(VERSI BAHASA MALAYSIA DI AKHIR ARTIKEL INI)
1. When the Government gave ex-gratia payments to the judges involved in the Tun Salleh Abas removal as the Lord President of Malaysian courts, the question that needs to be answered is whether it is because of Government regrets over something that happened not during the period this Government was in power or is it because of a desperate attempt to win support after the disastrous results of the election of 2008.
2. Had the present Government felt regret, it should have paid ex-gratia payment (for want of a better term) upon achieving power. But obviously it only felt regret lately, after its brand new de facto Minister of Law, who incidentally was suspended for money politics, suggested the move in order to win the approval of the Bar Council.
3. But what was at the back of this political feeling of guilt by this Government. Was it because of the injustice done? Or was something unfair and unlawful committed by the previous Government.
4. Most people know about Tun Salleh’s dismissal but few care to find out what really happened. Some believe that the action against Tun Salleh was because he had proposed a panel of 12 judges to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings that UMNO was an illegal organisation. Others believe it was because he was biased against UMNO in his judgements.
5. None of these is true. Tun Salleh had not been biased against the Government. He dismissed the application by Lim Kit Siang in the case involving UEM and the Government, for an interim injunction made by a lower court in a lengthy judgement made by him as President of the Supreme Court. In numerous other cases his judgement favoured the Government. As to the panel to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings, a bigger panel could actually be good for UMNO, which wanted nothing more than the validation of the election results making me President and Ghafar Baba Deputy President. Whether the panel rejects or approves Judge Harun’s decision, UMNO and UMNO Baru would not be affected.
6. The truth is that the case against Tun Salleh was triggered by his letters to the Yang di Pertuan Agong which were considered by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting to him.
7. In his first letter Tun Salleh had written to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the noise made during some repair work at the Agong’s palace near Salleh’s house.
8. This alone can be considered as very improper. A man as senior as he was could have asked to see the Agong and verbally informed him about the noise.
9. But to compound the act of les majesté he sent copies of his letter to the other rulers. This implied that he did not have faith in the Agong and wanted the other Rulers to apply pressure on him.
10. This was followed by another letter to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the behaviour of the executive i.e. the Prime Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers.
11. In this letter Tun Salleh said inter alia, “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.”
12. He went on to say in his 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.”
13. He asserted that he and all the judges “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
14. This statement was obviously untrue as before the letter was sent, in a speech at the University of Malaya when he was receiving his honorary doctorate, he complained about “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” inferring that this was not in keeping with “the rule of law” and that the “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed.”
15. He went on to say “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play than the roles played by the politicians.”
16. Further he said, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary.”
17. Again when making a speech at the launching of a book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh had said, among other things, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” He added, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….”
18. “Apart from this,” he continued, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.”
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
20. These two speeches were delivered on 1st August 1987 and 12th January 1988 respectively. But Tun Salleh’s letter to the King was dated 26th March 1988. As I pointed out earlier it is not true that he did not speak about his accusations against the Government in public because he maintains that “such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution” and that “it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
21. All his statements in these two speeches clearly contain his criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Government long before he wrote his letter to the King.
22. Another point raised in his letter to the Agong is that “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
23. In Section 125 of the Federal Constitution, under clause (3) the grounds for removing a judge, apart from misbehaviour include infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office.”
24. By his own admission Tun Salleh was not able “to discharge his functions orderly and properly.” He was therefore unfit to continue to be a judge.
25. Section 125, Clause 4 provides for “the Yang di Pertuan Agong to appoint a Tribunal …. and refer the representations to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.”
26. The two letters from Tun Salleh were regarded by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting particularly the copies sent to the other Rulers.
27. During one of my weekly meetings with the Agong, DYMM expressed his annoyance over the letters and simply requested that I dismiss Tun Salleh Abas from being the Lord President of the Malaysian Courts. He writes in his own handwriting his request on the margin of Tun Salleh’s first letter, regarding the noise made by the work on the Agong’s residence.
28. To the Agong it was a simple matter. He had appointed the Lord President and therefore he was entitled to remove him. I thought it was best for me to inform Cabinet and seek the advice of the Attorney-General.
29. I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in accordance with the intention or objective of the laws. I did suggest that if the laws were interpreted differently from what the Government and the legislators intended, then we would amend the laws. During a cabinet meeting I had in jest quoted Shakespeare’s words, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” Only a nitwit would think that I meant what I said literally. But apparently lawyers and judges took umbrage over what I said and regarded me as their enemy (about to hang them, I suppose).
30. I also criticised judges for making laws themselves through their interpretations and subsequently citing these as their authority. I believed that the separation of powers meant the Legislators make laws and the judiciary apply them. Of course if the laws made by the legislators breach the provisions of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, then judges can reject them.
31. Again some judges simply refused to hear cases involving the death penalty, pushing these unfairly on to other judges.
32. It is the view of most jurists that “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Peter Aldridge Williams QC).
33. The above writer quoted McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it.”
34. Yet Tun Salleh took the view that I was subverting the independence of the judiciary when I expressed views on how judges frustrated the objectives of the legislators.
35. Through the grapevine I heard of the judges’ displeasure with me. But I did not take any action, certainly not to remove Tun Salleh. I only acted after the Agong complained about the two letters.
36. The Cabinet agreed that we must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Constitution. I therefore advised the Agong that Tun Salleh could not be removed unless the Agong appoints a Tribunal to hear the complaints against him and make recommendations to the Agong.
37. Upon the Agong agreeing, the Government selected six judges and former judges for His Majesty to consider. The members included foreign judges in the person of the Honourable the Justice K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Chief Justice Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Honourable Mr Justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
38. The Chairman was the Chief Judge (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. The other members were Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Chief Justice (Borneo), Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain, Retired Judge and Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail, Retired Judge.
39. The inclusion of foreign judges was to make sure the Tribunal would not be biased.
40. It is unfortunate that Tun Salleh Abas refused to appear before the Tribunal. Instead he depended on his colleagues to try to prevent the findings of the Tribunal from reaching the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
41. What the five judges who were sympathetic to him did was certainly not in keeping with Tun Salleh’s expressed views in his talk during the launching of the book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend, “when he said “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
42. The five judges had ignored rules and procedures and the requirement to get the approval of the (Acting) Lord President, as well as wait for the findings by Mr Justice Ajaib Singh on the same matter. Instead they cancelled courts sittings in Kota Bahru which were scheduled for the judges, and held a sitting of the Supreme Court in Kuala Lumpur to hear an application by Tun Salleh Abbas for prohibition proceedings to determine his position.
43. The Supreme Court of five judges with Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman presiding heard an ex parte oral application by Tun Salleh’s lawyer, retired for a few minutes, returned and unanimously made an order for stay restraining the Tribunal from submitting any recommendations, report or advice respecting the enquiry to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong until further order.
44. Subsequently the Acting Lord President, set up a Supreme Court of five judges which negated the decision of the Wan Suleiman Court.
45. I would like to repeat that despite public criticisms made against me by Tun Salleh, I did not take any action against him. I only did so after he insulted the Agong and the Agong requested me to have him removed. Of course some would still say I influenced the Agong. But throughout my 22 years I had never involved the rulers in politics or my personal problems. The records are there for all to see.
46. I was very concerned over the forcible removal of Tun Salleh. And so I tried to get Tun Salleh to resign on his own so as to avoid a scandal. He agreed at first but he withdrew the following day.
47. I then went about getting the Tribunal approved and set up. Naturally I had to consult the Attorney-General and others who were familiar with judges. Once the Tribunal was set up my involvement ended.
48. When Tun Salleh and the other judges had their services terminated, they should not be paid their pensions. But following appeals by Attorney-General I agreed that they should be paid their full pensions. They therefore did not suffer any financial loss and their pensions were computed from the time they left.
49. These are the facts relating to the dismissal of Tun Salleh. It was he and his fellow judges who brought disrepute to the judiciary.
50. I write this to record things as they happened. I do not expect my detractors to stop saying that I destroyed the judiciary. They are my prosecutors and they are also my judges. To them I will always be the Idi Amin of Malaysia as claimed in Tun Salleh’s book “May Day for Justice”. Sadly many who so readily condemn me were judges.
*****
KISAH TUN SALLEH
1. Apabila Kerajaan memberi bayaran ex-gratia kepada para hakim yang terlibat di dalam penyingkiran Tun Salleh Abas sebagai Ketua Hakim Mahkamah Malaysia, persoalan yang perlu dijawab ialah adakah ianya kerana Kerajaan kesal terhadap sesuatu yang berlaku di zaman sebelum Kerajaan ini berkuasa atau adakah ianya langkah terdesak untuk mengembalikan sokongan selepas keputusan buruk Pilihanraya Umum 2008.
2. Jika Kerajaan hari ini merasa kesal, bayaran ex-gratia (memandangkan tiada lagi perkataan yang lebih sesuai) sepatutnya dibuat selepas ianya mula berkuasa. Jelas sekali ia hanya merasa kesal baru-baru ini, selepas Menteri baru yang dipertanggungjwabkan ke atas hal-ehwal kehakiman (yang juga pernah digantung kerana penglibatan dalam politik wang) mencadangkannya sebagai langkah untuk memenangi hati Majlis Peguam.
3. Tetapi apakah yang menyebabkan perasaan kesal “politik” di pihak Kerajaan ini? Adakah kerana berlaku ketidak adilan? Atau adakah Kerajaan yang sebelumnya berlaku berat sebelah atau melanggar undang-undang?
4. Kebanyakan orang tahu tentang penyingkiran Tun Salleh tetapi tidak ramai yang mengambil berat tentang apa yang sebenarnya berlaku. Sesetengah pihak percaya yang tindakan terhadap Tun Salleh disebabkan cadangannya membentuk panel 12 hakim untuk mendengar rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Harun Hashim yang telah mendapati UMNO sebagai sebuah organisasi haram. Ada pihak lain yang percaya ianya kerana beliau tidak menyebelahi UMNO di dalam penghakimannya.
5. Tidak ada satu pun yang benar. Tun Salleh tidak berat sebelah terhadap Kerajaan. Dia telah menolak permohonan Lim Kit Siang di dalam kes yang melibatkan UEM dan Kerajaan, terhadap injunksi sementara yang dibuat mahkamah rendah di dalam keputusan penghakiman yang panjang yang dibuat olehnya sebagai Presiden Mahkamah Agong (sekarang Mahkamah Persekutuan). Di dalam kes-kes lain penghakiman beliau banyak berpihak kepada Kerajaan. Berkenaan dengan panel untuk mendengar rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Harun Hashim, panel yang lebih besar mungkin lebih baik bagi UMNO yang hanya mahukan pengesahan keputusan pemilihan yang akan menjadikan saya Presiden dan (Tun) Ghafar Baba Timbalan Presiden. Samada panel menolak atau menerima keputusan Hakim Harun, ianya tidak akan memberi kesan terhadap UMNO dan UMNO Baru.
6. Sebenarnya kes terhadap Tun Salleh tercetus kerana surat-suratnya kepada Yang di Pertuan Agong yang baginda anggap melanggar tatasusila serta menghina.
7. Di dalam surat pertamanya, Tun Salleh telah menulis kepada DYMM YDP Agong untuk mengadu berkenaan bunyi bising kerana kerja-kerja baikpulih di Istana YDP Agong yang terletak berdekatan dengan rumah Tun Salleh.
8. Ini sahaja boleh dianggap melanggar tatasusila. Seseorang yang begitu kanan kedudukannya boleh meminta izin untuk mengadap YDP Agong dan menyampaikan aduannya secara lisan.
9. Untuk memburukkan lagi perbuatan menghina Istana dia telah menghantar salinan suratnya kepada Raja-Raja lain. Ini seolah-olah menunjukkan yang dia tidak punyai keyakinan terhadap YDP Agong dan menghendakkan Raja-Raja Melayu lain untuk mengadakan tekanan terhadap YDP Agong.
10. Ini kemudiannya disusuli dengan satu lagi surat kepada YDP Agong yang mengadu berkenaan tindak-tanduk eksekutif iaitu Perdana Menteri. Salinan surat ini juga telah dihantar kepada Raja-Raja.
11. Di dalam surat ini, Tun Salleh telah menyatakan antara lain; “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.” [Kami (para hakim) kecewa dengan pelbagai kenyataan dan tuduhan yang dibuat Perdana Menteri terhadap badan kehakiman bukan sahaja di luar malahan di dalam Parlimen]
12. Dia seterusnya berkata di dalam suratnya “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.” [tuduhan-tuduhan dan kenyataan-kenyataan yang dibuat telah memalukan kami semua dan telah meninggalkan kesan kekacauan mental sehinggakan kami tidak dapat menjalankan tugas kami dengan tertib dan teratur].
13. Dia menegaskan yang dia dan para hakim semua “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.” [tidak mahu membalas secara terbuka tuduhan kerana tindakan tersebut tidak bersesuaian dengan kedudukan kami sebagai hakim di bawah Perlembagaan…dan oleh itu adalah lebih baik kami bersabar demi kepentingan Negara].
14. Kenyataan ini nyata tidak benar kerana sebelum surat tersebut diutuskan, di dalam satu ucapan di Universiti Malaya di mana dia dianugerah ijazah doktor kehormat, dia telah merungut berkenaan “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” (badan kehakiman ditempatkan di bawah kategori perkhidmatan sosial) dengan membuat kesimpulan bahawa ini tidak bertepatan dengan “the rule of law” (kedaulatan undang-undang) dan oleh itu “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed” (keutamaan mahkamah harus diperbetulkan agar kebebasan dijamin dan kerja tidak terganggu).
15. Dia seterusnya berkata “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play then the roles played by the politicians” (pegawai perkhidmatan awam iaitu para hakim tidak memainkan peranan yang kurang pentingnya berbanding yang dimainkan ahli politik).
16. Beliau juga berkata, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary” (Keadaan ini diburukkan lagi jika hak yang terlibat dalam keputusan yang dibuat para pegawai adalah berkaitan soal penghakiman kerana ini akan menimbulkan soalan penting iaitu campur tangan dalam kebebasan kehakiman.
17. Sekali lagi apabila berucap semasa melancarkan buku “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh berkata, antara lain, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” (Prinsip Perlembagaan yang penting sudahpun termaktub oleh itu tidak timbul soal kedudukan kehakiman di bawah Perlembagaan. Tetapi baru-baru ini perlindungan ini telah menjadi satu isu dan kebebasan kita ternampak seolah-olah sedang dicabar) Beliau menambah, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….” (Ini terhasil daripada sesetengah kenyataan yang dibuat baru-baru ini yang telah benar-benar memalukan badan kehakiman. Kenyataan tersebut bukan sahaja mempersoalkan keberkecualian dan kebebasan kita, tetapi juga nilai badan kehakiman sebagai sebuah institusi…tidak semestinya keputusan mahkamah harus sentiasa menyebelahi Kerajaan)
18. Selain itu beliau menyambung, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.” (Masalah mengekalkan kebebasan kehakiman dibuat lebih rumit kerana badan kehakiman adalah yang paling lemah diantara ketiga-tiga cabang Kerajaan).
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.” (Apa yang penting untuk selamatkan system ini daripada malapetaka ialah kita para hakim mesti bertindak dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan hormat dan tidak dipengaruhi tindakan gelojoh yang mungkin akan memburukkan lagi keadaan)
20. Kedua-dua ucapan tersebut disampaikan pada 1hb Ogos 1987 dan 12hb Januari 1988. Tetapi surat Tun Salleh kepada YDP Agong bertarikh 26hb Mac 1988. Seperti yang saya nyatakan tadi adalah tidak benar beliau tidak bercakap berkenaan tuduhannya terhadap Kerajaan di hadapan khalayak ramai hanya kerana dia mempertahankan yang “tindakan tersebut tidak bersesuaian dengan kedudukan kami sebagai hakim di bawah Perlembagaan” dan “oleh itu adalah lebih baik kami bersabar demi kepentingan Negara”.
21. Semua kenyataannya di dalam dua ucapan yang disampaikan jelas mengandungi kecamannya terhadap Perdana Menteri dan Kerajaan, jauh lebih lama sebelum dianya menulis surat kepada YDP Agong.
22. Satu lagi perkara yang dibangkitkan di dalam suratnya kepada YDP Agong ialah “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.” [tuduhan-tuduhan dan kenyataan-kenyataan yang dibuat telah memalukan kami dan telah meninggalkan kesan kekacauan mental sehinggakan kami tidak dapat menjalankan tugas kami dengan tertib dan teratur].
23. Di bawah Seksyen 125 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, klausa (3) peruntukan untuk memecat hakim, selain daripada salahlaku termasuk ketidakupayaan tubuh badan atau pemikiran atau lain lain sebab, untuk menjalankan tugas-tugas jawatan dengan saksama.
24. Tun Salleh sendiri mengakui yang beliau tidak terdaya untuk melakukan tugas-tugasnya dengan teratur dan tertib. Oleh itu beliau tidak layak untuk terus menjadi hakim.
25. Seksyen 125, klausa 4 memperuntukkan kuasa YDP Agong melantik Tribunal dan boleh atas nasihat Tribunal menyingkirkan hakim daripada kedudukannya.
26. Kedua-dua surat daripada Tun Salleh dianggap YDP Agong sebagai tidak sesuai dan menghina terutamanya kerana salinannya dihantar kepada Raja-Raja Melayu lain.
27. Di dalam salah satu daripada mesyuarat mingguan saya dengan YDP Agong, baginda telah menyatakan ketidak puasan hatinya terhadap surat-surat tersebut dan telah meminta saya menyingkir Tun Salleh Abas daripada jawtan Ketua Hakim Negara. Baginda telah menulis sendiri permintaan baginda di ruangan tepi (margin) surat pertama Tun Salleh berkenaan dengan bunyi bising daripada kerja-kerja yang sedang dijalankan di kediaman YDP Agong.
28. Bagi YDP Agong ianya adalah perkara mudah. Baginda yang melantik Ketua Hakim dan mempunyai hak untuk menyingkirkan beliau. Saya fikir adalah lebih baik bagi saya merujuk perkara ini ke Kabinet dan nasihat Peguam Negara didapati.
29. Saya mengaku rungutan Tun Salleh terhadap saya di dalam suratnya juga menimbulkan ketidak puasan hati saya. Adalah benar yang saya telah mengkritik hakim-hakim kerana mentafsir undang-undang yang dilulus Kerajaan yang tidak menepati matlamat atau objektif undang-undang itu. Saya ada mencadangkan bahawa jika undang-undang yang ditafsirkan berlainan lain daripada matlamat asal sepertimana yang Kerajaan dan penggubal undang-undang harapkan, maka undang-undang tersebut akan dipinda. Di dalam satu mesyuarat Kabinet saya berseloroh dengan memetik kata-kata Shakespeare, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” (Pertama sekali kita gantung semua peguam). Hanya orang yang dungu sahaja akan mengambil bulat-bulat apa yang saya katakan. Tetapi rupa-rupanya para peguam dan hakim telah merasa tersinggung akan apa yang saya kata dan telah menganggap saya sebagai musuh mereka (yang akan menggantung mereka agaknya!).
30. Saya juga telah mengkritik hakim kerana menggubal undang-undang sendiri menerusi tafsiran mereka dan kemudiannya mengguna tafsiran mereka untuk rujukan. Saya percaya pemisahan kuasa bermakna penggubal undang-undang akan menggubal undang-undang manakala hakim akan menggunapakai undang-undang tersebut. Sudah tentu jika undang-undang digubal melanggar peruntukan perlembagaan, yang merupakan undang-undang tertinggi Negara, maka hakim bolehlah menolaknya.
31. Didapati juga sesetengah hakim menolak membicarakan kes-kes melibat hukuman mati, dan diserah secara tidak adil kepada hakim-hakim lain.
32. Kebanyakan pakar undang-undang berpendapat “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Tidak salah bagi sesiapa samada dianya orang awam atau ahli pentadbiran untuk mengkritik kehakiman. Keadilan bukan kesucian yang terkurung) - Peter Aldridge Williams QC
33. Penulis di atas juga telah memetik McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it” (Tidak ada perbezaan di antara hakim dan orang ramai kecuali yang satu mentadbir undang-undang dan yang satu lagi menerima kesannya).
34. Tetapi Tun Salleh berpendapat bahawa saya cuba menghakis kebebasan kehakiman apabila saya menyatakan pandangan saya bagaimana hakim mengecewakan matlamat asal penggubal undang-undang.
35. Menerusi pelbagai sumber saya dengar akan kemarahan hakim-hakim terhadap saya. Tetapi saya tidak mengambil apa-apa tindakan, jauh sekali untuk menyingkir Tun Salleh. Saya hanya bertindak apabila YDP Agong menyatakan rasa tidak puas hati berkenaan dua surat tersebut.
36. Kabinet bersetuju yang peruntukan perlembagaan haruslah dipatuhi. Oleh itu saya telahpun menasihatkan YDP Agong bahawa Tun Salleh hanya boleh disingkir jika YDP Agong melantik Tribunal untuk mendengar segala rungutan terhadapnya (Tun Salleh) dan membuat cadangan kepada YDP Agong.
37. Selepas YDP Agong bersetuju, Kerajaan memilih enam hakim dan bekas hakim untuk pertimbangan YDP Agong. Ahlinya termasuk hakim Negara asing yang diwakili Yang Arif Hakim K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Ketua Hakim Sri Lanka dan Yang Arif Hakim T.S. Sinnathuray, Hakim Kanan Mahkamah Agong Singapura.
38. Pengerusi tribunal ialah Hakim Besar (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. Lain-lain ahli terdiri daripada Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Hakim Besar (Borneo) dan dua orang bekas hakim iaitu Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain dan Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail.
39. Penyertaan hakim asing adalah untuk mempastikan yang tribunal tidak mengambil sikap berat sebelah.
40. Malangnya Tun Salleh Abas enggan hadir di hadapan Tribunal. Sebaliknya dia mengharapkan yang rakan-rakannya akan cuba untuk menghalang keputusan Tribunal daripada disampaikan kepada YDP Agong.
41. Apa yang dilakukan kelima-lima hakim yang bersimpati kepadanya sudah tentu melanggar apa yang Tun Salleh utarakan semasa berucap di majlis pelancaran “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend” apabila dia berkata; “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation” (kita para hakim mesti bertindak dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan terhormat dan tidak dipengaruhi tindakan gelojoh yang mungkin akan memburukkan lagi keadaan).
42. Kelima-lima hakim tersebut telah mengenepikan peraturan dan prosidur dan keperluan untuk mendapat kelulusan Pemangku Ketua Hakim, disamping menunggu keputusan Hakim Ajaib Singh di atas perkara yang sama. Sebaliknya mereka membatalkan persidangan mahkamah di Kota Bahru yang telah dijadualkan untuk mereka dan telah mngadakan persidangan Mahkamah Agong di Kuala Lumpur untuk mendengar aplikasi Tun Salleh Abbas untuk mengenepikan prosiding bagi menentukan kedudukannya.
43. Lima hakim Mahkamah Agong yang diketuai Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman mendengar aplikasi ex-parte oleh peguam Tun Salleh, berehat seketika, dan kemudiannya kembali dan sebulat suara mengeluarkan arahan menghentikan Tribunal daripada menyerahkan apa-apa cadangan, laporan atau nasihat berkenaan siasatan kepada YDP Agong.
44. Berikutan itu, pemangku Ketua Hakim telah menubuhkan satu panel lima hakim Mahkamah Agong untuk mengenepikan keputusan Mahkamah Wan Suleiman.
45. Saya ingin ulangi yang walaupun Tun Salleh mengkritik saya secara terbuka, saya tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadapnya. Saya hanya berbuat demikian setelah dia menghina YDP Agong dan baginda meminta supaya dianya disingkirkan. Tentulah akan ada yang berkata bahawa saya telah mempengaruhi YDP Agong. Tetapi selama 22 tahun saya tidak pernah melibatkan Raja-Raja di dalam politik atau masalah peribadi. Rekod tertera untuk sesiapa menelitinya.
46. Saya amat mengambil berat terhadap penyingkiran Tun Salleh secara paksa. Saya telah cuba dapatkan Tun Salleh untuk meletak jawatan bagi mengelak sebarang skandal. Pada mulanya dia bersetuju, tetapi telah menarik balik keesokan harinya.
47. Saya telah mendapatkan kelulusan keahlian Tribunal. Saya telah mendapat nasihat Peguam Negara dan pihak lain yang rapat dengan hakim-hakim. Setelah Tribunal ditubuhkan, penglibatan saya berakhir.
48. Apabila Tun Salleh dan hakim-hakim yang lain diberhentikan perkhidmatan mereka, mereka tidak sepatutnya menerima pencen. Tetapi selepas menerima rayuan Peguam Negara, saya bersetuju yang mereka dibayar pencen penuh. Mereka tidak mengalami apa-apa kerugian wang ringgit dan pencen mereka dikira daripada tarikh mereka meninggalkan jawatan.
49. Inilah fakta bekaitan penyingkiran Tun Salleh. Beliau dan rakan-rakan hakimnyalah yang telah membawa penghinaan kepada badan kehakiman.
50. Saya menulis untuk merekodkan peristiwa sebagaimana ianya berlaku. Saya tidak harap pengkritik saya akan berhenti menuduh saya menghancurkan badan kehakiman. Mereka pendakwa saya dan mereka juga adalah hakim saya. Bagi mereka saya tetap Idi Amin Malaysia sebagaimana yang di dakwa Tun Salleh di dalam bukunya “May Day for Justice”. Malangnya ramai yang begitu tersedia mengutuk saya terdiri daripada hakim-hakim.
1. When the Government gave ex-gratia payments to the judges involved in the Tun Salleh Abas removal as the Lord President of Malaysian courts, the question that needs to be answered is whether it is because of Government regrets over something that happened not during the period this Government was in power or is it because of a desperate attempt to win support after the disastrous results of the election of 2008.
2. Had the present Government felt regret, it should have paid ex-gratia payment (for want of a better term) upon achieving power. But obviously it only felt regret lately, after its brand new de facto Minister of Law, who incidentally was suspended for money politics, suggested the move in order to win the approval of the Bar Council.
3. But what was at the back of this political feeling of guilt by this Government. Was it because of the injustice done? Or was something unfair and unlawful committed by the previous Government.
4. Most people know about Tun Salleh’s dismissal but few care to find out what really happened. Some believe that the action against Tun Salleh was because he had proposed a panel of 12 judges to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings that UMNO was an illegal organisation. Others believe it was because he was biased against UMNO in his judgements.
5. None of these is true. Tun Salleh had not been biased against the Government. He dismissed the application by Lim Kit Siang in the case involving UEM and the Government, for an interim injunction made by a lower court in a lengthy judgement made by him as President of the Supreme Court. In numerous other cases his judgement favoured the Government. As to the panel to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings, a bigger panel could actually be good for UMNO, which wanted nothing more than the validation of the election results making me President and Ghafar Baba Deputy President. Whether the panel rejects or approves Judge Harun’s decision, UMNO and UMNO Baru would not be affected.
6. The truth is that the case against Tun Salleh was triggered by his letters to the Yang di Pertuan Agong which were considered by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting to him.
7. In his first letter Tun Salleh had written to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the noise made during some repair work at the Agong’s palace near Salleh’s house.
8. This alone can be considered as very improper. A man as senior as he was could have asked to see the Agong and verbally informed him about the noise.
9. But to compound the act of les majesté he sent copies of his letter to the other rulers. This implied that he did not have faith in the Agong and wanted the other Rulers to apply pressure on him.
10. This was followed by another letter to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the behaviour of the executive i.e. the Prime Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers.
11. In this letter Tun Salleh said inter alia, “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.”
12. He went on to say in his 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.”
13. He asserted that he and all the judges “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
14. This statement was obviously untrue as before the letter was sent, in a speech at the University of Malaya when he was receiving his honorary doctorate, he complained about “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” inferring that this was not in keeping with “the rule of law” and that the “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed.”
15. He went on to say “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play than the roles played by the politicians.”
16. Further he said, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary.”
17. Again when making a speech at the launching of a book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh had said, among other things, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” He added, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….”
18. “Apart from this,” he continued, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.”
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
20. These two speeches were delivered on 1st August 1987 and 12th January 1988 respectively. But Tun Salleh’s letter to the King was dated 26th March 1988. As I pointed out earlier it is not true that he did not speak about his accusations against the Government in public because he maintains that “such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution” and that “it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
21. All his statements in these two speeches clearly contain his criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Government long before he wrote his letter to the King.
22. Another point raised in his letter to the Agong is that “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
23. In Section 125 of the Federal Constitution, under clause (3) the grounds for removing a judge, apart from misbehaviour include infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office.”
24. By his own admission Tun Salleh was not able “to discharge his functions orderly and properly.” He was therefore unfit to continue to be a judge.
25. Section 125, Clause 4 provides for “the Yang di Pertuan Agong to appoint a Tribunal …. and refer the representations to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.”
26. The two letters from Tun Salleh were regarded by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting particularly the copies sent to the other Rulers.
27. During one of my weekly meetings with the Agong, DYMM expressed his annoyance over the letters and simply requested that I dismiss Tun Salleh Abas from being the Lord President of the Malaysian Courts. He writes in his own handwriting his request on the margin of Tun Salleh’s first letter, regarding the noise made by the work on the Agong’s residence.
28. To the Agong it was a simple matter. He had appointed the Lord President and therefore he was entitled to remove him. I thought it was best for me to inform Cabinet and seek the advice of the Attorney-General.
29. I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in accordance with the intention or objective of the laws. I did suggest that if the laws were interpreted differently from what the Government and the legislators intended, then we would amend the laws. During a cabinet meeting I had in jest quoted Shakespeare’s words, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” Only a nitwit would think that I meant what I said literally. But apparently lawyers and judges took umbrage over what I said and regarded me as their enemy (about to hang them, I suppose).
30. I also criticised judges for making laws themselves through their interpretations and subsequently citing these as their authority. I believed that the separation of powers meant the Legislators make laws and the judiciary apply them. Of course if the laws made by the legislators breach the provisions of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, then judges can reject them.
31. Again some judges simply refused to hear cases involving the death penalty, pushing these unfairly on to other judges.
32. It is the view of most jurists that “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Peter Aldridge Williams QC).
33. The above writer quoted McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it.”
34. Yet Tun Salleh took the view that I was subverting the independence of the judiciary when I expressed views on how judges frustrated the objectives of the legislators.
35. Through the grapevine I heard of the judges’ displeasure with me. But I did not take any action, certainly not to remove Tun Salleh. I only acted after the Agong complained about the two letters.
36. The Cabinet agreed that we must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Constitution. I therefore advised the Agong that Tun Salleh could not be removed unless the Agong appoints a Tribunal to hear the complaints against him and make recommendations to the Agong.
