Monday, August 27, 2012

Tengku Razaleigh - Year 1993

Tengku Razaleigh - Year 1993


Year 1993

This is not the first constitutional crisis in which the rights of the Rulers has been touched upon. Today’s crisis in Perak is about the legitimacy of the process by which a new state government has been formed in Perak. It’s not about the status of the Rulers. In comparison, the constitutional crisis of 1993 arose from an ugly confrontation between Umno and the Rulers over a question that had direct and profound implications on their sovereignty and that of the Yang Dipertuan Agong. For good reason, the Head of State in most countries may not be prosecuted in an ordinary court of law. In 1993, the government campaigned to remove this immunity through amendments to the Constitution.
I opposed these amendments.
In the event, Rulers and Parliament were railroaded by the  government of the day and the amendments passed. These are the very same amendments which today make it legal for a Ruler to be prosecuted. Mr Karpal Singh, though I disagree with him, was acting well within rights that an Umno-led government enacted in 1993 when he earlier proposed to sue DYMM the Sultan of Perak.
Let’s reflect on this irony. Does Umno serve the Rulers more genuinely by upholding and protecting the Constitution which guarantees their status, or by histrionic displays tuned for the coming Umno elections?
This bears upon the question of the kind of leaders, and the kind of party, we want. Do we want to be led by those who can understand and address the foundational issues facing our society today, and shall we have leaders capable of forging “mutual consent by debate and discussion, inquiries and elections” or shall we again be landed with those whose main talent is to strike poses that people outside a small, insecure circle in Umno, and particularly Malaysia’s internet generation, find ridiculous?
Was greater harm done to the sovereignty of the Rulers in 1993 through Parliament or a week ago on the streets of Perak?
And is today’s Umno, with its inconsistent adherence to the rule of law, its inconstant respect for the key institutions of our country, a credible or effective defender of the Rulers and of the laws upholding thisinstitution?
Or do we actually harm what we claim to protect?
Below is a video recording in two parts of the speech I made in Parliament in 1993 opposing the amendments to the Constitution.
I stand by my argument.













Tengku Razaleigh 1993 - Krisis Perlembagaan 1993 - 1  

 

 

 

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asNTbvlK7Eo&feature=player_embedded

 

 

 

 

 

Tengku Razaleigh 1993 - Krisis Perlembagaan 1993 - 2  

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SRMDrtn6898



















Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






















Constitutional crisis

In 1987, elections for the leadership of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) were held. UMNO was the leader of the governing Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition, and its President would automatically become Prime Minister of Malaysia. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah challenged the incumbent UMNO President and Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, and was widely touted to win the Presidency. However, Mahathir won 761 votes to Razaleigh's 718, and remained President. Many of Razaleigh's supporters refused to accept this, and argued that the election was tainted.[3] 12 UMNO members filed suit in the High Court, attempting to get a court order for new elections. As part of their evidence, they presented claims that 78 of the 1,479 delegates eligible to vote in the elections were illegal, and that several documents involved in the election had been tampered with. Later, one of the 12 plaintiffs withdrew from the suit. Although Razaleigh was not involved in the case, it was widely believed he had been funding and supporting the suit.[4]
On September 30, 1987, the High Court gave the parties two weeks to reach a negotiated settlement. A "Unity Panel" was formed to negotiate between the Mahathir and Razaleigh camps, but it soon appeared the differences were interminable. Razaleigh's supporters wanted new elections held, while Mahathir's supporters insisted that the elections stand and that Razaleigh's camp accept a compromise "face-saving" solution. On October 19, the plaintiffs announced the suit would continue.[5]
Mahathir, who had never been fond of the judiciary, began making heated statements about it at this time. Mahathir declared, "The judiciary says, 'Although you passed a law with a certain thing in mind, we think that your mind is wrong, and we want to give our interpretation.' If we disagree, the courts will say, 'We will interpret your disagreement.' ... We know exactly what we want to do, but once we do it, it is interpreted in a different way." Mahathir also lambasted "black sheep ... who want to be ... fiercely independent" and play to public opinion. Soon after, nine judges sitting on the High Court were reassigned to different divisions; Justice Harun Hashim, who presided over the UMNO case, was transferred from appellate and special powers cases to commercial crimes. However, because the UMNO case was already in progress, his transfer would not take effect until the case closed. Harun later ruled that under the evidence presented, it was clear several UMNO delegates had come from unregistered branches of the party. In line with the law, he declared he was forced to declare UMNO an illegal society, and thereby dismissed the case of the plaintiffs. Mahathir soon formed a new party, UMNO Baru (New UMNO), to replace UMNO. Within a year, the suffix "Baru" was dropped, making it just plain "UMNO".[6]
Mahathir was upset with the judiciary's increasing independence, and in 1988, the government tabled a bill in Parliament to amend Articles 121 and 145 of the Constitution. These amendments disvested the courts of the "judicial power of the Federation", giving them only such power as Parliament might grant them. The Attorney-General was also empowered to determine the venues in which cases would be heard.[7]
At this point, Salleh Abas, who was then Lord President of the Supreme Court, began making strong statements about defending the autonomy of the judiciary. However, he did not name Mahathir, and spoke in rather general terms. However, Salleh was pressured by his fellow judges into taking stronger action. He convened a meeting of all 20 federal judges in the national capital of Kuala Lumpur. They decided not to directly challenge Mahathir, and instead address a confidential letter to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) and the rulers of the various states. The letter stated, "All of us are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the Judiciary, not only outside but within the Parliament." However, instead of calling for any direct action to be taken, the letter only stated the judges' "hope that all those unfounded accusations will be stopped".[8]
Ironically, the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia), who was also the Sultan of JohorSultan Mahmud Iskandar, who as heir apparent to the Johor throne had been prosecuted by Salleh Abas when he was Public Prosecutor back in 1973. The Sultan was eventually convicted of assault and sentenced to six months in jail.[9] It is not known what the King did upon receipt of the letter, but it appears he informed Mahathir, and that they agreed to take disciplinary action against Salleh Abas.
Salleh, who had gone overseas soon after the letter was sent, was summoned by Mahathir upon his return. Salleh later claimed that at the meeting, Mahathir accused him of bias in the UMNO case, and demanded his resignation. Salleh was also immediately suspended from his post as Lord President. Although Salleh initially agreed, when he was later informed that his suspension would be backdated so as to nullify some of his earlier actions in then pending cases such as the UMNO case, he withdrew his resignation. The government then initiated impeachment proceedings against Salleh.[10] Salleh would later claim that the government attempted to bribe him to resign.[11]
Under the Constitution, judges are impeached by a special tribunal of judges, appointed by the government. Four Malaysian judges, a Sri Lankan judge, and a Singaporean judge were appointed to form a six-member tribunal that would hear the case. The tribunal chairman was Justice Abdul Hamid Omar, who was appointed as acting Lord President due to Salleh's suspension. Salleh was officially charged with writing "a letter to the Agong without approval of all judges in the country", displaying "bias and prejudice" against the government, and seeking "to undermine public confidence in the government's administration". In addition, the government took issue with a ruling Salleh had made in a case involving a minor's religion, and a statement he had made to the media after his suspension, which allegedly was "calculated to politicise the issues and further discredit the government".[10]
Salleh was represented by Anthony Lester, QC, who objected to the tribunal's composition. It was argued Abdul Hamid had a vested interest in the case's outcome, since if Salleh was impeached, he would remain Lord President. It was also claimed that the tribunal was improperly constituted because two of the judges were relatively junior, and that the two foreign judges were from countries not noted for judicial independence. Salleh demanded to be tried by peers of equal standing — retired Lord Presidents, if need be. He also demanded that the tribunal make its hearings public. All of these claims were rejected by the tribunal, and Salleh withdrew from the proceedings.[12]
Instead, Salleh asked the Supreme Court to stay the proceedings because of the tribunal's alleged improper constitution and because the King had been "wrongfully advised". The Supreme Court, in an emergency session, unanimously ruled that the proceedings be stayed. Four days later, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong suspended the five Supreme Court judges who had issued the order, on Mahathir's advice. The government announced it would now attempt to impeach those five judges as well for "gross misbehaviour" and conspiring "to make the order". There were now only four judges on the Supreme Court, two of them also sitting on the tribunal. The government appointed new judges to fill the void, who refused to hear any further motions by Salleh Abas. The tribunal eventually found Salleh guilty, and he was officially relieved of his position. Of the five judges who had supported him, two were convicted, and the other three were acquitted.[13]


Constitutional crisis

















Only Ku Li can put M’sia on right footing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad gambled away Malaysia's foreign reserve in 1992-1993.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviving the Bank Negara Forex Debacle: Who is Really Accountable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tangled Web UMNO Weaved (1) & (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

UMNO has a long tradition of parting with its leaders for various reasons

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ku Li thinks BN may win only 3 states: Told Nizar to "get ready" to rule Perak again

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only Ku Li can put M’sia on right footing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Razaleigh tells UMNO: Solve oil royalty, infrastructure before talking about capturing Kelantan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WE NEED TO TELL THE WORLD OUR GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Royal boost for Pakatan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Royalty: Kings or Pawns?

 

 

 

 










Now, more than ever before, His Majesty must act in the best interest of the rakyat and the nation

