a) Raja Aziz Addruse

b) Tommy Thomas

c) Robert Lazar

d) Ambiga Sreenevasan

Ini telah berlaku beberapa kali di kediaman rasmi Pesuruhjaya Tinggi British dan juga di restoren Kuala Lumpur Bon Ton?

5) Begitu juga dengan hakim-hakim yang telah melobi Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad untuk perlantikan serta kenaikan pangkat mereka sendiri. Adakah mereka ini akan didakwa?

6) Adakah kerajaan akan menyiasat Pesuruhjaya Tinggi British kerana usahanya untuk memastikan hakim-hakim tertentu dilantik atau dinaikkan pangkat. Saya sanggup memberi kenyataan dimahkamah.

7) Adakah akan dijalankan satu siasatan terhadap ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam Malaysia yang lepas dan sekarang yang telah ataupun masih menjadi kepentingan perisikan kepada badan perisikan British dan Amerika.

Badan kehakiman adalah satu sarang ular yang terdiri dari pihak-pihak yang bermusuhan serta ahli-ahlinya terdiri dari mereka yang cuba mendapatkan kedudukan tinggi dan akan mendapatkan bantuan dari peguam-peguam untuk mencapai cita-cita mereka.

Sebenarnya, ahli-ahli badan kehakimanlah yang sepatutnya dipersalahkan diatas kerosakan dan kehancuran institusi tersebut, bukan bekas Perdana Menteri, jika kebenaran yang harus dinyatakan.

Ianya amatlah memalukan.

Salahlaku ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya telah menambahkan lagi keburukan kepada imej badan kehahiman Malaysia yang memang sudah tercemar.


18TH MAY 2008


Published in: on May 21, 2008 at 09:37  Comments (20)  


Mantan Perdana Menteri Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, yang juga Pengerusi BN selama 22 tahun amat konsisten dengan telahan bahawa tidak akan berlaku cukup MP BN yang akan ‘melompat’ dan menyertai mana mana parti Pembangkang atau menubuhkan parti baru yang akan bersekongkol dengan Pakatan Rakyat (PR), agar memboleh Kerajaan Persekutuan alternative kepada BN dibentuk.

Dalam tulisan terbaru, beliau mengariskan sepuluh sebab mengapa fenomena ‘melompat’ ini amat kecil kebarangkalianya berlaku.

Sebelum ini, beliau pernah amat yakin mempersoalkan kemungkinan MP BN melompat agar Kerajaan Persekutuan BN tumbang.

Published in: on May 21, 2008 at 02:19  Comments (3)