37. Upon the Agong agreeing, the Government selected six judges and former judges for His Majesty to consider. The members included foreign judges in the person of the Honourable the Justice K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Chief Justice Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Honourable Mr Justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
38. The Chairman was the Chief Judge (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. The other members were Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Chief Justice (Borneo), Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain, Retired Judge and Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail, Retired Judge.
39. The inclusion of foreign judges was to make sure the Tribunal would not be biased.
40. It is unfortunate that Tun Salleh Abas refused to appear before the Tribunal. Instead he depended on his colleagues to try to prevent the findings of the Tribunal from reaching the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
41. What the five judges who were sympathetic to him did was certainly not in keeping with Tun Salleh’s expressed views in his talk during the launching of the book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend, “when he said “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
42. The five judges had ignored rules and procedures and the requirement to get the approval of the (Acting) Lord President, as well as wait for the findings by Mr Justice Ajaib Singh on the same matter. Instead they cancelled courts sittings in Kota Bahru which were scheduled for the judges, and held a sitting of the Supreme Court in Kuala Lumpur to hear an application by Tun Salleh Abbas for prohibition proceedings to determine his position.
43. The Supreme Court of five judges with Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman presiding heard an ex parte oral application by Tun Salleh’s lawyer, retired for a few minutes, returned and unanimously made an order for stay restraining the Tribunal from submitting any recommendations, report or advice respecting the enquiry to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong until further order.
44. Subsequently the Acting Lord President, set up a Supreme Court of five judges which negated the decision of the Wan Suleiman Court.
45. I would like to repeat that despite public criticisms made against me by Tun Salleh, I did not take any action against him. I only did so after he insulted the Agong and the Agong requested me to have him removed. Of course some would still say I influenced the Agong. But throughout my 22 years I had never involved the rulers in politics or my personal problems. The records are there for all to see.
46. I was very concerned over the forcible removal of Tun Salleh. And so I tried to get Tun Salleh to resign on his own so as to avoid a scandal. He agreed at first but he withdrew the following day.
47. I then went about getting the Tribunal approved and set up. Naturally I had to consult the Attorney-General and others who were familiar with judges. Once the Tribunal was set up my involvement ended.
48. When Tun Salleh and the other judges had their services terminated, they should not be paid their pensions. But following appeals by Attorney-General I agreed that they should be paid their full pensions. They therefore did not suffer any financial loss and their pensions were computed from the time they left.
49. These are the facts relating to the dismissal of Tun Salleh. It was he and his fellow judges who brought disrepute to the judiciary.
50. I write this to record things as they happened. I do not expect my detractors to stop saying that I destroyed the judiciary. They are my prosecutors and they are also my judges. To them I will always be the Idi Amin of Malaysia as claimed in Tun Salleh’s book “May Day for Justice”. Sadly many who so readily condemn me were judges.
KISAH TUN SALLEH
1. Apabila Kerajaan memberi bayaran ex-gratia kepada para hakim yang terlibat di dalam penyingkiran Tun Salleh Abas sebagai Ketua Hakim Mahkamah Malaysia, persoalan yang perlu dijawab ialah adakah ianya kerana Kerajaan kesal terhadap sesuatu yang berlaku di zaman sebelum Kerajaan ini berkuasa atau adakah ianya langkah terdesak untuk mengembalikan sokongan selepas keputusan buruk Pilihanraya Umum 2008.
2. Jika Kerajaan hari ini merasa kesal, bayaran ex-gratia (memandangkan tiada lagi perkataan yang lebih sesuai) sepatutnya dibuat selepas ianya mula berkuasa. Jelas sekali ia hanya merasa kesal baru-baru ini, selepas Menteri baru yang dipertanggungjwabkan ke atas hal-ehwal kehakiman (yang juga pernah digantung kerana penglibatan dalam politik wang) mencadangkannya sebagai langkah untuk memenangi hati Majlis Peguam.
3. Tetapi apakah yang menyebabkan perasaan kesal “politik” di pihak Kerajaan ini? Adakah kerana berlaku ketidak adilan? Atau adakah Kerajaan yang sebelumnya berlaku berat sebelah atau melanggar undang-undang?
4. Kebanyakan orang tahu tentang penyingkiran Tun Salleh tetapi tidak ramai yang mengambil berat tentang apa yang sebenarnya berlaku. Sesetengah pihak percaya yang tindakan terhadap Tun Salleh disebabkan cadangannya membentuk panel 12 hakim untuk mendengar rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Harun Hashim yang telah mendapati UMNO sebagai sebuah organisasi haram. Ada pihak lain yang percaya ianya kerana beliau tidak menyebelahi UMNO di dalam penghakimannya.
5. Tidak ada satu pun yang benar. Tun Salleh tidak berat sebelah terhadap Kerajaan. Dia telah menolak permohonan Lim Kit Siang di dalam kes yang melibatkan UEM dan Kerajaan, terhadap injunksi sementara yang dibuat mahkamah rendah di dalam keputusan penghakiman yang panjang yang dibuat olehnya sebagai Presiden Mahkamah Agong (sekarang Mahkamah Persekutuan). Di dalam kes-kes lain penghakiman beliau banyak berpihak kepada Kerajaan. Berkenaan dengan panel untuk mendengar rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Harun Hashim, panel yang lebih besar mungkin lebih baik bagi UMNO yang hanya mahukan pengesahan keputusan pemilihan yang akan menjadikan saya Presiden dan (Tun) Ghafar Baba Timbalan Presiden. Samada panel menolak atau menerima keputusan Hakim Harun, ianya tidak akan memberi kesan terhadap UMNO dan UMNO Baru.
6. Sebenarnya kes terhadap Tun Salleh tercetus kerana surat-suratnya kepada Yang di Pertuan Agong yang baginda anggap melanggar tatasusila serta menghina.
7. Di dalam surat pertamanya, Tun Salleh telah menulis kepada DYMM YDP Agong untuk mengadu berkenaan bunyi bising kerana kerja-kerja baikpulih di Istana YDP Agong yang terletak berdekatan dengan rumah Tun Salleh.
8. Ini sahaja boleh dianggap melanggar tatasusila. Seseorang yang begitu kanan kedudukannya boleh meminta izin untuk mengadap YDP Agong dan menyampaikan aduannya secara lisan.
9. Untuk memburukkan lagi perbuatan menghina Istana dia telah menghantar salinan suratnya kepada Raja-Raja lain. Ini seolah-olah menunjukkan yang dia tidak punyai keyakinan terhadap YDP Agong dan menghendakkan Raja-Raja Melayu lain untuk mengadakan tekanan terhadap YDP Agong.
10. Ini kemudiannya disusuli dengan satu lagi surat kepada YDP Agong yang mengadu berkenaan tindak-tanduk eksekutif iaitu Perdana Menteri. Salinan surat ini juga telah dihantar kepada Raja-Raja.
11. Di dalam surat ini, Tun Salleh telah menyatakan antara lain; “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.” [Kami (para hakim) kecewa dengan pelbagai kenyataan dan tuduhan yang dibuat Perdana Menteri terhadap badan kehakiman bukan sahaja di luar malahan di dalam Parlimen]
12. Dia seterusnya berkata di dalam suratnya “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.” [tuduhan-tuduhan dan kenyataan-kenyataan yang dibuat telah memalukan kami semua dan telah meninggalkan kesan kekacauan mental sehinggakan kami tidak dapat menjalankan tugas kami dengan tertib dan teratur].
13. Dia menegaskan yang dia dan para hakim semua “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.” [tidak mahu membalas secara terbuka tuduhan kerana tindakan tersebut tidak bersesuaian dengan kedudukan kami sebagai hakim di bawah Perlembagaan…dan oleh itu adalah lebih baik kami bersabar demi kepentingan Negara].
14. Kenyataan ini nyata tidak benar kerana sebelum surat tersebut diutuskan, di dalam satu ucapan di Universiti Malaya di mana dia dianugerah ijazah doktor kehormat, dia telah merungut berkenaan “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” (badan kehakiman ditempatkan di bawah kategori perkhidmatan sosial) dengan membuat kesimpulan bahawa ini tidak bertepatan dengan “the rule of law” (kedaulatan undang-undang) dan oleh itu “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed” (keutamaan mahkamah harus diperbetulkan agar kebebasan dijamin dan kerja tidak terganggu).
15. Dia seterusnya berkata “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play then the roles played by the politicians” (pegawai perkhidmatan awam iaitu para hakim tidak memainkan peranan yang kurang pentingnya berbanding yang dimainkan ahli politik).
16. Beliau juga berkata, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary” (Keadaan ini diburukkan lagi jika hak yang terlibat dalam keputusan yang dibuat para pegawai adalah berkaitan soal penghakiman kerana ini akan menimbulkan soalan penting iaitu campur tangan dalam kebebasan kehakiman.
17. Sekali lagi apabila berucap semasa melancarkan buku “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh berkata, antara lain, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” (Prinsip Perlembagaan yang penting sudahpun termaktub oleh itu tidak timbul soal kedudukan kehakiman di bawah Perlembagaan. Tetapi baru-baru ini perlindungan ini telah menjadi satu isu dan kebebasan kita ternampak seolah-olah sedang dicabar) Beliau menambah, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….” (Ini terhasil daripada sesetengah kenyataan yang dibuat baru-baru ini yang telah benar-benar memalukan badan kehakiman. Kenyataan tersebut bukan sahaja mempersoalkan keberkecualian dan kebebasan kita, tetapi juga nilai badan kehakiman sebagai sebuah institusi…tidak semestinya keputusan mahkamah harus sentiasa menyebelahi Kerajaan)
18. Selain itu beliau menyambung, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.” (Masalah mengekalkan kebebasan kehakiman dibuat lebih rumit kerana badan kehakiman adalah yang paling lemah diantara ketiga-tiga cabang Kerajaan).
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.” (Apa yang penting untuk selamatkan system ini daripada malapetaka ialah kita para hakim mesti bertindak dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan hormat dan tidak dipengaruhi tindakan gelojoh yang mungkin akan memburukkan lagi keadaan)
20. Kedua-dua ucapan tersebut disampaikan pada 1hb Ogos 1987 dan 12hb Januari 1988. Tetapi surat Tun Salleh kepada YDP Agong bertarikh 26hb Mac 1988. Seperti yang saya nyatakan tadi adalah tidak benar beliau tidak bercakap berkenaan tuduhannya terhadap Kerajaan di hadapan khalayak ramai hanya kerana dia mempertahankan yang “tindakan tersebut tidak bersesuaian dengan kedudukan kami sebagai hakim di bawah Perlembagaan” dan “oleh itu adalah lebih baik kami bersabar demi kepentingan Negara”.
21. Semua kenyataannya di dalam dua ucapan yang disampaikan jelas mengandungi kecamannya terhadap Perdana Menteri dan Kerajaan, jauh lebih lama sebelum dianya menulis surat kepada YDP Agong.
22. Satu lagi perkara yang dibangkitkan di dalam suratnya kepada YDP Agong ialah “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.” [tuduhan-tuduhan dan kenyataan-kenyataan yang dibuat telah memalukan kami dan telah meninggalkan kesan kekacauan mental sehinggakan kami tidak dapat menjalankan tugas kami dengan tertib dan teratur].
23. Di bawah Seksyen 125 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, klausa (3) peruntukan untuk memecat hakim, selain daripada salahlaku termasuk ketidakupayaan tubuh badan atau pemikiran atau lain lain sebab, untuk menjalankan tugas-tugas jawatan dengan saksama.
24. Tun Salleh sendiri mengakui yang beliau tidak terdaya untuk melakukan tugas-tugasnya dengan teratur dan tertib. Oleh itu beliau tidak layak untuk terus menjadi hakim.
25. Seksyen 125, klausa 4 memperuntukkan kuasa YDP Agong melantik Tribunal dan boleh atas nasihat Tribunal menyingkirkan hakim daripada kedudukannya.
26. Kedua-dua surat daripada Tun Salleh dianggap YDP Agong sebagai tidak sesuai dan menghina terutamanya kerana salinannya dihantar kepada Raja-Raja Melayu lain.
27. Di dalam salah satu daripada mesyuarat mingguan saya dengan YDP Agong, baginda telah menyatakan ketidak puasan hatinya terhadap surat-surat tersebut dan telah meminta saya menyingkir Tun Salleh Abas daripada jawtan Ketua Hakim Negara. Baginda telah menulis sendiri permintaan baginda di ruangan tepi (margin) surat pertama Tun Salleh berkenaan dengan bunyi bising daripada kerja-kerja yang sedang dijalankan di kediaman YDP Agong.
28. Bagi YDP Agong ianya adalah perkara mudah. Baginda yang melantik Ketua Hakim dan mempunyai hak untuk menyingkirkan beliau. Saya fikir adalah lebih baik bagi saya merujuk perkara ini ke Kabinet dan nasihat Peguam Negara didapati.
29. Saya mengaku rungutan Tun Salleh terhadap saya di dalam suratnya juga menimbulkan ketidak puasan hati saya. Adalah benar yang saya telah mengkritik hakim-hakim kerana mentafsir undang-undang yang dilulus Kerajaan yang tidak menepati matlamat atau objektif undang-undang itu. Saya ada mencadangkan bahawa jika undang-undang yang ditafsirkan berlainan lain daripada matlamat asal sepertimana yang Kerajaan dan penggubal undang-undang harapkan, maka undang-undang tersebut akan dipinda. Di dalam satu mesyuarat Kabinet saya berseloroh dengan memetik kata-kata Shakespeare, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” (Pertama sekali kita gantung semua peguam). Hanya orang yang dungu sahaja akan mengambil bulat-bulat apa yang saya katakan. Tetapi rupa-rupanya para peguam dan hakim telah merasa tersinggung akan apa yang saya kata dan telah menganggap saya sebagai musuh mereka (yang akan menggantung mereka agaknya!).
30. Saya juga telah mengkritik hakim kerana menggubal undang-undang sendiri menerusi tafsiran mereka dan kemudiannya mengguna tafsiran mereka untuk rujukan. Saya percaya pemisahan kuasa bermakna penggubal undang-undang akan menggubal undang-undang manakala hakim akan menggunapakai undang-undang tersebut. Sudah tentu jika undang-undang digubal melanggar peruntukan perlembagaan, yang merupakan undang-undang tertinggi Negara, maka hakim bolehlah menolaknya.
31. Didapati juga sesetengah hakim menolak membicarakan kes-kes melibat hukuman mati, dan diserah secara tidak adil kepada hakim-hakim lain.
32. Kebanyakan pakar undang-undang berpendapat “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Tidak salah bagi sesiapa samada dianya orang awam atau ahli pentadbiran untuk mengkritik kehakiman. Keadilan bukan kesucian yang terkurung) - Peter Aldridge Williams QC
33. Penulis di atas juga telah memetik McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it” (Tidak ada perbezaan di antara hakim dan orang ramai kecuali yang satu mentadbir undang-undang dan yang satu lagi menerima kesannya).
34. Tetapi Tun Salleh berpendapat bahawa saya cuba menghakis kebebasan kehakiman apabila saya menyatakan pandangan saya bagaimana hakim mengecewakan matlamat asal penggubal undang-undang.
35. Menerusi pelbagai sumber saya dengar akan kemarahan hakim-hakim terhadap saya. Tetapi saya tidak mengambil apa-apa tindakan, jauh sekali untuk menyingkir Tun Salleh. Saya hanya bertindak apabila YDP Agong menyatakan rasa tidak puas hati berkenaan dua surat tersebut.
36. Kabinet bersetuju yang peruntukan perlembagaan haruslah dipatuhi. Oleh itu saya telahpun menasihatkan YDP Agong bahawa Tun Salleh hanya boleh disingkir jika YDP Agong melantik Tribunal untuk mendengar segala rungutan terhadapnya (Tun Salleh) dan membuat cadangan kepada YDP Agong.
37. Selepas YDP Agong bersetuju, Kerajaan memilih enam hakim dan bekas hakim untuk pertimbangan YDP Agong. Ahlinya termasuk hakim Negara asing yang diwakili Yang Arif Hakim K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Ketua Hakim Sri Lanka dan Yang Arif Hakim T.S. Sinnathuray, Hakim Kanan Mahkamah Agong Singapura.
38. Pengerusi tribunal ialah Hakim Besar (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. Lain-lain ahli terdiri daripada Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Hakim Besar (Borneo) dan dua orang bekas hakim iaitu Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain dan Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail.
39. Penyertaan hakim asing adalah untuk mempastikan yang tribunal tidak mengambil sikap berat sebelah.
40. Malangnya Tun Salleh Abas enggan hadir di hadapan Tribunal. Sebaliknya dia mengharapkan yang rakan-rakannya akan cuba untuk menghalang keputusan Tribunal daripada disampaikan kepada YDP Agong.
41. Apa yang dilakukan kelima-lima hakim yang bersimpati kepadanya sudah tentu melanggar apa yang Tun Salleh utarakan semasa berucap di majlis pelancaran “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend” apabila dia berkata; “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation” (kita para hakim mesti bertindak dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan terhormat dan tidak dipengaruhi tindakan gelojoh yang mungkin akan memburukkan lagi keadaan).
42. Kelima-lima hakim tersebut telah mengenepikan peraturan dan prosidur dan keperluan untuk mendapat kelulusan Pemangku Ketua Hakim, disamping menunggu keputusan Hakim Ajaib Singh di atas perkara yang sama. Sebaliknya mereka membatalkan persidangan mahkamah di Kota Bahru yang telah dijadualkan untuk mereka dan telah mngadakan persidangan Mahkamah Agong di Kuala Lumpur untuk mendengar aplikasi Tun Salleh Abbas untuk mengenepikan prosiding bagi menentukan kedudukannya.
43. Lima hakim Mahkamah Agong yang diketuai Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman mendengar aplikasi ex-parte oleh peguam Tun Salleh, berehat seketika, dan kemudiannya kembali dan sebulat suara mengeluarkan arahan menghentikan Tribunal daripada menyerahkan apa-apa cadangan, laporan atau nasihat berkenaan siasatan kepada YDP Agong.
44. Berikutan itu, pemangku Ketua Hakim telah menubuhkan satu panel lima hakim Mahkamah Agong untuk mengenepikan keputusan Mahkamah Wan Suleiman.
45. Saya ingin ulangi yang walaupun Tun Salleh mengkritik saya secara terbuka, saya tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadapnya. Saya hanya berbuat demikian setelah dia menghina YDP Agong dan baginda meminta supaya dianya disingkirkan. Tentulah akan ada yang berkata bahawa saya telah mempengaruhi YDP Agong. Tetapi selama 22 tahun saya tidak pernah melibatkan Raja-Raja di dalam politik atau masalah peribadi. Rekod tertera untuk sesiapa menelitinya.
46. Saya amat mengambil berat terhadap penyingkiran Tun Salleh secara paksa. Saya telah cuba dapatkan Tun Salleh untuk meletak jawatan bagi mengelak sebarang skandal. Pada mulanya dia bersetuju, tetapi telah menarik balik keesokan harinya.
47. Saya telah mendapatkan kelulusan keahlian Tribunal. Saya telah mendapat nasihat Peguam Negara dan pihak lain yang rapat dengan hakim-hakim. Setelah Tribunal ditubuhkan, penglibatan saya berakhir.
48. Apabila Tun Salleh dan hakim-hakim yang lain diberhentikan perkhidmatan mereka, mereka tidak sepatutnya menerima pencen. Tetapi selepas menerima rayuan Peguam Negara, saya bersetuju yang mereka dibayar pencen penuh. Mereka tidak mengalami apa-apa kerugian wang ringgit dan pencen mereka dikira daripada tarikh mereka meninggalkan jawatan.
49. Inilah fakta bekaitan penyingkiran Tun Salleh. Beliau dan rakan-rakan hakimnyalah yang telah membawa penghinaan kepada badan kehakiman.
50. Saya menulis untuk merekodkan peristiwa sebagaimana ianya berlaku. Saya tidak harap pengkritik saya akan berhenti menuduh saya menghancurkan badan kehakiman. Mereka pendakwa saya dan mereka juga adalah hakim saya. Bagi mereka saya tetap Idi Amin Malaysia sebagaimana yang di dakwa Tun Salleh di dalam bukunya “May Day for Justice”. Malangnya ramai yang begitu tersedia mengutuk saya terdiri daripada hakim-hakim.
583 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 583 of 583Salam Tun,
Bersyukur dengan segala keterangan Tun dengan sejelas-jelasnya menjawab berbagai soalan yang bermain di fikiran saya selama ini. Maka kini terjawablah tentang kepincangan didalam `judiciary system' kita yang mana para hakim menganggap diri mereka itu lebih supreme dari yang supreme.
Masyaallah Tun, adakah patut seorang islam yang memegang kuasa didalam mahkamah tergamak untuk melakukan perkara-perkara yang melanggar etika seorang islam. Lupakah mereka bahawa salah satu daripada tujuh dosa besar adalah apabila menjadi pemimpin, mereka menjadi pemimpin yang zalim.
Bukankah satu kezaliman bagi Tun Salleh yang memegang tampuk undang-undang cuba menutup lubang kelemahan beliau dengan mempolitikkan isu pemecatan beliau. Sanggup beliau mengaitkan Tun yang nyata tidak ada kena mengena dengan hal tersebut. DSAI pun menuduh Tun sebegitu, cuma setelah beliau dipecat dari kerajaan dan UMNO. Saya percaya beliau pun tahu hal yang sebenarnya.
Yang peliknya Tun, Tun Salleh telah memasuki S46 semata-mata mencari platfom untuk bercakap dan menafikan kesalahan yang kebanyakan orang ramai tidak tahu menahu puncanya. Dan hati ini, Sdr Zaid Ibrahim yang pernah digantung keahlian UMNO kerana politik wang, becakap seolah-olah beliau seorang yang bersih dari rasuah dan tulin mempertahankan Tun Salleh. Pak Lah menyokong beliau seratus peratus. Saya yakin dalam perbicaraan displin kelak, beliau akan lepas kerana pertama seorang menteri dan kedua beliau penyokong kuat Pak Lah.
Benarlah Tun, hari ini judiciary system di Malaysia benar-benar tidak bersih bukan kerana system tetapi orang-orang yang tidak bersih, bias dan desprado politik.
Yang herannya Kesetiaan kepada Raja tidak ada lansung kerana sebagai hakim atau peguam bolih mengatakan apa saja asalkan tidak contempt kepada hakim yang presiding. Hakim tu adalah salah satu dari nama Allah swt.
Saya mendoakan kesejahteraan Tun sekeluarga dan teruskan membuka minda kami agar dapat kami meneruskan perjuangan orang-orang yang terdahulu dari kita, yang tidak pernah mengenal status dan wang ringgit.
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 1997 - 1998
By Nor Mohamed Yakcop (23rd. October, 2003)
No other Prime Minister in the world, either in developed or developing countries, employs such a hands-on approach in managing the economy. We can see, therefore, that it was not the exchange control measures per se that saved the country but the man — Dr. Mahathir Mohamad — himself.
The period 1997 - 1998 was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, the worst of times, but it was also the best of times. The worst conditions brought out the best in Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. There is a saying that a good leader is like good tea - you only know the true quality when he is in hot water !
Dr. Mahathir not only saved Malaysia but the neighbouring countries as well. Let me explain. When Malaysia imposed its exchange control measures on September 1, 1998, the currency speculators realised that the other affected countries (Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea) could also impose similar controls, and they, therefore, stopped their activities in its track. The speculators backed off. They bought back the currencies that they had sold. This is resulted in the regional currencies appreciating. Moreover, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was not happy with what Malaysia had done, particularly since, after implementing the measures, we did exactly the opposite of what the IMF wanted us to do, i.e. we lowered our interest rates and injected liquidity into the system. The IMF, therefore, started relaxing conditions in other countries and allowed them to lower their interest rates and allowed them to inject liquidity to stimulate their economies so that Malaysia would not outperform the IMF countries. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that Dr. Mahathir Mohamad not only saved Malaysia, but the other affected countries in the region as well - Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea.
On a personal note, over the last 6 years, I have come to admire this great man for his abilities, his high moral values and, most of all, for his sincerity. Certainly, a man like Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is not born everyday.
FOR FULL SCRIPT EXPLAINATION FROM DATO SERI NOR MOHAMED YAKCOP ABOUT FINANCIAL CRISIS IN 97-98 DO VISIT:
http://jebatmustdie.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/dictator-dollah-too-stupid-to-learn-any-lesson/
THE SCRIPT IS IN THE COMMENT SECTION!
Tun,
Keep up the good work. Please try to write an article per day at least so that the rakyat will be kept informed on the truths.
YAB Tun,
Now we know what transpired during those years.
God is great.
You are still healthy and strong for a reason and I am thankful to God Almighty for this.
As for the ex-gratia payments, even if you did not explain it is clear that Zaid is stupid and should lead anyone other than his law firm.
Thanks
Tun,
Tun sepatutnya siar dekat suratkh
abar dan bukannya citer disini , tak guna...
naper tun benar tun tak dakwa tun syabas abas di makamah,,,,,,,,
saya rasa tun bersalah...
Terima kasih kepada Tun kerana memberikan kesahihan kepada saya mengenai kes Tun Salleh Abas ni. Ternyata Pak Lah hanyalah menurut apa yang di katakan penasihatnya tanpa berfikir dan mendalami idea tersebut.
Salam Tun,
Kawan-kawan saya pernah berkata pada saya bahawa apa yang Tun cakap atau tulis pada mulanya ramai orang tak faham tapi setelah beberapa lama barulah orang tahu bahawa apa yang Tun cakap atau tulis itu satu kebenaran. Teruskan perjuangan.
www.megasutra.com
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, ada laporan akhbar bahawa Zaid Ibrahim mengalami "accident" di jalan raya ketika sedang hendak menghantar bayaran ex-gratia kepada bekas hakim. Lutut kanan Zaid Ibrahim "injured". Bahagian depan keretanya remok.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/6/nation/21474117&sec=nation
Jika niat seseorang itu baik, kerjanya lancar sahaja. Namun adakah Zaid Ibrahim akan mengambil iktibar dari "accident" ini. Menurut laporan itu lagi, "accident" ini tidak menghentikan Zaid Ibrahim dari meneruskan apa yang Abdullah Ahmad Badawi telah putuskan untuk membayar ex-gratia kepada Salleh Abbas dan lima lagi bekas hakim berkenaan.
I don't think there's anything you can do, for you were given ample time in the past to correct the wrongdoings on BN's corrupt culture. Its best for you to retire and rest your case.
Akum Tun
Cerita ini sudah begitu lama dipendam, tiada sapa tahu.
Sudah sampai masanya cerita ini didedahkan kerana ramai mengangap bahawa krisis kehakiman 1988 berpunca dari Tun.
Tun, bagi membolehkan perkara ini dikaji oleh sejarah pada masa hadapan,termasuk para akedemik, Tun mesti tulis buku atau memori dan masukan isu krisis kehakiman ini sabagai satu bab didalamnya.
dengan itu, ia tidak terhenti di dalam blog sahaja.
Jadi, perlukah wang rakyat dibazirkan untuk memberi ex gratia kepada hakim-hakim ini?
bekas kakitangan awam yang dipecat oleh lembaga tatatertib juga berhak mendapat ex gratia walaupun mereka bersalah.
orang yang bersalah patutu dihukum tetapi kerajaan kita memberi mereka wang.
Few things one can do.
Number 1, try talking sense to your neighbour
Number 2, call the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur if the problem persists
Number 3, make a police report
Number 4, take the neighbour to court
Bukankah rumah itu syurga ?
Baru faham Tun, apa yang berlaku.Sayang bumi yang bertuah ini jangan dihancurkan oleh manusia yang tidak bertanggungjawab.
Kepada Gelagat Niaga:
Terima kasih saudara telah menyedarkan saya kesensitiviti penggunaan nama samaran `antimamak' Walau bagaimanapun sekiranya nama samaran itu telah mengganggu emosi anda, nama samaran `antimamak' telah mengabikatkan anda marah dan rasa tidak tenang maka saya sanggup bermohon maaf dari saudara.
Terima kasih, saudara menyedarkan banyak melakukan solat dan doa Istikharah.... tetap saya akan lakukannya.
Sekian terima kasih
I believe this issue to be stale, lets concentrate on the national concerns and issues (eg. oil hike & ignorance of the administration) which severely affects the lives of every single Malaysians.
As a rule of democratic reforms, I expect major changes to UMNO/BN and its behaviour towards the Rakyat. Unfortunately we are still in the cesspool of their selfish vision.
Assalamualaikum Tun,
Tun Dr Mahathir memerintah di zaman saya sedang membesar. Banyak kenikmatan yang saya perolehi hasil dari fikiran bernas dan tindakan yang Tun lakukan untuk kami rakyat Malaysia.
Ramai yang puji, tapi ada juga yang mengutuk Tun. Pada saya, Tun dah macam ayah saya. Ayah yang TETAP MEMPERJUANGKAN YANG TERBAIK untuk anaknya, walau apa jua yang perlu dilakukan.
Hari ini (sebelum pak lah)..kita dapat rasa nikmat berkereta besar, membeli belah di gedung berjenama, menerima gaji yang agak selesa, bersosial dengan rakan dekat dan jauh, melancong dalam dan luar negara. Adakah dengan jalan yang mudah untuk seorang pemimpin menyediakan ini semua? ????? Saya yakin sangat, banyak keputusan yang SUNGGUH SUKAR terpaksa Tun buat untuk menyediakan ini semua untuk kami. Keputusan yang tak dapat tak akan kelihatan BERAT SEBELAH pada pihak2 tertentu.
Jadi saya tak kisah. Orang nak cakap Tun jahat ke, diktator ke, nak justice untuk TSA ke AI ke ape ke..yang saya tahu (dan saya rasa hampir seluruh rakyat Malaysia tahu) Tun buat apa pun keputusan yang Tun dah buat selama ni (samada baik atau pun buruk di mata mereka yang berkepentingan), adalah untuk kami, anak-anak Tun ni. Kalau betul pun Tun jahat seperti orang-orang berkepentingan ni dakwa, saya TAK KISAH!!
Sebab sebagai anak, saya tak akan lupa jasa budi bapa saya iaitu Tun menyediakan segala ini untuk kami, rakyat Malaysia.
Saya faham, dengan keadaan dan jawatan Tun yang berprofil tinggi, orang menunggu masa je melihat kesalahan Tun. Sikit je cukupla...diulang-ulang semacam barah. Segala penat lelah yang Tun buat untuk rakyat, tak pulak dicerita. Saya ragu orang-orang ‘hebat’ (termasuklah yang bagi komen mengutuk Tun) ini mampu memberikan kami sama seperti apa yang Tun sediakan untuk kami. Saya dapat rasa, mereka sendiri lupa akan jasa ayah ibu mereka dan tak hormat orang tua.
Tun ayah saya, dan saya tetap ingat dan sayang Tun sampai bila2. Semua pasal Tun saya akan cerita pada anak, cucu dan cicit saya, yang tak sempat nak rasa betapa indahnya hidup di bawah pemerintahan Tun.