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sultan’s Daulat Is A Myth

by M. Bakri Musa, Morgan-Hill, California
(First of Three Parts)
Book Review: Ampun Tuanku. A Brief Guide to Constitutional Government. Zaid Ibrahim. ZI Publications, Petaling Jaya, 2012. ISBN 9 789675 266263 256 pp.
As a youngster in 1960 I had secured for myself a commanding view high atop a coconut tree to watch the funeral procession of the first King, Tuanku Abdul Rahman. My smug demonstration of my perched position drew the attention of the village elders below. They were none too pleased and immediately ordered me down.
“Sultans have daulat,” they admonished, “you cannot be above them.” Apparently even dead sultans maintained their daulat. I did not dare challenge my elders as to what would happen once the king was buried; then we all would be above him.
To put things in perspective, this attribution of special or divine powers to rulers is not unique to Malay culture. The ancient Chinese Emperors too had their Tianming, Mandate from Heaven. That however, was not enough to protect them.
Even though it has deep roots in Malay society, this daulat thing is a myth. The Japanese, despite their own “Sun Goddess” tradition, had no difficulty disabusing Malay rajas and their subjects of this myth. The surprise was not how quickly the sultans lost their power and prestige, or how quickly they adapted to their new plebian status during the Japanese Occupation, rather how quickly the Malay masses accepted this new reality of their rajas being ordinary mortals sans daulat.
Only days before the Japanese landed, any Malay peasant who perchance made eye contact with his sultan, may Allah have mercy on him for the sultan certainly would not. When the Japanese took over, those rajas had to scramble with the other villagers for what few fish there were in the river and what scarce mushrooms they could scrape in the jungle. Nobody was bothered with or took heed of the daulat thing. So much for it being deeply entrenched in our culture!
To pursue my point, had the Malayan Union succeeded, our sultans today would have been all tanjak (ceremonial weapon) and desta (headgear); they would have as much status and power as the Sultan of Sulu. Across the Strait of Malacca, hitherto Malay sultans are now reduced to ordinary citizens. They and their society are none the worse for that.
Today’s slightly better educated Malay sultans and crown princes (there are no crown princesses, let it be noted) would like us to believe in yet another myth, this time based not on our culture but constitution. They believe that it provides them with that extra “something” beyond their being mere constitutional head.
This new myth, like all good fiction, has just a tinge of reality to it. The Reid Commission had envisaged the Conference of Rulers to be the third House of Parliament, after the elected House of Representatives and the appointed Senate. It would be a greatly reduced House of Lords as it were, to provide much-needed “final thought” to new legislations.
That assumption had considerable merit, at least in theory. As membership is hereditary, those rulers would be spared from having to pander to the masses as those elected Members of Parliament, or please their political patrons as with the senators. Additionally, this third house would be non-partisan.
An expression of this “Third House of Parliament” function is that all senior governmental including ministerial appointments have to be ratified by the Conference of Rulers. However, unlike the transparent deliberations of the “advice and consent” function of the United States Senates where senior appointees are subjected to open confirmation hearings, the proceedings of the Conference are secret. We know only those who have been accepted, not those rejected or why.
Zaid Ibrahim’s Ampun Tuanku. A Brief Guide to Constitutional Government addresses what should be in his view the proper role of sultans in the Malaysian brand of constitutional monarchy, specifically whether they have this “something extra” beyond what is explicitly stated in the constitution. As a lawyer Zaid is uniquely qualified to write on the matter. He is no ordinary lawyer, having once headed the country’s largest legal firm and served as the nation’s de facto Law Minister.
The title notwithstanding, this highly readable book is more persuasive than descriptive; more political science treatise, less legal brief. The expository flow is smooth, logical and highly convincing. It is refreshingly free of legal jargon or references to court cases that typically pollute commentaries by lawyers. To Zaid, the constitution does indeed grant Malay sultans that something extra, but not in their capacity as the titular head of the government, rather as their being head of Islam and defender of the faith.
Zaid explores the many wonderful opportunities possible as a consequence of this second function without having to invoke additional “special powers.” I will pursue his novel ideas and wonderful suggestions later. At 40 pages, his chapter on this issue (“The Rulers and Islamization”) is the longest, and deserves careful reading especially by the royal class. He puts forth many innovative ideas that if pursued would benefit not only Malays but also all Malaysians.
With active and enlightened engagement by the rulers and Agong, Islam would emancipate Malays just as it did the ancient Bedouins, and in the process enhance race relations. That would be a pleasant if somewhat radical departure from the current environment where Islam not only deeply polarizes Malays but also sows much interfaith and interracial distrust.
In all other aspects the sultans and Agong are bound by what is explicitly stated in the constitution. Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy, Zaid stresses, and our sultans and Agong must abide by the wishes of the rakyat as expressed through their elected representatives in the executive branch. If citizens have made their wishes clear through an election that they would prefer a certain party and individuals to lead them or certain legislations enacted, the sultan must abide by that decision regardless of where his personal sympathy lies.
In short, there are no penumbras of rights and privileges emanating from those hallowed clauses of our constitution. The matter is clear: Sultans are bound by the law. Sultans cannot claim a penumbra of power based on daulat or divine mandate, as the Sultan as well as the Raja Muda of Perak tried to argue recently. Daulat is fiction.
This principle is central and must be defended against any incursion or erosion. Zaid is rightly distressed, for example, when the Sultan of Trengganu (who was also the Agong at the time) prevailed in making his choice of Ahmad Said as Chief Minister when the citizens had explicitly elected the state UMNO leader Idris Jusoh.
This erosion was possible only because of the weak leadership of then Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. Similar incursion occurred in Perak, this time on a much more blatant and ugly level.
The situation in Perak is particularly instructive. Before becoming sultan, Raja Azlan Shah once served as the country’s Chief Justice. As Zaid reminds us in his book, in that capacity Raja Azlan clearly articulated that the powers of the Agong are well circumscribed by the constitution. As sultan however, he claimed his “special powers.” That was his justification for imposing his solution on the state’s political crisis during the post-2008 election crisis to favor the Barisan coalition.
Such palace incursions and our acquiescence undermine the very principle of our democracy. On a more practical level, if that proves to be the new norm, our chief and prime ministers would then be beholden to their Sultans and Agong, not the rakyat. Our ministers (menteris) would then revert to their role in feudal Malay society, as hired hands of the palace and not the people’s chief executive.
In a democracy, daulat (sovereignty) resides with the people, not the rajas. Our constitution is clear on that point, as Zaid repeatedly reminds us. We must constantly defend this principle lest it be eroded.
Next: Part Two:  Origin of the Daulat Myth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 














Tengku Razaleigh 2012 - Why I challenged Mahathir?  

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4FMWOTL4Sk








































 





























 

Tengku Razaleigh 2012 - Why I challenged Mahathir?  

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4FMWOTL4Sk

 

 

 

 













Mahathir Menipu Secara Politik - Tengku Razaleigh

Sewaktu melancarkan buku biografinya, 'A Doctor in the House: The Memoirs of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad' di Kuala Lumpur, Dr Mahathir berkata, "Saya berpendapat akan ada orang rasa tidak senang hati dengan penulisan saya dalam buku ini....Jadi saya terimalah...nak saman, samanlah,"

Telahan beliau agak tepat, bilamana Tengku Razaleigh, ahli parlimen Gua Musang mengecam hebat buku memoir Mahathir itu, yang baru sahaja dilancarkan.

"Menipu secara politik datang melalui media dan ada kalanya dengan menulis buku memoir. Satu daripadanya adalah yang terbaru dilancarkan dengan tajuk pseudo (awalan asing palsu), 'A Doctor in the House'.

"Saya gunakan 'pseudo' kerana ia adalah tiruan tajuk daripada sebuah filem komedi British yang terkenal pada 1950an berdasarkan novel Richard Gordon. Mungkin ia disengajakan bagi mencerminkan lawak, selain menipu secara politik, kata Tengku Razaleigh secara sinis.

Menurutnya, dakwaan yang dilemparkan oleh Mahathir dalam buku tersebut ke atas dirinya bukan sesuatu perkara baru.

"Sekali lagi, saya dituduh mengheret parti (Umno) ke mahkamah. Saya juga didakwa terbabit dengan politik wang semasa bertanding pada pemilihan parti 1987,” kata Tengku Razaleigh.

























March 11, 2011

Tengku Razaleigh called Dr Mahathir’s book comedic. — File pic
KUALA LUMPUR, March 11 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said tonight that as Allah was his witness, he had never engaged in vote buying as alleged by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the latter’s autobiography out earlier this week. The veteran Umno leader also accused his old foe Dr Mahathir of engaging in “political lying” in his recollection of what transpired during the contentious 1987 party polls.
“I never steal. I never cheat,” he said in Ipoh tonight when launching an unrelated book.
“Again, I am accused of bringing the party to court. I am also alleged to be involved in money politics during the 1987 party contest. I do not have that sort of money. I have no cronies. In fact, I am against money politics. As Allah is my witness, I have not done all those things. Yet I have always been returned every time I stood in Gua Musang.”
Dr Mahathir had written in his book that Tengku Razaleigh would have become prime minister if he was more patient.
The former prime minister also accused the Team B faction led by the Kelantan prince of a dirty campaign to unseat him as president in the fractious Umno elections of 1987, resulting in the High Court declaring Umno illegal.
“Had Tengku Razaleigh been more patient, he would probably have taken Tun Musa (Hitam)’s place as deputy prime minister and eventually become prime minister,” Dr Mahathir wrote in his book titled “A Doctor in the House: The Memoirs of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad”.
Malaysia’s longest-serving prime minister claimed in the book that Tengku Razaleigh’s Team B had resorted to money politics in the campaign.
“We also heard that Team B spent about RM20 million on their campaign, with most of the money provided by Tengku Razaleigh himself,” he wrote.
“Voting had to be halted halfway for members to attend Friday congregational prayers, but Team B supporters used the interval to campaign. They were seen following targeted delegates to their hotels, even into the toilet, and I was told that a lot of money changed hands,” he said of the party polls that took place on April 24, 1987.
“They also circulated a photograph of me with a Chinese lady who they alleged was my Singaporean wife. In fact, she was the wife of an old university classmate, and the picture had been taken at their daughter’s wedding,” he added.
Responding tonight, Tengku Razaleigh also mocked Dr Mahathir’s book, calling it comedic.
“Political lying comes through the media and sometimes by writing so-called books of memoirs. One book was recently launched under a pseudo title called ‘Doctor in The House’.
“I say ‘pseudo’ because it is a copycat title of a famous British comedy film of the 1950s based on a novel by Richard Gordon. Perhaps it was deliberate, as it does reflect some comedianship, apart from political lying. The ‘Doctor in The House’ makes allegations against me which are not new,” said Tengku Razaleigh.
In the aftermath of the 1987 Umno elections, Tengku Razaleigh was not willing to accept defeat and challenged the results in court on the grounds that 53 Umno branches were not properly registered.
High Court judge Tan Sri Harun Hashim eventually dismissed the suit but ruled that the existence of unregistered branches meant that Umno itself was an illegal party.
In 1988, Dr Mahathir registered a new party, Umno Baru, that exists up to now, although it is now simply known as Umno.


























Labels in Mahathir memoirs ticking ‘time-bombs’

Joe Fernandez | March 14, 2011
Anyone who has seen Malayalam movies on Astro can tell right away that Mahathir has a typical Malayalee face.
COMMENT
Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has come in for a lot of heat over chunks of the contents in his 843-page memoirs, ‘A Doctor in the House’. Let’s leave aside the fact that ‘A Doctor in the House’ was a 1955 comedy directed by Ralph Thomas and starring Dirk Bogarde, Muriel Pavlov and Kenneth More.
There’s also a British TV series ‘Doctor in the House’ which ran from 1969 to 1970.
The easiest thing to do would be to dismiss the RM100 book as a work of fiction, an elaborate spin, a whitewash job for a man on the verge of degenerating into a pitiful clown, a settling of scores with his many foes, a comedy of errors and perhaps even a crafty attempt late in the day to still determine the agenda when others do any number of follow-ups. There are any number of labels in Mahathir’s memoirs.
Delving into his ethnic origins, Mahathir is forced to admit that “some Indian blood” – as an afterthought South Asian, he spins, in a botched attempt at obscuring his origin – runs in his veins “but he doesn’t know from which part of India his people came”.
This is something very difficult to swallow considering what he clearly told JV Morais in 1982 in ‘Mahathir: A Profile in Courage’. This book tells us that Mahathir hailed on his father’s side from Kerala, Southwest India. There’s little mention of his mother’s side. Morais, a Malayalee himself, would have got his facts right on this score since Kerala is not that big a place.
Incidentally, ‘Profiles in Courage’, is also the name of a book written by the late US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Mahathir was not off to a good start in ‘A Doctor in the House’ unless he was confessing that he suffers from an identity crisis and can’t really help his schizophrenic self or that he, for all his bravado, indeed suffers from a deep-seated inferiority complex.
Anyone who has seen Malayalam movies on Astro can tell right away that Mahathir has a typical Malayalee face. This has somehow ended up as a chapter in Mahathir’s memoirs entitled, “I am a Malay”. If he is Malay, as he routinely claims from time-to-time, why would he need to advertise the obvious fact unless he isn’t sure of himself?
If not for Article 153 in the Federal Constitution and the New Economic Policy, would Mahathir claim so proudly to be a Malay? If a man cannot admit who he is, can we believe him on all the other things he tells us in his memoirs? There’s a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde side to Mahathir’s personality.
It was Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself who brought to the attention of the late Sultan of Johore that Mahathir had written Indian Muslim in the space for race when applying to join the University of Malaya in Singapore as a medical student. Lee gave the Sultan a copy of Mahathir’s application form. Mahathir, we learn, was not really completely qualified to enter the university but they let him in anyway to make up the numbers. Another notable omission from Mahathir’s memoirs.
Masking the truth