Terima kasih beri saya peluang untuk meluahkan isi hati yang dah terbuku selama ni..
Syukur kepada Allah kerana pernah memberikan kami rakyat Malaysia pemerintah yang memahami keperluan rakyatnya..
arerain said... >>
..ini merupakan posting comments saya pertama di dalam website tun.
..apa yang mendukacitakan saya adalah sikap kepimpinan sekarang yang tidak mahu mendengar nasihat dan tunjuk ajr Tun dalam pemerintahan meraka.
..bagi pandangan saya cara pemerintahan Tun merupakan antara cara pemerintahan yang paling effektif didunia sekarang ini, jika dilihat kepada cabran cabaran yang dihadapati semasa pemerintahan Tun ianya adalah lebih dahsyat dibandingkan sekarang
..setiap kali saya membaca articles Tun saya pasti akan menitiskan air mata dengan komen komen oleh para pembaca blog Tun..
June 6, 2008 4:23 PM
same comment.. :)
Chedet, I think you should disable the comment moderation and accept whatever people write in response to your blog. Why be selective?
Assalamualaikum wb..
Dearest Ayahanda Tun,
Alhamdulillah. Finally you have decided to reveal the truth. I have written in my first few postings which requested that you reveal the truth. As you said, although many would have not believed you, it doesn't matter.
Nobody can please everyone. So, In The Name of Allah, just reveal THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH to us. We are your supporters who would believe you. If you can't convince those in denial, just let it be. No matter what you say, they will deny the truth. God knows what has really happened, that's the most important thing.
I have another request Tun, if you are reading this, please reveal the truth about Anwar Ibrahim's case. You have challenged him to court but until today, he has not retaliate. He placed himself as victim though many of us think we know the real story. So, Ayahanda Tun, please reveal the truth about him. Personally, many of us are worried of the possibility of him becoming the next Prime Minister. As claimed by Dr Chandra Muzaffar who was once his Deputy in PKR, Anwar is a dangerous man. Again, in the name of Allah, reveal to us about this man before he sells our nation and destroy the dignity of Malaysia.
We love this country too much to let it be sold by one miserable man and a man full of grudges. Some may think I am already passing judgement about Anwar, but I have heard some disappointing things about him which I strongly believe are true. So, I plead to you, before a bigger disaster than what we are having now happens in the near future, REVEAL THE X-FILE ABOUT ANWAR IBRAHIM. Please Tun do that..save us while you can from this man.You wouldn't have risk dismissing this man then, if he was innocent.
May Allah bless you and family always.
Love you Ayahanda Tun.
Happy Father's Day.
Orang Edgecumbe Road,
Penang.
I LOVE YOU TUN!!!!!!
Dear Tun,
My family and I are with you. I was born 52+ years ago right in the middle of what now is Telaga Harbour Park, where you The Loaf is. May God bless you Tun. May God giveth you the strength to keep writing to get our beloved Malaysia, which is aimless now, back on track. You are the source of our inspiration Tun. We love you.
Judicial independence means, in a nutshell, that the judiciary should decide matters a nd cases before it impartially on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law in each case, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences from the Executive or the Legislature or from private or and personal vendetta political interests. You had subjected the judiciary to Executive control during your tenure of office. Reading your statements, comments, explanations, I get the feeling that you are trying to project yourself as an angel, free from human foibles and failures. You are not the type of innocent, perfect human being as you want us believe, Tun! Your statements and verbal onslaughts and outbursts are reflective of your anger, odium, personal hatred and personal vendetta against the PM and his colleagues and some judges. In the twilight of your life, you should ask God Almighty for forgiveness of your sins and have peace of mind by not badmouthing people.You are getting lot of perks, allowances and pension from the government. hence be satisfied with it.
Abi
Dear Tun,
Pada saya penjelasan Tun ini amatlah jelas. Siapa yang Makan lada Biarlah dia rasa pedasnya. Tidak perlu ada orang yang mempertikaikan apa yang Tun lakukan. Cakap salah tak cakap salah. Tetapi adalah lebih baik dijelaskan, supaya semua yang bijak pandai dari hasil usaha Tun selama ini dengan biasiwa kerajaan dapat berfikir degan IQ tinggi masing masing, ia ke?
Pasal minyak tuh.. mana menteri-menteri kabinet tuh faham, diaorang, orang-orang senang, kereta pun kereta kerajaan. Orang kaya tak boleh memikirkan masalah orang miskin... kecuali mereka ambik cuti sebulan duduk dengan orang-orang yang macam dalam rancangan Bersama mu Kat TV3.. baru lah boleh rancang apa nak buat. And Pak lah kalau dah buat announcement tak popular tuh tak payah lah nak cakap-cakap lagi..ni macam meludah ke langit, tapi kena kat muka sendiri.
Tq Tun...
TUN, Reference to Paragraph 29: I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in accordance with the intention or objective of the laws
The crux of the differing viewpoints (between Tun & Salleh) that is the root cause of this sad saga can be settled if the relevant laws were disclosed and commented by impartial legal experts. If such legal comments are available, then they should be published to all to review.
More to the readers:
Seems like theres so much going wrong with the BN. I mean were's the rot coming from? I understand the much publicized issues with UMNO, and even more with MIC, but I can't help but wonder what's wrong with MCA? What do YOU think is wrong?
To be honest, I think it's the least misguided party in BN; but it does need to refocus on what it is set up to do in the first place.
What would YOU do if you led them?
YABhg Tun,
Vision 2020 has been derailed by YAB Pak Lah. Our future look bleak. The government are making bad policies day after day.
This Tun Salleh Saga is just a way for the government to divert the attention of the rakyat to a more pressing issues such as reduction in the standart of living. I am sure KJ & Co are planning to siphoned as much money as possible from the government coffer in this coming four years in power. KJ can't wait to get hold of Petronas money. I wonder who is going to stop him...
UMNO tak salah.
BN tak salah.
Yang salah ialah Pak Lah.
PM yang hanya pandai untuk menjahanamkan UMNO dan BN.
Siapa penyokong kuat dan penasihatnya?
Anwar Israel, sepupunya (nama Ibrahim tu nama Nabi).
Salam Tun,
Sebelum ni hanya dengak cerita dari sebelah pihak je, sekarang selepas dapat penjelasan drp Tun, maka fahamlah saya siapa yang bersalah dan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku.
T/kasih di atas penjelasan tersebut.
Pak Lah memang tak hensem, sebab tu cakap dia banyak merapu.. dah la tak macho..
Masa Tun turun dulu, saya risau keadaan negara bawah Pak Lah..
Sekarang saya risau orang Melayu kat kampung nak makan apa lepas ni.. beras naik, minyak naik.. tekanan darah pon naik jugak lah lepas ni.. confirm..
Tak pa lah Tun, saya nak tengok Tun berehat dan meninggalkan dunia ini dengan tenang.. Apa kata lepas kan aje masalah ni pada Pak Lah yang tak hensem tu?
Saya rasa sudah tiba masanya Tun tumpukan hal akhirat dan lupakan duniawi.. mungkin boleh stay kat Mekah sampai hujung usia..
Pak Lah yang tak hensem tu orang Islam, dia mesti tahu syurga neraka, dan dosa pahala.. lambat laun dia sedar lah tu..
Berehat lah Tun.. dunia ini sementara..
Ikhlas dan menyokong
Farah
Dearest Tun,
Need to give my 2 cents on the freedom of speech issues....
Well antimamak, there is no one here denied your freedom of speech. If not, none of us can see your comment...
Criticism is a norm in freedom of speech...but there have to be limit to that freedom...
Let say we all applied the F.O.S in our lives...somebody goes to you and say "you wife is soooo big"...what do you do? or "you face is like bontot kuali?" or "yeah i remember you, you are the one whose drank 5 bottle of Piss?" do you tolerate? if you acting in such way to defend or hurt that somebody, doesnt it contradict to your F.O.S...
maybe you remember 'anti-sematic' slander by the Jews....if not you should go and studied more so you can understand...these people is the same ones that apply F.O.S in their movements....
Everybody have the right to critic...not need for F.O.S
But everybody have to respect others ....i believe you know what will happen is respect is not in place....
Another thing is, in regard of the new party...we should identify our basic constitution so we could further discussed on other things..
Starter....for a leader, the dignity & the needs of Rakyat have to be on top of the list....not the dignity or the needs of the leader himself.....
Example, i do not want my chosen leader to be busy defending himself from the "Monkey" remarks by others or giving such remark to them and waste precious time in highlighting the plight of Rakyat. Better focus on what he have to do rather than joining the circus. This because for a Good leader, he himself is secondary......
PR13 will be coming fast, if we do not act soon, we are really going to loose everything...
Do not want to see AI / PKR in power..
Do not want to see AB / KJ in power
Do not want to see KRPLS / DAP in power
Want to see Rakyat in power...US
I suggest we learn what we can from Tun on how to be LEADER....before it is too late...
bleached
salam pakcik..
tiada apa yg saya nk komenkan cuma saya amat-amatlah berbangga kerana mempunyai pakcik seperti Tun..
trima kseh..
http://pokokepal.wordpress.com
asaalammualaikum AYAHANDA TUN
saya dan ramai lagi rakan2 yang lain kini amat meluat dan menyampah dengan apa yang telah dilakukan oleh pak lah terhadap keadaan politik, ekonomi dan ketuanan melayu di negara ini.
Kami memang mengetahui ketelusan AYAHANDA TUN semasa memimpin negara selama 22 tahun yang lalu dan hari terakhir AYAHANDA TUN mweninggalkan pejabat melambangkan permulaan zaman gelap negara ini.
dalam isu tun salleh, kami menyokong dan memang mengetahui perkara sebenar sejak dulu lagi cuma AYAHANDA TUN tidak mahu membongkarkannya sehinggalah diasak begitu teruk oleh pak lah dan co.
AYAHANDA TUN teruskanlah perjuangan mu doa kami sentiasa bersama mu dan kami memang meluat dengan kepimpinan sekarang
salam sayang buat AYAHANDA TUN
Onemalay and Others,
First thing we should do before setting up a new party is to identify the purpose of the new party...
We should look into the big picture...as i do not want the party to be another PKR...
PKR was set up to bring justice to AI...not Rakyat and i still see the same now...
For us to fight for the right cause, we should forget our vendetta to AB + Current Government...
Our focus is to be better than them so we can avoid 'pisang bebuah dua kali'
Our direction shall be for the best interest of Rakyat & Malaysia...
Our target is to bring happiness and joy again to everyone...no matter if is sceptics or oppositions or different races
The party still need to have component or divisions by Race...my argument is that I havent seen 1 Leader that fights for all the race even if he claimed so, it would be hard to believe it
because it is Human Nature that a person will prioritize....even in this case Malay will look after Malays, Chinese will look after Chinese, Indian will look after Indians...this is not Racist...but it still a fact
Then the leaders of these divisions will work together to fight for all members....
But even we are divided in race, we should put in our effort to be only 1 Unity Rakyat and improve Malaysia condition....
Sorry if my argument is weak and lame as it is very hard to pin down a very strong argument if no discussion in progress....
i believe everybody have their own opinion on how things should be ... so let hear it ...
Tun, maybe we could hear your ideal approach in setting up a party...
Macam ni la senang.....
Yang bodoh akan bertambah bodoh kalau selalu ingat dirinya pandai.
Yang lembik akan bertambah lembik kalau tak ingat nak keras.
Pak Lah, Pak Lah....aku tak mengaku la kau ni PM Malaysia. Sebagai PM, kau akan diingati sebagai PM paling bodoh bukan saja dinegara ini, malah diselutuh Asia Pacific! Kah 7x......
Salam hormat pada Tun serta pengunjung2 chedet,
Buat pegetahuan semua, nama sebenar "Antimamak" ialah Anti Manusia Sejagat.
Harap Tun tidak berasa terkilan dengan kata2 si-Antimamak ini kerana beliau juga anti pada kawan2nya, guru2nya, ibubapanya, malah kepada semua insan sama ada yang masih hidup ataupun telah mati.
Di sepanjang hidupnya, dia tak pernah berjaya di dalam mana2 bidang yang diceburinya.
Matlamat hidup beliau adalah mencemuh, memaki dan mencari salah orang lain kecuali dirinya sendiri.
Maafkan dan kasihanilah orang seperti ini yang hidup serba kekosongan sehingga telah menyebabkan akalnya tergencat. Oleh itu janganlah kita ambil serius kata2 orang yang tergencat akal.
Salam Tun,
Tun has mention early in your book ........."because of poor understanding of the democratic system, the people and the leaders of these new democracies only succeed in producing anarchies". I am totally agreed with you indeed long time ago. Just can't wait to read more of the untold history. May Allah give you strenght and I will always pray for your health. We still need you. Ikantodak.
there could be other side of the story... but u did what u had to!
It is a convincing read.Now we must read what Tun Salleh has to say before we come to the conclusion.I still feel Mahathir is hiding facts from us.Mahathir should have allowed Tun Salleh to serve his term out before revealing the "truth".Why did the other judges did not think carefully? They are judges and they should have the brain.We will wait for the outcome and why should Abdullah leave just becausae he made those payments?
Hi Yin & Yan:
We are living in a democracy. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Please desist from condemning others for their candid views... Try to grow up, buddy!.. be a mature person.It's disgusting to see people like you denouncing others for their frank views.
Abi
Tun, your idea is brillient...
TQ
Salam Tun,
This a good example of people who holds position in the government and who thinks that he is all and mighty and is answerable to no boss.
Everybody is accountable to somebody; the businessmen to his customers, politicians to the people (voters), the government servants to the political masters of the day, the rulers to his fellow rulers. Nobody has absolute power.
By giving the ex-gratia payment it is like saying "we have made a mistake so here is the compensation" Now the question is - who decides "we have made the mistake"? It is all a political agenda. I don't think it would work for the leadership.
Tun yang dihormati,
Pada pandapat saya yang cetek ni, mungkin hanya ada 2 pilihan yang mungkin dapat mengubat masalah yang dihadapi sekarang.
1. Mengubah kepimpinan dan menolak ketepi pak-pak turut dalam UMNO
2. Menubuhkan parti baru yang lebih cekap, demokrasi dan focus terhadap kepentingan rakyat.
Kedua-dua pilihan mempunyai masalah tersendiri dan mungkin terlalu sukar untuk diatasi.
Pun begitu adalah lebih baik berhadapan dengan masalah dari membiarkannya membunuh terus segala cita- cita dan kedaulatan bangsa.
Mungkin AAB sudah merasa bahang tentangan golongan yang mempunyai access kepada maklumat yang adil seperti blog dan internet. Bagaimana pula mereka yang tidak berpeluang untuk sumber tersebut seperti golongan tua yang berada di desa. Mereka hanya punya pilihan sumber yang terbatas dan memberi keuntungan kepada AAB seperti TV, Radio, surat khabar dan pembodek termasuklah kebanyakan pemimpin bahagian.
Sejurus selepas PRU12 saya bertanyakan Ayah saya yang berusia 70 tahun tentang pendapat beliau. Sebagai orang yang pernah menderita zaman Jepun, Komunis dan mengharungi zaman awal kemerdekaan komen beliau agak selari dengan apa yang AAB dan kader-kadernya harapkan. Mengapa?, sebab media menyuapkan mereka apa yang AAB dan orang-orangnya mahu.
Orang-orang kampong agak selesa kerana harga getah dan sawit jauh lebih baik hari ini, tapi hairnnya ada yang mengaitkannya dengan kepimpinan AAB. Cukup mengarut dan “what a lucky b*****” buat AAB. Kebetulan yang mengukuhkan sokongan tanpa perlu berbuat apa-apa. Harapnya kenaikan harga minyak dan penghapusan subsidi lambat memberi kesan kepada mereka disamping slogan mengarut Sahril Samad, penstrukturan semula subsidi yang lebih adil dan terkawal, kononnya.
Secara ikhlas saya cukup sedih dengan permainan pemimpin hari ini, saya suka untuk cuba dibohongi kerana saya percaya atas kemampuan untuk mencari jawapan yang benar. Tapi mereka membohongi orang tua kita dan kaum keluarga dan saudara-saudara kita secara tidak adil. Mungkin UMNO secara sejarahnya yang menuntut kemerdekaan dan membina Negara ini, tapi siapakah sebenarnya yang pernah menderita dan kental azamnya untuk terus menghidupkan UMNO dan bangsa. Siapa yang bertungkus lumus menebang hutan, mengeringkan paya, berkaki ayam kesekolah, bersengkang mata berjaga demi keselamatan dan mempertaruhkan nyawa melawan Komunis?. Apa yang mereka dapat? Pembohongan dan perlu hormat dan taat kepada pembohong.
Anak muda kita pada hari ini, kemana hendak mereka bawa? Saya percaya merekalah golongan remaja yang paling malang dalam sejarah. Penuh dengan kecelaruan terhadap keadaan semasa dan masa depan. Semasa yang penuh dengan pengaruh dan gejala buruk sosial dan masa depan yang terlalu kabur bukan sahaja terhadap peluang kehidupan malah kedaulatan.
Siapa yang kita boleh kita harapkan kalau tidak memilih dua pilihan diatas. PKR dan PAS? PAS mungkin ada sedikit kredit tapi PKR? Saya yakin PRU13 akan mencetuskan kekecohan terhadap bakal calon-calon mereka. Takkan “jurugambar ugutan” masih lagi relevant jadi calon lainlah kalau geng-geng berduit dan tuan-tuan dalam PKR memang tak bercita-cita jadi orang besar politik.
Saya ingin mengucapkan tahniah kepada sahabat-sahabat di Sabah sebab dapat lebih banyak peruntukan RM9, anda bernasib baik sebab memegang kunci kemenangan BN. Percayalah kalau anda tak ada apa-apa untuk dijadikan ancaman AAB tak akan bagi muka. Anda juga mungkin perlu ucap terimakasih kepada AI sebab pembohonganya buat AAB kecut perut. Kadang-kadang memang ada baiknya kalau punya pemimpin yang lemah dan dungu, mintak mudah dapat. Tapi yang ni mungkin macam cerita lanun Pak Belalang, satu untuk engkau satu untuk aku ……. Jangan bekerja untuk saya sebab saya kena bayar gaji tapi kerjalah bersama-sama saya sebab sayapun boleh dapat gaji.
Salam hormat Tun, semoga sentiasa sihat dan terus “memimpin” kami.
Kenapalah sebab Tun percaya cerita Tun Salleh tak cukup mengugat maka Tun simpan rahsianya begitu lama, ada lagike secret yang boleh bagi “ko” pada juara-juara politik hari ini. Bukan bertujuan jahat tapi menegah mereka dari terus berbohong.
Jaim wrote "TSA tak langgar undang-undang tapi itu melayu cakap ia kulang aja! kulang aja YDPA buang ma!!! ada faham ka???"
Faham but do not agree.
TSA wrote the letter to the King and copied to all the rulers. The matter could be settled at the meeting of the Conference of Rulers, especially when the rulers were in possession of facts of the matter. The rulers would be able to mediate on the matter, and there would be no need to convene a tribunal. TSA would have been given the opportunity to show contrite and the King would have pardoned him for his 'kurang aja'. Obviously that was not what TDM intended. TDM wanted TSA removed.
If TDM wanted to impress upon the public that he followed the rule of law to the letter, he should have appointed one of the two forwer Lord Presidents as the head of the tribunal, instead of appointing the acting LP, who is seen to have a conflict of interest, to that capacity. TSA would then be obliged to appear and defend himself, and the outcome would be conclusive.
It is usual to hear Malays asking for pardon for whatever wrongs that they have rendered to others. The wrongs would have involved adat too. So not all wrongs against adat have to be punished. They can very well be forgiven even if such wrongs were againt the King.
A'KUM TUN,
WE FINALLY GOT TO KNOW THE REAL STORY ABOUT SALLEH ABAS NOW... AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A GOOD REASON TO BRING IT OUT NOW RATHER THAN BEFORE. LET THE CURRENT LEADER THINK IF HE UNDERSTANDS THE CASE WELL BEFORE DECIDING SUCH A BIG THING LIKE GIVING OUT THE EX GRATIA AFTER THE FULL PENSIONS WERE GIVEN OUT EARLIER. THE GOVERNMENT MONEY BELONG TO ALL MALAYSIAN TAX CONTRIBUTORS TOO. SO, PLEASE SPEND WISELY !!!
THE CURRENT LEADER IS TRULY A BLUNDER AND A FOLLOWER TO THE WRONG ADVISORS. HE IS DEFINITELY LOSING HIS DIGNITY EVEN MORE NOW AS WE MALAYSIANS ARE NOT STUPID. WE SEE AND WE THINK WISELY BEFORE WE JUDGE HIM AND HIS CRONIES....AND DEFINITELY WE WANT HIM AND ALL HIS CRONIES TO GET OUT OF THAT PLATFORM AS LEADERS...YOU ARE NOT FIT AT ALL TO LEAD INTELLIGENT PEOPLE OF MALAYSIANS..DEAR PAK LAH.
TO TUN M... I WISH YOU GOOD HEALTH AND PLEASE ALSO CLARIFY TO US ON OTHER ISSUES SUCH AS ANWARS SODOMY ACCUSATIONS ETC.
PLEASE TUN... MALAYSIANS NOW NEED A LEADER LIKE YOU AND I BELIEVE YOU WILL HELP US TO IMPROVE THE TERRIBLE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION IN MALAYSIA BY GIVING THE DIRECTIONS OF WHAT TO DO AND NOT TO DO....AND FOR GOD SAKE...PLEASE PAK LAH....YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE SUGGESTIONS FROM TUN M AS HE HAD CONTRIBUTED SO MUCH TO THE MALAYSIAN ECONOMY BEFORE YOU...AND TUN M HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE HEART OF ALL MALAYSIANS...AND NOT PAK LAH.
STAY HEALTHY TUN. MAY ALL THE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN NOW FOR YOU TO SEE AND FOR US TO ENJOY.
HIDUP TUN, HIDUP MUKHRIZ.
izzkee
assalammualaikum...yang berbahgia TUN semoga senantisa sihat dan dirahmati oleh allah dlm meneruskan PERJUANGAN YG BELUM SELESAI...
Saya sebagai rakyat malaysia yg membayar cukai..cuma nak tanya berapa..WANG CUKAI KAMI YG KERAJAAN BAYAR KEPADA TUN SALLEH ABAS..sudah lah kami hidup tertekan akibat kenaikan harga minyak...(Rakyat jgn membazir biar kerajaan sahaja yg membazir)
To : malaysianlover said>
Wa caya sama lu.......
TO : Jaim said>
You ajak sembang-sembang. Tapi kat mana.......
Saya cuba masuk blog you. Nak bagi cadangan/komen kat blog you tapi tak boleh. Maaf lah saya ni first time blooger sejak Tun buat laman blog. baru nak try-try.
Thanks untuk ideA you. Kita Serupa........
To : DDL said>
Trima kasih atas komen anda terhadap saya. Mabok minyak pun mabok minyak la....Hati panas TUHAN sja yang tahu...beb...
Saya ni baru coba -coba nak jadi blooger. Itupun sejak Tun buat chedet.com. Baru nak try-try. Bahasa Orang putih ni memang out la....... sikit sikit bleh la.... Chek nak tumpang tanya cikit. CYBERTROOPERS PAKBODOLAH tu apa maknyanya.....tolong terang dalam bahasa malaysia.
To : antimamak said>
22 tahun Tun tadbir negara, tak dak satu pun boleh hang hargai ka.....? Apa la punya BAGHAL.....
Ada akai pakai, jangan letak kat pongkok.
Bikin sakit hati gua.. la.. lu.. ni
Cadangan gua:lu ikut energy said> pi singapore pun tak pa.....
Buat semak je......
Thanks.... Wa tak caya sama lu.....
Salam Tun
Terima kasih atas artikel Tun yang menerangkan semuanya. Mungkin akan ada yang tak percaya dengan penjelasan Tun ini. Tapi sekurang-kurangnya kami dapat dengar from Tun punya side of story pulak. Selama ini asyik orang lain sahaja yang menuduh Tun.
Bagi saya setiap yang berlaku ada sebab dan musababnya. Yang membezakan hanyalah sebab itu adalan sebab yang tak elok ataupon sebab yang elok.
Jadi kalau sesuatu berlaku atas sebab yang elok kita harus pertahankan. Jika Tun Salleh dipecat mengikut prosedur mengapa perlu dipersoalkan?
Lagi satu kenapa baru sekarang nak bangkitkan isu ini? Saya yakin 100% kerana Pak Lah tersentak dengan apa yang rakyak tunjuk dalan PRU yang lalu. Malangnya die mintak nasihat daripada orang yang salah untuk mengembalikan sokongan rakyat.
Penubuhan Suruhanjaya Rasuah (tak ingat apa nama betulnya) itu saya sokong. Tapi pembayaran ex-gratia setelah sekian lama? Apa rasionalnya? Najib kata bukan sebagai minta maaf. Jadi APA RASIONALNYA?
Bagi saya Pak Lah sekarang melakukan perubahan hanya kerana tersentak dengan kekalahan dalam pilihanraya lalu. Apa yang dilakukannya sekarang walaupun nampak baik tapi seperti sudah terlambat.
http://melayubiasa.blogspot.com
Assalamualaikum Tun.
Bagaimana kalau malas nak buat kerja?Senang saja....pantai Negeri Terengganu tidak boleh dipijak oleh omputih dulu kala.
Ibarat kata Tok Paloh 'kalau mahu ambil tanah,ambillah.Bawa pulang ke tempat asalmu.'
Terima kasih Tun.
Salam YABhg Tun,
This short notice is for sathia,
Hi!!!
My dear Sathia!
May be the best place for you to rest peacefuly is you country of origin INDIA.
See you in mumbai.
Kalau dah 'dipencenkan' atas sebab kesalahan yang dah nampak jelas, patutnya tak perlu dibayar ex-gratia lagi. Lebih baik bayaran tu bagi bonus kat kakitangan kerajaan yang semakin terhimpit ni! Tu pun tak boleh pikir ka?
YABhg Tun
Apabila terlalu percaya dan lama di asak oleh elemen-elemen agama sama ada betul atau tidak, maka berfikiran tidak rasional dan ikut emosi adalah tidak mustahil. Menyokong apa sahaja apabila sudah taksub juga tidak mustahil. menegakkan anag basah juga tidak mustahil.
TSA memangnya dilihat sebagai seorang yang baik, low profail, pendiam, berpakaian ala kampung tetapi tidak semestinya beliau seorang penjawat awam yang cukup baik, seorang CJ yang baik, dan mempunyai emosi yang stabil.
Saya akan lebih hormat TSA jika beliau tidak mengaitkan dirinya dengan mana-mana parti politik, jika tidak, tiada bezanya beliau dengan kita semua yang marhaen ini!!!!
Come onlah TSA jaga integriti anda, jangan sampai orang lain pandang serong pada bidang kehakiman kerana anda.
Salam buat semua;
Tugas memaksa saya untuk selalu berhubung dan berjumpa dengan warga asing.
Kekadang kami berada disatu tempat dimana terdapat kemudahan siaran TV baik didalam pejabat mereka atau di pejabat saya atau ditempat perjumpaan kami untuk berbincang.
Kebelakangan ini saya selalu bimbang sekiranya dikaca TV memaparkan wajah PM dan ucapannya, walaupun pendek. Sebabnya;
1. Saya malu dengan keadaan PM saya.
2. Saya malu untuk menjawab soalan berkenaan dengan politik negara, UMNO & BN.
3. Susah nak menjawab apabila dihati saya PM ini bukan PM negara saya.
4. Apabila wajah dia dikaca TV, waga asing selalunya tersenyum sinis dan memandang saya.
5. Paling saya benci bila mendengar mereka berkata,"he's nobody compare to your previous one".
6. Saya sedih mendengar, "is this the best you have?"
7. Siapalah yang nak mengaku AAB sebagai PM pada orang asing sekiranya orang asing itu sendiri tahu siapa AAB itu sendiri.
8. Mereka pun tak mengakui bahawa AAB ialah PM.
9. Blog Tun pun mereka baca dan mereka hairan mengapa Tun tak jadi penasihat kerajaan negara, dan yang inilah yang payah untuk saya nak terangkan....takan nak meludah kelangit biru dan terpalit kemuka sendiri.
Buat Pak Lah;
Turun lah, kesian kat kami yang terpaksa menjawap "kebodohan" awak pada rakyat asing. Pleasssseeeeee...
YABhg Tun,
Sudah sampai masanya kita ada parti baru bersemangat UMNO yang ditunjangi oleh golongan baru yang bersih, golongan profesional melayu yang berkebolehan, golongan melayu yang ada semangat perjuangan yang tulen. Cubalah kita fikir-fikirkan. Betulkan semula trek perjuangan kita. Memulihkan imej UMNO adalah sesuatu kerja yang amat sukar dan membazir.
Kita tunggu selepas pemilihan UMNO yang akan datang. jika tiada perubahan juga, kita gerakkan idea ini.
Adil dan Saksama
Ini adalah penjelasan daripada pihak Tun,dan mungkin dakwaan daripada pihak Tun Salleh adalah beerbeza. Walaubagaimanapun, setiap dakwaan dan dalam hal ini, ia merupakan satu kisah "past", setiap dakwaan dan kenyataan perlu mempunyai bukti.
Seperti mana yang kita semua sedia maklum, semasa kita di hadapkan di muka pengadilan ulung kelak, iaitu di padang mahsyar, skrin gergasi akan memaparkan semuanya tanpa sebarang "censor".
Oleh itu, sebagai salah seorang rakyat yang tidak terlibat secara langsung dalam hal ini, saya beranggapan, sekiranya Tun berasakan yang Tun berada di pihak yang benar, bersedialah dengan bukti dan saksi.
Sesungguhnya, yang Maha Adil dan Maha Mengetahui adalah Allah yang Maha Esa.
YABhg Tun,
Bukan nak puji, tapi apa yang dah Tun lakukan sebenarnya telah mengubah banyak minda Melayu tentang semangat nasionalisma, semangat malaysia boleh, semangat berniaga dikalangan melayu, semangat ingin maju, semangat ingin mencuba dsbnya.
Bagi yang masih anti Tun , mereka adalah golongan yang antiestablishment dari dulu, mempunyai sifat perkauman yang mendalam, yang tak kesampaian hajat dll.
So ,
pedulikanlah mereka. Tapi Tun baik kerana masih mahu menyiarkan tulisan mereka.
HIDUP TUN, KAMI TUNGGU PARTI BARU
Dear Tun,
I detect Matthias Chang in all your letters (as do those who know his writings). Please be careful as you will place yourself in an untenable position if you persist to allow him to keep using your site to air his views.
YABhg Tun,
Izinkan saya berkongsi idea dengan 4ever
Mr bleached 4 ever. Yang penting atur satu pertemuan , kita semua duduk bincang tentang tubuh parti baru ni.