This also explains why Mahathir never really practiced as a doctor for long although he named his practice in Alor Star as Maha Clinic to impress upon patients that they were visiting an Indian clinic run by an Indian doctor.
Initially, he had one other Indian doctor at the clinic to stand in for him as he busied himself with politics. This doctor was often not paid for four months at a stretch and eventually left. This little story, common knowledge among medical graduates from India, is not mentioned in Mahathir’s memoirs. Mahathir would have won credits if he had candidly acknowledged in his memoirs that he was so broke at one time that he couldn’t even afford to pay his clinic doctor.
Ever since then, Mahathir has been busy trying to reduce the number of Indians who become doctors in Malaysia. He has a fixation with Indians becoming doctors and lawyers.
Mahathir’s ethnic origins and early doctoring attempts aside, his memoirs are generally not so important for what it tells but more important for what it omits, either completely or under various labels. This would provide fodder for the rumour-mills to start churning for months, if not years, to come.
Consider such ticking “time-bombs” as Lee Kuan Yew wanted to be Prime Minister of Malaysia; former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin, a Thai, was too corrupt and had to be laid off; former Deputy Prime Anwar Ibrahim was involved in numerous sexual escapes and was therefore found morally unfit to govern, and that former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was into money politics and must be held responsible for Umno being declared unlawful in the wake of the 1987 party elections.
Mahathir had it right on Lee, has forgotten that it was he and not Razaleigh who was into money politics and didn’t tell us anything new on Daim and Anwar. Instead, he didn’t get the perspective right on Daim and Anwar because that would have meant knocking his own carefully-cultivated public image.
Daim fell out with Mahathir because he initially failed and later gave a very much watered down accounting of the old Umno assets. Mahathir saw red and amidst rumours of Daim being under house arrest and detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA), the then Finance Minister was dispatched into political oblivion.
Anwar, Mahathir discovered to his utter shock, was even more of a novice in economics than when he became Prime Minister in 1981. He decided that there was “no way in hell that his deputy would succeed him”. Rather than admit his poor judgment, Mahathir dredged out Anwar’s “sexual escapes” and decided to hang him with it and dismissed him as “morally unfit to govern”. If not for the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, notwithstanding his sexual escapes, Anwar would have succeeded Mahathir as Prime Minister. The 1987 crisis proved that the would-be Emperor – Anwar – had no clothes.
Taking shelter behind even more labels, Mahathir has admitted that he has “made many mistakes but dismissing Anwar was not one of them”. If only Mahathir could tell the real reason why Anwar was dismissed from office! Mahathir, by masking the truth, has allowed many people to think that Anwar is Prime Minister material.
Man with no friends

When Razaleigh writes his memoirs, he will reveal that Mahathir at one time had no friends. So, he latched on to the Kelantan prince who was then chairman of Bank Bumiputera and Petronas.
He would park himself in front of Razaleigh at his office from morning, would accompany the man for luncheon and get chased out after that to permit some work to get done, only to return later in the evening for dinner.
Razaleigh has never forgiven Mahathir and joins a long list including Tunku Abdul Rahman, Hussein Onn, Mustapha Harun, Daim and Musa Hitam. The last two, like Razaleigh and Samy Vellu, were shocked by Mahathir’s economic incompetence.
When Mahathir drove the economy into recession in 1986 with his austerity drive and shocked Razaleigh and Musa, only Daim and Samy Vellu stood by him and helped him out of his ignorance to rescue the economy.
Mahathir was a quick learner in crisis. Both Daim and Samy don’t get any credits in Mahathir’s memoirs. The former has instead been tarred black.
The 1986 recession was the spark that culminated in Razaleigh, backed by Musa, challenging Mahathir for the Umno presidency in 1987.
Daim came with wads of cash withdrawn from HSBC and rescued Mahathir during the break for Friday prayers on voting day.

























‘Ku Li was Razak’s protege, not Dr M’

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz | March 16, 2011
Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's rendition of incidents during his early days in Umno is somewhat distorted, according to a former Umno assemblyman.
COMMENT
Author and former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad speaks of a house divided in one of the chapters in his recently published memoir. He is opening up old wounds when the time now is of reconciliation.
The memoir indirectly serves to elevate the status of Umno stalwart Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah since Mahathir acknowledges he is prime minister material.
“He could have been if he ( Razaleigh) was patient,” notes Mahathir.
How can we know what went on or what motivated people who were close comrades to go against one another?
Certainly we have to listen to both sides. In his memoirs Mahathir tells his side of the story.
Razaleigh may not be ready to write his memoir yet, but there are others who dispute what Mahathir has said.
If Mahathir continues to blame Razaleigh for all the ills that are setting upon Umno now, Razaleigh may have justifiable reasons to abandon Umno once more.
If he does that then he is simply emulating Mahathir. For the record, Mahathir was expelled from Umno once.
Mahathir then went on to destroy the Umno he was expelled from.
He formed a new Umno. Two or three years after forming the new Umno, Mahathir resigned.
And if I interpret such actions as a person wanting the cake and eating it- I can’t be faulted.
Distorted politics
Mahathir shifts the goal posts as many times as he want. Some people may even describe Mahathir as a selfish person.
He has done it according to his favorite song – I did it my way.
If more than 10,000 people bought the book in the first few days, I agree that Mahathir is an immensely popular person. I am also a fan of Mahathir.
But that does not mean that everyone has to take what Mahathir tells as absolute truths.
I am not going to dispute his views on family, values, childhood, etc. It’s the politics that Mahathir speaks of that are open to debate.
Umno politics is not a story that ONLY Mahathir can tell. Since Umno’s story and history is shared by all, everyone else deserves space to tell their version.
And their version may not conform to what Mahathir has said in his memoirs. But then this is to be expected.
The Razaleigh route
There are so many chapters written by Mahathir which I find pleasant and agreeable.
But I don’t accept his version on some of the politics that he raised.
This disagreement does not however diminish our reverence to Mahathir and to the many path breaking ideas that he introduced into Malaysia.
Chief among these ideas must be a sense of supreme confidence to chart the future based on our abilities. He did indeed make Malaysians proud to be Malaysian citizens.
But his rendition of Umno politics is a different matter.
Take for example the part where Mahathir said his salvation came from Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, who overlooked his behavior.
We find this to be an oversimplified version and self-serving.
Yes, he became a minister because Razak appointed him. But Mahathir wasn’t in Razak’s radar in the first place.
The late Harun Idris played a pivotal role in exposing the good doctor to Razak.
And Mahathir did not mention that his entry into Razak’s radar screen was also facilitated by Razaleigh.
Self-described troublemaker
Mahathir would hang around in Razaleigh’s office at BBMB (Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad) on most occasions when he travelled from Alor Star to KL.
Razaleigh would then bring Mahathir into Razak’s sight.
So, I would say that Mahathir’s claim that Razak was his mentor isn’t quite whole – it was Razaleigh who was Razak’s protégé in more ways than Mahathir.
In the book, Harun’s role was overshadowed by Mahathir’s eagerness to point out the fact that Harun Idris and his sons helped Razaleigh to contest against him.
Surely, such defiance would jolt the minds of readers to question as to why friends like Harun Idris and Razaleigh, who were once jointly instrumental in rescuing Mahathir from political wilderness, would then stand opposed to Mahathir?
Mahathir sees no wrong in describing himself as a rebel and a troublemaker but finds it almost blasphemous when people rebel against him and played troublemaker to him.
I am conscious that this is a Mahathir memoir, a personalised one with much nuances.
Mahathir has every right to state the facts and the stories as he sees fit.
It therefore incorporates his own subjective views and his understanding and the version of a particular story he wants to put across.
Mould breaker
When his version and his personalised account are at odds with what we, who deserve to enjoy the same rights and privileges as Mahathir has, we have every right to offer a counter narration.
Isn’t this what democracy is all about? The presentation of choices to people?
I take it as a duty to read the book in preparing to disagree. His chapter 1 is also an uplifting narration.
That a commoner can eventually become a prime minister in itself has symbolic significance.
As pointed out by Mahathir himself, all previous PMs came from the elite of society – Tengku Abdul Rahman was a prince, Razak was a chieftain from Pahang, Hussein Onn came from Johor’s elite family with close links with Johor Royalty.
I can find no fault when Mahathir says – “but I broke the mould and paved the way for them to head the government of Malaysia.
“An ordinary person can become a PM of Malaysia – but here is where I must add, that the ordinary person must distinguish himself in terms of being able to contribute something.”
Mahathir has indeed broken the mould to present us, what I have written in several articles before and on many occasions – that the selection of a person to high office is no longer because of inherited status, no longer as a result of ascriptive attributes.
Anyone then can become a PM not because of who they are but because of what he can do. What he can become is no longer restricted by social stratification.
That is indeed uplifting.
This is an excerpt of a commentary which first appeared on the writer’s sakmongkolak47 blogsite.

























Ku Li hits out at Dr M’s political lying

March 12, 2011
Mahathir's memoirs lacks intellectual honesty but contains some comedianship, says Tengku Razaleigh
PETALING JAYA: Veteran Umno leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has hit out at former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad over the latter’s recollection of events as stated in his memoirs which was published earlier this week.
The long-time Gua Musang MP and once an Umno vice-president, Tengku Razaleigh, also fondly known as Ku Li, said Mahathir was wrong in accusing him of breaking up Umno in 1987 during the party leadership crisis.
“Again I am accused of bringing the party to court. I am also alleged to be involved in money politics during the 1987 party contest.
“I do not have that sort of money. I have no cronies.
“In fact, I am against money politics. As Allah is my witness, I have not done all those things. Yet I have always been returned every time I stood in Gua Musang,” Razaleigh said yesterday.
“I never steal, I never cheat. Those who steal and cheat will have their conscience pricking them all the time, the rest of their life,” he added.
He said Mahathir’s memoirs – titled “’Doctor In The House” – lacked intellectual honesty and reflected some comedianship, apart from political lying.
He added that intellectual honesty was a rare commodity these days, “particularly in the political atmosphere that we face today in Malaysia where political lying has become pervasive”.
Razaleigh said that he had no remedies “in this country to challenge the fabrication and political lying”.
“That I do not have a legal remedy speaks volumes of the political reality which is disguised as democracy,” he added.
Mahathir’s version
Razaleigh was commenting on Mahathir’s memoirs through his speech during a book launch in Ipoh yesterday. He was officiating at the launch of Perak Academy’s “Wang Gungwu: Junzi Scholar-Gentleman”.
In his 843-page memoirs, Mahathir recalled events that led to Umno being deregistered by the High Court for allowing unregistered branches to take part in the party polls in 1987.
The court ruling was a result of a suit filed by supporters of Razaleigh who had failed to unseat Mahathir as the party president. Mahathir defeated Razaleigh by a razor-slim 43-vote majority.
Mahathir also stated that Razaleigh’s team had spend money in its attempt to win the party polls.
“To fund Team B (Tengku Razaleigh’s team), I was told Tengku Razeleigh sold his racecourse property to the Sultan of Brunei for RM14 million,” wrote Mahathir in his autobiography.
“We also heard that Team B spent about RM20 million on their campaign, with most of the money provided by Tengku Razaleigh himself,” he added.
He also accused Razaleigh’s supporters of paying off Umno delegates in hotels and toilets.
Following the deregistration of Umno, Mahathir formed Umno Baru while Razaleigh formed a splinter party called Semangat 46. In 1996, Razaleigh dissolved his party to rejoin Umno (Baru).





































Razaleigh and Mahathir in UMNO represent contrasting visions

by Karim Raslan
Contemporary Malaysian history is cyclical, not linear. We are fated to repeat ourselves: why have one Razak as Prime Minister, when you can have two? Or settle for just Lim Kit Siang instead of Lim Guan Eng as well?
On a more dispiriting note, if we can have Sodomy1, why not Sodomy2? And since Dr Mahathir toppled one Premier — Tunku Abdul Rahman, why not a second, Tun Abdullah Badawi?
Thankfully though, we’ve never actually repeated the race riots of May ‘69 — proof perhaps that we Malaysians are more evolved than our leaders. Still, we retain a healthy respect for age. Whatever we might really think about the increasingly irascible Dr Mahathir, we continue to defer to him in public.
For much of the past twenty years Dr Mahathir — having wiped out all the opponents from his generation — has dominated the political stage. Indeed, his toughest challengers have been much younger men – most notably, Anwar Ibrahim.
Now, however, we’re presented with a curious development: Dr Mahathir has suddenly got company in the ‘Grand Old Statesman’ category once again. Tengku Razaleigh, the Kelantan prince has found his voice. Sidelined for decades, Razaleigh has emerged as a potent voice for Middle Malaysia.
With his princely pedigree and easy-going personality, he straddles the nation’s contradictions comfortably, from Nik Aziz to Ananda Krishnan, ‘Joe’ Pairin and any number of prominent Chinese tycoons.
At the same time his familiarity with the Malay elite — the various Royal houses, the military, the police, the Bumiputra businessmen and the civil service means that he is accepted by those who’ve always felt a little discomfited by Anwar’s populism. Invigorated by his arguments on oil royalties, Razaleigh has staged an almighty come-back.
Indeed, it appears as if we’re witnessing a replay of their mid-80’s battle to dominate UMNO. However, back in 1987 when their rivalry brought the country to a near halt, the contest was factional. Frankly, there was little to differentiate them ideologically.
This time round the differences are stark. Indeed they represent contrasting views of both UMNO and Malaysia. In one respect, at least someone in the political firmament is moving forward!
So what has happened? Basically, Dr Mahathir has gravitated to his traditional conservative position. He now graces events organised by PERKASA, a ‘Tea Party’ — like pressure group seeking to force UMNO into greater ethnocentrism.
He has resurrected the Malay-ultra rhetoric of his angry youth, warning the community to unite lest the community lose power to Malaysia’s restive minorities.
There is no doubt that this has caused difficulties for Prime Minister Najib Razak, who is currently trying to win back non-Malay support without antagonising Dr Mahathir. The PM is walking a tight-rope.
Razaleigh on the other hand, has called for greater pluralism and civil liberties. Indeed, in doing so he has noticeably broken ranks with UMNO’s leadership who have rejected such ideas altogether.
The Kelantanese prince’s independent-minded remarks reached a crescendo at a gathering in Kota Baru where he called for the Federal government to honour its obligations under the Petroleum Development  Act. Razaleigh has also decried the state of justice in Malaysia and the growing ethnic polarisation. To him, Malaysia’s democracy was “existing in name, but grievously compromised in substance, reality and fact.”
Malaysians are presented with a richly-ironic situation. Two of the most venerable political leaders are presenting a very young nation with entirely separate visions of the country’s future.
Interestingly both men appear to enjoy a degree of immunity, criticising the government with impunity. No one will act against them. This suggests that they both command a high level of respect if not wariness from the authorities.
Moreover, they also represent a living connection with Malaysia’s first two premiers, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak. This invests them both with a mantle of authority — especially as UMNO is trying to find its ‘groove’.
Nonetheless, the really important link is with the late Tun Razak. Both men were instrumental in implementing the New Economic Policy. As such, both are responsible to some degree for the fraught race-relations that we are now facing up to as a nation.
However, Tengku appears to be stepping back from the NEP — not unlike Anwar Ibrahim — concerned at the abuses and losses. Dr Mahathir, conversely, has clung to the policy steadfastly.
To be fair, Dr Mahathir’s current stance is also indicative of what appears to be his frustration at the possibility of seeing his legacy destroyed. He has been straight-forward in condemning UMNO’s poor human capital.
The cyclical nature of our politics I mentioned earlier means we tend to be enamoured with dynastic politics. This often leads to more paradoxes. On one hand, we have an aristocrat pushing for more openness in Malaysia. On the other, a scion of the middle-class opposes anything of the sort. But perhaps this is not so surprising.
Sadly, I’m not sure UMNO members recognise the ideological differences between Tengku Razaleigh and Dr Mahathir. Patronage politics — contracts and more contracts — remains the central issue and Tengku doesn’t have the money to splash around.
In the end it’s not about the men themselves, it’s about UMNO and where the party chooses to go. Will the members veer to the right or will it assume a more moderate stance? At least we have two contrasting visions. — mysinchew.com





May Day for Justice: The Lord President's Version [Hardcover]














Mayday For Justice by Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas.


















HOW MAHATHIR DESTROYED THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY

1. THE DESTRUCTION OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Mahathir was continually upset with the Judiciary because the verdicts in a number of cases went against the Government. According to Deputy  PM, Datuk Musa Hitam, one
of  his favourite slogans was "Hang the Lawyers! Hang the Judges!" From 1987, he intensified his verbal attacks against the Judiciary in the news media, making damaging statements which clearly demonstrated that he did not understand the role of the Judiciary as being independent from the Executive and Legislative arms of Government. That the Judiciary exists as a check-and-balance against the excesses of the Executive appeared to have been a concept he never fully grasped. Instead, he accused judges of the sort of political interference that would result in confusion and loss of public confidence in the Government. Hence, to curtail the powers of the Judiciary and subsume it beneath the Executive became one of his cherished dreams.

In April 1987, after an UMNO leadership contest in which Mahathir very nearly lost to Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, there were allegations that several delegates who had voted were drawn from branches not properly registered under the Societies Act 1966. An appeal was filed by eleven UMNO delegates to have the elections declared null and void. This was a very serious matter for Mahathir because if the appeal succeeded, fresh elections would have to be held and he might lose. The matter finally came before Justice Harun Hashim of KL High Court who ruled that under the existing law, he had no choice but to declare not just the elections invalid, but the whole of UMNO an
unlawful society as well. The country and, more particularly, UMNO, went into a state of shock.

In most modern democracies, a political catastrophe of this magnitude would have result in the immediate resignation of the party's President and Prime Minister. But Mahathir did not resign. He informed the country that the Government would continue running the country. Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and Tunku Abdul Rahman called for a vote in
Parliament to establish Mahathir's legitimacy but those calls were ignored. Mahathir then set in motion the machinery to form a new surrogate party called UMNO Baru. His opponents, however, wanted the old party revived. The eleven UMNO delegates then launched an appeal in the Supreme Court to have the 1987 elections alone declared illegal and the party not an unlawful society.

Mahathir fully understood the danger to him of this pending appeal. He had to act quickly. In October 1987, he launched the notorious Operation Lalang in which at least 106 people were arrested and detained without trial under the ISA, including three very articulate critics, the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, political scientist Dr. Chandra Muzaffar and leading lawyer Karpal Singh. The official reason for the arrests was that a highly dangerous security situation had arisen but this has been strongly disputed as nothing more than a shameless fabrication. The broad sweep included even environmentalists and Consumer Association spokesmen. Four of the most outspoken newspapers -The Star, The Sunday Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh - had their publishing licences suspended. When, after five months, the papers were free to publish again, they were no longer the same.

Mahathir's next move was to push through Parliament far-reaching amendments to the Constitution so that the Executive gained in power enormously at the expense of the Judiciary. There was general indignation at this rude behaviour which shocked a good many people. The indecent haste and the fact that the amendments were made at a time when the Government's main critics were in detention, including the Opposition Leader and six vocal MPs and outspoken newspapers demoralized added further to the appalling injustice of the situation. Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's beloved first Prime Minister, put it succinctly: "It was legal, but was it just?" Others noted angrily that the Constitution had been raped once again. In a speech, the outgoing President of the Bar Council, Param Cumaraswamy, said:

"The Prime Ministe's vile and contemptuous allegations, and the accusations levelled at the Judiciary and our judges left many shocked beyond belief. His speech which was full of venom, hate and spite with no substance whatsoever, illustrated his complete and total ignorance of the role of the Judiciary and the judicial process itself. He has indeed defiled and defaced the Constitution. It is surprising that those 142 MPs who voted in favour, after taking the oath that they would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, had no compunction about destroying one of its basic structures."

One visiting parliamentarian was astonished at the lack of public debate. In his own country, he said, such amendments would have taken years.

Next, after having curbed the independence of the Judiciary, Mahathir set about destroying its integrity. This was the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in 1988, a move which Tunku Abdul Rahman described as "the most shocking story in modern legal and judicial history,"


2. THE DESTRUCTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY


Tun Salleh Abas was a man of humble origins - his father was a sailor and small village trader - who rose to become Lord President, the highest judge in the land and head of the Judiciary while remaining a deeply religious man.

By March 1988, Mahathir's scandalous and violent public attacks on the Judiciary had so provoked the judges that Tun Salleh was obliged to call a conference. Twenty judges met in the Supreme Court one week after the debilitating and shameful Constitutional amendments were made. By unanimous agreement, a letter was drafted to the King (also the Sultan of Johore) and copied to all Sultans, expressing disquiet over various comments made by the Prime Minister. The letter was delivered on 25 March and Tun Salleh left soon after for medical treatment in the United States followed by a pilgrimage to Mecca. He had a most important duty to perform upon his return: he fixed the hearing of the crucial UMNO Eleven appeal for June and, because of its overwhelming significance,
decided that a full coram of nine Supreme Court judges should hear this. Three days later, Tun Salleh was suspended from his official capacity by the King on recommendation of the Prime Minister. In the same hour that he received the suspension letter, the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Abdul Hamid took the UMNO Eleven case out of the calendar so that the link between the two was difficult to deny.

Tun Salleh's suspension came after he refused to bow to Mahathir's pressure to either resign or retire, even though financial inducements were offered, including mention of a lucrative job in the International Development Bank in Jeddah. The initial reason given for the suspension was that the King had taken great displeasure over the letter Tun Salleh
had written on behalf of all judges. According to official records prepared by the Attorney General, the King had requested Tun Salleh's removal in an audience with the Prime Minister on the "Wednesday morning of 1 May 1988" after the weekly Cabinet Meeting.

There are serious doubts as to whether this audience actually took place. The first of May 1988 fell on a Sunday, not Wednesday as the Attorney General recorded. Even if the day of week were corrected, there can be no Cabinet meeting on a Sunday. That the King expressed great displeasure only on 1 May, when he had in fact received the letter on 25
March cast further doubt over this assertion. It is difficult to believe that the King wanted Tun Salleh removed purely because he had protested about the public insults directed against the entire Judiciary by the head of the Executive. In any event, royal displeasure would not be a constitutionally valid ground for dismissal. Indeed, Mahathir advised
the King as much in a letter written four days after this probably fictitious audience; however, the Prime Minister went further in the same letter to say that he would investigate Tun Salleh for any evidence of misbehaviour. In any event, the King did not clear up the mystery and, in an audience with Tun Salleh, actually asked the latter to step down without giving reasons although the Conference of Rulers had already asked for his reinstatement. Amazingly, Tun Salleh was suspended and a Tribunal set up to determine his fate before any formal charges were laid.