Kita ada ramai professional melayu, kita ada ramai cendikiawan melayu, kita ada ramai orang melayu yang bersih, kita ada ramai pejuang melayu. Mereka ini semua ada kesedaran. Jika dahulu kita hanya ada orang-orang kampung yang kurang pelajaran, tapi hari ini kita ada ramai melayu yang berpengetahuan , berpelajaran untuk mengemudi negara.
Saya yakin jika mereka ini benar-benar sayangkan negara mereka perlu ubah paradigma.
Kenapa Melayu?
kerana kita mahu perjuangan asal UMNO itu dikembalikan. Perjuangan yang membela nasib orang-orang melayu tanpa menafikan hak kaum-kaum lain.
Kenapa tidak UMNO?
kerana UMNO telah meninggalkan pekong yang sangat hodoh, busuk dan memualkan akibat kerakusan segelintir ahli dan pemimpin-pemimpinnya. Kita tetap sayang UMNO, UMNO tidak berdosa, tapi kita lebih sayang bangsa kita daripada terus dicemuh. Jika UMNO perlu dimuziumkan, itulah pengorbanan pahit, pilihan terakhir yang patut lakukan lakukan. kecualilah kita boleh buang semua yang korup dalam umno, yang saya kira amat mustahil. UMNO dan pemimpinnya telah gagal mempertahankan maruahnya.
Kita bercakap kita sayang UMNO, tetapi adakah kita sudah melakukan tindakan yang menunjukkan kita sayang umno. Harapkan pemimpin,???? "no guts"
Orang Melayu perlu serius memikirkan masa hadapan mereka, perlu serius memilih pemimpin yang boleh menjamin masa hadapan mereka. Tidak salah orang melayu jadi kaya tetapi salah bila melayu hanya mementingkan diri sendiri.
Apa kata anda Mr bleach 4ever.
zAssalamualaikum YABhg Tun
Terima kasih kerana berkongsi pandangan tentang cerita Tun Salleh Abas sekali gus mengurangkan rasa prasangka dan kekeliruan di kalangan ramai rakyat, khususnya pengunjung blog Tun, walaupun masih terdapat suara-suara sumbang dari kalangan pengunjung blog ini.
Baru selesai baca hampir kesemua catatan pengunjung. Geli hati ada (baca komen saudara gelagat niaga membela Tun), pelik pun ada (baca komen antimamak dan mereka yang seangkatan dengannya).
Tak sangka masih ada rakyat Malaysia anak zaman merdeka, seperti antimamak, yang tidak tahu memanfaatkan kemudahan siber dan pendidikan taraf dunia untuk berkongsi idea bernas dan mempamerkan kematangan mental. Tak sangka masih ada hamba Allah di Malaysia yang malas berfikir untuk menulis perkara-perkara yang membina minda dan melambangkan ketajaman fikiran dan keluhuran kalbu.
Saya andaikan hanya hamba Allah yang buta hati saja yang terasa hebat dan puas melihat catatan sendiri yang sebenarnya cacat dan meaibkan diri sendiri. Sekiranya penyumbang-penyumbang ini dari kalangan orang Islam, mereka sebenarnya contoh umat yang tidak memenuhi tuntutan agama untuk berbaik sangka, menghormati orang yang lebih tua, menyanjungi pemimpin yang telah banyak berjasa kepada nusa dan bangsa.
Sekiranya mereka menghadapi kesukaran dalam hidup atau urusan harian, mereka tidak akan dapat mengaitkan ujian yang mereka terima itu dengan kifarah atas perbuatan jahat yang mereka lakukan melalui kata-kata fitnah lagi keji terhadap orang yang tidak berdosa kepada mereka.
Saya rasa antimamak dan mereka yang menggunakan kata-kata nista dalam blog ini tergolong dalam kumpulan yang kufur nikmat dan buta hati. Jadi, tak usahlah pengunjung lain buang masa dan tenaga, hilang sabar, jadi marah, melayan kerenah mereka, yang sebenarnya mempunyai perwatakan pak pandir
Walaupun masih ada yang mempersoal dan memperlekeh usaha Tun untuk berkongsi pandangan tentang hal-hal negara dan isu-isu semasa, saya yakin dengan apa yang Tun khabarkan - bukan kerana saya taksub dengan Tun, atau saya benci dengan Pak Lah atau Anwar Ibrahim atau mana-mana pihak yang tidak sehaluan dengan Tun. Tetapi kerana saya yakin dengan suara hati saya yang sentiasa mencari kebenaran. Saya sentiasa memohon kepada Allah supaya memberi saya kebijaksanaan dalam urusan harian, dan melindungi saya daripada tipu muslihat jin dan manusia.
Walaupun saya tidak gemar dengan cakap-cakap politik, lebih suka untuk tidak dikaitkan dengan ahli politik, dalam hal ini saya yakin dengan keterangan Tun, seperti juga saya yakin dengan kepimpinan Tun yang telah terbukti menyerlah bukan saja di peringkat negara tetapi juga di persada dunia. Pada masa yang sama, saya juga akur Tun hanya manusia biasa yang punya kekuatan dan kelemahan. Bezanya antara Tun dengan kami semua - sebagai rakyat, kami telah mendapat manfaat daripada kekuatan Tun sebagai pemimpin negara selama 22 tahun.
Saya yakin Tun tidak terjejas dengan komen-komen negatif yang dilempar ke arah Tun kerana seorang pemimpin yang berjiwa besar tidak perlu menagih pujian atau takut untuk menghadapi cabaran. Kalau setakat antimamak, dengan izin... it's like clearing the air of dust - no effort needed. Like it's not there at all, in the first place.
Saya doakan agar Tun serta keluarga sentiasa dilindungi Allah daripada fitnah jin dan manusia, dan saya doakan agar Tun tidak berputus asa untuk menegakkan kebenaran demi agama, bangsa dan negara - walaupun sekadar mengadap komputer, tanpa perlu terlalu menumpukan banyak masa kepada aktiviti jelajah yang cenderung kepada ehwal politik.
Salam YABhg Tun,
This short notice is for jaim,
Hi!!!
My dear JAIM!
U told Sathia to rest in peace in country of origin which is India. Maybe u forgot that Sathia was in fact born here in Malaysia although ancestor maybe from India.
Funny that you are writing this improper msg when TUN who is the owner of this blog were also from India.
TUN is a second generation Malaysian, Sathia is a 3rd generation Malaysian. And u are asking Sathia to go back India???
YABhg Tun,
to loh, or who ever you're
u're right, rulers should sit and discuss,
tapi Rulers pun tak suka sama itu TSA punya perangai ma!
jadi Rulers semua amanahkan pada itu YDPA , YDPA kasi kerja TDM buat ma. Kalau TDM suka-suka buat, meaning YDPA pun takut sama TDM la!! jika itu kesnya, gua lagi respek sama itu TDM sebab dia betul-betul hebat, very charismatic, pemimpin macam ni yang kita mahu , tegas, keras, susah mahu buli. Rulers pun respek sama dia. Kalau TDM lembik macam pak lah, hari ini TDM lagi teruk kena pijak-pijak!!!
ok loh, no heart feeling, no grudge.
YABhg Tun
Whatever you did in the past I strongly beleived is for the good of the country and the rakyat.
Some might suffer, some might feel victimised, some might disagree , some might get angry but the mjority of the rakyat benefitted from your policy.
The most important thing is you make people like us all feel proud to be Malaysian.
Sdr amantubillah,
I'm a new blogger too. TDM inspired me
boleh hubungi saya di jaimyunus@yahoo.com
kpd yang lain,yang mengarut-ngarut tak akan di layan
Many of those who worship Tun Dr Mahathir cannot understand why Malaysians blame TDM for the woes of the country. I have compiled excerpts of articles published in the media in past years to refresh the memories of Malaysians, as to why many Malaysians feel TDM did more bad than good for the country in his 22 years.
These 22 fiascos are presented in the form of questions directed to TDM:
1) Press freedom
Your criticism of the government got plenty of coverage in the local media whereas, during your time, criticisms against you by two former prime ministers were muted in the mainstream newspapers. Editors in Umno-linked newspapers too were removed for not toeing the line. What did you do to advance the cause of responsible press freedom?
2) Proton
You went ahead with the national car project in 1983 despite a number of experts disagreeing with you, especially with respect to the lack of economies of scale. Isn't it true that Proton's profits over the past 20 years came from the vastly higher prices that the Malaysian public have had to pay to subsidize Proton, resulting in considerable hardship for Malaysians who need cars because of the poor public transport system? Why was it necessary for Proton to buy a stake in a failed Italian motorcycle manufacturer when it could not even produce cars competitively?
3) Heavy industries
Why did you push into heavy industries such as steel and cement in the 1980s, ignoring studies which suggested developing natural resource-based industries instead? They caused major problems and billions of ringgit in losses.
4) Immigration
Why did you allow hordes of people to immigrate, mainly from Indonesia, in such an unregulated way that there are as many or more illegal immigrants than legal ones now, accounting for some two million or more people? Did you not realize that this would cause serious social problems?
5) Operasi Lalang
Why did you have to resort to this move in October 1987, when you used the Internal Security Act to detain over 100 people, close down four newspapers and cause a wave of fear throughout the country? Was it to consolidate your tenuous hold on power then by using an oppressive law?
6) Judiciary
What motivated you to take action in 1988 to remove the then Lord President and several Supreme Court judges from their positions under allegations of judicial misconduct, a move which was heavily criticized by the Bar Council and other bodies? Was it because you needed more compliant judges whose rulings would not threaten your position of power in a number of cases in court? Was this the first step in dismantling the judiciary's role as a system of checks and balances against the legislature and the executive? What have you to say to repeated assertions by many, including prominent ex-chief justices, who maintain that this led to the erosion of judicial independence?
7) Education
Why did you allow our national school system, which is the ideal place to develop ties among young Malaysians, to become so divisive? Why is it that our local Universities, once the preferred choice of tertiary education, have deteriorated to a level that even students who have gained admission prefer to enroll in local private colleges and universities?
8) Malaysia Airlines System
Why did your government sell MAS (privately) to Tajuddin Ramli who had no knowledge whatsoever about running an airline? Why did your government then later bail out Tajuddin by paying RM8 per share when the shares were trading at only RM3.60 in the open market, costing close to RM 1 billion of the rakyat's money.
9) Privatization
Why did you allow privatization to take place in such a manner that the most profitable government operations were sold away like Telekom Malaysia, Pos Malaysia and Tenaga Nasional? Toll concessionaires were guaranteed toll increases and compensations in the event traffic projections were not met. Independent power producers had contracts that guaranteed profits at the expense of Tenaga Nasional. What was the justification of privatizing the government medical stores to Southern Task Sdn Bhd, and the resulting increase of prices of medicines?
10) Putrajaya
What is the justification for spending RM20 billion on a grandiose government city at a time when there was a glut of office space in Kuala Lumpur? Could the money not have been put to better use, such as improving educational resources?
11) Indah Water Konsortium
What was the basis of granting Indah Water Konsortium a concession to manage the national sewerage system? Can you explain the RM1.4 billion soft loan to IWK which has suffered irrecoverable losses?
12) Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad
Why did you rescue Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad (then owned by Mirzan Mahathir) and which had debts of RM1.7 billion using funds from Petronas? Was it not your administration which forced Malaysian International Shipping Company (MISC) to acquire the assets of Konsortium Perkapalan Nasional?
13) Time Dotcom Bhd
Why did your administration bail out Time Dotcom Bhd which was saddled with a RM5 billion debt? Why did your government use RM904 million from Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen to buy up 273.9 million of unwanted Time Dotcom shares incurring an instant loss of RM280 million?
Did you not force the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) to buy 81.6 million unsubscribed public portion of the initial public offering (IPO) of Time Dotcom Bhd at RM3.30 per share when the shares were trading at only between RM1.95 and RM2.10 and in the process incurring an instant loss of RM100 million?
14) LRT
Why did you bail out the light rail transit operators Projek Usahasama Transit Ringan Automatik Sdn Bhd (PUTRA), which belonged to Renong; and Sistem Transit Aliran Ringan Sdn Bhd (STAR) using almost RM600 million from EPF, which still resulted in EPF having to write off RM135 million with a share loss of RM96 million?
15) North-South Expressway
Why did your administration award the North-South Expressway concession to UEM (who then formed Plus) and then provide them with a loan of RM1.6 billion which was half of the tender price of RM3.2 billion. What was the justification for your administration to grant Plus such overgenerous terms, which included annual increment of toll rates and guaranteed traffic volumes?
16) PSC Industries Berhad
Why did your administration in 1998 award a RM24.3 billion contract to PSC Industries Berhad, together with an advance of more than RM2.5 billion to build naval patrol boats? Why were they also given exclusive rights to service the Malaysian navy's entire fleet? Could you confirm that the first two ships built by PSCI could not even pass pre-delivery trials? How would you answer to the Public Accounts Committee's revelation that it will cost the government another RM120 million just to salvage the first two vessels nearing completion after seven years?
17) Bakun Dam
Why did you award Ekran Bhd the contract to build the Bakun Hydroelectric Dam in Sarawak? Why did your administration take over the construction of the dam by bailing out Ekran by almost RM200 million for 'work done'?
18) InventQjaya
What was the basis of inviting Libyan-American Sadeq Mustaffa to Malaysia to set up InventQjaya Sdn Bhd and to also give him a grant of RM440 million? What was the benefit for Malaysia and how has Malaysia benefited? What has happened to InventQjaya now?
19) Forex Losses
Why did your administration dabble in the money market which ultimately cost Bank Negara almost RM9.3 billion in losses?
20) Bank Bumiputra
Why did you allow the mismanagement of Bank Bumiputra, to the extent that it had to be bailed out 3 times, costing the country a total of RM 3 billion? Again, dipping into Petronas's funds?
21) Perwaja Steel
Why did your administration allow Perwaja Steel to be mismanaged resulting in RM 2.9 million of the rakyat's money being squandered?
22) On clean government
You came to power in 1981 and introduced the slogan Bersih, Cekap dan Amanah (Clean, Efficient and Trustworthy). What did you do to further that? Did you make the Anti-Corruption Agency more independent and effective? Did you ensure that the police and judiciary did their jobs properly and reduce corruption in their ranks? Did you censure ministers and chief ministers who received incomes beyond legal means? How many big guns were prosecuted for corruption during your tenure? What happened to Bersih, Cekap dan Amanah? After reading all the above fiascos you slogan is really laughable indeed.
There you are, 22 fiascos in 22 years. The bad news is that there are actually more than 22! Remember the APs, Maminco, Renong and many more. Those who remember, please add on to this list.
Tun:
Inilah sedikit kenyataan sari internet, tolong jelaskan dalam blog TUN:
Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Petronas Tan Sri Hassan Merican menyatakan sejak penubuhan Petronas pada 1974 sehingga tahun 2007, Petronas telah membayar kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan sebanyak RM335.7 bilion daripada keseluruhan keuntungan sebanyak RM570 bilion.
2007-1974= 33 tahun
335.7 bliion/33 tahun
andaikan setiap tahun = 10 billion
Tun memerintah Malaysia 22 tahun x 10 billion = 220 bliion
Kemanakah perginya 220 bliion rm duit petronas?
- adakah Tun membeli gajah putih 22 ekor?
- Berapakah syarikat kroni Tun menelan habis duit ini??
- Kenapa tidak menswastakan PETRONAS?? padahal Petronas adalah entiti milikan Malaysia?
- Kenapa petrolium act diperkenakan? adakah Tun menggunakan akta ini untuk menutup rahsia `KERAjaan"??
_ Adakah Tun mengambil isu Tun Salleh Abas mengalihkan perhatian orang ramai terhadap TUN? lalu menutup kes 220 billion petronas?
220 billions RM terlenyap begitu saja, Berapakah pembiayaan mega projeck berstatus GAJAH PUTIH ??agaknya lebih dari 22 ekor!
kalaulah peruntukan Tun Salleh sedikit habuan apa salahnya? sekurang kurangnya rakyat memahami duit itu diperbelanjakan..betul dak Tun!!
Jawap...... tolong jawap
Dear Good Sir,
Nothing new here anymore. Nothing that would alter, for the better, the livelihoods of us Malaysians you claim you love.
All these things written on your blog are just personal issues and unleashing tired tirades to satisfy your vendettas and vindictive self.
Those who are still here are fanboys. Just read your comments. They either will believe everything you say (potential yes-men, people that you and Abdullah Badawi have surrounded yourself with all these years), or exact praise upon your past achievements, but not what you and I really need, constructive comments to build a better future.
I want to hear both sides of the story. Not read gossip column. I want to move on, knowing that you opened this space up for the good of the people, not to unleash your sad laments.
Your arguments are also contradictory with your actions in the past and that makes you superficial, at best.
I wish you good luck and god speed.
We share one thing though. Our possible mutual utterance of "good riddance" to both of us.
Take care of your health, Good Sir,
Ezri KL.
To PJ...semoga sihat mental dan fizikal.
Tun buat semua ni adalah atas dasar tanggungjawab. Bukan makan pencen / elaun buta.
Fikir2kan...
Salam tun,
Ada masalah besar yang lain yg patut kerajaan fikirkan. Daripada membayar ex gratia pd judges, lebih baik fikirkan kaedah membantu rakyat petrol dan kenaikan harga barang.
Takut salah guna sebegini, akan timbul perasaan, bolehkan kita mempercayai setiap kes yang dikendalikan selama ini samada, benar - benar dihukum mengikut fakta atau disebabkan korupsi, atau kroni atau kerana, " saya yang menurut perintah", adakah sistem kehakiman boleh dipercayai.
Maka, jangan dirombak dan dikesali yg lepas, kerana yg perlu dilihat adalah apa yg akan jadi dihadapan dan masa akan datang.
rakyat biasa, saarah hj. ali bashah
Hakikatnya... apabila petrol naik.
www.saarahali.blogspot.com
Someone said the other day: "Get true picture of global oil price hikes"..well, fair enough.
But how come no justification on the profit Petronas made with the current crude oil increase?
Are we not deserving to know? or that "someone" thought that we dunno and will take every of his word "yes...yes...yes... betul tu..kenal naik harga harga.." ??????
To the "someone", just want to say, WE NOT STUPID. Thanks.
kepada antimamak..
kalau rasa topik ni x menarik minat tuan. tak payah la nak post comment level roti canai tu
Terimakasih Tun kerana mendedahkan perkara ini kerana kami rakyat biasa berhak untuk dapatkan maklumat yg tepat.
Sekali lg terimakasih Tun
Semoga sihat selalu
Tun,
Are you saying what happen to Tun Salleh in 1988 was not wrong?
I have my piece of little advise to the PM here
http://shiokguy.blogspot.com/2008/06/advise-to-pm.html
Shiok Guy
Salam Tun,
Bagus Tun dapat mendedahkan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di sebalik isu ini kerana seluruh rakyat perlu tahu kebenaran. Sepatutnya perkara ini telah lama Tun dedahkan tapi saya faham bahawa hal-hal di sebalik tabir adalah rahsia kerajaan semasa di bawah pentadbiran Tun dahulu.
Akhir-akhir ini ianya perlu didedahkan kepada umum apabila kita semua faham "Si Dolah and The Gang" berniat amat jahat untuk mencemarkan maruah Tun serta berusaha untuk menjatuhkan Tun di mata umum rakyat Malaysia demi menutup kelemahan mereka-mereka semua yang terlalu amat bodoh tanpa menggunakan akal.
Oleh itu "self defence" adalah perlu bagi Tun. Saya kira Tun tidak perlu merahsiakan lagi apa-apa pekong "Si Dolah and The Gang" sebaliknya Tun harus membongkarkan segala-galanya kepada rakyat supaya seluruh rakyat tahu yang mereka semua adalah pengkhianat agama, bangsa dan negara.
Cuba Tun fikirkan dan amati betul-betul, apalah gunanya terlalu menahan sabar dengan manusia sehina Dolah Badawi dan kroni-kroninya yang berniat jahat terhadap Tun dan juga rakyat? Merekalah jenis-jenis manusia bangsat yang harus kita heret ke muka pengadilan tanpa perlu bertolak ansur kerana jika lagi lama dibiarkan lagi dahsyat mereka bermaharajalela memusnahkan negara dan mengecewakan rakyat.
Soal segelintir rakyat penyokong mereka Tun tidak perlu risau kerana yang mengikut bontot si bebal itu semuanya jenis manusia yang tidak berpendirian dan juga tidak ada wawasan. Pendekata akal singkat dan sempit yang tak tahu nak membezakan yang mana buruk dan baik.
Tun juga adalah manusia biasa yang sudah tentulah ada kelemahan di mana-mana tetapi jika dibandingkan keseluruhan, pastinya kebaikan yang lebih terserlah. Jadi manusia hati busuk dan jahat selalunya sengaja tak mahu pandang kebaikan Tun tetapi suka mencari kesalahan Tun. Golongan ini sebenarnya tak ramai, cuma duduk ada dalam beberapa kandang dan reban saja. Tun tak perlu risau. Saya amat yakin kita semua mampu tumbangkan si bebal semua itu.
Salam perjuangan!
www.pemuda-pelapis.blogspot.com
PEMUDA PELAPIS
"Berani Kerana Benar - Tegakkan Kebenaran"
Due to the many lies spinned by interested groups within the legal community, Tun made the correct move by telling the truth in respect to Tun Salleh Abbas dismissal.
The Tribunal had followed the right procedures. Why then should the current PM conveyed his and the government's apology for the dismissal. Most baffling was the ex-gratia payment.
Recall the incident where Pak Lah sent his Minister to China to apologize when a Malay lady was stripped naked in KL. Malaysians were shocked. Now we are being shocked with another blunder by the flip flop PM.
To our beloved Tun, please continue telling the truth without fear or favour.
Mr Abi,
in a democracy people are also free to condemn and criticise whoever they disagree with.
Take your own advice: grow up yourself and learn to live with other frank comments.
Salam tun,
Harap tun dalam keadaan sihat sejahtera. Saya amat menyokong jika di bentuk parti baru. Jangan lupa kembangkan terus ke sarawak.
Harap Mukriz dapat melaksanakan impian ini, jadi pemimpin parti baru. Saya rasa ramai yang akan jadi ahli.
Assalamualaikum.
1. Zaid Ibrahim (ZI) telah didapati bersalah kerana politik wang. Politik wang tak sama dengan RASUAH ke?. Nape Pak Lah lantik orang cam ni jadi menteri?. Pak Lah sokong politik wang ke?. Memang dah kena hukum, tapi secara moralnye memang dah tak betul. Kesimpulannye ZI tak layak jadi menteri dan tal layak mempersoalkan tentang isu moral orang lain.
2. Antimamak adalah seorang yang prejudice yang tidak menggunakan fakta dalam berhujah. Dia akan jadi relevan kalau kita respone katdia. Kalau kita "just ignore" dia, dia akan jadi nobody. Dari sekarang jangan ambik peduli kat dia.
3. Sathia said "In your haste to transform them from a rural mindset, by your actions you taught them that taking money from the Non-Muslims and amassing wealth in ill-gotten ways and spending it lavishly is the fastest and easiest way towards bliss.
Ini adalah tuduhan yang sangat berat ke ats orang Islam kat Malysia ni. Saya tak boleh tolerate tuduhan yang macam ni. Adakah semua orang Islam kat mAlaysia ni Hidup dengan merampas kekayaan orang bukan Islam. Sebelum ni saya tak pernah prejudice terhadap agama lain. Saya tak rasa pendapat Sathia adalah "Isolated case". Saya akan "take note " pendapat ini dalam apa-apa urusan saya dengan non-muslim selepas ini.
Kepada malaysiafreedom dan mamaktongkang. Saya rasa mereka kena faham professionalism dalam perdebatan dan penghujahan.
1. No blaming culture dalam mencari kebenaran dalam se suatu tajuk. Kalau tak berapa banyak Dr. M nak masukkan dalam satu isu.
2. Must be objective kepada tajuk.
Saya raya mereka harus respect dulu isu mencari kebenaran dalam kes "The Tun Salleh Saga". Janganlah melalut terus pada isu2 lain dulu. Terima kasih.
To Mr Loh,
I have to disagree with you sir. DYM YDPA had written a handwritten memo instructing Tun Mahathir to remove the CJ. Your suggested option to resolve the matter during the conference of the rulers seemed out of the question. His Majesty was the King and when the King instructed the subject to be sacked no question should be asked. I don't see it is fair to expect Tun Mahathir questioned his majesty in such instance - I mean the King was already unhappy with the CJ, so if Tun Mahathir questioned his majesty, he would be displeased with Tun too.
Why don't you question the CJ's conducts? You also suggested that the CJ was to be pardoned? for what, he wasn't sentenced to death; was he so indespensible as a CJ? How would the pardon work out when the CJ had disrespected the King? - imagine if he had been pardoned and continued to be the CJ and continued to disrespect the King??
Dr RBaong said : "Saya akan "take note " pendapat ini dalam apa-apa urusan saya dengan non-muslim selepas ini"
Harap Dr sedar bukan semoa orang bukan islam mempunyai pemikiran yg sama seperti Sathia. I too found Tungsten's comments as full of prejudices.
Tun;
Pak Lah memang tak layak pegang kuasa PM Malaysia. Pak Lah seumpama MERASUAH bekas bekas Hakim untuk menjadikan dirinya popular,mengambil hati Bar Council dan Pembangkang selepas kalah teruk hilang 2/3 PRU 12. Pak Lah telah salah guna kuasa PM,sama sep-erti Menteri Kewangan meluluskan pengambilalihan Avenue Capital oleh ECM Libra yang terang terang menantunya dilaporkan ada kepentingan. Menantunya jual saham selepas Tun buat bising. Terima kasih Tun. Pak Lah telah banyak menipu rakyat.Janji Pak Lah janji palsu. Manifesto Pak Lah bohong,rakyat hilang keyakinan terhadap Pak Lah.Undurlah DOLLAH BADAWI!!!!
Ini salah satu politik attack nya yg cemburu dengan dengan TUN yg berjaya 22 th - sengaja nak lari dari masalah attack dari rakyat,nak hala kepada TUN macam nak tunjuk TUN lebih bersalah dari dia.Dia cari siapa tukang karut yg best mengampu maka ramailah tawarkan diri.Tapi orang sekarang dah pandai , bukan macam dulu duduk kg.tidur 9 malam. Kami sekarang menikmati internet ,tengok sana tengok sini,kumpul semua cerita ,proses dan dapat satu keputusan.Sekarang salah keputusan bersama Tukang DOBI harga minyak dah naik 70 sen ,mati lah kami rakyat Malaysia. Bumi sendiri ada minyak jual dekat org.& beli minyak org.pula mahal.Tak payah juallah , pakai sendiri bagi rakyat dgn.harga murah. Kumpul banyak ASSET buat apa kalau rakyat susah.
Tun,
Nampak jelas sungguh kebodohan PM Abdullah Badawi ni. Tak kan lah sebagai seorg PM tak boleh nak siasat terperinci apa sebab DYMM titah Tun (sebgai PM waktu itu) untuk pecat Salleh Abbas (malas nak panggil Tun ).
Masa saya balik dari mengerjakan ibadat umrah,dalam penerbangan dari Jeddah ke Kl,sempat saya berbual dgn seorang Professor Arab dari Al Qassim University. Dia memuji Malaysia dan berkata "Semua pencapaian Malysia adakah kerana Dr Mahathir" Saya beritahu dia bahawa Dr Mahathir bukan lagi PM,Dr Mahathir telah letak jawatan. Sekarang ialah Abdullah Badawi sebagai PM. Dia berkata " Saya tahu". Dia bertanya saya lagi" HOw do you find Abdullah? " Saya menjawab: " Well,compare to Mahathir,i think Abdullah a bit lack of ideas in ruling the Country" Professor Arab tersebut menjawab " No my friend, he has no idea at all"
Begitulah pandangan mengenai Abdullah yang saya perolehi dari seorang Professor dari Universiti Al Qassim,Arab Saudi Tun.Dia Professor,bukan penternak Unta dari Arab Saudi.Jelas betapa tidak hormatnya dia pada PM Malaysia.
Kenapa hendak pandang ke belakang,kerana ada banyak kerja yang lebih bermanfaat boleh dilakukan.Ini macam ada udang disebalik batu je.
Dr Mahatir I am Omid, form Iran Doing my PhD in UPM. every day I pray for you that have made such an excelent country and also translate your entries and put it in my blog which is the most favourate bloh among Iranian in Malaysia.
IANS:
Tanggungjawan harus dipikul dan dijalankan secara sempurna dan cekap semasa seseorang mentadbir negara, dan bukan selepas meletakklan jawatan. Membidas, mengutul dan menunjukkan panas baran terhadap pemimpin yang dipilh oleh rakyat dan diberi mandat untuk memerintah adalah tidak wajar dan waras.
Pendapat dan kritikan anda tidak masuk akal sama sekali. Jangan sokong TDM dengan membabi buta!
PJ
A,kum Tun dan semua,
Fakta yg dibentangkan Tun dlm postingnya tidak perlu di pertikaikan kebenarannya kerana ia melibatkan perundangan.Pada saya tanpa soal perundangan, cukup hanya dgn megenali dan memahami karakter TDM walaupun dari jauh utk saya menerimanya.
Sekian.
Hi Tun, I know what I wanted to say is irrelevant to the post :P
All I wanted to say was, please take good care of yourself and do not stress yourself with all the political stuff.. Get some rest, take care and may God bless you..
Thank God for someone like you. You're a blessing for all of us..
To "malaysiafreedom", you are a very ungrateful citizen of the country.
To "mamaktongkang", you're irrational & immature.
salam Tun,
apasal mamaktongkang punya comment leh kuar ar?
Dia nak kena baling ker aper nie?
Tak professional langsung...
"Sindrom apa ni?"
Abang Det,Assalamualaikum.
Saya admire abang kerana ketegasan dalam membuat keputusan,to hold your ground in the face
of such fearsome opposition,so meticulous and deliberate when putting forward your case for public knowledge,being able to 'see' what others are unable to foresee bukan hanya sekarang ,tetapi sejak abang jadi PM dulu lagi or even before that, hinggalah ke sekarang ni.
Saya bersyukur ke hadrat Allah dan berasa lega bila mendapat penjelasan abang berkaitan
si saleh abbas ni.Segala keraguan dan syak yang wujud selama ini sudah lebur dan hilang samasekali.
It is really hurtfull and sad to see so much insinuations being dumped upon you just because you
are so outspoken and so critical about the present situation.Minda melayu kita ni masih terjajah
dengan cara pemikiran orthodog dimana cakap pemimpin tidak boleh di kritik walaupun
ada alasan yang munasabah. Keadaan beginilah yang menyebabkan pemimpin yang lemah
menjadi terlindung dari mendapat maklumat sebenar,kerana dilindungi oleh "pagar-pagar"
yang mengelilingi pemimpin lemah ini sehingga dia hidup dalam ilusi atau dia diberi ilusi bahawa
dialah yang berkuasa penuh,dialah yang mendapat sokongan penuh,dialah yang sangat popular,
tanpa menyedari bahawa "pagar-pagar" tadi sebenarnya ada ulterior motive atau agenda mereka sendiri.Pemimpin begini dilayan oleh "pagar-pagar " sehingga dia lupa realiti.