The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a Lord President. While the Tribunal need not be an inappropriate means, its composition was to say the least, disgraceful. It was composed of six acting and retired judges, although the Constitution required an odd number to prevent deadlock. Of these -four from Malaysia, one from Sri Lanka and one from Singapore -only the Sri Lankan enjoyed a rank comparable to Tun Salleh's. This was contrary to the very reasonable dictum that one should be tried by one's peers rather than one's juniors. The fact that two retired Lord Presidents of Malaysia were available but not invited was glaring. There were grave conflicts of interest with three of the Malaysian judges that should have disqualified them from sitting: Tan Sri Abdul Hamid who was next in line to succeed as Lord President and who had also participated in the conference of 20 judges which resulted in the letter to the King; Tan Sri Zahir who, being also the Speaker of the Lower House, was beholden to Mahathir, the principal complainant in
the matter at hand; and Tan Sri Abdul Aziz who, although a former judge, was then a practising lawyer and, more incredibly, had two suits pending against him at that time. But Tun Salleh's objections were ignored and when the Bar Council issued a statement calling for the Tribunal to be re-constituted, both the New Straits Times and The Star refused to
publish it. Further, it was decided that the Tribunal would sit in closed sessions although Tun Salleh had requested a public hearing.

The charges, when finally published, were manifestly absurd. Running over 12 sheets of paper, it was clear that quantity had been substituted where quality was lacking, and some of them actually related to Tun Salleh's behaviour after suspension. Many of them related to his speeches and press interviews, whereby sinister meanings were imputed to various innocuous comments that he had made. To cite an instance, in a speech at the University of Malaya, he had said: "The role of the courts is very important to bring about public order. If there is no public order there will be chaos in this country and if there is chaos, no one can feel safe" On this basis, Tun Salleh was charged with making statements criticizing the Government which displayed prejudice and bias against the latter. Another statement of his, "In a democratic system, the courts play a prominent role as agent of stability but they can perform this function only if judges are trusted," resulted in the charge that he had ridiculed the Government by imputing that it did not trust the judges. These charges were doubly ludicrous in the light of Mahathir's many poisonous attacks against the Judiciary.

It is not surprising that Tun Salleh, after reading this catalogue of fantasy crimes, refused to appear before what was so evidently a kangaroo court. The Tribunal, after refusing representations made by Raja Aziz, Tun Salleh's leading counsel, that it had no constitutional validity to sit, chose instead to proceed so hastily that it wound up deliberations, including the examination of witnesses with just four hours work. As it prepared to issue its Report, Tun Salleh's lawyers sought an urgent stay of proceedings in the High Court. This would normally be granted immediately at the least possibility that an
injustice may be about to be done but, here, events turned into utter farce.

Instead of immediately reaching a decision as expected, the presiding judge, Datuk Ajaib Singh, after the court had been in languorous session the whole day that Friday, adjourned hearings for 9.30 am the next day. On Saturday however, the judge emerged in court only at 11.50 am and, even then, postponed hearings again for the Monday! In desperation, Tun Salleh's lawyers, knowing that the Tribunal could easily release its Report before then, sought the assistance of Supreme Court judge, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman, in his Chambers. The latter agreed to hear them in open court in half an hour's time and called a coram of all remaining Supreme Court, one of whom, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop, refused to sit. The soap opera reached an apogee of ridiculousness when Tan Sri Abdul Hamid, head of the Tribunal and Acting Lord President, gave orders for the doors of Supreme Court to be locked and for the seal of the Supreme Court to be secreted away!

Undeterred, the five Supreme Court judges ordered the policeman on duty to open the door forthwith. After less than half an hour, the Court ordered the Tribunal not to submit any recommendation, report or advice to the King. Tun Salleh's lawyers were typing the Order to serve personally to the Tribunal at Parliament House when news arrived that the gates of Parliament House had been locked! At this point, Justice Wan Suleiman rose to the occasion and, calling the office of the Inspector General of Police, told a senior officer that any impediment to serving the Order would constitute contempt of court. The gates of
Parliament swung open and, at 4 pm, Raja Aziz and his team served the Order to the Tribunal members who were found to be still hard at work on a word-processor that Saturday afternoon. All six members accepted service without complaint.

It would appear that justice had at last prevailed but, four days later, all five Supreme Court judges were suspended. Almost every rule that was broken to suspend Tun Salleh was broken again to suspend them. The prohibition order they had made were revoked within days. A second Tribunal eventually reinstated three of the judge: Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoff Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah but Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Edward Seah were removed from office.

The UMNO Eleven case was quickly dismissed. The removal of Tun Salleh also saw the resignation of Deputy PM Datuk Musa Hitam who, according to popular wisdom, could no longer stomach Mahathir's ways.


The facts in this summary are derived from the book "May Day for Justice" by Tun Salleh Abas with K. Das, Magnus Book Kuala Lumpur, 1989.











May Day for Justice: The Lord President's Version [Hardcover]














Mayday For Justice by Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas.































Revisiting the 1988 judicial crisis

Stanley Koh | April 3, 2012
In this first of a two-part article, our writer digs up a seminar presentation by the late K Das, who co-authored May Day for Justicewith sacked chief justice Tun Salleh Abas.
COMMENT
Everyone knows that wisdom among Malaysian politicians is rare, but perhaps few realise that the courage to tell the truth to people in power is just as rare, if not rarer.
One man with such courage was the late K Das, a playwright and journalist who became a household name in the 1970s and 80s, when he was the Kuala Lumpur correspondent for the now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review.
Das’ most enduring work is the 1989 publication May Day for Justice, which he wrote with Mohamed Salleh Abas after the latter’s infamous dismissal from his position as chief justice and lord president of the Supreme Court. Some have called the episode narrated in the book as the darkest hour in Malaysian judicial history.
At a human rights seminar organised by DAP just before the book came out, Das shared his experience of writing it and gave insights into his feelings about the administration of prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Referring to constitutional amendments that had the effect of subordinating the judiciary to the executive arm of government, he said: “Changing the laws is a perfectly legitimate thing. No one argues about that. What we are talking about is changing the laws the communist way, or the totalitarian way, without consulting the people.
“The only real difference between the communists and these so-called parliamentarians was that the first gang sat in the jungle while the second mob on Parliament Hill. Neither of them had any respect for the will of the people. Neither of them had any idea or cared for what the rule of law meant. Neither of them was honest.”
Das said he wrote the book to fulfil his duty of showing Malaysians what a “thoroughly immoral and criminal government” they had and to convince them to remove it from office.
He met Salleh for the first time at the sacked judge’s official residence.
“He was already packing to move into more humble quarters and out of the limelight of public life,” he told participants at the DAP seminar. “It was not the best way to meet a man for the first time.
“I found him amazingly calm.”
Angry and intrigued
Salleh’s composure would not surprise those familiar with his background. He was a man of humble origins, the son of a sailor who also eked out a living as a small village trader. Salleh rose to become the top judge in the land while remaining a deeply religious man.
Das said he was angry and intrigued at the same time.
“He did not seem to be angry with that wretched gang of official rogues and thugs who had caused his downfall. He seemed to feel sorry for them more than anything else despite having been misled, lied to, victimised, called a liar, insulted and humiliated in all sorts of ways, put through a public circus of a tribunal and finally dismissed.”
He recalled that Salleh kept saying, “Poor chaps! Silly chaps!”
“I myself was not in a charitable mood. What I knew of the affair in fact put me in a very foul mood. Tun Salleh’s attitude that day, I must confess, annoyed me and irritated me.”
Das said they discussed the form the book should take. “He did not want a legalistic story. It had to be written for the layman. The man in the street had to understand what had happened. He told me that if justice meant anything at all, the ordinary people must be educated about the whole affair.”
He said that in Salleh’s view, justice was not for Parliament or the law courts or the judges or the lawyers; it was for everybody. And the ordinary people needed more attention than the high and mighty of this world.
“It was inspiring to hear the victim of the greatest injustice ever done by the law of this country talking to me about justice in the abstract, justice for the society, and not about justice for himself, or his own destruction, about his own anger or his own frustrations.
“I was really moved.”
May Day for Justice was published with a foreword by former prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, who wrote that if the government were honourable, it would resign as soon as the book was published.
The government’s response to the publication, according to Das, was “basically silence”, but he added: “The publisher was informed by a telephone call from a major English tabloid (The Star) that the Home Ministry had instructed the paper not to carry the advertisement for the book. Whether that claim about the Home Ministry is true or not, we cannot be sure because the caller refused to confirm his message in writing. But one thing was sure, the paper did not carry any advertisement on the following day.”
He said the only newspaper that continued to advertise the book was the now defunct Malay daily Watan.
On Oct 21, 1989, opposition leader Lim Kit Siang mentioned the book in Parliament and urged MPs to read it. He called for a commission of inquiry to answer the allegations it made against the Mahathir administration. There was no response.
It was not until 2008 that an attempt was made to redress the injustice against Salleh and other sacked judges. The then law minister, Zaid Ibrahim, urged the government to apologise to the judges. The then prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, subsequently announced financial compensation.
Perhaps one of the most important developments in the issue was the recent call by Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee for a review of the 1988 constitutional amendments. He said the changes tampered with the balance of power and had to be redressed to ensure that the courts are free of control by the executive arm of government.
In the meantime, thanks to the increasing popularity of the alternative media, more and more Malaysians are waking up to the fact that what is morally wrong cannot be politically correct.
Stanley Koh is a FMT columnist.
Also read:
The mystery of the lost day





















































Tengku Razaleigh to Contest Under Pakatan in GE13?

Razaleigh_Hamzah
Ku Li has yet to respond to Pakatan’s invitation. But so far it seems like Umno could be the wrong party for the Kelantan prince all this while. Bear in mind that records shows that this Umno veteran is already known to have opposition-friendly tendencies. Back in his Semangat 46 days, the party forged a coalition called Gagasan Rakyat with Democratic Action Party (DAP), Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) and PAS. One thing for sure is, if there’s ever a best time for Ku Li to switch side now would be it.
by Syed Zahar, Malaysian Digest 
He sounds like an Opposition leader, but he’s not. In fact, he almost became the Umno president and the prime minister after losing to old rival Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the 1987 party election by a very narrow margin.
You either love or hate Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. The ruling party (for now) has reasons to despise him for the critical statements he makes on the government policies. More lately, sixteen grassroots Umno leaders in his parliamentary constituency of Gua Musang have urged the long-term MP not to defend his seat in the coming general election.  The leaders said this in response to a report quoting Tengku Razaleigh as having said he was prepared to contest as an independent if he was not nominated for the Gua Musdang seat again by Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN).

"We, as leaders at the grassroots level, sometimes feel ashamed and sad over the statements made by Tengku Razaleigh, as they are in support of the opposition, especially on the issue of the Kelantan oil royalty and the Felda listing on Bursa Malaysia," said Umno Bandar Lama branch leader Ab Wahab Yunus.

According to reports, the call was made at a meeting yesterday, chaired by Ab Wahab and attended by three division leaders, six branch heads and representatives from Kesedar and Felda. Ab Wahab claimed that Tengku Razaleigh, or popularly known as Ku Li, no longer had an influence, both at the divisional and federal levels, and that the former finance minister seemed to have lost his stand on Umno and the BN. Meanwhile, division leader Ab Aziz Mohamad described Ku Li as only putting forward his own personal struggle to seek for posts within the government or Umno, and was not concerned about the problems of the people of Gua Musang and the Kesedar settlers.

"This shows that Tengku Razaleigh is not a leader that we can depend on like before. I ask him to honorably withdraw, and make way for a young leader to contest," Ab Aziz said.

Ab Wahab expressed concern over Umno’s chances in winning the pivotal 13th General Election and that the controversial statements issued by their MP who had been leading the Gua Musang division for 37 years have not been helping in the transformation in the party’s struggle. Meanwhile, PAS vice president Salahuddin Ayub said yesterday that Pakatan Rakyat was willing to negotiate with Ku Li if he was interested in defending Gua Musang on Pakatan’s ticket.

Ku Li has yet to respond to Pakatan’s invitation. But so far it seems like Umno could be the wrong party for the Kelantan prince all this while. Bear in mind that records shows that this Umno veteran is already known to have opposition-friendly tendencies. Back in his Semangat 46 days, the party forged a coalition called Gagasan Rakyat with Democratic Action Party (DAP), Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) and PAS. One thing for sure is, if there’s ever a best time for Ku Li to switch side now would be it.

























Tengku Razaleigh: Time to Rise from the Ashes

“I hope to see a common national agenda evolving in the country in pursuit of a more just, equitable and balanced prosperity for all, irrespective of race, religion and partisan political alignments...”
    
      - Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah


Razaleigh_HamzahCritics say Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is clutching at straws to remain relevant at a time when national politics has narrowed to a divisive tussle between Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat. There is no place for a third force like his newly-formed Angkatan Amanah Merdeka. As president of the newly-formed non-governmental organization (NGO) which seeks to return to the comforting policies of first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tengku Razaleigh, or Ku Li as he’s famously known, has embarked on a political maneuver that might make or break him (again).

A number of third forces had spawned from this climate of political uncertainty in recent times, namely the recently established Jati, the troubled Kita and Perkasa. This groups which is separate from the government and the opposition will be able to influence voters one way or another come election day. Some may deem the third-forces as in effective or irrelevant in our transformed political landscape following the tsunami of 2008. However, these NGOs will be the ones assuming the role of kingmaker in the event of a hung Parliament.

At one level, these groups are signaling there is a niche out there for those who have rejected the old politics of Barisan Nasional but have not completely bought into the so-called new politics of Pakatan Rakyat.

“Each group comes to the table with a slightly different political message to sell,” said political analyst and UCSI academic Dr Ong Kian Ming.

Ku Li’s path to political stardom has not been easy. In the 1969 general election, he won the Parliamentary seat of Kelantan Barat. In 1971, he was elected to the Umno Supreme Council, and was elected as a vice-president of Umno in 1975. After Prime Minister Abdul Razak's sudden death in 1976, he was appointed as Finance Minister by the new Prime Minister, Hussein Onn.

When Dr Mahathir Mohamad succeeded Hussein as prime minister, the former declared the election for the deputy presidency of Umno. Ku Li joined the fray, and his main opposition was Musa Hitam. Eventually, Musa won the election with 722 votes to Razaleigh's 517 votes, becoming the new deputy president of Umno and deputy prime minister. Ku Li blamed himself for taking "a rather passive stance" and not having a campaign strategy.

Fast forward to 2008, the year of the historical political tsunami of the 12th General Election (GE12), compared to its record win in the previous election in 2004, GE12 was a big boo-boo for Umno-Barisan Nasional (BN). Pak Lah, as BN chairman and prime minister had no choice but to take the blame for party’s dismal performance then. If Pak Lah had not stepped down soon enough after losing two-thirds majority, Malaysians would have been compelled to tell him to do so.

At that time (2008) Ku Li was viewed as a vehement politician. Strong and noble, he was and still is the opposite of Pak Lah. He is a blue-blooded Umno man who seemingly has the desire to take over the presidency of the party and he nearly succeeded in doing so when he challenged Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1987 (Dr Mahathir won by a margin of 43 votes). Since after his Semangat 46 undertaking he was stuck in his Gua Musang MP berth and given very little voice within the party to what he’s used to.

With Umno’s poor showing in GE12 was a window of opportunity for Ku Li to shine. He has been waiting for so long and now is the time for him to take the power back. At that time many Malaysians felt that Ku Li was outspoken enough to ask Pak Lah to quit or be voted out in the next Umno Supreme Council election that was to be held at the end of 2008.

But then again, all hope fades to dust. Najib was chosen as Prime Minister. So, in July 2011, the Kelantan prince unveiled his team that formed Amanah which included former MCA president Ong Tee Keat, former MIC deputy president S Subramaniam and former Tourism Minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir as his deputies. Among other personalities he has picked as his deputy presidents were former leaders of Sabah and Sarawak – Tuaran MP Wilfred Bumburing, former PBB leader Bujang Ulis and former Sarawak deputy chief minister Daniel Tajem.

Tengku Razaleigh hopes that Amanah would help the silent majority make their voices heard to break free from political manipulators who have been holding the country at ransom. Amanah is said to put emphasis on the spirit of sincerity to boost racial ties, as propagated by the late Tunku. At the same time, Amanah may well be a platform for Ku Li to take back what he had lost to Dr Mahathir back in the 1987.

Other than the recent contoversial statements made by Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir against Umno, Amanah and its founder Tengku Razaleigh have been very quiet lately. This may just be a calm before the storm. But if Ku Li does have intention to take the power back this would be the best time to do it.


*The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer.
















Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li)



Yang Berhormat Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (lahir: 13 April 1937; juga dipanggil Ku Li) merupakan bekas Presiden Semangat 46 yang telah dibubarkan pada 1996 dan juga bekas Menteri Kewangan Malaysia 1976-1984. Beliau juga merupakan pengasas kepada Petronas(Petrolium Nasional Berhad).Kini, beliau merupakan Ahli Parlimen Gua Musang, Kelantan. Di peringkat akar umbi politik, beliau merupakan Ketua UMNO Bahagian Gua Musang.

Tengku Razaleigh merupakan putera Raja dan juga merupakan bapa saudara kepada Raja Perempuan Kelantan, Tengku Anis dan dikhabarkan Sultan Kelantan Tuanku Ismail Petra ‘membahasakan’ Tengku Razaleigh dengan panggilan ‘Ayahanda’.

Dilahirkan kepada Tengku Hamzah yang lebih dikenali sebagai Tengku Serimah ataupun Tengku Seri Maharaja, Tengku Razaleigh mendapat pendidikan awalnya di Sekolah Melayu Padang Garong, dan kemudiannya di Kolej Sultan Ismail (SIC) dan Maktab Melayu Kuala Kangsar, Perak. Seterusnya, beliau melanjutkan pelajarannya dalam bidang undang-undang di Lincoln Inn, London. Tetapi hasratnya untuk menjadi peguam terbantut apabila bapanya sakit dan beliau terpaksa menguruskan perniagaan bapanya. Pada tahun 1959, Tengku Razaleigh mendapat Ijazah Sarjana Muda dari Universiti Queen, Ireland. Cik Puan Noor Abdullah merupakan isteri Tengku Razaleigh.

Pada tahun 1962, Tengku Razaleigh menjadi ahli UMNO dan dilantik menjadi Ketua UMNO Bahagian Ulu Kelantan. Pada tahun berikutan, beliau telah dilantik sebagai Setiausaha Perhubungan UMNO Kelantan dan Majlis Tertinggi UMNO. Tengku Razaleigh menjadi Ketua Perhubungan UMNO negeri Kelantan pada tahun 1967. Atas jemputan Tunku Abdul Rahman, Perdana Menteri Malaysia pada waktu itu, beliau bertanding bagi kawasan Dewan Undangan Negeri menentang Dato Asri Muda. Tengku Razaleigh menang dalam pilhan raya tersebut dan menjadi ahli Parlimen pada umur 37 tahun.

Atas permintaaan Tun Abdul Razak pada Pilihan Raya Umum 1974, Tengku Razaleigh bertanding kerusi Parlimen. Sewaktu itu, Majalah Time meramalkan beliau akan menjadi pemimpin utama di Malaysia. Pada zaman Tun Abdul Razak, Tengku Razaleigh dilantik sebagai pengerusi Pernas, Petronas dan Bank Bumiputera. Sewaktu menjadi pengerusi Pernas, beliau melawat negara China dan merupakan orang Malaysia pertama menemui Perdana Menteri China, Chou En Lai. Seterusnya, Tun Abdul Razak berkunjung ke China. Jadi Tengku merupakan arkitek Persahabatan Malaysia-China 1974 yang membawa kejatuhan Parti Komunis Malaya.

Semasa Tengku Razaleigh memimpin Bank Bumiputera, beliau telah menjemput Wong Am Pui dan Dato Khoo Kay Peng melatih kakitangan Melayu agar mahir dalam pengurusan bank. Pada Julai 1974, Tengku Razaleigh menjadi Naib Presiden UMNO setelah kematian Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman. Beliau menjadi Naib Presiden UMNO selama tiga penggal berturut-turut sehingga 1978.

Pada 5 Mac 1976 hingga Julai 1984, Tengku Razaleigh telah dilantik sebagai Menteri Kewangan dan setiap tahun membentangkan belanjawan negara di Parlimen melalui siaran secara langsung oleh RTM. Ketika itu, perkembangan ekonomi negara berkembang 6-8 peratus setahun. Beliau merupakan Menteri Kewangan yang paling lama sebelum diambil alih oleh Dato Daim Zainuddin dalam rombakan kabinet pada tahun 1984. Dalam rombakan tersebut, Tengku Razaleigh dilantik menjadi Menteri Perdagangan dan Perindustrian.

Pada 24 April 1987, Tengku Razaleigh bersama Dato Musa Hitam mencabar regu Dr Mahathir dan Ghafar Baba dalam pemilihan parti sebagai Presiden dan Naib Presiden Parti UMNO. Malangnya, beliau ditewas 43 undi di tangan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Kekalahan tersebut merupakan titik pusing kerjaya politiknya.
Selepas kekalahan ini, Tengku Razaleigh menubuhkan Parti Semangat 46 bersama dengan Datuk Rais Yatim. Semangat 46 bekerjasama dengan PAS dan DAP dalam Pilihan Raya Umum tahun itu tetapi gagal memenangi untuk membentukkan kerajaan. Cuma PAS berjaya menguasai kerajaan negeri Kelantan dan PBS berjaya menguasai kerajaan negeri Sabah. Selepas Semangat 46 dibubarkan 1996, Tengku Razaleigh dan Dato Rais Yatim menyertai UMNO semula.

Pada tahun 2000, beliau menawarkan diri untuk bertanding melawan Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad sebagai Presiden dalam pemilihan parti UMNO namun kouta pencalonan sebanyak 30 peratus tidak mencukupi dari bahagian-bahagian UMNO. Pada masa yang sama, beliau juga cuba mencabar Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi untuk jawatan Timbalan Presiden, namun juga gagal atas kuota. Selain itu, beliau juga gagal menepati kuota apabila ingin bertanding untuk jawatan Naib Presiden.



Pada tahun 2004, beliau cuba mencabar Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yang sebagai Presiden ketika itu, namun hanya bahagian Gua Musang mencalonkannya. Oleh itu beliau gagal menepati kuota.
Sekali lagi pada 2009, setahun selepas Pilihanraya Umum, beliau menawarkan diri untuk bertanding jawatan yang sama menentang Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak kerana Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi akan mengundurkan diri, kerana keputusan Barisan Nasional dalam pilihanraya yang merosot. Setakat ini hanya bahagian Gua Musang mencalonkannya.