Inilah sindrom yang berlaku pada tahun 1999(kalau tak silap)di Trengganu hingga menyebabkan BN kalah di sana. Tahun 2008 menyaksikan sindrom ini menjangkiti Kedah,
Pulau Pinang, Perak dan Selangor pula.Keadaan ini sangat bahaya , bukan kerana saya sayang pati ,tetapi saya tidak mampu memiliki pemimpin lemah,tidak tegas,tidak berani mengambil risiko, always play safe,tidak dapat maklumat tepat dengan pantas sehingga memalukan rakyat dan negara,lambat sangat membuat keputusan,mudah sangat diperkotak-katekkan "pagar-pagarnya "dll.
Abang Det, biarkan nangoi-nangoi(budak-budak beringus) tu main .Kita tengok game depa
Depa dah kena sindrom yang saya kata tadi tu.Tahap penyakit sindrom yang depa kena tu dah serious sampai dah tak cam lagi yang mana satu ilusi atau realiti.Lagi banyak depa main ,lebih
banyak ketongongan mereka yang terserlah.Sekali-sekali terfikir abang Det,rasa kesian kat depa pun ada juga,bukan pasai apa,pasai ilusi yang depa create sendiri tu.
Anyway abang Det, be brave,bukan untuk popularity tapi untuk kebenaran.Saya berdoa untuk kesejahteraan abang dan keluarga dunia dan akhirat.Terima kasih
Dear Tun,
After analysing all the comments that you posted in your blog, I found a few of the comments are not worth to be posted at all in your blog. I suggest you have to put a stop those comments that are purposely trying to ridicule you. It spoils the whole intellectual discourse in your blog. I think it is timely now to use your PREROGATIVE and discretion to be more selective so that your blog rating will continue to be popular and productive.
Dear Tun,
I think the rakyat should lodge a police report for the court to determine whether this ex-gratia payment to the ex-judeges are in accordance with the law since the Tribunal had made the judgment that they were guilty.
I think it is illegal.
Assalamualaikum Tun,
Mungkin saya terlalu muda untuk membicarakan hal yang terjadi sblm saya lahir lagi. Tp sbg pelajar undang-undang, saya turut bersetuju bahawa tindakan kerajaan membayar ex-gratia kpd tun salleh adalah tidak sepatutnya berlaku. jika benar tun salleh tidak bersalah mengapa tidak dilakukan tribunal semula untuk mendengar hujahnya. keadaan ini seperti menidakkan keputusan tribunal sebelumnya.
sekadar berkongsi pendapat...:)
YABhg Tun
Permit me to respond to malaysiafreedom.
Hi there!!!! mr malaysiafreedom.
No heart feeling eh!!!
Let me guess, u're of the same origin?
Yes! TDM is of Indian origin too as many claimed. But after all he doesnt make me sick infact in fact I'm proud of him and it goes to the other mamak too. I like to hang around at pelita jalan ampang, with my fellow indians and chinese.
But people like sathia really make me sick .People who like to sow and raise hatred amongst malaysian. she deserved it. Be a true malaysian.
Even those paper cutting of yours is mere rubbish of old news paper which u dont trust either.
See u at pelita have a nice young coconut and mamak soup. I belanja.
salam tun,
thanks for all the information..miss you tun.
this sudden oil prices and this judges saga..and macam2lah why all last minute takda planning..
hello orang kat atas tu tau ke bagi lah masa sampai august kata..tiba2 dup dup naik..rakyat ni masih waras..kita kena ada planning,minyak nak pakai..kalau tak pakai anak tak sekolah..beras api letrik macam2 lagi..
buatlah kerja tu tersusun sikit..cubalah dengar nasihat tun..tu janganlah sombong..kalau hanya berzikir minta tolong Allah tapi tak berusaha tak guna jugak..
salam tun..keep it up..doa tun dan tun siti panjang umur murah rezeki..
SIAPA YG BOLEH MENGUBAH KEADAAN POLITIK SEKARANG ?
1) Tun Dr Mahathir ( TDM )
- MALAYSIA ( bukan hanya Melayu ) BERSATU di bawah Tun (kecuali rakyat Kelantan), jika tidak kerana isu DSAI pada 1997-98, hampir pasti Kelantan berjaya disatukan pada PU 1999. Tun masih mampu menyatukan Malaysia, Idea Tun masih diperlukan untuk meletakkan Malaysia dihormati di mata dunia. Apa yg membanggakan adalah pada zaman Tun, kita tidak tunduk kepada desakan orang luar. Di situ menampakkan perbezaan paling besar antara kepimpinan PM sekarang dgn beliau.
2) Tun Daim Zainuddin ( TDZ )
- KERJASAMA baik dengan TDM dalam hal ekonomi. Mengapa tidak TDZ dilantik menjadi TPM ? saya pasti selain Sanusi Joned, Daim Zainuddin sudah tentu berada di belakang Tun. Kalau TDZ mampu menguruskan ekonomi dan harta dengan cukup baik, mengapa tidak dengan hal ehwal sumber manusia ? ( rakyat )
3) DS Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
- MASIH ada masa bagi DSAAB membetulkan keadaan. Perkara asas adalah ketepikan perasaan, tetapi naikkan jati diri DSAAB sebagai pemimpin. nampak Pak Lah berjiwa lembut, baik hati tetapi tak sepatutnya melanggar prinsip kepimpinan. Adanya Khairy dalam kepimpinan Pak Lah memang menyusahkan terutamanya dlm UMNO apa lagi jika dlm kerajaan.
4) DS Anwar Ibrahim
- DOSA yang besar DSAI lakukan adalah melaksanakan sesuatu tanpa mengikut prinsip kebersamaan dan kepercayaan. Menjadi seorang pembuat keputusan kerajaan secara bersendirian bukan satu cara yang bagus. Daya kepimpinan memang menonjol, cuma ketidaksabaran DSAI menyebabkan TDM tak sedap hati, boleh ke dia memimpin Malaysia dalam keadaan selalu terburu2 ? LAMA dalam tahanan sepatutnya membuat DSAI dapat bertafakur menilai semula jika terdapat perkara yang boleh menyusahkan pentadbiran TDM pada masa dia dipecat. Seterusnya memperbetulkan kembali jalan perjuangan dengan niat yang sempurna, untuk membentuk kesejahteraan rakyat, bukan dengan sentimen politik peribadi lagi. Dengan itu, rakyat dapat melihat ketulusan sebagai pemimpin dalam diri DSAI
5) Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat
- ISLAM yang diperjuangkan teramat bagus. Tuan Guru sudah menyerlahkan ketokohan pimpinan menurut apa yg sepatutnya seorang pemimpin lakukan. Mere yg bukan rakyat Kelantan ( Melayu ) turut kagum sehingga rakyat bukan Melayu di Kelantan masih teguh selesa dengan pimpinan Tuan Guru. ini satu contoh yang sepatutnya pemimpin UMNO ambil sebagai model bagaimana untuk memerintah. cuma dalam hal cabaran dunia, saya belum fikir cara sebgini cukup untuk melawan, maksudnya seagresif TDM dalam dunia global. jika dapat dikombinasikan cara Tuan Guru dgn Tun Dr. M alangkah bagus sekali.
6) DS Najib Tun Razak
- sama dengan Pak lah, DS Najib kena pestikan kepercayaan kepada diri sendiri dalam membuat keputusan. Bukan hanya menurut arahan atasan sahaja. apa yang berlaku selama ini, banyak memberi ruang kepada lawan untuk melagakan dia dengan pimpinan lebih tinggi. Antara hormat Pak Lah dengan mencapai matlamat asal Tun M, mana satu yang lebih kukuh dalam jiwa DS Najib ? mahu mencapai kesejahteraan untuk rakyat dan meletakkan Malaysia aju ke depan, kenapa mesti korbankan prinsip asal ? Jika Pak Lah nampak kurang bertenaga, sepatutnya beliaulah yang ke depan. BUKAN KJ & Co... apa guna Kementerian Pertahanan di bawah DS Najib ?
7) Tun Musa Hitam
8) Tg. Razaleigh Hamzah
Tun Musa ngan Tg. Razaleigh Hamzah, dua bekas TPM Tun M. something boleh mereka buat, tapi saya tak pasti atas niat apa.
untuk memporak perandakan lagi ada kot.
:: TOP LIST ::
jika DSAAB & DSNTR tak berubah juga, TDM or DSAI sahaja yang layak kerana sifat tidak berani mereka sebagai orang No 1 dan 2 kerajaan. Adakah sesuatu yang salah jika DSAAB & DSNTR merujuk kembali kepada TDM tentang isu2 yg berbangkit dan patah balik kepada idea asal TDM ? masalah sangat ker ? padamkan la EGO masing2 tu.. jalan TDM rintis dah tepat, kenapa tak laksanakan ?
TDM, saya pasti tak akan masuk semula kerajaan, dan sudah pasti tak mahu DSAI akan naik memimpin kerajaan JIKA dan HANYA JIKA DSAI tidak bersemuka dengan Tun membuat perakuan maaf atas kesilapan masa lalu. DSAI memang punya karisma untuk memimpin, cuma hubungan luarnya yang perlu dipelihara supaya tidak menjadi terlalu popular sehingga mengabaika tugas sebagai pemimpin utama negara. ITU PUN kalau DSAI sanggup berhadapan dengan TDM ( ala2 bertaubat lerr ) sebab saya tetap yakin sudah pasti ada kesilapan yang telah diperbuat oleh DSAI seperti mana juga kisah berkenaan TSA. then satukan dengan cara kepimpinan Tuan Guru Nik Aziz, barulah semua dapat bersatu-padu.
semuanya berpunca dari sifat asal manusia yang "MELAMPAUI BATAS", Allah dah nyatakan dengan jelas dalam surah Al-Alaq, "Ketahuilah!, Sesungguhnya manusia itu benar2 melampaui batas, kerana merasa diri serba cukup", jadi kepada semua tidak kira pemimpin atau rakyat, KEMBALI semula kepada KALAMULLAH dalam memperjuangkan sesuatu, dalam melaksanakan sesuatu, dalam tujuan mencapai sesuatu..
Bukankah sesuatu yang menarik JIKA dan HANYA JIKA, TIADA konsep aku engkau dalam soal pentadbiran.
TDM,TDZ,DSAAB,DSAI,TGNANM,DSNTR semua sama2 ISLAM.. apa gunanya kalau tidak BERSATU menurut apa yang ALLAH mahukan. selama 22 tahun pentadbiran TDM, tak pernah berlaku senario seperti sekarang ini, walaupun berlaku tragedi memali, ekonomi gawat 80-an, pemecatan DSAI, 3 kali bertukar TPM, kuasa raja terhakis, serangan matawang gawat lagi hujung 90-an, Tidakkah DSAI atau DSAAB atau TGNANM nampak kepimpinan itu ? kembali kepada diri sendiri, apa niat kita untuk menjadi pemimpin negara.
sebelum tu.. kembali dulu kepada ALLAH yang menjadikan kita Khalifah di muka bumi-NYA, apa yang di kehendaki oleh-NYA, mahu ATURAN-NYA ditegakkan ? atau dibiarkan sahaja dalam KALAMULLAH tu ? natijahnya kita dapat lihat sendiri sekarang hasil daripada pengabaian terhadap ATURAN-NYA. so mahu betulkan ataupun tidak ? usap dada tanya akal lihat senario alam ciptaan-NYA, adakah sudah cukup kita perbuat untu DIA ? adakah cukup sudah kita perbuat sebagai Khalifah-NYA ?
YABhg Tun,
Betul ke si zahid accident masa nak hantar duit ex gratia tu!
They must be joking eh!!
Kalau betul cerita tu, kesianlah,
Dulu KJ jadi posman hantar pasport pada DSAI.
Sekarang menteri kehakiman pula dah jadi posman.
Apa nak jadi dengan kerajaan pak lah ni? posman pun ikut tido ke???
Hantar minyak kekampung-kampung kan lagi baik!!!!
Salam semua.
Wak rasalah, penggunaan ayat: -
"Many of those who worship Tun Dr Mahathir cannot understand why MALAYSIANS blame TDM for the woes of the country"
(JUNE 8, 2008 1:57 PM)
tu tidak betul atau kurang tepat. Kalau disebut "MALAYSIANS" secara amnya, sudah pasti termasuk dengan Wak sekali. Malangnya Wak tidak termasuk dalam kategori "...why Malaysians blame TDM for the woes of the country" itu.
Mungkin pada pandangan Mr/Ms/Mdm malaysiafreedom, "MALAYSIANS" tersebut adalah pihak pembangkang atau "opposition party" sepanjang tempoh 1981-2003, iaitu sewaktu TDM menjadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia.
Dan sememangnya isu "22 fiascos" yang Mr/Ms/Mdm malaysiafreedom telah ajukan dalam bentuk soalan kepada TDM tersebut, secara rekod, telah pun dibawa ke sidang Dewan Rakyat mahupun Dewan Negara untuk dibahaskan, termasuk sebab-musababnya dan seterusnya diluluskan untuk apa-apa sahaja bil yang dibentangkan termasuk penswastaan badan-badan tertentu atau kelulusan kewangan kepada pihak-pihak tertentu. Cuma sahaja, pada masa tersebut Kerajaan yang dibentuk melalui pakatan BN menduduki 2/3 keahlian Parlimen, dan ianya bukan suatu yang "fiasco" untuk ahli-ahli Parlimen mengundi untuk kelulusannya.
Wak yakin, maksud Mr/Ms/Mdm malaysiafreedom berkaitan "Malaysians" yang mempersoalkan "22 fiascos" tersebut mungkin "pihak pembangkang yang mewakili minoriti rakyat Malaysia yang mengundi mereka pada tiap masa yang relevan di zaman pentadbiran TDM selaku PM Malaysia".
Namun, atas nama demokrasi, sebagaimana yang sahabat Wak iaitu encik antimamak selalu war-warkan, dan juga demi kepuasan individu-individu tertentu seperti Mr/Ms/Mdm malaysiafreedom sendiri mahukan, Wak rasa Mr/Ms/Mdm malaysiafreedom berhak mengajukan "22 fiascos" tersebut kepada TDM, kerana Wak juga sebagai rakyat Malaysia yang demokrasi mahu tahu mungkin TDM ada sebab-musabab lain yang mahu dikongsi bersama selain yang pernah dibentangkan dalam Dewan Parlimen dahulu.
p/s: Wak hairan juga sebab sepanjang tempoh "22 tahun penuh fiascos" tersebut, tidak pernah satu hari pun yang sama macam terjadinya "fiasco" tanggal kenaikan harga minyak RM2.70/liter.
Assalamualaikum Tun,
Exgratia payments for those judges?Where do PakLah gets the money to pay them?From the "oil-subsidy-taken-back" he saved for so-far unseen development programs he keeps announcing recently?That's about RM 14 BILLION ok !Bound to have extras right?The extras go to the 4th floor boys?
By the way Tun,do you happen to know the names of the permanent residents of the 4th floor PMO? Perhaps we all the Rakyat should get the full list before the UMNO elections?That should be good for all MCA and MIC members and all Sabahans and Sarawakans to know who exactly are these people who destroyed the NEP cake that was crafted in 1970.There have been calls for MCA and MIC to re-think of their presence with UMNO in Barisan Nasional.UMNO=Khairy Jamaluddin and MCA+MIC+East Malaysia parties=Patrick Badawi?These two seem to be the ones walking down and controlling PakLah's Economics Corridors?Wassalam.
Salam Tun,
to mr pj (old town or new town eh!!)
Kami sokong Tun DM membabi = YES(after all malaysia akan jadi pengeksport babi terbesar)
tapi buta NO sebab kami masih celik, celik mata, celik akal, celik fikiran, celik hati, celik budi.
anyhow keep on blogging coz wthout u this blog is a bit deform
Dearest Tun,
Great to have the opportunity to read your concise and simple explanations on the event that have preceded the the dismissal of the then Lord President. Your explanations reaffirm my trust in you as our Great Leader.
However, as I was reading your article, great sadness crept into my heart, How On Earth Pak Lah Foolishly Unaware That He Is Being Taken for A Ride by his Law Minister...Great Mistery!!!!
Che Det,
Let Speak Poetry, Tun
(anytime when you are ready, tun)
i d-g-a-s!
to what they say that
any amin will do
what the hell do you expect
an old man to do, tun
said the driver
thus,
Scribe,
Dengan Izin.
I Wrote What I Wrote
(mika angel-0 said, bismillah!)
wow kluangman! fufff!
i grew up in kluang man no!
a canal of water
i love water actually
wonderful time wonderful place
kluang in
my mind
(nearly died for a spent bullet)
a canal of water
i love water actually
theories abound
running with the pack
in the bag something to hack
but theory is a theory
as you and i
a theory of the pie
ten percent is
to a scottish muslim
a muslim a little alot
i am not a theory to comment
nor do i have one
said the artist
a canal of water
i love water actually
and the story was tun
and the bedu
of father and son
of one and many, oh some may too
few are those of the first-first
not that i care, said the bedu
but tun is such a wonderful
story to miss oh beloved
i love you actually
from a to Z
the alpha and the omega
the zaahir and the baathin
walhamdulillah
Nota:
let me put my wager, please
the game of kings and the sport
it seems is
tun and the bedu
let us not blow this job, tun
Warmest salaams to Dr Mahathir, Dr Siti Hasmah and family
Friday June 6, 2008
Accident just can’t stop Zaid
KUALA LUMPUR: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim is a determined man.
Not one to forgo his duties, even after being involved in a road accident yesterday which left his official car wrecked up front, Zaid carried on to visit former top judge Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh at his home in Bukit Damansara.
Zaid was there to present Wan Hamzah with his ex-gratia payment from the Government for his suspension after the 1988 judicial crisis. The latter is among the six judges accorded the payment.
“I had just visited former judge Datuk George Seah to present him the ex-gratia payment and was on the way to see Wan Hamzah,” related Zaid, who injured his right knee in the incident.
“A car suddenly came in front of us at a junction in Persiaran Utama and we collided. My driver could not avoid the car,” he said.
Salam AYAHANDA RAKYAT yang mungkin tak nyenyak tidur memikirkan nasib anak bangsa mu,
Kami pun terkena 'tempias' Ayahanda.Maaf tergelincir dari tajuk.
Izinkan, also posted @ The Scribe
We, the Rakyat would like to express our disappointments and frustrations towards AAB[Atas (kepala) ADA Batu]and his cabinet(knights of the stoneheads) decision on the new petrol/disel price hikes.
Dissapointed on the steep increased (40%^) whilst the average income remained unchanged.It surely have negative effects on household budget. Confirmed!
Frustrated coz tens and thousands of road users were franctic and the rush to the gas stations was as if the martians were coming.(Doomsday is imminent)
Based on the many angry comments on all blogs in existence (m’sia) and some at the verge of nervous breakdowns, using superlatives not found in the 'kamus' DBP, we felt the fondly known ‘ Mr.Clean and Piety’ was giving the rakyat 'a big pinch of salt' on their wounded hearts, as a lesson for not supporting the BN wholehearted in PRU 12.
It appears that , the more the rakyat calls him a weaklink and condemns his government, the more likely retaliations will follow.
We thought that AAB and the knights of the stoneheads(cabinet) were only infected by the illness ‘Dumb syndrome’ but the latest symptoms showed they were actually the carriers of the disease.
The price hikes had really caught the rakyat with their ' sarongs' down especially after believing in the 'dhobi' minister’s words that August would be tentative for the hike.
Perhaps, the rakyat should call it a day(complaints) and instead appeal(bow) to the PM for a snap election in order for us, the helpless rakyat to hand back ‘on a silver platter’ the 2/3 majority the government felt it deserves.. We PROMISE U Pak LAh in the name of the great Iman Al- Hadhari!
If the most senior stateman ‘still very alive’ cud not convinced AAB [Atas(dia) Ada Batu(berat)] to stepdown then who are we the Rakyat to do so.
‘Ok lah Pak Lah you win, we surrender, cannot take it anymore lah. Our children need to eat and go to school (menangis anak2 didera suruh jalan kaki kesekolah nanti (bag dan buku saja 5kilo)’ It’s a dilemma ‘ ditelan mati emak, diluah mati ayah’ macam alkisah Pedra Branca, win-win situation,? Hehehe!
Kalau keadaan getir masakini terus meruncing,terpaksa suruh anak2 berkaki ayam pula kesekolah balik kezaman kita dulu dan bekalkan ubi rebus sebagai bekalan makannya.
Maka rakyat Malaysia, mulalah insaf dan terimalah hakikatnya keaadan gelap sukar menjadi terang selagi dipimipin dek orang yang pendek akal.
Jikalau kita masih berdegil dan memberontak, nanti datang pula Pak Hassan Musa dan Pak ISA bodyguard Khalifah Al-Hadhari berdakwah kat kita dalam gelap?
Yang kami dengar cerita hanya dua orang saja yang tak makan ajar dimaktab kemunting iaitu pengasas2
Sekolah Kemunting itu sendiri. Rahsia tetap Rahsia, bukan gitu?
Berkorbanlah apa saja asalkan anak2 dapat meneruskan pembelajaran supaya dapat menjadi pemimpin2 mendatang, contoh seperti Pak Lah dan kuncu-konco nya. Kalau tak mampu teruskan pembelajaran, hentikan saja, boleh juga anak2 kita duduk bermain dalam longkang bila hujan lebat tiba. Boleh cuba tahan air deras dengan belakang badan.(teringat kenangan lama) silap2 dibawa arus, lemas dan tanam saja anak2 bangsa itu.
Lebih baik mati lemas dah tentu lemas dari mati kelaparan dalam negara yang dikatakan teguh ekonomi nya. Ibarat ikan lemas dalam air. Emak dan ayah pula ramai masuk ‘Tanjung Rambutan’ cuba memahami kata2 PM yang berkepala dan berhati BATU ini. Mana tak nya;
Dalam Sinar Harian (Ahad Jun 8, N5) ekstrak ucapan nya seperti berikut;
‘Rakyat perlu dapat maklumat tepat’
Setuju!, tepat dengan jangkaan pengumuman tentang kenaikan harga minyak petrol/disel.
‘kenaikan harga minyak merupakan cabaran utama Negara pada hari ini dan kerajaan prihatin terhadap perasaan dan taraf hidup rakyat’
Setuju!, seperti memaklumkan kenaikan 78sen/RM1.00 harga petrol/disel dengan mengejutkan sampai lingtangpukang keadaan lalu lintas malam itu.
'Alhamdulillah, pendapatan seisi rumah purata … telah meningkat drp RM3,249 pd 2004 kpd RM3,686 pd 2007….’
Adakah statistics sejarah yang dibanggakan Pak Lah dapat meyakinkan ‘alhamdulillah’ 2008 dan tahun2 mendatang?
Ternganga juga mulut nak memikirkan pertalian data2 tahun 2007 dengan keadaan yang getir(2008) SEKARANG NI.. mak ooi, pinaulah !
Tolong lah pak lah, dah naik gila kami cuba nak fikirkan masa depan kami dan Negara tercinta. Alang2 menjolok pekasam.., kami rakyat yang teraniaya mencabar PM Malaysia agar membubarkan parlimen dan adakan ‘snap elections’ sebagai jalan penentuan sokongan rakyat terhadap kerajaan yang ada kini! Dan jika nak ditangkap kami biarlah keKemunting, sekurang2nya kami masih siuman. Kalau masuk TR? Gila jawabnya.
Pak Lah,
Sebelum kami hilang akal, izinkan kami beri cadangan ( saaatu saja)ok?
Keluarkan arahan kabinet kepada kesemua majikan (kerajaan/swasta) agar memberi alaun ‘dharurat’ sementara dalam bentuk ‘COLA’ kepada semua pekerja2 sebanyak $500/bulan purata kerana bukan hanya yang miskin saja rakyat malaysia.
Sekurang2 ianya dapat digunakan untuk perbeljaan harian2 dan akan terus menjana pengaliran wang dalam pasaran daripada mengambil tindakan yang hanya akan membebankan kerajaan dengan kos pengendalian subsidi wang tunai sebanyak RM625/setahun tu. Tidak munasabah!
Dan bila ekonomi dunia beransur sihat dan kerajaan telah meningkatkan reseb simpanannya dan 'current akaun' negara seimbang, kerajaan bolehlah ‘reimburse’ duit majikan2 yang terbabit dengan bantuan COLA tu. Barulah munasabah!
Arahkan mereka yang banyak ‘capital’ untuk berkerjasama kerna duit tadi akan pusing2 dalam dunia perniagaan depa juga akhirnya bukan nak disimpan bawah bantal. Barulah ada keadilan dan keseimbangan untuk membantu meringankan beban semua peringkat rakyat jelata, bukan hanya mereka yang berkenderaan bermotor 2000c.c. kebawah dan rakyat miskin sahaja.
Cara2 yang lain, hang pikiaklah sendiri!
Alfatihah, Amin yarabbal Alamin.
Salam TDM.. semuga sihat dan ceria. Tompang lalu TDM pasal nak cakap sikit kat PJ
PJ...
Saya ni nak kata banyak pengalaman tu tak le jugak, tapi lama gak le dah idup. Saya dah merasa dipimpin 5 org PM.. segala masam-manis, pahit getir dah dirasa.
Sebagai insan atau sebagai orang Malaysia, TANGGUNGJAWAB bukan semasa berkhidmat je sayang. Selagi nyawa dikandung badan, agama,bangsa dan negara adalah segalanya..
Renung2kan...
Kepada TDM, teruskanlah menulis dan suntikkanlah SEMANGAT PERJUANGAN ke hati kami semua untuk agama,bangsa dan negara MALAYSIA tercinta
Dear Tun,
Thank you for revealing what had actually happened. This is what we actually wanted to listen after all these years.
Salleh Abbas affair was manipulated well by the Opposition and organizations who hated you to their advantage.
Sadly, the current Fed Govt admitted the 'mistakes' and compensated them in the form of ex-gratia payments. This cannot reverse the decision of the court but can it be a contempt? Court had decided so and now the complainant is saying sorry to the wrongdoer and admitted to the wrong?...From my point of view..it is a contempt of court!
To Mr Roy and Antimamak, clearly both of you do not understand the points put forth by Tun. You can agree or disagree but to avoid / cilok and divert is a no gentlemen.
We who admire Tun here would understand and respect those who bravely disagree with Tun's comment as everybody is entitled to their own opinion but to annoy, kutuk or discredit is simply a potrayal of your own level of IQ!
Taniah TUN atas mencerita hal sebenarnya nya berlaku semuaga seluruh rakyat dapat memehaminya. Rakyat boleh menilai atas keiklas TUN Mencerita perkara sebenarnya berlaku....Taniah Sekali lagi...Saya harap TUN dapat menulis isu yang lebih sensitif lagi seperti trajedi Mamali, Sebab penyinkiran DSAI...
Tun,
Ape ni Tun?? What will happen to Malaysia esp MALAY??
plz giv ur comment???
plz plz plz.. Tun!
harakahdaily.net
KUALA LUMPUR, 8 Jun (Hrkh) - Teka-teki penyertaan beberapa ahli Parlimen BN hampir terjawab dalam masa terdekat apabila Ketua Umum Parti Keadilan Rakyat (KeADILan), Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim melaungkan keyakinan rancangannya akan menuju kejayaan.
Kali ini Anwar menyatakan bahawa kemasukan ahli-ahli Parlimen BN itu seperti yang dirancangkan dimana tarikhnya ialah 16 September 2008 seiring dengan tarikh pembentukan Malaysia.
Kini dengan kenyataan Anwar itu, usaha Pakatan Rakyat yang hanya memerlukan sokongan 30 ahli Parlimen BN untuk mengambil alih kerajaan pusat hamoir pasti berjaya.
Namun Anwar enggan menjelaskan serba lanjut berhubung jumlah ahli Parlimen BN terbabit atas alasan keselamatan.
Ujar Anwar, sesetengah daripada mereka (ahli parlimen BN) terpaksa pergi ke negara jiran untuk mengadakan perbincangan dengannya.
Justeru bagi Anwar adalah merbahaya jika beliau mendedahkan sebarang nama ahli Parlimen terbabit dalam masa terdekat ini.
Anwar dengan nada yakin berkata pengumuman mengenai kemasukan ahli Parlimen BN ke dalam kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat akan hanya didedahkan apabila Parlimen bersidang semula.
Namun, keputusan mengenainya perlu dibincangkan secara terperinci dengan barisan pemimpin Pakatan, ujar Anwar dalam sidang medianya di Damansara hari ini.
Anwar turut menjelaskan bahawa beliau tidak memerlukan kebenaran dari Peguam Negara, Tan sri Abdul Gani Patail untuk bertanding dalam pilihan raya kecil kerana sekatan politik yang dikenakan ke atasnya berakhir pada 14 April lalu.
Anwar belum bertanding dalam pilihanraya kecil kerana masih berbincang dengan pemimpin lain parti tersebut dan juga dengan beberapa ahli Parlimen yang bersedia meletak jawatan untuk membolehkan beliau bertanding.
Beliau telah menerima surat dari Pendaftar Pertubuhan yang membenarkan beliau untuk aktif semula dalam politik.
Dalam hal lain, Anwar turut mengulangi pendirian Pakatan untuk menurunkan harga minyak jika mereka memerintah, dan menambah beliau lebih rela kehilangan jawatan daripada membiarkan rakyat merana.
Anwar merupakan calon pilihan Pakatan untuk menjadi Perdana Menteri jika gabungan itu berkuasa.
Minggu lalu, kerajaan mengumumkan kenaikan harga minyak sebanyak 78 sen bagi Petrol dan RM1 bagi minyak diesel.WANN/wann. _
Who were in the Tribunal Tun?????
What did they achieve after the events that took place???
What is happening with the Judiciary, Tun???
You see, what the five judges did was to stop the tribunal from giving its recomendations. It was the composition of the Tribunal that was being questioned. You have respectfully acknowledged the position held by Tun Salleh... Therefore, any injustice happening to him is a matter of national interest. If it were to happen to you, it would also be of national interest.
Waiting your reply!!!
A'kum Tun,
Isu ni dah lama, namun selama ni ianya atara yang mencemarkan nama Tun. Ianya menjadi topik kempen semasa pilihan raya 1999. Berbagai fitnah dilemparkan terhadap Tun diatas pentas politik dan lain-lain, Tidak sesiapa pun yang menganggap ini menghina Agung, walaupun adalah menjadi kuasa Agung melantik dan memecat Ketua Hakim. Hina nya rakyat Malaysia.
Sekali lahi PM dan Zaid sekarang memainkan isu ini untuk mendapat sokongan.......... Dimajlis bersama Badan Kehakiman diumumkan Ex Gratia kepada Tun Salleh Abas. Penguam dan pengamal undang undang gembira. Ada rakyat menganggap ianya satu tamparan kepada Tun.
Tapi ada rakyat yang juga bertanya, jika tindakan memecat Agung adalah salah kerajaan dan mengakibatkan kewangan kerajaan, mengapa tidak dimbil tindakan terhadap yang menyebabkan kerugiaan itu ?
Kami semua menunggu komen dari PM dalan isu ini.
Doa saya untuk Tun senantiasa berbahagia. Terima kasih Tun.
Askum YABhg Tun. Your expose on the TSA Saga and the 'so-called' 5 eminent judges leaves a bitter taste as to who really are 'men of honour and integrity '. TSA portrays himself as of that category plus putting that 'pious= warak= religious" image. Yet after reading yr posting, all that exterior judiciary robe crumbles like dust, revealing the true 'naked men of Dishonour'. More so, after readily accepting the ex-gratia payments (equal wang rakyat) after knowing that they had been paid their pensions n other perks all these years (n keeping silent!), I just wonder how long the Judiciary can keep that 'Holier-than-thou' image.
Salam Tun,
Elok sangat Dato Zaid atau Tun Salleh Abas sendiri berikan penjelasan terhadap tulisan Tun ini supaya kita semua mendapat gambaran yang lebih jelas dan adil.
Kita semua seharusnya jangan terlalu emosional, relaks....
Dear YM Tun,
I'm a lawyer and from my experience and personal view, there has not been any 'ideal' separation of power concept anywhere in the world. There must be some overlapping functions somehow or another.
Thank you for your explanation Tun. At least we now have your side of the story. May Allah bless u Tun.
Tun
Kami dah tahu kisah Tun Salleh ni. Apa yang dibuat kerajaan sekarang adalah untuk memalukan Tun dan orang orang yang membuat keputusan dahulu dengan membayar ex gratia. Buat apa nak bagi lagi? sebab mereka pun telah menerima pencen penuh. Mengapa jumlah yang diberi tidak diumumkan? In semua kerja nak MENGABEH KAN BOREH AJE. Apa lagi sebenarnya nak dibuktikan oleh si Zaid dan Pak Lah tu?
Buat la kerja kerja yang menguntung kan rakyat bukan kerja macam ni?
DatOK ZeQ
Kelana Jaya, Selangor
P.S Bila nak huraikan masaalah PATI ? (bukan Parti) Saya tak mau lihat KL menjadi mini India, mini Bangladesh, mini Kemboja, mini Myanmar, mini Nepal, mini Thailand
Agaknya nanti ada ramai pulak orang yang anti diatas. antimamak dah ada kan ???
Salam Tun Dr.M,
Penjelasan yang saya rasa cukup menarik minat rakyat Malaysia yang tidak tahu hal sebenar mengenai isu Tun Salleh. Malangnya ada pengkritik diblog ini yang mindanya sangat cetek. Yang dimaksudkan ialah antimamak. Dia menuduh penjelasan Tun Dr.M adalah “contamination court”. Saya rasa dia nie tidak paham apa yang cuba Tun perjelaskan. Mungkin kerana banyak makan roti canai menyebabkan mindanya begitu.
Semoga Allah melindungi pihak yang benar.
P/S: Kepada antimamak saya harapakan semoga komen anda dimasa hadapan supaya lebih bersikap terbuka. Jangan terlalu mengikut minda dan jiwa anda yang kerdil itu. Who are you to tell Tun Dr.M to be a gentleman? I feel that you should be ashamed of yourself. Tun has done lot of greats to our beloved nation. He’s a true nationalist. Who is antimamak? What your contribution to the country?
I would suggest for you not to mention about ISA etc. if you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. I feel that what you wrote in your comments is stupid and as if we are leaving a communist country and don’t practise democracy at all. I find it really hard to agree with thinking such as yours.
Wak bojer:
Tactic Tun itu bukan kita tak tahu, Cuma kita berdiam diri aje,.
Memang Tun adalah salah seorang strategist dan opportunist yang handal menjahanamkan permaufakatan Melayu. Memang pun Tun mengetahui internet / blog sebagai salah satu senjata boleh menjatuhkan sesebuah parti. Dengan tertanya tanya diri , apakah strategi yang begitu tajam dan kejam yang dipermainkan oleh Tun ??
1)--murders with a borrowed knife ,apabila Tun Salleh menerima –ex-gratia sebagai pampasan , Tun pun mengemukakan articlenya, memberikan penjelasan, maka penjelasan dirinya akan jadi murders with a borrowed knife, menyemarakkan rakyat membenci kepada kerajaan kini. mengkritik kerajaan bodoh.
2)Attacks the enemy's rear in order to compel him to give up he's own attack – Ini lah lepas hentam Tun Salleh dalam article, tak payah belanja apa apa kos, Cuma menggunakan pena tajam untuk membunuh pihak lawan. Lalu memyembuyi tangan. Jadi Tun Salleh terpaksa tutup mulut. Memberi laluan Tun Mahathir jadi manusia yang paling mulia dan bersih dalam sejarah Malaysia. Pak Lah dan Zaib menjadi mangsa tomahan.
3）uses diversionary tactics – Inilah tactic yang kejam dan membabi butakan golongan yang berusur sentiment, khasnya kepada penyokong UMNO,. Tactic ini disifatkan sebagai Uses the ingenious method seizes to lure and causes the enemy to have in the illusion , seizes the opportunity to exterminate Pak Lah again.
3)Jadi Tun hanya memerlukan sedikit masa untuk mengarang article pun boleh menjatuhkan Pak Lah, Is discarding Pak Lah "to obtain the peach of the strategy, Is also obtaining the maximum victory with the minimum then loss." Jadi pada masa yang sama, mempromote anaknya Mukhriz melalui saluran Najib, tapi sayangnya Najib enggan jumpa Tun. ..hahaha
Bagi saya , Tun memang lah pakar membuat cerita, kalaulah pembaca pembaca lalai menganalisa faktadengan teliti, maka akan di tipu bulat bulat seperti roti canai bermuka dua , article ini akan menolak Pak Lah jatuh tanpa menggunakan jentera berat. Tetapi Tun hanya meludah dengan air liur menjadikan cabinet Pak Lah kelam kabut.
Belajar dari Tun...
Loh said...
Faham but do not agree.....
Mr Loh dan pengkritik TDM yg lain;
Adakah anda menyangka TDM sepatutnya melakukan secara apa yg anda
katakan?Bagaimana pula dgn pengkritik lain,adakan mereka akan mengesyorkan
sama seperti anda,dan bagaimana pula dgn cadangan penyokong TDM,yg mana
satukah yg perlu 'diikutinya'.Adakah TDM perlu mendengar semua cadangan
rakyatnya,terutama pengkritiknya utk bertindak supaya dia tdk dipersalahkan
kemudian hari? Adakah anda yakin YDPA akan 'melupakan'hasrat nya setelah
dirayu oleh TDM bagi pehak TSA yg juga tdk disenangi oleh TDM sendiri? Adakah
PM yg ideal utk anda mesti bersifat spt nabi? Apakah anda melaksanakan sifat
ideal itu dlm kehidupan setiap ketika hidup anda? Berapa ramaikah pehak yg
anda wakili pada setiap hari keatas perlakuan ideaal anda itu dan berapa lama
pula? 22 tahun? Berapa...apa... adakah...siapa....pa...da...da...kah...? Tiada
penghujungnya Mr Loh.
Anda mesti ingat Mr Loh,TDM MEMERINTAH MALAYSIA SELAMA 22 TAHUN SETELAH
DIPILIH OLEH MAJORITI,saya ulangi MAJORITI PENGUNDI MALAYSIA DLM PRU YG
DIMENANGI PARTI YG DIWAKILINYA PADA TIAP TIAP saya ulangi TIAP TIAP KALI
PRU,dimana dlm tempoh tersebut timbul bermacam macam isu ,salah satunya spt yg
diketengahkan anda disini dan tiada satu isu pun ataupun semuanya sekali yg
menggugurkan TDM dari jawatannya(yg dipilih majoriti pengundi). Dan ingatlah
juga MrLoh,TDM melepaskan jawatannya secara SUKARELA kpd DSAAB yg mendapat
jolokan Mr Clean yg saya percaya disokong sepenuhnya oleh anda dan para
idealist lain(PRU pertama DSAAB membuktikannya).Saya harap anda memahami
implikasi kpd kenyataan berhuruf besar diatas, maksud saya kalau anda melihat
sepohon pokok, pastikan yg mana akar, perdu,batang, cabang dan seterusnya
supaya mudah utk kita menanam,memelihara, mengguna atau menebangnya.
Akhir kata jadilah realist dlm reliti dan gunakan idealism utk penyuluh
realiti.Komunism tumbang kerana kegagalan mengamalkan idealism.
Sekian.
Salam Tun,
Im not intend to raise a subversif comment...but, i think the waive of political tsunami seems to be unstoppable...
But, maybe as Malaysian we still can save Malaysia from the "external attack" as we dont have the instant superhero to save our people trust and hope to our leader.
We actually have one best leader but im not sure how the procedures should be if this name to be called as the Malaysian new era leader.
and the profile has completely fulfill the best requirement as Malaysian leader, but only the experience knows the procedures..
The profile is....
Raja Nazrin had an impressive academic and intellectual background with bachelor's degrees with honours in various fields – philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University.
He also holds a Masters in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of government, Harvard; and Ph.D in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University.
Raja Nazrin’s research interests are in the area of economic and political development in South-East and North-East Asia, historical national income accounting and economic growth in developing countries.
The prince has also written articles and spoken on a wide range of issues including the role of the constitutional monarchy in Malaysia, education, Islam, ethnic relations and economic development.
He has assumed the role of Financial Ambassador of the Malaysian International Finance Centre (MIFC), has been Pro-Chancellor of Universiti Malaya since 1989 and is the chairman of the Board of Governors of the Malay College Kuala Kangsar.
He recently consented to becoming an Eminent Fellow of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Isis) Malaysia effective May 1.
Daulat Tuanku.
Kenapa Tv and Paper senyap je takl cover kes nie. pak Lah senyap je tak jawab apa takut ke?
Dear TUN,
Thanks for clearing up the matter to us ordinary folks.
I also did follow thru' on this matter thru' the links below to Jebatmustdie wordpress.com to get the whole picture of this Tun Salleh Abbas saga & i must admit that the author did a great job of compiling his research of the matter & did a fabulous write up. Bravo!
Seems like TSA feels like he's untouchable during his tenure as LP but i'm glad that you did bring him down back to earth with a BANG if i may say so... lol
Thanks again for your clarification of the matter to us rakyat although it's quite a long time coming but it;s worth it.
Just remember no matter how small the matter is/was...globally, respect is important...showing others that you have the power or warning others that you can do anything...was not a good act...because you may inviting others to react the same as what you did..
So one of the most important thing in your life...please respect the others especially orang yang lebih tua.
Vijandra...
"It is a convincing read.Now we must read what Tun Salleh has to say before we come to the conclusion.I still feel Mahathir is hiding facts from us."
Anda sedar atau tidak yang fikiran anda bercanggah?? Mula-mula anda kata Barat selepas itu dalam ayat yang sama anda kata Barat?
Anda minta semua orang jangan membuat conclusion/kesimpulan tetapi kemudian anda sendiri yang membuat kesimpulan Tun M ada menyembunyikan fakta.
Wow...Dangkal sungguh pemikiran anda...sentiasa ada Double standard..bagus la begitu..anda sangat berkelayakan menjadi HAKIM yang ADIL
Syabas!!
A'kum,
Tentang minyak. Saya mohon mencadangkan:
1. Bagi membendung kenaikan harga minyak, Kerajaan wajar explore dwi-sistem ekonomi, iaitu pendekatan ekonomi yang berbeza terhadap minyak berbanding komoditi lain. Kita mungkin tidak lagi export minyak petronas tetapi mennggunakan sepenuhnya didalam negara dan mewajibkan syarikat minyak asing dalam negara membeli/menggunakan minyak petronas sehingga tiba masa yang sesuai. i.e. Tambatan komoditi
2. Bagi mengawal inflasi kenaikan harga barang, saya mencadangkan diwujudkan Supermarket milik penuh kerajaan seperti Tesco, Carrefour, Giant yang menjual barang2 keperluan rakyat pada harga yang rendah sebagaimana yang dicadangkan oleh kerajaan. Dengan itu, tidak dapat tidak kedai milik swasta ini terpaksa menurunkan harga mereka bagi menyaingi harga kedai milik kerajaan. Pelaburan kerajaan untuk membuka gedung2 ini tidaklah sebesar mana dibandingkan dengan menafaat yang bakal diperolehi rakyat apabila inflasi dapat dikekang.
3. Begi counter kenaikan tambang bas terutamanya perjalanan jauh, kerajaan juga dicadangkan menggunakan bas2 RAPID KL yang tersadai tersebut untuk mengoperasikan syarikat bas milik kerajaan bagi menyaingi harga tinggi bas swasta tersebut. Maka, pastinya mereka akan menurunkan kembali harga tambang mereka bila syarikat bas kerajaan menawarkan harga rendah.
5. Kerajaan hendaklah menunjukkan kepada rakyat yang mereka juga berjimat-cermat dengan mengurangkan belanja yang tidak perlu seperti majlis keraian, kenderaan2 polis pengiring PM/TPM juga perlu dikurangkan bagi menjimatkan minyak.
6. Elaun keraian kakitangan juga hendaklah dikurangkan kerana bukan sahaja boleh menjimatkan wang negara, malah ia juga tidak perlu kerana selama ini pun mereka tidak pernah gunakan elaun itu untuk meraikan sesiapa melainkan diri sendiri sahaja. Tujuan elaun itu sendiri tidak tepat. Penjimatan ini boleh digunakan untuk memberi rebat tunai minyak yang lebih tinggi kepada rakyat, mungkin RM800 pula?
Untuk makluman, infrastruktur dan keperluan asas adalah tempat dimana kerajaan boleh memainkan peranan penting untuk bertindak melawan inflasi, contohilah Singapura.
Sekiranya kerajaan tidak berkeupayaan, tubuhkan koperasi rakyat untuk menggerakkan cadangan-cadangan saya seperti diatas.
Semoga pihak yang berkenaan sudi memikirkan cadangan saya ini.
Terima Kasih.
This is a new acronymn...
MAHATHIR stands for:
Must
Always
Hantam
Abdullah
Till
He
Is
Removed
Salam Tun,
Apa yang jelas, keputusan PM kita ni, hanya bergantung kepada keputusan orang lain.Kenaikan harga minyak di buat oleh tingkat 4, manakala isu hakim ini pula diambil kesempatan oleh Zaid Ibrahim.Dia peguam, tentulah dia ada hubungan dengan para hakim dalam urusannya mencari makan.PM kita ni pula tak tau apa yang orang lain buat untuk kepentingan mereka masing-masing.Malaysia menuju kehancuran.
Assalamualaikum Tun Dr. Mahathir,
Izinkan saya memasukkan e-mail yang dihantar oleh teman yang juga berkerja didalam oil & gas industry di negara kita.
QUOTE
Bro. Mat ini untuk sembang2 dengan Bro aje...
Saya rasa malu berkerajaan kan kerajaan sekarang.... dulu saya tak rasa malu sangat bila kita dengan kata, PM beli ni, PM beli tu, buat ni, buat tu, membazir ni, membazir tu. PM tu regardless lah Mahathir ke, Abdullah ke.
Cuba fikir, kenapa saya rasa malu, saya hairan kerajaan mana aa... yang sayang orang asing lebih dari sayang orang tempatan. Kerajaan bagi masa 3 hari untuk orang asing isi kenderaan dengan harga petrol lama dan kerajaan bagi 7 jam aje untuk rakyat tempatan isi minyak dengan harga lama. Sayang betul kerajaan sekarang dengan orang2 Singapura.
Pengumuman pulak di buat masa cuti sekolah bersama (Malaysia cuti sekolah dengan Singapura cuti Sekolah) dan umumnya mengetahui golongan lower middle dan lower income group Singaporean ni akan memang bercuti ke Malaysia.
Adoi adoi adoi... malang sungguh jadi rakyat Malaysia. Kerajaan lebih sayang kan rakyat Singapore dari rakyat sendiri yang bayar cukai pendapatan tiap2 hari.
Salam....
UNQUOTE
Berikut ialah jawapan saya kepada beliau:
Nak buat camna bro XXX kalau dah dapat PM yang tak berwawasan.... dulu bila kita PM yang berwawasan tetapi kebanyakkan kita tak menghargai... kebanyakkan kita kutuk beliau dengan bermacam-macam gelaran... mahafiraun pun ada.... Berkemunkinan, inilah pembalasan dari Allah SWT kepada kita rakyat Malaysia kerana kita tak tau bersyukur kot...
Jadi? Adakah kita akan hanya berpeluk tubuh sahaja?
Semoga Allah selalu memberkati Tun dan keluarga... Amin!!
Dear Old Fart,
No sovereign nation (Malaysia included) wishes its destiny to be governed by the fate of another hence the dispensation of the Privy Council as the final appellate court for this country.
It is also important to note that the move (contrary to your claim) was not done arbitrarily but with the concerted efforts by a great many and long after Malaysia's independence in 1957.
And for you to remark ".... it was like handing over a banana plantation to monkeys to guard" in apparent reference to that move does show your lack of understanding and sensitivity of what democracy and freedom truly means.
At the very least, it should not mean the perpetual subjugation of one independent country (in what ever shape or form) to another.
Y.Bhg.Tun,
Thanks for the clarification.
Selepas baca semua yang ditulis oleh bloggers ni, saya terima berita mengejutkan pulak.
My boss diarahkan bertukar 24 hours sebab yang tiada sebab.
Kami mengendalikan Program yang berkaitan membantu anak-anak melayu dalam pendidikan. Tapi sejak kebelakangan ini, dasar di sini dah jadi lintang pukang sebab masing-masing ego tak nak dengar pandangan orang yang arif dalam hal ini.
Kebetulan bos saya melakukan perkara yang diarahkan oleh orang atasan, tetapi dek kerana kuasa yang dimiliki oleh orang berkenaan, bos saya telah dipersalahkan dan menjadi kambing hitam di sini. Beliau ditukarkan 24jam tanpa apa-apa alasan yang munasabah.
Itulah adat dunia, bila berada dibawah boleh ditendang ke sana ke mari wpun 120% komitmen diberikan. Serba tak kena bila dibawah pimpinan yang jumud dan beku, tidak boleh menerima kesalahan sendiri dan mencampuri urusan orang lain.
Kepada bos yang baik dan saya sanjungi, sesungguhnya Allah bersama orang yang teranayia. Rasanya pimpinan Pak Lah jadi macam sekarang ni sebab dikelilingi oleh orang yang macam ni lah. Melayu mudah lupa bak kata Tun.
"KITA IBARAT TIMUN DAN DURIAN, GILIS PUN MUSNAH, DIGILIS PUN MUSNAH"
Peringatan kepada orang yang berkenaan, ingatlah sesungguhnya kita tidak sentiasa di atas.
MAY GOD BLESS US TUN!
-Anakmelayu-
Assalamualaikum Tun Dr. Mahathir,
Minta izin dari Tun sebab nak komen tentang insan yg bernickname PJ, antimamak, malaysiafreedom, mamaktongkang dan yang sewaktu dengannya..
Sorry to say, bagi saya mereka ini adalah makluk perosak dibumi Malaysia. Mereku juga makluk sejenis dengan Abbas Salleh yang memang kurang budi pekertinya iaitu biadap terhadap Agong dan kerana kebiadapannya beliau sanggup mempengaruhi rakan2 hakimnya supaya berlaku biadap terhadap Agung demi kepentingan peribadinya. Memang patut mereka dipecat tanpa pencen... Alas! Tun seorang yang kesian, sanggup meluluskan pencen mereka... sepatutnya penderhaka2 ini disula aje...
Keanggotan tribunal yang nak dijadikan isu adalah lemah kerana sebagai manusia yang lemah setiap manusia mempunyai kepentingan sendiri... itukan fitrah manusia.
Semua rakyat Malaysia mempunyai kepentingan sendiri.... jadi tak payah nak perasan dengan: imej 'Holier-than-thou'.
p/s - Semoga Allah SWT selalu mengurniakan hidayahNya kepada Tun dan keluarga.
For the avoidance of doubt, my comments were directed to the person identified as "Old Fart" who posted his comments on 6th June 2008 at 7:32pm
Betul Tun, kena kembali untuk membetul sistem perundangan negara ... Zaid ibarat ketam mgajar anak berjalan....
Salam Tun,
Masa akan menentukan segala-galanya, Dikala itu Kebenaran pasti muncul, Semoga Tun Sihat sehingga saat itu, InsyaAllah...
Salam Tun,
Syabas dan terima kasih diatas penjelasan ini yg saya kira lebih efektif jika Tun jelaskan suatu masa yg terdahulu.
Satu persoalan ikhlas saya buat Tun, mengapa dipilih Datuk Seri Abdullah Hj Ahmad Badawi ini sbg galang ganti Tun pada suatu masa dahulu? Bagi saya, pilihan Tun sedikit sebanyak menyumbang kearah kepincangan pimpinan negara kala ini. Saya yakin Tun sedar dan tahu perkara2 sebegini akan berlaku setelah Tun tidak menjawat jawatan PM.
Ketika ini, saya masih lagi mencari-cari kesucian politik, kebenaran kata2 ahli politik.
salam tun..
syabas..sungguh meyakinkan.
Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh Saga. To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding of the Royal Commission on the Linggam tape.
I must confess that I was not moved to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog has apparently written about it. However, after having read your latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to put things on record and proper perspective.
It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of manipulation. When everything else fails, what better than to stoke racial sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsible pointed out that the Malays are the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to continue. You than quickly followed it up in Japan when you reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you, other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay rights. Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I would make an exception. Just change the word "patriotism" to "racialism" and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.
When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim, I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal. How very convenient of you DrM. Of course you had conveniently overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas be removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining about His Majesty's renovation work. So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask?
That is the first question which came across my mind while reading your post. The second question is this. Since when have you become a royalist so much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal Constitution? You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the powers of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly be so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh Abas?
The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is of course not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writin such a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY? If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty, why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King? W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter has appeared and become an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during the Linggam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last week about the same letter? Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks. Coincidently, I wrote.
By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your beligerent attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state mass media, the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and the Malays Rulers. The whole propaganda machines were used to smear the King and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed in newspapers. Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be. And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas? Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody else who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?
DrM, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!
You then mention in your blog that it was your opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord President who was photographed with a certain lawyer oversea? Wouldn't that constitute a wrongdoing? That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a wrongdoing which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?
You now charged, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented Dr M. I remember clearly in one speech, you liken the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would now say it was all in jest. Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms, namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase "check and balance" was missing from your administrative dictionary which was probably reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.
Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to take away "judicial powers" from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M, that Malaysia, would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth ( I say Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems) whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was, and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy.
Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!
You some what denies that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a balance of probability, otherwise. Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this character later in this post. On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended, Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas. How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond me or my intelect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post. I am sure.
If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?
Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal. He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during the meeting when asked by the tribunal members. If he was so sure that he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory.
On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your blog Dr M? And let the people who read it to judge the matter after having been fed with al relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own purpose and objectives.
I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time form me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?
Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the King dated 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal. Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to understand it, let alone grasp it.
Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of separation of powers. Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of course you then had to accuse "certain Judges" as interfering with politics. You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying down while waiting for pension?
You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration system. AS much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the attacks leveled against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him to lodge a police report over the matter?
By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politicain is trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you of course forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the law along Islamic legal principles with against the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published by you in your blog?
Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim or Abdullah Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story. And let the people, and history, be the judge.
Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)? The beauty is that it is a set of law common to all the people. That means, when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know. The common people. Me, and your readers.
Kind regards,
Art Harun
ha ha ha... terasa lucu membaca article ni.
Mohon maaf Tun, saya rasa cukuplah Tun berada di persanda politik ini. Terlalu lama sehingga kita sudah tidak sedar apa yang kita telah perkatakan dahulu.
Allah Taala Maha Mengetahui, pulanglah dengan hati yang tenang dan sabar...
Assalamualaikum Tun,
Nota ini ialah untuk purnama halus dan mereka yang masih bertanyakan soalan yang sama.
Layari youtube...cari interview Dr Mahathir with BBC Hard Talk’s Stephen Sackur.
Tengok video yang dipos oleh tagotigris. Ada 3 bahagian. Tentang persoalan cik purnama halus itu, ada pada bahagian ke-3.
Assalamualaikum Tun,
Maaf terpaksa tinggalkan nota untuk PURNAMA HALUS sekali lagi..ada sedikit kesilapan.
Tentang soalan cik purnama halus tu, ada jawapannya pada bahagian ke-2 interview tersebut, bukan yang ke-3. Salam.
Akum,
SKALI ingin saya tegaskan
Rakyat malaysia berlu bersatu padu untuk ini...
KAMI NAK PAK LAH TURUN SEGERA...
Ingin saya katakan semakin byk tembelang dan penipuan kerajaan pimpinan sekarang jelas kelihatan betul2 lemah terdedah. Janji memperjuangkan hak rakyat diganti kpd menindas rakyat terutama golongan miskin.
Saya sarankan protes kenaikkan minyak diadakan di RUMAH PM KEPALA BATAS, dan di PJBT PM PUTRAJAYA.
Kpd PAK LAH,
TURUN Pak Lah.... TURUN Pak Lah....
TURUN Pak Lah.... TURUN Pak Lah....
DEMI MALAYSIA....
TURUNLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Salam Tun...
Selepas Pak Lah menang tipis dalam pilihanraya memgumumkan tiada kenaikan harga minyak tahun ini. Tapi sekarang bukan saja naik tapi mencekik orang susah seperti saya.
Diharap semua dapat berdoa Malaysia akan mempunyai pemimpin berwibawa yang akan berkembang dalam politik, sosial dan ekonomi lebih pesat bukan memjunam seperti sekarang.
Saya adalah pekerja dalam sektor kilang selama 20 tahun ...berapa banyak kilang baru di buka dan berapa banyak tutup operasi lari ke china, india, vietnam ? Mengapa pelabur asing gerun datang malaysia ? Saya amat sedih melihat banyak kilang kilang ditumbuhi lalang dan dihuni anjing liar....
Sebelum minyak ini...masalah minyak masak,ayam,gula dan beras semuanya keperluan barang asas untuk orang ramai. Sentiasa tiasa stok , kena seluduplah, kena catu lah....semua lah je sebab PM masih Pak Lah. Terus terang saya cakap saya kecewa sangat jadi tahun ini saya cuma jadi pemerhati tidak keluar mengundi padahal sejak umur 21 tahun saya tak mis....
Saya fikir tahun 2009 harga minyak akan menapak ke RM3.20/ liter. Memang boleh guna basikal macam di china tapi semua barang akan naik jugak kan Pak Lah.Sesekali turun lah Pak Lah turun lah padang jenguk pasar, pasar malam kedai runcit tengok harganya yang langsung tak dikawal. Jangan tau janji je harga kepeluan tak kan naik. Jangan percaya sangat memanda menteri je yang cuma melawat 1 atau 2 pasar itupun ada liputan TV3!!!Tidak hairanlah rekod jenayah rompak, ragut akan meningkat berkali ganda selepas ini sebab penganggur makin bertambah.
Wahai perdana menteri kalau baca artikel kitaorang ini buatlah sesuatu yang membantu orang susah. Tapi nak masuk kan saya dalam ISA pun takpe lah. Kerna saya bercakap lahir dari hati yang ikhlas!!!
To art harun
Ok komen u nampak bernas, saya hormat tu.
1.Tapi kenapa anda nampak Tun sahaja yang cuba memcampuri bidang kehakiman. Tidakkah tindakan saleh abbas juga mencampuri bidang eksuketif dengan ucapan2 beliau.Adakah patut hakim boleh interpret undang2 yang digubal oleh exsekutif ikut tafsiran sendiri. Hakim juga penjawat awam yang ada peraturan yang perlu diikuti. Apa gunanya undang-undang yang diintrepetasi selain dari madsud penubuhannya.
2. Kamu dan ramai orang yang seangkatan dengan kamu mempertikaikan perlantikan Tim. Ketua Hakim sebagai Pengerusi tribunal. Kamu juga akui dia antara org paling kanan dalam bidang penghakiman. Adakah sesuai untuk melantik hakim junior daripada itu untuk manjadi ketua tribunal. Bagi saya beliau adalah yang paling sesuai kerana dari segi logik dia paling berpengalaman. Setengah pendapat mengajar untuk melantik hakim yang sudah bersara, tapi kenapa perlu melibatkan mereka. Ini adalah tanjungjawab para hakim yang masih berkhidmat. Berkenaan dengan perasaan bahawa dia ada kepentingan adalah prasangka anda dan saleh abbas semata. Saleh abbas itu sendiri yang sudah ada perasaan yang tidak baik terhadap beliau. Bukan semua orang seperti kita, masih ramai lagi orang yang jujur dan ikhlas menjalankan tugas. Jika ia sekali pun ada kepentingan, mengapa salleh abbas begitu ego dan bongkak sekali untuk tidak menghadiri tribunal tersebut. Jika dia menjalani tribunal tersebut dan tidak mendapat pengadilan yang betul baru ada bukti bahawa ianya tidak betul. Siapa Salleh abbas sehingga beliau mengingkari arahan YDPA. Beliau telah mengaku bersalah sebelum dibicarakan.
3. Ada orang memberi pandangan bahawa salleh abbas begitu warak, merendah diri dan memakai pakaian kampung. Tapi bila dia memakainya? selepas dilucutkan jawatannya. Biasala manusia, bila sudah ditimpa musibah baru sedar diri dan ingat tuhan. Pada pandangan saya salleh abas adalah seorang yang bongkak bila dia memegang jawatan ketua hakim.org melihat dia baik selepas dilucutkan jawatan.
4. Kamu mempertikaikan nota yang ditulis KSN yang tidak dapat dibuktikan pon. Kamu hanya mendengar sebelah pihak. Jika tiada bukti yang kukuh bahawa perbualan itu tidak berlaku mengapa kamu mengangap ianya mesti ada. Mungkin saleh abbas juga boleh mereka cerita. Saya berpendapat kamu juga peguam/hakim tentu kamu lebih arif tentang ini.
5. Kamu cuba mempersendakan Tun M dengan mengatakan dia selalu lupa masa tribunal kes Linggam tetapi masih ingat fakta2 lain dalam artikel ini. Kalau orang kampung pon boleh faham semasa perbicaraan soalan ditanya dalam keadaan semasa, tidak ada bahan rujukan segera yang boleh dirujuk oleh TUN. Berbanding dengan artikal ini dimana Tun boleh merujuk dalam banyak rujukkan beliau dan sudah tentu buku kecilnya adalah salah satu darinya. Ini boleh menunjukkan Tun samada dia jujur atau tidak mahu diperangkap. Betapa bijaknya beliau.