Dalam Pilihan Raya Umum Malaysia 2008, Tengku Razaleigh Bin Tengku Mohd Hamzah bertanding menggunakan tiket Barisan Nasional . Beliau telah bertanding di kawasan parlimen Gua Musang , negeri Kelantan. Tengku Razaleigh Bin Tengku Mohd Hamzah telah menang dengan mendapat undi sebanyak 14063. Calon lawan ialah Zulkefli Bin Mohamed dari PAS , mendapat 9,669 undi - Kalah . Peratus pengundi yang keluar ialah 83% . Undi rosak sebanyak 489

    * 1937: Dilahirkan pada 13 April.

    * 1959 (umur 22): Mendapat Ijazah Sarjana Muda dari Queen's University, Ireland.

    * 1962 (umur 25): Menjadi ahli UMNO dan dilantik menjadi Ketua UMNO Bahagian Ulu Kelantan.

    * 1963 (umur 26): Dilantik sebagai Setiausaha Perhubungan UMNO Kelantan dan Majlis Tertinggi UMNO.

    * 1967 (umur 30):Menjadi Ketua Perhubungan UMNO negeri Kelantan.
    * 1969 (umur 32): Bertanding di kawasan Dewan Undangan Negeri menentang Dato Asri Muda dan menjadi Ahli Parlimen.

    * 1972 (umur 35): Mendapat gelaran "Tan Sri".

    * 1974 (umur 37): (1) Bertanding kerusi Parlimen; (2) Menjadi Naib Presiden UMNO pada Julai setelah kematian Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman dan mengekalkan jawatan selama tiga penggal berturut-turut sehingga 1978.

    * 1976 (umur 39): Dilantik sebagai Menteri Kewangan pada 5 Mac.

    * 1984 (umur 47): Dilantik sebagai Menteri Perdagangan dan Perindustrian dalam rombakan kabinet pada bulan Julai.

    * 1987 (umur 50): (1) Mencabar regu Dr Mahathir dan Ghafar Baba bersama dengan Dato Musa Hitam dalam pemilihan parti sebagai Presiden dan Naib Presiden parti UMNO dan ditewas 43 undi di tangan Dr Mahathir pada 24 April; (2) Menubuhkan Parti Semangat 46 bersama dengan Dato Rais Yatim; (3) Gagal dalam Pilihan Raya Umum untuk membentuk kerajaan.

    * 1996 (umur 59): Menyertai UMNO semula selepas pembubaran Semangat 46.





















http://www.tengkurazaleighhamzah.com/

























[PDF] 

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY











Mahathir Mohamad and The Malay Rulers (1993)

by Karpal Singh (08-26-12)
Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left with Mukhriz) has challenged me to prove that he has made seditious comments against the royalty during the Parliamentary debates leading up to the 1993 constitutional amendments on the monarchs’ immunity.
It would have been better for Mahathir to have agreed to be subpoenaed as a witness in my trial. The court would be a better forum to expose Mahathir. However, as I have been challenged, I am prepared to pick up the cudgel.
In tabling the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, 1993 to set up the Special Court to take away the immunity from legal process of the King and the Rulers, Mahathir, uttered the following, among the many other, seditious remarks during a time when he had no Parliamentary immunity from being charged in court for making those remarks:
Jika Malaysia ingin menjadi sebuah negara yang mengamalkan Demokrasi Berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan, kekebalan yang diberikan kepada Raja-Raja perlulah dihapuskan. [Tepuk]’ [Hansard 18 January, 1993, page 16]
“Sebenarnya ketiga-tiga Perdana Menteri dahulu, sebagai Penasihat kepada Raja-Raja, telahpun menegur Raja-Raja berkali-kali semasa mereka berkhidmat. Saya tahu teguran ini dibuat kerana perkara ini telah dilaporkan dalam Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri dan juga Majlis Tertinggi UMNO berkali-kali.
“Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri pernah dalam ucapan bertulis di suatu Mesyuarat Majlis Raja-Raja, yang dihadiri hanya oleh Duli-Duli Yang Maha Mulia atau wakil-wakil mereka sahaja, menegur dengan kerasnya perbuatan Raja-Raja yang tidak harus dilakukan.
“Tetapi teguran ini tidak berkesan. Pekara-perkara yang disentuh terus dilakukan juga, bahkan ditingkatkan. Apa yang tidak pernah dibuat di zaman British dan pada tahun-tahun awalan Malaysia merdeka, dilakukan dengan semakin ketara da meluas.’ [Hansard, Jan 18, 1993, page 19]…
“Kerajaan memang mendengar dan menyedari akan pandangan dan kemarahan sebilangan rakyat yang mengetahui perbuatan Raja. Demikianlah kemarahan mereka sehingga ada, terutama di kalangan generasi muda, yang menganggap Sistem Beraja sudah ketinggalan zaman.
“Tetapi oleh kerana Akta Hasutan dan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja, Raja tidak mendengar dan tidak percaya kepada Penasihat mereka apabila maklumat disampaikan berkenaan kegelisahan rakyat. Raja dan keluarga Diraja nampaknya berpendapat bahawa semua ini adalah ciptaan Penasihat-penasihat Raja untuk menakutkan Baginda atau untuk merebut hak Raja.
“Dalam keadaan ini, Raja bukan sahaja akan meneruskan amalan-amalan yang tidak disenangi atau disukai oleh rakyat tetapi juga akan melakukan perkara-perkara yang lebih dibenci oleh rakyat. Jika trend ini tidak disekat, perasaan rakyat terhadap Raja tentu akan meluap dan menjadi begitu buruk sehingga pada suatu masa nanti rakyat mungkin tidak lagi dapat membendung perasaan mereka. Perasaan yang diluahkan dalam surat-surat kepada akhbar sebenarnya sudah lama wujud.
“Dengan izin, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin membaca petikan daripada satu rencana yang dihantarkan kepada akhbar The Straits Times pada 1946 oleh seorang tokoh Melayu yang terkemuka, apabila British mencadangkan penubuhan Malayan Union. Tokoh ini kemudian memegang jawatan yang tinggi dalam Kerajaan. Rencana in tidak disiarkan oleh akhbar Straits Times tetapi ia disampaikan kepada saya baru-baru ini oleh penulis.
“Penulis ini menyatakan, dengan izin ‘All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not arrived when the Malay Royalty (I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogether.’
“Jika pandangan seperti ini sudah ada pada tahun 1946, apakah ia tidak mungkin wujud semula pada tahun 1993 [Tepuk] jika Raja-Raja tidak dihalang  daripada melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan yang tidak diingini?” [Hansard, 18 January, 1993, page 20-22]…
Sebelum ini terdapat banyak insiden dimana Raja menganiaya rakyat, Raja menyalahi undang-undang civil dan criminal, Raja menyalahgunakan wang serta harta Kerajaan dan Negara, Raja menekan dan menganiaya pegawai-pegawai’ [Hansard, Jan 18, 1993, page 26]
These are among the passages in Mahathir’s speech as reflected in the Hansard. The passages exude serious and often explosive instances of sedition to which the Attorney-General has chosen to give a blind eye.
I challenge Mahathir to come to court voluntarily at my trial and testify and justify what he uttered in Parliament on January 18, 1993. I hope he will not run away from this challenge.










  • Nigel Aw
  • 3:54PM Aug 25, 2012

Dr Mahathir Mohamad has challenged DAP chairperson Karpal Singh to prove that the former PM had made seditious comments against the royalty, during the parliamentary debates for the 1993 constitutional amendment on the monarch's immunity.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

     
[PDF] 

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

Dr M did not insult royal institution, says DPP

Then-prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed did not utter anything seditious during the debates for the 1993 constitutional amendments, but was in fact protecting the royal institution, argued DPP Noorin Badaruddin in court today.
“The people could have done something that would jeopardise the constitutional monarch.
“Before the people lose respect (to the rulers), he founded the Special Court that could hold them accountable in their personal capacity.
“Mahathir did not question the constitutional monarch, but he defended it,” she said.
NONEShe was objecting Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh’s (right) bid to subpoena the former prime minister and several others to appear as witnesses at his sedition trial, on the grounds that they are not material witnesses.
At the time, several scandals involving the royalty especially the 1992 ‘Gomez Incident’ had led to the government to amend the law, effectively stripping the royalty of their immunity from prosecution.
In the incident on November 1992, Johor hockey coach Douglas Gomez was summoned to the Johor palace, where the late Sultan Mahmud Iskandar allegedly assaulted him for criticising the sultan’s orders to withdraw his hockey team from a tournament.
Karpal has contended that the parliamentary debates at the time were more seditious than what he had supposedly said.
Since no one was charged as a result, it would be unfair and unconstitutional to charge him, he had argued when he applied for his charges to be struck out.
He is charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act for allegedly saying during a press conference on Feb 6, 2009 that legal action could be taken against the Perak sultan for his role in the 2008 Perak constitutional crisis.
If convicted, Karpal could be jailed for up to three years or fined up to RM5,000, or both.
Karpal: Witnesses are vital
Claiming that the attorney-general’s prosecutorial discretion had not been exercised properly, Karpal wishes to subpoena then attorney-general Abu Talib Othman, the current attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and, noting that the cabinet acts on the attorney-general’s legal advice, Mahathir to support his application.
However, Noorin argued that their testimonies would not be useful, and to subpoena them would be an abuse of court processes.
“All these witnesses are not relevant at all and would not be helpful in the defence,” she said, adding that Karpal should be calling witnesses who could raise reasonable doubt on this charge.
She also argued that even if what was said during the 1993 parliamentary debates were seditious, it is irrelevant to Karpal’s case.
In addition, under Article 145 of the federal constitution, she said the attorney-general has discretion on whom to prosecute and it is not for the court to question his discretion.
Even the constitution’s Article 8 provision for equality before the law is subject to this, Noorin argued.
“Therefore it is clear that the AG’s (attorney-general) discretion is absolute and cannot be questioned in court… The court should not allow it,” she said.
However, Karpal maintained that the witnesses are vital to his argument that it is unconstitutional under Article 8 to selectively prosecute him, and that it is Article 145 that is subject to Article 8, not the other way around.
Otherwise, the veteran lawyer noted, “it would be disturbing”.
Justice Azman Abdullah fixed next Thursday for the decision on whether to subpoena the witnesses.
Short URL: http://www.freemalaysiakini2.com/?p=43411


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

     
[PDF] 

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
AG Decides To Proceed With Karpal's Sedition Charge

KUALA LUMPUR -- The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has decided to proceed with the sedition charge against Karpal Singh.
Karpal Singh was charged with uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak, under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, three years ago.
Jagdeep Singh Deo who acted for Karpal Singh told the court that the defence had submitted a letter of representation to the AGC on July 19.
"However, the defence received a response from the AGC dated July 26 directing us to proceed with the charge," he informed High Court Judge Azman Abdullah.
The court also heard submissions from Karpal Singh to strike out his sedition charge during Friday's proceedings.
Karpal Singh applied to subpoena former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad, Pasir Mas member of parliament (MP) Ibrahim Ali, Arau MP Shahidan Kassim and Pendang MP Osman Abdul, among others.
The court fixed Aug 24 to hear his application to subpoena them.
The Bukit Gelugor MP submitted that under Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
"When having regard to the law then prevailing, the Government moved to take away the immunity of the Rulers from legal redress by setting up the Special Court and enacted the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1993 in a Dewan Rakyat debate on Jan 18 and 19 1993," he said.
He contended that Dr Mahathir and the MPs had committed sedition on a wide scale during the debate but were not prosecuted by the then AG, despite there being no immunity for criminal prosecution for whatever was said in Parliament.
Meanwhile, deputy public prosecutor Azlina Rasdi submitted that based on Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution stated that the AG had a wide discretion to initiate, conduct or halt any proceedings for a particular offence.
And furthermore, although Article 8(1) stated the law could not discriminate against a class of people or individual, it may be allowed if there is a rational basis for it.
Azlina said Karpal Singh's contention of the 1993 debate by Dr Mahathir and the MPs differed from (this) case.
"What was said in Parliament at the time was purely as a matter of debate and had no other intention whatsoever. It was said within the confines of the Dewan Rakyat," she added.
Whereas, the applicant (Karpal Singh) made his statement at a press conference organised by himself and also distributed the said statement to those attending, she said.
It was moreover made at a time when the political situation in Perak was uncertain, she added.
"This application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process," she concluded.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
[PDF] 

THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Dr Mahathir Mohamad has challenged me to prove that he has made seditious comments against the royalty during the Parliamentary debates leading up to the 1993 constitutional amendments on the monarchs immunity.