6. Kepada Che din, saya berpendapat pahala TUN adalah lebih banyak daripada pahala kamu. Tun lebih banyak berjasa daripada kamu ibarat gunung dan busut. Ajal tidak mengenal usia, mungkin kamu dan saya pergi dahulu sebelum TUN. Jika TUN pergi pon pahala masih lagi diterima beliau (InsyaAllah) selagi lebuhraya PLUS, Putrajaya dan banyak lagi yang dibina/dimulakan oleh TUN. Kehilangan beliau akan diratapi oleh berjuta-juta manusia benbanding dengan kita mungkin berpuluh atau beratus sahaja. Jika kamu tiada tidak memberi kesan kepada Malaysia berbanding dengan TUN yang masih diperlukan. Jangan cuba mempersenda.Cermin diri anda.
Well done art harun..superb! Your arguments should put to shame all those cronies and blind followers of TDM ( the former PM who has a selective memory and who has transient amnesia from time to time to suit his convenience!)to shame. He should respond to your comments and views.
Abi
Salam Tun,
Saya mendapati bayaran ex-gratia kepada Tun Abbas hanya untuk menambah imej ABB sebagai PM yang ingin menunjuk kebersihan keiklasan nya dalam sistem kehakiman yang lebih adil dari Tun.Ini juga satu road show menunjuk dia seorang yang lebih bagus boleh memberi kebebasan kepada sistem kehakiman dengan sengaja membiar rakyat melontarkan andaian permerintahan Tun ada kecam dan sifat dictator. Mengapa menteri baru undang undang ini mencungkil balik isi tun Abbas ini sedangkan tidak bermakna langsung untuk memahami nya siapa yang salah.Ini sudah dalam sejarah.
Saya juga pendapat royal commission diadakan untuk membicarakan Tun dalam Lingam tape nanti memberi tamparan yang sama mengambarkan dictator Tun dalam memilih hakim yang dibawah pengaruhnya supaya nama Tun akan jejas dalam sejarah.Dan ABB lah yang bersih,bakal menyelamatkan imej UMNO dari lebih bersih, adil,menubuh lagi commission untuk menghapus korupsi mengganti ACA yang lupuh kepercayaan rakyat.1 soalan disini bengan Tun ialah,semua orang tahu ABB seorang iman yang mempunyai pakar lakon dan wayang kulit dihadapan media dan ahkbar,kenapa dia sangat suka flip-flop berbagai untuk keputusan akhir yang benar?
Dalam issue menaik minyak lebih 40%,apabila Sharir mencadang RM 1.00 kenaikan petrol dan sokongan kabinet dibalas balik ia tidak lebihi RM 0.50,takut beban sangat lampau untuk rakyat derita turut dibahaskan selama 4 jam tanpa jawapan pelan penyelasaian yang diakhiri,Bila sudah penat,ABB turut bercadang menetap penyelesaian pada kadar RM 0.75 diantara RM 1.00 dan RM 0.50,iaitu ½ setengah( In Between ),supaya semua kabinetnya tidak payar susah lagi tengkar untuk memanjangkan masa untuk dapat 1 cara alternative yang lebih bijak.Keputusan ABB tidak bijak kendarikan issue subsidi minyak ,yang mana turut tipu rakyat dengan mengatakan ini adalah 1 keputusan biak dan bijak kerajaan mengatasi krisis harga minyak dunia kain tinggi yang akan memberi kesan buruk pada sistem ekonomi Negara lagi menekan kerajaan cukup bagus masih memberi subsidi RM 0.30 tiap se liter,seolah ABB sendiri tidak setuju sistem subsidi minyak ini patut dihapuskan sama sekali. Mungkin juga dia marah Tun,kerana subsidi adalah produk rekaan Tun 1982,ABB dilihat tidak memahami apa drastic effect akan berlaku pada ekonomi Negara dan juga perlaksaan projek kerajaan akan terkendala dengan kos lebih tinggi,banyak syarikat pembangunan yang tidak setuju ahkibat kenaikan harga barang akan bankrupt dan dibawa ke mahkamah kerana perjanjian syarat kos bina beli tidak boleh diubah alih.( Not Negotiable) Bagaimana agensi kerajaan khasnya syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad SPNB akan berupaya turut membina rumah kos rendah sebanyak 100,000 – 200,000 unit dalam RM 9?Maka rakyat miskin yang sangat gantung pada rumah kos rendah akan kecewa terpaksa menunggu lebih lama lagi.
Apa yang pahit ialah penduduk Malaysia terdiri 70 /20/10% miskin /sederhana/ kaya.70% miskin turut derita kerana pendapatan mereka tidak berubah sama sekali, dengan keniakan kos hidup,naikan minyak,makanan,tambang,eletrik,mereka tambah marah kepada kerajaan ABB,harus lihat 70% ini la yang paling banyak member tiket undi pada BN.mereka kebanyakan sebagai penduduk miskin masih berusaha dalam cara kampong berasa tipu kemarahan kenaikan minyak drastic oleh ABB tanpa mengira politik sama sekali,meraka berasa kerajaan telah gagal dalam kendalikan Petronas,dimana hasil minyak di juah dari Malaysia adalah kepunyaan hak rakyat bukannya keraajan BN.Mereka marah apa guna projek mega koridor dirancangkan dengan duit Petronas hanya kayakan beberapa menteri,YB,dan tokoh UMNO sahaja,jika diberi mereka sekarang RM200 untuk undi BN,mereka tentu tidak terima dan buang ke lantai kerana penipuan janji dan HADIAH pertama ABB selepas PR 12 untuk rakayat ialah menaikan harga minyak,electric dan semua naik,taksiran BN turut betul sebagai BARANG NAIK parti.Kelemahan ABB sebagai PM selepas 4 Jun 2008 berubah dari lemah ke parah Nampak tidak relevant lagi turut takbir,hanya memberi kesan lebih positive kepada PR untuk mengalih kerajaan,ABB telah menghancurkan BN dan UMNO 1 kali lagi kerana sokongon undi aksas dari 70% ini telah marah dan tidak percaya lagi kesimpulan ABB bohong lagi.
Banyak cerita bagaimana keluarga ABB KJ Kali anak beraja kaya dalam 5 tahun,Oil for food,projek carigali Petronas oversea berbillion,projek moonsun cup,ECM Libra ular telan gajah Avenue,sebuah syarikat GLC MOF,juga memilik pos Malaysia,kini kapital sebesar bank komersi,banyak lagi,semua ini tidak membawa apa faedah kepada rakyat derita hidup dalam kemarahan,tiada erti lagi NEP,RM 9,Koridor,Islam Hadari,Ketuanan Melayu,tidak boleh percaya sudah UMNO,BN .Rakyat memilih BN untuk perjuangkan rakyat hidup lebih biak dapati sebaliknya BN sekarang lebih rupakan BEBAN NEGARA turut lontar beban kepahitan kenaikan minyak pada rakyat tanpa kasihan.
Kegagalan Petronas dengan keuntungan yang besar jika lihat harga minyak setong US 130 hanya perlu US30 kos juga pertikaikan Tun sebagai Advisor Petronas,Bukan kah Tun juga memberi pengaruh bijak dalam Petronas?adakah ini 1 langkah ABB cuba melontar balik serangan politic pada Tun kerana advisor Petronas gagal speculate harga minyak akan naik lebihi US100 setong? Inilah diantara sebab bila Tun keluar dari UMNO, crony ABB konon Tun harus pecat dari advisor kerana gagal dan bebankan Petronas dalam laksanaan idea yang berbeza,Tapi dari suara rakyat inzinkan saya buat komen terus,Tun,adakah Petronas telah salah ramal dalam pejualan minyak Forward Contract ( Future Market )atau Jualan Hadapan yang melampau pada harga yang murah seperti US50 setong katanya tahun 2006 sudah habis jual tahun 2008?Kerana kononnya ABB telah berhenti RM 8 yang Over Budget oleh mega projek Tun kepada RM 9?
Pernah ABB sedar bahawa apabila Petronas cadang lebih banyak capital investment dari keuntungan puluh billion hendak teroka Carigali luar negara kerana takut kehabisan minyak di telaga Malaysia sebaliknya membantu Scomi dan beberapa orang sahaja salurkan keuntungan sehingga kerajaan tidak mampu kaji subsidi semula,tuntut saja permintaan Petronas yang akan kayakan berapa orang biar rakyat sengsara dengan bayaran harga minyak yang tinggi.
Saya melihat sekarang keupaayan ABB gagal sama sekali membuat sesuatu dengan kecekapan kepintaran sebagai PM,tidak ada 1 sudut dilihat beliau boleh mengatasi masalah rakyat dan Negara.
i hope that the tried for money politics minister is reading this right now.he is another joker in pak lah's cabinet.to appoint him is actually pak lah's way of trying to win back the heart of the rakyat to vote for BN but sadly,pak lah made another awful mistake and now the rakyat have to pay for the ex-gratia given to judges yang derhaka pada Raja!They should look back to the history of the Malacca Sultanate, a PM now is just the same as the Bendahara then and the Bendahara is supposed to report to the Sulatan and followinstructions but not all the time cause "Sultan Adil Sultan Dijulang ,Sultan Kejam Harus Ditentang!"Now they should show how much of our money has been spent to pay the disgraced people who called themselves judges!?
In Tun we trust...
Beza ketara Tun dengan Pak Lah ialah Tun seorang yang suka membaca, berilmu dan penyabar. Paklah kelihatan warak tetapi sebenarnya tidak juga. Maafkan saya kerana dulu banyak menghina Tun. Jika Tun ada masa sila ceritakan kesah benar bagaimana Anwar dipecat dan betulkah ini konspirasi? Tun sangat dihormati dan kehormatan itu tercalar selepas peristiwa pemecatan dan isu "Gillete"( caci ulama') . Harap Tun dapat menceritakan kepada kami semua. Salam hormat.
Ruslan Z
Antimamak,
Syukur alhamdullillah sekiranya anda akan lakukan solat Istikhirah demi kebaikan diri dan kemantapan hati anda.
Semoga anda akan beroleh apa yang anda hasratkah, Insya Allah.
Wassalam.
Dear Dr M,
Judging from the comments in response to your posting on Salleh Abas and other postings, one has to admire your skills of fooling some of these people all of the times!
I am not one of these people.
Just one question to prove that I do not buy your reasons of why a tribunal was instituted against Salleh Abas--If it is true as you claimed that it was the letters that offended the King, then why did you subsequently also amend the Constitution to curb the powers of the Judiciary?
If we were to accept your reasons as the truth, personal as they were, then removing Salleh Abas would have enough. No?
Ah, of course now you will come out with something to justify this as well, no doubt.
Salam kepada semua.
Wak tertarik dengan komen yang diberikan oleh art harun. baru ada keseimbangan dalam memberikan pandangan dan pendapat. tidak hanya berkitarkan permasalahan politik, tetapi juga pada sudut moral dan perundangan untuk pertimbangan pembaca-pembaca www.chedet.com yang lain. keep-up your good work as it is very helpful to make Malaysia citizens aware the needs of "balance of probability" before jump into one conclusion.
p/s: Wak dah katakan awal-awal lagi (June 6, 2008 1:33 PM), wa'ima faktor UMNO baru & UMNO lama dijadikan alasan untuk penubuhan suruhanjaya/tribunal diRaja, Wak tetap terima seadanya kerana apa yang diutamakan ialah "kepentingan umum" melebihi "kepentingan peribadi".
p/s lagi: teringat dulu-dulu apabila Malaysia mencipta sejarah dengan Kerajaan dipangku sementara oleh Y.B. Datuk Seri (mantan) Presiden MCA sebagai PM Malaysia sementara kes UMNO baru & UMNO lama diselesaikan.
p/s lagi dan lagi: Wak tahu Tun mesti terasa dan Wak minta maaf banyak-banyak. tapi Ku Li patut lebih terasa dalam hal ini, dan Wak pun minta maaf banyak-banyak.
To ‘art harun’,
Having read your lengthy comments, it has somehow urged me to respond to your comments. I am no hardcore supporter of TDM and far from being his ‘worshipper’ as you have deemed some of those who are ‘favourable’ towards Dr. Mahathir. But I must admit that I am an admirer of his leadership style and ability that have truly ‘earned’ Malaysia to be ‘seen and heard’ on the World Map. Especially for his courage and fortitude when facing dire situation and crisis and even in facing-up to the world’s ‘Big Bullies', unperturbed and with dignity.
As you have iterated that you are a ‘supporter’ of truth while in my case I can only regard myself as a ‘Truth-seeker’. There is a considerable difference in these two words, in that I would regard that it is as though you already know what the ‘Truth’ is and thus you would ‘support’ it. In my case I am and shall be continually seeking for truth till the day I die! Upon death, then only shall all the truth be unveiled (Hijab terbuka) for us to see, especially for what we have done during our lifetime. And by then we shall cease to be able to seek any further.
So in your case you have deemed or postulated to already ‘know’ what is the truth or facts in the issues being discussed in this article and blog. How over-confident and arrogant can one be!
And you also have accused Tun Dr. Mahathir of having ‘mastered the fine art of manipulation’. How queer? From my perspective it is apparent from your comments that you instead have the ‘manipulative skills’ in ‘thwarting’ the truth or facts! How odd it is coming from one who declares to ‘support’ the truth!
As an example, you said that TDM have the tendency of attempting to do – “When everything else fails, what better than to stoke racial sentiment in order to gain support”! How ironic? From the thousand of comments posted on this blog-site, there are numerous of non-Malays who have responded in praising TDM for his articles, rather then feeling hurt or ‘alienated’ in any way.
In your quoting of Samuel Johnson – Well, I for one don’t give a damn of what this Samuel Johnson has to say in branding those who are scoundrels! That is his opinion and perception – and it is not a fact!
How ‘liberated’ do you think you are by not ‘belonging’ to any particular race? You are genetically a ‘raceless’ human-being then, I presume. How about patriotism and nationalism then? - may I ask you. Would it not be ‘ideal & utopic’ for the whole world’s citizens then, if there are no political and national boundaries whatsoever? Do you think that this can ever happen? By the way, Isn’t that what the New World Order and ‘Globalization’ schemes are attempting to force upon everyone on earth, right now!?
On the issue of an apology to Tun Salleh Abas as prompted by Zaid Ibrahim, why is that you are being extremely manipulative by saying TDM is ‘suggesting’ that an apology should be sought from the tribunal? Why have you not asked or commented on - What business has the present Pak Lah’s government been doing in ‘apologising’ (in terms of ex-gratia payments – at least) to Salleh Abas, and for what!? Why can’t you be even more daring and blatant enough by ‘twisting’ it further, by asking TDM instead to apologise to Salleh Abas, for being the one to ‘advise’ the setting-up of the tribunal, back then!?
To make yourself even more sickening, why do you now query that TDM would instead blame The YDP Agong for being angry at Salleh Abas? This matter does not arise whatsoever and yet you want to bring it up! How silly? The YDP Agong was angry at Salleh Abas and wants his removal. Period. Why should TDM be angry to YDP Agong for this? Why do you now attempt to put words in TDM’s mouth? He has spoken for himself in this blog and does not need your silly queries!
Then again you keep on being silly by querying since when did TDM had become a ‘Royalist’. Does one have to be a ‘Royalist’ to be ‘paralyzingly’ (as you have termed) subservient to The King? Is it not incumbent upon all citizens in this nation be loyal to The King & Nation as required by The Rukunegara and The Constitution?
And instead you attempt to smokescreen things further by bringing up the Constitutional Amendments issue in suggesting that the Rulers powers had been ‘curbed’ by TDM. How silly again! As a citizen, how would you like it when a law had been passed by the people (in the Parliament), but The Rulers would not want such laws passed? What is the use of having Parliament where laws are passed by the people but are ‘curbed’ by The Ruler. In a democratic society, would The Ruler then be a JUST Ruler should he curb or go against the laws passed by the majority wishes of the people?
If one can remember, sometime ago in the sixties when the good Royal Professor Ungku Aziz had once uttered, that:-
“Democracy is incompatible with Feudalism”
Can we comprehend the gravity of such statement? In terms of formality, official & constitutional functions – it is well and good, but in terms of legislature and law one really need to appreciate the strong message of this statement! And what more coming from someone of ‘Royalty’ blood.
And Professor Ungku Aziz is consistent on this. To this day, even for ‘formalilty’ purposes he has never taken-up the title of Dato’, Tan Sri nor even a Tun to his name. But for ‘gesture’ purposes, many had insisted upon him that at as least the word ‘Royal Professor’ be conferred upon him. The good professor had thus graciously complied.
Thus ‘art harun’, your attempt to defile TDM by some words such as ‘paralyzingly subservient’ or ‘curbing’ the powers of The Rulers would not fool many, but perhaps only those who are idiots!
Then you go on the ‘separation of powers’ issue here. Let’s not kid ourselves here! Even in the most of the ‘advanced Democracy’ in the world such as The USA - they have had the Judges for their Supreme Courts be appointed by a ‘Politician’ – i.e. The President of USA. Again, let’s not fool ourselves when even some elected politicians are also appointed as ‘Executives’ when they head a Ministry or hold a Cabinet post – which in essence ARE ‘Executive’ in nature by authority! So the ‘real’ powers in a democratic society lies within the people who elect their representatives! Period.
Thus it is apparent that Tun Salleh Abas had somewhat ‘exceeded his boundaries’ in ‘trying to play’ with ‘other powers’ by stepping on some ‘Royalties’ and ‘Political’ toes! Perhaps the repercussions and ‘blowback’ that he received was too much for him to bear and handle to this day, and thus by being sulky and unforgiving would do him no good. Too bad.
On the charges of Tun Salleh Abas’ letter to The YDP Agong as you have raised, then may I ask you on what grounds should he be charged for. Should it be under Civil Law – i.e. Law of Torts such as mere disciplinary, misconduct or even for insubordination charges, or perhaps under Criminal Law such as treachery to The YDP Agong? You tell us!
Thus, being an adroit, suave and capable politician and national leader as Dr. Mahathir had been, he would just ‘let it go’. However, it is very apparent now that Tun Salleh Abas was being foolhardy enough by not ‘letting it go’ but instead he had gone further in ‘pushing his luck’ by issuing another letter to DYMM YDP Agong in complaining about the behaviour of the executive - i.e. the Prime Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers. So, who drew ‘first blood’ then, would you reckon? Sorry for saying so, but Tun Salleh Abas had asked for it and deserves what gets!
Then you bring up the constitutional crisis issue. I have answered to this before. This issue was compounded further by some ‘Royalties’ who had ‘misbehaved’ – i.e. in the ‘Lamborghini’ car as well as the ‘hockey-game bashing’ incidents, which had infuriated some ‘commoners’. But just to add onto this, nowadays I feel much safer that royalties can be brought to court for any wrongdoings towards their subjects, unlike before. It is quite apparent that princes & royalties are very much ‘better’ behaved than previously, don’t you think so?
Yes, Tun Salleh Abas had not only insulted the YDP Agong but he had also interfered in the administration of the country. The Judiciary’s job is to ensure that justice is upheld within the laws of the land and no other. It is the job of political leaders and governments to ensure that the stability and security of a Nation being is ensured. How best the ‘stability’ of a Nation is achieved by political leaders must also be within the confines of the laws of the land. Understand?
Then you go about rambling and ranting about to establishing a tribunal against a certain Lord President who was photographed with a certain lawyer overseas. Also, you go on about the once Chief Secretary (Tan Sri Salehuddin) clearly suffering from the same disease as TDM’s namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory. Then you also go about that Home Minister (Dr. Mahathir), that he had cancelled the work permits of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. And so on…., and so on. Thus I need not respond on some of these silly and irrelevant issues you have raised – pertaining to the Tun Salleh Abas Saga.
Lastly, you had brought the issue that it was Tun Salleh Abas who had advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the law along Islamic legal principles in the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our country. May I ask you now, how conversant and competent is Tun Salleh Abas in terms of Islamic Law & Jurisprudence to have it ‘incorporated’ or perhaps even repeal The Common Law during his time?
Tun Salleh Abas was trained in The British Common Law. In no way can he be a legal-man nor a judge in Islamic Law & Jurisprudence. Should some Islamic ‘awakening’ or ‘resurgence’ had somehow overcome him during his tenure in the judiciary, then only Allah SWT knows what was the intention of Tun Salleh Abas at the time, to impose or influence some legal & judicial agenda or legislation.
So ‘art harun’,
As the saying goes - ‘Rome was not built in a day’! And nor was the message and divine laws of the Al-Quran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad SAW within a single year. Even the Hadiths & the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW was compiled only after more than 200 years from the Prophets time!
Then again may I ask, isn’t the separate Syariah Courts and the Common Law Courts in Malaysia today is not sufficient enough to satisfy the whims of Tun Salleh Abas to make Malaysian Laws more ‘Islamic’? Have the Malaysian Law not progressed satisfactory and gradual enough to suit the ever changing requirements of various faiths of this multi-racial and multi-religious country? And do remember – Rome was not built in a Day!
And you also queried as to why TDM did not mention this particular issue in his blog? You even asked whether TDM had ‘forgotten’ about this! And you went further to say that – it was simply a case that TDM was being afraid of losing the Malay support among readers if that was published by TDM in his blog?
Let’s put one thing clear here. In terms of power in politics, TDM is a past issue. TDM does not need Malay nor any ground support to reveal the truth. He only needs modern technology to have a blog-site, so that he can tell and reveal all, before it becomes too late. And right now he is doing a very good job at it! We should welcome more of these revelation from him, for the good of the people and the Nation!
However, occasionally we do get some disgruntled individual like yourself in raising issues that only aggravates the real story and the truth. Because you were not one of the individuals in the picture or story and thus you do not know the truth nor the real story behind the ‘Tun Salleh Abas Saga’. And furthermore, you will only put yourself into further embarrassment in coining stories in which you are not a party to!
You therefore contradict yourself when you say you support the truth but instead you have at the end of your comment uttered, that :-
“In this matter, nobody would know the truth”
Please be rest assured that at least one party (if not all parties) to this story would know the truth. But you, ‘art harun’ was not a party to this saga and would not know the truth! And yet, you dare challenge Tun Dr. Mahathir of his story with conjectures of your won. How sad.
So, unlike lawyers, I say – “I rest my arguments”.
This is interesting.
Now we will see how Tun Salleh (and if he is up to it, the Sultan Johor) responds to these accusations as the main protagonists of this human play are still alive.
Remember everyone... that while the claims by Tun tickles our curiosity, they are still unsubstantiated...
Perhaps Tun could indulge us with copies of such letters ala RPK... ;)
a"kum Tun.
Kita pernah bersuadi university of cambrige uk. Saya mewakili kelab umno(1999). semasa tun memberi penerangan tentang kes anuar ibrahim dan langkah mengatasi kegawatan ekonomi bersama tan sri zety(gebenor bank negara), Rais Yatim, Johari Baharum(setiausaha tun), Noh Omar. semua nya adalah org kuat Tun pada masa itu. saya cuma rasa terkilan dan rasa kecewa kerana mereka ini tidak berani mempertahankan tun.
Banyak kali sy bertemu dgn tun di Manchester dan London. jadi sekiranya tun ingin memberi ceramah dan penerangan di Melaka saya dan rakan2 kelab Umno lain sudi memberi support pada tun. jemput dtg melaka.......Longines5
Assalamualaikum Tun Dr Mahathir,
Minta izin nak cakap sikit pasal insan bernickname ‘art harun’...
Bettef for you to became 'star gazer' untuk mencari keesaan Allah swt daripada menjadi 'navel gazer' .. Anda sex maniac ke? ..pemerhati lubang pusat wanita... hehehe
Gelagat niaga, welldone!!!!, your mind is sharper than art harun, congrat
Those who worship and support Chedet blindly should take some time to read Sarawak Justice Datuk HC Ian Chin's recent explosive judicial disclosure regarding Tun M's diatribe and veiled threat against the judiciary- especially those who gave judgments against the government.Tun M has been a pain in the neck for some prominent judges in this country. Such was his despicable attitude towards the judiciary- particularly towards certain judges who he considered as "anti-establishment.".
Abi
You make up your own mind after reading this article regarding Freedom of Judiciary.
SIBU (Theborneopost): A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.
The Barisan Nasional candidate, Ding Kuong Hing, won the seat with a slim majority of 51 votes.
Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.
Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.
He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.
“What I am going to disclose relate to what happened after two of my judgements were handed down. One was the judgment in a libel case which I handed down on February 5 1997 (see Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon & Ors at http://kkhighcourt.com/Completed Civil Trials/RaveychandranNST.pdf) by which I distinguished MGG Pillai V Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases,” he said.
Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.
“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24 1997.
The then prime minister was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.
“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”
Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.
Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.
“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.
“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.
“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.
“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”
Chin went on to say that to commemorate his “dialogue” with the judges a group picture was taken (which can be viewed by going to http://www/kkhighcourt.com/ JudgesnMahathir.htm).
To rub it in, he said, Bernama circulated a press release with one appearing in a Sabah newspaper (The Daily Express May 25 1997) which “was far from stating the truth”. A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.
He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.
“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.
“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?
“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.
“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.
“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.
Chin told the court that he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure by the Chief Justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter making a decision based on the law and evidence.
The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.
He said he had also heard other election petitions, namely Yusuf Abdul Rahman v Abdul Ajis & Ors and Lee Hie Kui v Song Swee Guan & Darrell Tsen.
“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.
“The petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of a party to which he belongs.
” So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they (counsel or parties) in this case entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.
“After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgment that I had handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.
“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”
Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties digest what he had said and to consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.
However, they expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.
SIBU: A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.
The Barisan Nasional candidate, Ding Kuong Hing, won the seat with a slim majority of 51 votes.
Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.
He said complaints had been made against him in an earlier case that he had failed to disclose the detention of his father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970.
Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.
He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.
“I take this course also because I am smarting over the complaint that the detention of my father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970 should have been but not disclosed. (See Sabah Foundation & 2 Ors vs Datuk Syed Kechik & Anor, Kota Kinabalu High Court at here)
“What I am going to disclose relate to what happened after two of my judgements were handed down. One was the judgment in a libel case which I handed down on February 5 1997 (see Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon & Ors at here) by which I distinguished MGG Pillai V Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases,” he said.
Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.
“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24 1997.
The then prime minister was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.
“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”
Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.
Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.
“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.
“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.
“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.
“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”
Chin went on to say that to commemorate his “dialogue” with the judges a group picture was taken (which can be viewed by going to http://www.kkhighcourt.com/JudgesnMahathir.htm).
To rub it in, he said, Bernama circulated a press release with one appearing in a Sabah newspaper (The Daily Express May 25 1997) which “was far from stating the truth”. A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.
He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.
“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.
“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?
“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.
“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.
“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.
Chin told the court that he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure by the Chief Justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter making a decision based on the law and evidence.
The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.
He said he had also heard other election petitions, namely Yusuf Abdul Rahman v Abdul Ajis & Ors and Lee Hie Kui v Song Swee Guan & Darrell Tsen.
“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.
“The petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of a party to which he belongs.
” So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they (counsel or parties) in this case entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.
“After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgment that I had handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.
“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”
Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties digest what he had said and to consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.
However, they expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.
Hello everyone,
Thank you to all of you who have taken the trouble to read my comment on this subject. For those who agree with, I thank you all. For those who disagree, I also thank you all for taking the time to read it. A debate done in civility is a healthy way o discussing matters whic are close to our heart. If we disagree, than we just have to agree to disagree in a civil manner.
To Encik Gelagat Niaga, thank you for your comment. But I just wish to say that I never knew the truth. I state I am a supporter of truth and not "the truth". That is because I, like you and all of us, don't know the truth. :) Reading your comment on my comment, with respect, I think you have also somewhat misunderstood what I had said. But it's okay. It is a healthy disagreement.
To Encik Terong, no, I am not a sex maniac. Navel Gazing of course literally mean looking at navels, be it a woman's or a man's. But it is also a phrase which means to focus and thing about any specific issue intensely. :-)
BTW, I must say the disclosure by Justice Ian Chin makes good reading. But of course, it is his words against that of DrM again.
Wallahhualam mubisawab, waillaihimarjiun wal ma'ab.
Peace everybody. Have a good lunch.
Dear Tun
Maybe you missed this open letter so i reproduce this for your benefit and perusal... Do you care to reply//.... or make corrections where needed??
Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh Saga. To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding of the Royal Commission on the Linggam tape.
I must confess that I was not moved to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog has apparently written about it. However, after having read your latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to put things on record and proper perspective.
It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of manipulation. When everything else fails, what better than to stoke racial sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsible pointed out that the Malays are the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to continue. You than quickly followed it up in Japan when you reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you, other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay rights. Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I would make an exception. Just change the word "patriotism" to "racialism" and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.
When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim, I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal. How very convenient of you DrM. Of course you had conveniently overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas be removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining about His Majesty's renovation work. So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask?
That is the first question which came across my mind while reading your post. The second question is this. Since when have you become a royalist so much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal Constitution? You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the powers of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly be so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh Abas?
The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is of course not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writin such a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY? If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty, why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King? W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter has appeared and become an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during the Linggam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last week about the same letter? Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks. Coincidently, I wrote.
By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your beligerent attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state mass media, the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and the Malays Rulers. The whole propaganda machines were used to smear the King and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed in newspapers. Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be. And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas? Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody else who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?
DrM, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!
You then mention in your blog that it was your opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord President who was photographed with a certain lawyer oversea? Wouldn't that constitute a wrongdoing? That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a wrongdoing which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?
You now charged, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented Dr M. I remember clearly in one speech, you liken the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would now say it was all in jest. Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms, namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase "check and balance" was missing from your administrative dictionary which was probably reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.
Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to take away "judicial powers" from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M, that Malaysia, would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth ( I say Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems) whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was, and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy.
Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!
You some what denies that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a balance of probability, otherwise. Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this character later in this post. On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended, Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas. How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond me or my intelect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post. I am sure.
If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?
Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal. He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during the meeting when asked by the tribunal members. If he was so sure that he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory.
On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your blog Dr M? And let the people who read it to judge the matter after having been fed with al relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own purpose and objectives.
I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time form me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?
Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the King dated 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal. Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to understand it, let alone grasp it.
Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of separation of powers. Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of course you then had to accuse "certain Judges" as interfering with politics. You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying down while waiting for pension?
You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration system. AS much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the attacks leveled against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him to lodge a police report over the matter?
By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politicain is trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you of course forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the law along Islamic legal principles with against the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published by you in your blog?
Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim or Abdullah Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story. And let the people, and history, be the judge.
Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)? The beauty is that it is a set of law common to all the people. That means, when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know. The common people. Me, and your readers.
Kind regards,
Art Harun
PS i didint get Art Harun's permission to reproduce but i am sure he would not mind
I and i believe alot of your supporter sure will be waiting for an answer
Tun, It's very unfortunate that this happen during your reign so even though you may say as such, the public think otherwise like Anwar's case.This is one of the few cases that really tainted your legacy.Tun, I'm afraid the ghost of the yester years are coming back to haunt you.I as a layman say this simply words..'You are the BOSS.You can right the wrongs and also wrong the rights.No ONE dare to go against you during your Idi Amin era.Whatever it's it now,it would be sad to say that Tun is spending his twilight years righting the wrongs.History will judge you,TUN.I feel very sorry for you that you have to fight to clear your name,but at least you can still do it.Hopefully you still have enough time left.May Allah be on your side.Tks.cxoubnulijyw
Memang pun mamak pandai buat roti canai, baunya berlainan, sedap dikunyah, sedap dimakan, malah kalau mamak buat cerita, dari kerala sampai putrajaya. tak habis habisan , semua orang percaya. Tetapi malangnya zaman internet, kesemua rahsia mudah terbongkar ...caya kah??
sumbangan
http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/8620/1/
SIBU: A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.
The Barisan Nasional candidate, Ding Kuong Hing, won the seat with a slim majority of 51 votes.
Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.
He said complaints had been made against him in an earlier case that he had failed to disclose the detention of his father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970.
Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.
He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.
“I take this course also because I am smarting over the complaint that the detention of my father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970 should have been but not disclosed. (See Sabah Foundation & 2 Ors vs Datuk Syed Kechik & Anor, Kota Kinabalu High Court at here)
“What I am going to disclose relate to what happened after two of my judgements were handed down. One was the judgment in a libel case which I handed down on February 5 1997 (see Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon & Ors at here) by which I distinguished MGG Pillai V Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases,” he said.
Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.
“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24 1997.
The then prime minister was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.
“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”
Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.
Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.
“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.
“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.
“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.
“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”
Chin went on to say that to commemorate his “dialogue” with the judges a group picture was taken (which can be viewed by going to http://www.kkhighcourt.com/JudgesnMahathir.htm).
To rub it in, he said, Bernama circulated a press release with one appearing in a Sabah newspaper (The Daily Express May 25 1997) which “was far from stating the truth”. A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.
He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.
“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.
“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?
“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.
“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.
“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.
Chin told the court that he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure by the Chief Justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter making a decision based on the law and evidence.
The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.
He said he had also heard other election petitions, namely Yusuf Abdul Rahman v Abdul Ajis & Ors and Lee Hie Kui v Song Swee Guan & Darrell Tsen.
“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.
“The petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of a party to which he belongs.
” So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they (counsel or parties) in this case entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.
“After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgment that I had handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.
“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”
Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties digest what he had said and to consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.
However, they expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.
Adakah anda pernah makan roti canai bengkok?? mustahilkan, mungkin anda tidak percaya roti canai bengkok akan dipasarkan di The LOAF ( kedai roti milikan Tun)
Kenapa Tun tidak jual makanan melayu seperti ketupat? roti jalal, lemamg satay, nasi lemak??? di Loaf, padahal dasar Pandang ketimur masih dilancarkan, kononnya ajak Melayu makan roti Jepun.
Hairan saya jarang nampak Tun memakai songkok ???
Beliau begitu pandai memainkan sentimen melayu, dan dapatkan sokongan dari kaum Melayu, tapi disebaliknya beliau tidak memupuk semangat kemelayuan. ini amat contradict.
Memang pun roti canai berbentuk bulat, pusing macam mana pun nampak bulat. asalkan orang caya tak perlu guna otak fikir. Sudah beres!!
Balik kepada jambatan bengkok, kita dapat fahami, kalaulah gerai mamak yang menjual roti canai ditepi jalan itu, tiba tiba nak extant gerainya tanpa persetujuan dari DBKL. macam mana DBKL uruskan? DBKL mestinya
1) Surat permohonan dan plan
2) kalau tengah bina bagi surat warning DBKL,
2) Kalau terus bina tanpa permohonan, maka robohkan saja
Begitu juga kes jambatan bengkok, tanpa persetujuan dari Singapore dengan Malaysia, maka ia tidak akan tercapai. memang kita tidak fahami apakah selok belok dalam kandungan agreement kedua dua negara , kononya OSA, kalau siapa bocor, masuk penjara. Memang Rakyat pun tidak mempunyaio kuasa untuk mengatahuinya, saya percaya bukanlah semudah apa yang dikatakan Tun itu.
Cuba fikirkan, kenapa pampasan 1 bliion kepada kontractor di Johor? ini adalah kerana Tun sendiri yang mengarahkan kontractor membina, adalah diketahui kontractor adalah syarikat kroni Tun sendiri, sebelum mendapat apa apa confirmation dari pihak Singapore, Tun telah membina , Jadi apa yang namapak hari ini adalah hasil gajah putih Tun sendiri, Siapakah yang patut persalahkan? Siapa yang membawa anak gajah putih itu parking di JB??
Cuba fikirkan, waktu pemerintahan Tun, negera manakah yang paling dibenciinya? Isreal, singapore , amerika. kenapa??? -- sentiment!!
Jadi kenapakah panah selalu menuju ke Singapore dan jadikan singapore sebagai whipping boy?? - sentiment!
Mudah saja, kerana singapore dapat disymbolkan sebagai negara yang majoritinya di diami oleh kaum Cina. Jadi Tun mengambil langkah ini mengujudkan semangat benci terhadap kaum cina di malaysia. dan memupuk semangat Ketuanan Melayu. - Sentiment
Tun adalah Sentiment !! Tun adalah pakar sentiment. Kerana kepentingan Tun sendiri, Tun jadi sentiment! Kekecohan tun terhadap jambatan bengkok bukanlah apa.... sebab lepas bersara, Tun tiada pendapatan untuk support kuncu kuncunya yang begitu banyak, maka derhakalah kuncu kuncunya. Memang Tun seorang gentlement, tetapi kekurangan duit adakan memusnahkan segala galanya empayarnya.
Jadi Lepas bersara, duit kurang, power kurang, semuanya kurang inilah sebabnya Tun marah marah , bertubio tubi hentam kerajaan.cax
I started my law study in 1988. I have no personal direct contact with you whatsoever.
This Tun Salleh Saga in my opinion is the classic story of the way carrot & stick being used. You had offered carrot, but was refused by few very principled men (the untouchables). Therefore you used stick against the untouchables. You used carrots & sticks for your henchmen (which continue doing the same - you breed them) to do the dirty jobs for you.
Now you aim to be the armchair critics by blogging. It show what kind of a man you are. The statements produced in this blog coming from an ex-stateman, shows what kind of stateman you are. Res ipsa loquitor.
Tun,
You have given a twised version of what really happened then. You did get Tun Salleh Abas sacked, using Tun Hamid Omar as your stooge. You very cleverly manipulated the setting up of the tribunal. Prof Ari has given you a full response to this blog of yours and you should read it.
It was also the same with Anwar Ibrahim. From the way Augustine Paul conducted the case, we knew that you had framed and set up Anwar. You fabricated evidence to lock him up. VK Lingam has revealed this recently and you must be fuming mad at VKL for having been stupid.
Stop giving distorted versions of what happened. We don't believe you 100%.
Breaking news...Borneo Post,June10, 2008.High court judge ,Datuk H.C.Ian Chin, reveal that the long arms of Tun Mahathir have even reach across the vast South China Sea to the backward states of the land of the Hornbills,Sarawak,and manipulates the judiciary in favour of the gov't.WOW, honestly that was a extremely long ones.Now then,Tun,this accusation comes directly from the mouth of the judge,so it's guilty until proven otherwise.The judge score a bull eye.A 10 for Ian Chin,what a daring broad daylight ROBBERY.Is only make less attractive because Borneo Post nervously down grade it to headline no 2,putting it at the bottom of the front page.They should put it on top of the front page.Till today they are still trembling from the after effect of MAHATHIRISM .The V.K.Lingam tape is nothing compare to this Sarawakgate.Tun, this is the final nail to your coffin.I can't sleep,anxiously waiting for your comments on this matter.The quiet towns of Sarawak has suddenly woke up to this STARTLING NEWS of the year.Amen!!
Salam Tun,
Izinkan nak komen sikit tentang komen si nickname PJ;
FYI Cik PJ, sebenarnya judge Ian Chin nak tarikh perhatian Pak Lah dalam suasana camni.... jadi ada peluang dia nak jadi Chief Judge of Borneo.... bukan apa ada udang disebalik mee siam..... hehehe
Pak Lah kan suka orang kowtow sama dia... so Ian Chin apa lagi... nak ambil peluang ler.... judge mana malu lagi nak berlobby la ni...
Wonder how you remembered this so vividly
When not so long ago, you forgot so easily
Why explain yourself now?
20 years we wondered who committed the foul
Are these the entire story?
What else are in this case history?
So, can we get the whole story
and bring to end this mystery
Is AAB any better?
Any cleaner?
Or just more of the same
Everyone playing your game
Only the poor public remain ignorant and stupid
Believing the media, our Malaysian habit
Dirty linens are now washed in public
The stench, the dirt, really make me sick
But then, without this
Malaysians will have no bliss
So, dear Tun, keep your blogs going
For the public will soon sing
A farewell song to the past
A new beginning, hopefully one that lasts
eehh Tun...you still remember about tun salleh abas??...i thought in court you said you could not remember about it.
haaa....kantoi!!
High Court judge makes explosive judicial disclosures
Posted by labisman
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
By Danny Wong, The Borneo Post
SIBU: A High Court judge here yesterday made some startling revelations at the commencement of the proceedings of the election petition filed by the DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, Wong Hus She, to declare the result of the March 8 general election for the seat void.
The Barisan Nasional candidate, Ding Kuong Hing, won the seat with a slim majority of 51 votes.
Justice Datuk H C Ian Chin informed the parties in open court that he had certain disclosures to make at the start of the proceedings, saying he was doing so to forestall any complaints that might be made by the parties later.
He said complaints had been made against him in an earlier case that he had failed to disclose the detention of his father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970.
Chin then proceeded to make his disclosure the contents of which could only be described as explosive, coming hot on the heels of the findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam video tape.
He started by saying that “it is better to err on caution that I take this step to shortly disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed”.
“I take this course also because I am smarting over the complaint that the detention of my father and brother during the time of the Mustapha regime in Sabah in late 1969 and the early 1970 should have been but not disclosed. (See Sabah Foundation & 2 Ors vs Datuk Syed Kechik & Anor, Kota Kinabalu High Court at here)
“What I am going to disclose relate to what happened after two of my judgements were handed down. One was the judgment in a libel case which I handed down on February 5, 1997 (see Raveychandran v Lai Su Chon & Ors at here) by which I distinguished MGG Pillai V Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases,” he said.
Chin said the other was the judgement handed down on Feb 13, 1997 in respect of an election petition (Donald Lawan v Abang Wahed bin Abang & Ors [Sri Aman High Court]) by which he set aside the election of Mong Dagang.
“Shortly after those two judgements, the Judges Conference was held from April 24, 1997.
The then prime minister was scheduled to have a dialogue with the judges on that date. What was termed a dialogue and later reported as one was anything but a dialogue.
“The then prime minister went there to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before and stating that though it may be difficult to do so, it was still done. He said all that after he had expressed his unhappiness with what he termed ‘the Borneo Case’ and after he had asked whether the judge who decided that case was present or not.”
Chin said no one had any doubt that he was referring to the election case though he (then prime minister) did not mention it specifically which he decided on Feb 13, 1997.
Added the High Court judge: “After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.
“He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.
“He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose.
“I was devastated after hearing all that but help came immediately after the “dialogue” was over when Federal Court judges came to my side and asked me to ignore him. Equally comforting were the words of my brother High Court judge who later told me that the then Prime Minister was too much.
“It will be recalled that the then prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike.”
Chin went on to say that to commemorate his “dialogue” with the judges a group picture was taken (which can be viewed by going to http://www.kkhighcourt.com/JudgesnMahathir.htm).
To rub it in, he said, Bernama circulated a press release with one appearing in a Sabah newspaper (The Daily Express May 25, 1997) which “was far from stating the truth”. A month later, Chin said he was packed off to a boot camp from May 26-30 together with selected judges and judicial officers.
He said that the boot camp was without any doubt “an attempt to indoctrinate those attending the boot camp to hold the view that the government interest as being more important than all else when we are considering our judgement”.
“Stating this devilish notion was by no less a person than the President of the Court of Appeal. Everyone was quiet during the question sessions. Also invited to the boot camp was a lecturer from a university who berated the election case and the bright spot in this episode was that a judicial officer, during question time, told the lecturer that she had no question but only a statement to make which was that the lecturer was in contempt of court.
“The then prime minister was scheduled to talk but he did not turn up and instead sent his then deputy who instead of talking invited questions and the one question I remembered being asked was — Are politicians looking for girls when they are often seen loitering at posh hotel lobbies?
“The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in; we were both then serving in Kuching, Sarawak. When I met up with him in his chambers he was distraught and he told me that he had last night received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.
“He sought my opinion as to what to do with the telephone call.
“We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the Chief Justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end he decided against it since it will be his words against that of the Chief Justice,” he said.
Chin told the court that he was happy to later on learn that Kamil did not bow to the pressure by the Chief Justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter making a decision based on the law and evidence.
The High Court judge said he had twice stood unsuccessfully as a Barisan Nasional candidate for a parliamentary and later for a state seat in Sabah in the 1980s and in one of those elections he was defeated by a DAP candidate.
He said he had also heard other election petitions, namely Yusuf Abdul Rahman v Abdul Ajis & Ors and Lee Hie Kui v Song Swee Guan & Darrell Tsen.
“Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should therefore dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone’s mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.
“The petitioner in this case may also have similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of a party to which he belongs.
” So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they (counsel or parties) in this case entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.
“After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgment that I had handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.
“No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat.”
Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties digest what he had said and to consider whether they wished to make any application for his recusal.
However, they expressed their full confidence in him in presiding over the hearing of the case.
I thought you might want to know.
PARDON ME SIR but the MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION is, may I kindly ask how you could remember such intricate details when all these happened back in 1988, while you had an acute attack of severe amnesia while facing the Royal Commission on LingamGate which is relatively new? Is this the Selective Memory Syndrome (SMS)?
Best regards to you and your family.
Tun,
I had always thought you did wrong in this tun Salleh issue and was very disappointed with you. What more with my uncle (my guardian) constantly bitching about this in my presence!! Boy! men can bitch far better than women!
In my little brain, I thought you did what you did because you had to ensure the survival of your party and perhaps yourself in the cabinet. Yah, if you thought Malaysia cannot do without you then, you were right. We, the whole bunch of Malaysians, all races, all age, all gender and colour, no matter what we have to say or how ungrateful we may sound at times, cannot afford to lose you then and definitely not now...Hmm..is that dependency!?
Anyway, now that the facts are made known, although to me, I view it as the Agung then, aka Sultan of Johor, is perhaps petty to be offended by the whole circus. Yes, Tun Salleh was obnoxious with all the complains and whining... like a brat.. but this whole "bad for your image" can be avoided if ALL took a little step to be a little bit more HUMAN!
Sultan can call Tun Salleh for an audience and thrash him to bits for being a whinner.. Tun Salleh could have politely mention it to the Agung that the renovation is giving him a massive headache and therefore, will affect his job instead of writing to the Agung, cc to all the rest of the blue blood to see and you, could have been saved from all the bad publicity and accusations.
So, my apologies for judging you before knowing the whole truth.
assalamualaikum...
semoga Tun berada dalam keadaan sihat. secara jujur saya memang menyokong Tun dari dulu atas kebijaksanaan Tun mentadbir negara. pelbagai tindakan Tun yg diluar jangkaan saya menyebabkan saya begitu kagum dengan Tun. semasa Tun melantik paklah menjadi timb. PM dn seterusnya menyerahkn pentadbiran negara kepada paklah saya sangat tidak setuju dan bimbang. ternyata sangkaan saya btol apabila sedikit demi sedikit negara menjadi goyah. sepanjang pentadbiran paklah saya tak nampak apa yang paklah buat untuk meningkatkan kemajuan negara. sikap paklah yang penakut dan berdiam diri menunjukkan beliau bukan seorang pemimpin yang berkaliber. paklah tidak pandai mencari duit untuk negara malah menghabiskan duit bersama menantu beliau je.
saya amat berbangga jika berpeluang bekerja bersama Tun dan kagum dengan pemikiran Tun.saya tahu tindakan Tun keluar parti kerana kecewa dengan UMNO yg makin PARAH. tentu Tun berasa kecewa UMNO yg sebelum ni memperjuang bangsa dah bertukar menjadi parti paklah.. saya begitu kecewa seperti mana Tun rasakn sekarang.
saya berharap Tun dapat lakukan sesuatu untuk bangsa melayu.saya sokong Tun Dr. Mahathir..
My dear Tun,
Apocalypse now.......!!!!
We need you to discover more and more without favour and fear.
We are stand by you.
Asslmlkm Tun,
Hari ini sy meluangkan seharian membaca blog Tun. Satu persatu isu sy mula fahami. Komen2 baik & buruk smua sy baca & tapisi. Byk yg sy mulai tahu & fahami. Pengetahuan sy makin byk. Sy semakin menyayangi & menyanjungi Tun.
Apapun yg tk baik tntg Tun yg org perkatakan, sy tk peduli sgt. Bg sy, semasa zaman pemerintahan Tun, sy dpt rasakan Malaysia ini amat makmur & membangun. Paling penting skali, M'sia ialah negara Islam yg mempunyai pemimpin Islam yg boleh mcapai pelbagai kemajuan di mata dunia.
Bg sy, molek benar Tun adakan blog begini agar dpt mjwb kecaman & tuduhan agar ramai lg org spt sy fahami isu sbnr.
Kalau ddaftarkn keahlian dah cukup sgt untuk kita mjadi sbuah parti yg kuat. PARTI TUN DR MAHATHIR
Wasalam..
the post we have been waiting for. Thank you Tun. You just won my undying support.
Dearest Tun,
I've read Tun Salleh's book, and now i also read your side of story.
I can accept your explanation. You are truly correct with your decision. But i share the same view with previous post by Akil.
Tun Salleh Abas deserved to be removed and you have done correctly and safely according to the constitution.
Tapi, kalu lah Tun Salleh ni jadi YESMEN macam hakim2 lain...rasanya Tun Salleh Saga, ending dia bukan macam tu...betul tak Tun?
Tun pun sendiri menngaku nya TUN annoyed dengan letter Tun salleh Abas....
For me Tun Salleh Abas bukan chicken.. cuma mungkin dia tersilap langkah nak lawan TUN...sama macam Anwar.
Bila TUN nak explain pasal pemecatan Anwar pulak?.
Berikutan langkah kerajaan menaikkan harga minyak baru-baru ini telah menambahkan kesengsaraan orang-orang miskin dan yang berpendapatan rendah. Bagi mengurangkan beban rakyat kononnya, Kerajaan menghebahkan bahawa orang-orang miskin/berpendapatan saja rendah diberi subsidi dengan memberi bayaran balik berdasarkan cc kenderaan. Walhal dalam masa yang sama kerajaan turut memberi rebat yang lebih tinggi kepada golongan kaya. Orang yang memiliki kenderaan berkuasa besar dikurangkan cukai jalan sehingga RM 200 (lebih kurang 1/3 daripada susidi yang diberi kepada orang miskin) dan kerajaan juga bakal menurunkan cukai pendapatan dan mengurang atau membatalkan cukai perkhidmatan. Langkah ini sebenarnya hanya akan menguntungkan orang kaya kerana rakyat yang miskin dan berpendapatan rendah tidak dikenakan cukai pendapatan serta jarang sekali ke kedai-kedai yang mengenakan cukai perkhidmatan ini kecuali kedai mamak. Itu pun biasanya sebulan sekali lepas gaji.
Oleh itu langkah pengurangan cukai yang dicadangkan ini seolah-olah memberi lebih susidi kepada golongan atasan dinegara ini termasuk PAK-PAK MENTERI yang mencadangkan langkah ini dan jumlahnya jauh lebih banyak dari susidi yang diberi kepada orang miskin. Jadi pemotongan cukai ini hanya menambahkan jurang pendapatan antara golongan atasan dengan yang berpendapatan rendah. Orang kaya semakin kaya manakala golongan yang kononnya di sasarkan iaitu yang berpendapatan rendah tidak mendapat apa-apa faedah.
Sebenarnya, langkah pemberian bayaran tunai kepada pemilik kenderaan juga tidak menguntungkan orang-orang miskin di kampung-kampung. Mereka terlibat secara langsung dengan kenaikan harga barang-barang keperluan tetapi tidak mendapat faedah dari langkah kerajaan ini. Ini kerana kebanyakan orang-orang kampung atau luar bandar terutama yang berpendapatan rendah memiliki motorsikal buruk yang hanya layak digunakan untuk ke kebun sahaja. Oleh itu kenderaan mereka ini tidak memiliki cukai jalan dan oleh itu mereka tidak layak mendapat bayaran tunai dari kerajaan.
Sekiranya hendak membantu golongan bawahan di Negara ini, kerajaan sepatutnya menimbangkan kembali kadar kenaikan harga minyak kerana ia sangat membebankan rakyat terutama golongan bawahan. Langkah-langkah yang diambil oleh kerajaan juga sebenarnya tidak membantu golongan bawahan malah membantu golongan atasan yang tidak sepatutnya diberi susidi lagi. Sepatutnya kerajaan menaikkan cukai pendapatan dan cukai-cukai lain bagi menampung subsidi minyak kerana langkah ini tidak melibatkan golongan berpendapatan rendah malah melibatkan golongan berpendapatan tinggi.
Saya sebagai rakyat dan pembayar cukai yang prihatin berharap agar kerajaan memikirkan bersungguh-sungguh semua langkah yang hendak diambil sebelum ia dilaksanakan dan bukannya melaksanakan langkah-langkah yang hanya sedap didengar tetapi tidak bermanfaat kepada golongan sasaran malah merugikan rakyat. Langkah kerajaan dalam beberapa bulan ini kelihatan seperti melepaskan batuk di tangga dan kelihatan tiada kesepakatan di dalam kerajaan seperti kata Tun Mahathir, “langkah tunggang terbalik”.
Sekian.
A'kum,
Thank you for the explanation. Being a lawyer myself, i feel sad about what happened todays. the V.K Lingam's issue and now they brought back the "poison pen" history. I have read D.George Seah's article and almost fell to you. Thank you for bring me the true picture and hope that fellow lawyers will see it too.
Tun,
Betul cakap Tun tentang bangsa Melayu, tau tapi tak terus nak selidik puncanya.
Emm, saya pun terasa juga.Begitu rupanya kisah tun salleh abbas.
Lagi satu Tun, fakta Tun lama tu.Tun masih ingat ye.You were smart in the court that day!As a non-expert, you know law well.Good che det!
Hidup Tun....!!!
salam Tun,
Pertama sekali saya nak ucapakan bebanyak ribuan terima kasih pd tun yang pernah menjadi pemimpin yang plg sy sayangi..
kehebatan tun dlm memimpin tidak boleh saya huraikan kerana ia sangat infiniti..
Tun, saya sgt besetuju dengan semua kata-kata tun..walaupun saya hanyala seorang rakyat biasa tetapi apabila saya befikir sejenak, saya dapat lihat semakin banyak kesilapan demi kesilapan yang dilakukan oleh jentera kerajaan sehinggakan saya menangis apabila barisan nasional kalah teruk pada pilihanraya hari itu..tidak kah ini memberi pengajaran kepada mereka yang apa rakyat mahu pada masa ini..
Tun, saya harap suatu hari nanti mereka akan memahami setiap bait-bait kata yang tun tegur demi sayangkan bangsa dan negara..maaf tulis bahasa melayu sebab tak pandai sangat nak tulis bahasa inggeris.dulu sekolah melayu dan masa tu sains dan matemtik dalam bahasa melayu.wassalam
Salam YBBhg Tun,
Akhirnya cerita lama dibuka jua, setelah selama ini tersimpan, sememangnya saya pernah membaca satu artikel yang ditulis oleh Bekas Presiden Bar Committee di selatan tanahair berhubung cerita penyingkiran bekas CJ berhubung surat rungutan beliau terhadap kerja-kerja pembaikan kawasan istana, dan saya kira mulanya ianya cerita kosong, namun selepas saya diberi peluang membaca surat balasan dari Tun sendiri berhubung artikel tersebut barulah saya mengerti cerita sebetulnya apa yang berlaku. Dan kini ditambah pula penjelasan dari blog ini, semuanya jelas seperti terang lagi bersuluh.
YBBhg Tun,
Saya percaya, apa saja yg kita buat asalkan ikhlas semuanya akan berakhir dengan kebaikan. Biarlah apa saja komentar luar samada baik dan buruk asalkan Tun bertindak untuk kepentingan umum semuanya pasti diakhiri dengan 'Husnul Khatimah'
ikhlas dari rakyat marhaen
Dearest Tun,
Your comments are indeed enlightening as to your outlook and personal views on the Salleh Abbas saga.
I am not here to nit pick but it is essential for me to point out that when referring to the provisions of the Constitution, it shall be referred to as Article and not Section as you have done in this post.
Thank you.
A.kim Tun
Saya Tun di dalam soal pampasan ini ada satu perkara yang nak saya bangkitkan. Saya dapati salah seorang Hakim yang mendapatnya adalah Allahyarham Yusuf Abdul Kadeer. Yang mengejutkan saya megapa pampasan ini dibayar kepada anak tirinya yang bukan beragama Islam. Apa yang saya ketahui harta pusaka harus diurus oleh ARB dan perbicaraan kuasa diadakan untuk pewaris. Jika tiada waris yang hidup maka Baitulmal yang berhak.
SadKluangman,
Assalamualikum Tun,
Hari ini disuratkhabar, kita menyaksikan rasuah secara terang terangan yang diberi oleh PL melalui menteri yang kononnya menjaga kedaulatan undang undang negara ini yang biasa bergelumang dengan rasuah dan pernah di gantung keahliannya kerana rasuah juga. Diberi pula kepada bekas Ketua Hakim yang kononnya "maksum" - MERUPAKAN SEJARAH RASUAH SECARA TERANG TERANGAN TERBESAR DIDALAM SEJARAH MALAYSIA.
Kepada pemberi rasuah PL dan ZI nantikanlah masanya balasan dari rakyat pula kepada kamu. Kepada penerima, sanggupkah kamu memakan wang ex-gratia yang haram itu,duit tu duit rakyat maka tunggu sajalah pembalasannya kelak. Cubalah fahami mengapa ex-gratia itu diberi KEPADA KAMU? Kepada ulamak tolong keluarkan FATWA berhubung perkara ini.
Kepada TSA lagi tolonglah jangan merosakkan agama kamu setelah kamu sendiri merosakkan badan kehakiman negara ini. Kamu permainkan lagi Allah dan al quran kononnya Allah telah mengadili semuanya. Kamu silap dan sebenarnya kamu langsung tidak berpegang kepada tali Allah. Pada hakikatnya Allahlah yang melantik kamu dan Allahlah juga yang menyingkir kamu.Kalau benar kamu berpegang kepada AlQuran, masakan kamu samakan TDM dengan Ide Amin. Jelas kamu mempunyai niat yang jahat kerana kata kata kamu itu sangat bercanggah, dan merupakan kata kata orang yang tak takutkan Allah... tak relevan langsung tambahan lagi keluar dari mulut orang yang dikatakan YANG ARIF, melainkan ia lahir dari sifat dendam yang membara dan hasutan iblis jua( Sedarlah kamu bahwa kamu sebenarnya sedang ditipu sang iblis). Kalau betullah ada sedikit kesalahan TDM keatas kamu takkanlah kamu sampai menuduh dia Ide Amin, Maha Firaun dan sebagainya. Kami rakyat jelas sekali dapat menilai kamu melalui kata kata yang tak setimpal dengan gelaran keatas TDM itu. TDM tak pun menghina awak sampai ketahap itu dan orang2 ISLAM memang ditegah memberi gelaran yang sebegitu. Akhirnya, melalui kata kata kamu yang kesat itu yang digelar YANG ARIF, YANG BIJAKSANA, PENEGAK KEADILAN dan yang sewaktu dengannya secara sendirinya menampakkan kerendahan akal dan akhlak kamu.... sebenarnya atas sebab sebab inilah ALLAH membalas kamu. Ingat pada hakikatnya bukan TDM tapi ALLAH telah mengadili yang selayaknya keatas kamu. Dan kini, kamu sedang eksploitasikan oleh pemimpin yang jelas tidak mendapat sokongan rakyat dan sebenarnya peristiwa ini bukan seperti tanggapan kamu bahawa keadilan telah ditegakkan malah merupakan satu perkara yang sangat mengaibkan kamu, rakyat Malaysia dan badan kehakiman negara ini.
Sebagai sesama Islam saya perlu menasihatkan TSA bahawa elakkanlah diri dari mempunyai rasa RIAK. Itulah yang memakan diri tuan dan juga pemimpin kita masa ini. Kami tak kata kamu jahat mungkin dirumah kamu adalah bapa yang paling baik tetapi sifat RIAK itulah yang menjerumuskan kamu ketika itu. Badan kehakiman tidak boleh ditegur seolah2 Undang2 badan kehakiman itu ciptaan Allah walhal kamu tahu bahawa ia juga mempunyai kelemahan.
Kamu juga riak hanya atas perkara yang kecil "bunyi bising" sedangkan orang yang kurang arif dan orang bodoh macam kami pun pandai bersabar kalau jiran kita "renovate" rumah mereka malah keadaan lebih bingit kerana hanya sebelah rumah. Inikan pula jarak yang agak jauh antara istana raja dan " istana TSA". Nak tanya TSA, apa agaknya berlaku pada institusi penghakiman kita, kalau banyak kes yang dibicarakan membabitkan gangguan jiran? 26juta rakyat 26 juta kes.Adakah Dato' masitah juga, TSA yang galakkan?
Kamu RIAK kerana tidak mahu diadili oleh orang yang lebih rendah dari kamu. Tapi TSA, tiada rakyat maka tiadalah pemerintah, tiada rakyat maka tiadalah raja, inikan pula HAKIM. Cuba beritahu kami siapakah yang layak menghakimi TSA..... kalau bukan orang lebih rendah sudah tentulah pencipta yang MAHA AGUNG. Nah ...Bukankah keadilan itu sebelum ini telah terlaksana...because at the time of your removal as a Chief Justice you are found to be mentally disturbed and are unable to discharge your functions orderly and properly.
Kepada TDM , percayalah selagi kita benar insyallah kita akan dilindungiNYA. Kepada rakyat Malaysia berfikirlah , jangan sampai akal kita di akal.
TUN, selamat berjuang. Kirim salam saya pada Toh puan Siti Asmah
Post a Comment