  

 

 




























August 28, 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 28 — An Utusan Melayu journalist told the High Court here today that he had no malicious intent when he wrote an article on DAP chairman Karpal Singh four years ago.
Zulkifli Jalil, 40, however, admitted that there was inaccuracies and misunderstanding in the article titled “DAP diingat jangan bakar perasaan Melayu” (DAP reminded not to inflame sentiments of Malays).
Zulkifli said that when writing the article, he did not realise that there was a difference in the meaning of rejecting an Islamic state and rejecting Islam as the official religion of the country.
He also admitted to the court that he did not contact the DAP chairman to clarify the matter when writing the article and that it was written based on his experience and other news reports on Karpal Singh’s (picture) views on PAS’ struggle to form an Islamic state.
Zulkifli,  who is now a news editor at Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd, was testifying in the hearing of the RM10-million suit brought Karpal Singh against Utusan Melayu (M) Berhad four years ago for misquoting him on a matter relating to Islam.
During the proceedings, Zulkifli apologised several times to Karpal Singh, saying that he only realised that the article was inaccurate after Utusan Melayu published an ‘apology’ on Aug 26, 2008 to retract the statement and apologise for the error.
Meanwhile, Karpal Singh, in his witness statement read out in court, said the said words (that he rejects Islam as the official religion of the country) were untrue and that he had never said those words.
He said that Islam was the official religion of Malaysia as guaranteed under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution with freedom to practice all other religions in peace and harmony and that he had consistently maintained that stand in his public speeches and in Parliament for the last 26 years.
“Because of this article, people have begun to brand me as being anti-Islam and someone who deliberately wants to create ill-will among different communities in the country.
“This has a serious adverse impact on my reputation personally and as a professional and politician,” he said.
Karpal Singh, who is Bukit Gelugor Member of Parliament, filed the suit on Sept 19, 2008, claiming that the Utusan Malaysia newspaper had published a defamatory article on his welcoming speech at the 15th DAP National Congress held on Aug 25, 2008.
The hearing before Judge Datuk Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad resumes on Sept 24.
Lawyer B. Mohana Kumar represented the defendant, while Karpal Singh was represented by lawyer Sangeet Kaur. — Bernama




























 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karpal Singh's sedition charge to proceed, Dr M to be subpoenaed

KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney-General's Chambers has decided to proceed with the sedition charge against Karpal Singh for uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak three years ago.
Jagdeep Singh Deo who acted for Karpal told the court that the defence had submitted a letter of representation to the AG on July 19.
"However, the defence received a response from the AG dated July 26 directing us to proceed with the charge," he informed High Court Judge Datuk Azman Abdullah.
The court also heard submissions from Karpal Singh to strike out his sedition charge during today's proceedings.
Karpal applied to subpoena former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad, Pasir Mas MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali, Arau MP Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim and Pendang MP Datuk Osman Abdul, among others.
The court fixed Aug 24 to hear his application to subpoena them.
Karpal, who is Bukit Gelugor MP, submitted that under Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
"When having regard to the law then prevailing, the Government moved to take away the immunity of the Rulers from legal redress by setting up the Special Court and enacted the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1993 in a Dewan Rakyat debate on Jan 18 and 19 1993," he said.
He contended that Dr Mahathir and the MPs had committed sedition on a wide scale during the debate but were not prosecuted by the then AG, despite there being no immunity for criminal prosecution for whatever was said in Parliament.
DPP Azlina Rasdi submitted that Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution stated that the AG had wide discretion to initiate, conduct or halt any proceedings for a particular offence.
And furthermore, although Article 8(1) stated the law could not discriminate against a class of people or individual, it may be allowed if there is a rational basis for it.
Azlina said Karpal's contention of the 1993 debate by Dr Mahathir and the MPs differed from today's case.
"What was said in Parliament at the time was purely as a matter of debate and had no other intention whatsoever. It was said within the confines of the Dewan Rakyat," she added.
Whereas, the applicant (Karpal Singh) made his statement at a press conference organised by himself and also distributed the said statement to those attending, she said.
It was made at a time when the political situation in Perak was uncertain, she added.
"This application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process," she concluded. - Bernama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:08AM Aug 27, 2012

YOURSAY 'This reminds me when they detained Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Cheng under the ISA 'for her safety' as the police believed her life was 'under threat'.'

Prove I was seditious to royalty, Dr M tells Karpal

your saySinner: Proof? When did former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad start to require proof for anything?

During his reign of terror, people were thrown into detention without proof. People were labeled as communists without proof. People were accused of being CIA and Jewish agents without proof. Now he wants proof for himself.

Cannon: Go through the back issues of the New Straits Times and Star and see what they wrote and posted about the lifestyles of the sultans.

The photograph of a sultan's mansion on a Port Dickson beach discharging untreated sewage into the sea is one unforgettable image. Why such disparaging publicity when all the other beach hotels along the seafront were doing the same thing?

It was open season against the sultans and sultan-bashing was the order of the day done at the behest of Mahathir's regime.

Don't Play-Play: If DAP leader Karpal Singh is as very good lawyer as everyone said he is, he should be able to prove that the former PM had made seditious comments against the royalty during the parliamentary debates for the 1993 constitutional amendment on the monarch's immunity.

If he can't, he should face his sedition case like a gentleman. Why stoop so low by dragging others who is not connected into the court case?

DesiKhan: Karpal wants to prove to Mahathir that there are two set of laws in Malaysia - one for BN supporters and other for non-BN supporters.

Ipohcrite: It's a Freudian slip when Mahathir says others hate him, because what he actually craves for is to be loved and be held in high esteem.

Unfortunately, he's oblivious to the fact that when he continues to spew political venom all around, people find him obnoxious. Why, his blood type could very well be OB+. Positively obnoxious.


Dr M did not insult royal institution, says DPP

Cannon: According to DPP (deputy public prosecutor) Noorin Badaruddin, Mahathir did not insult the sultans. He only stripped them of immunity from prosecution for wrongful doing.
Karpal stated that legal action can be taken against a sultan for misconduct. What's the difference? What is so seditious about stating a lawful fact that a sultan is not above the law? Why the double standard?

Telestai!: Correction, Mahathir did not merely insult the rulers. He annihilated the rulers and reduced them to mere spectators of the democratic process.

The word that has gone around is that Mahathir holds an ace on each and every ruler to get them to toe the line.

Like other public institutions that were systematically destroyed by the recalcitrant, the royalty is clearly a pale shadow of what it used to be.

AB Sulaiman: This episode reminds me so much to the case when then home minister Syed Hamid Albar Albar detained Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Cheng under the ISA 'for her safety' as the police believed her life was 'under threat'.

It caused so much furore that she was released 24 hours after her arrest. Won't our civil servants learn from this disgraceful act?

Anonymous_3e21: "The attorney-general has the sole discretion and absolute power in deciding who to prosecute. It is the AG's discretion and that cannot be questioned in this court," said the DPP.

There you are, that's how powerful the AG Abdul Gani Patail is.

Ferdtan: DPP Noorin by objecting to the bid by Karpal to subpoena the former prime minister and several others to appear as witnesses at his sedition trial shows that AG's Chambers still fears the old despot, even a retired one.

If what she said is correct, that Mahathir in fact were protecting the royal institution, then he should have no fear in appearing in court to tell it as it is - that he saved the reputation of the rulers.

If Mahathir really felt it that way that he had done some 'good deeds' for the royalty, I am sure he, like most people, would have love to come to court to gloat about it.

DPP Noorin, we are not convinced with your lame argument in court - it makes no sense. It borders to stupidity when you say that Mahathir did not question the constitutional monarch, but he defended it.

How can a person defend a monarch by taking away his powers and his right to immunity to criminal charges? The logic really eludes me.

DPP Noorin knew that her reasoning will hold no water, so she, like all DPPs before her, used the strong-arm tactics of using the discretionary power of the law to defeat all arguments.

She said the attorney-general has discretion on whom to prosecute and it is not for the court to question his discretion. Case closed, no more need to debate.

So in other words, and in stronger terms, the judge can go and fly a kite.

T: It is a sad day when our prosecutors argue that equal protection before the law is less than absolute discretion of the AG to prosecute.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.  
























Part I: The Malay Rulers' Loss of Immunity - Historical Background

 Tuesday, May 25, 2010


THE MALAY RULERS' LOSS OF IMMUNITY

by

Professor Mark R. Gillen
Faculty of Law University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

(Occasional Paper #6 1994 )
Related Articles:


























My reminder to the Sultan of Selangor: How Umno stripped the Rulers naked (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)


The measure, which included a rule to allow commoners to criticize the Sultans, even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or king without fear of the Sedition Act other than questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy itself, was passed overwhelmingly by the parliament, apparently without outcry over Dr Mahathir's rather tough treatment of the country's nine monarchs.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
















1993 amendments to the Constitution of Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


































Tuesday, 06 March 2012 13:58

Curtain Call for "Reluctant Politician" Ku Li?

Curtain Call for "Reluctant Politician" Ku Li?


Curtain Call for "Reluctant Politician" Ku Li?

Sixteen grassroots Umno leaders in the parliamentary constituency of Gua Musang have urged their long-term MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah not to defend his seat in the coming general election.


They claimed that Tengku Razaleigh no longer had an influence, both at the divisional and federal levels, and that the former finance minister seemed to have lost his stand on Umno and the BN.

"We, as leaders at the grassroots level, sometimes feel ashamed and sad over the statements made by Tengku Razaleigh, as they are in support of the opposition, especially on the issue of the Kelantan oil royalty and the Felda listing on Bursa Malaysia," he said.

Division leader Ab Aziz Mohamad described Ku Li as only putting forward his own personal struggle to seek for posts within the government or Umno, and was not concerned about the problems of the people, especially those in Gua Musang and the Kesedar settlers.


Like it or not, a number of us may hold similar perception of Ku Li. He gave me a perception that he is only interested to become the President of UMNO and Prime Minister of Malaysia. However, I do not share the view of Umno grassroots leaders in Gua Musang. There's definitely a revolt within the division, with the authorization of Umno top brass, to retire Ku Li for speaking up against them on several issues.

I have a problem with him for his lack of political stand and direction. He should know that the post of Umno president is far beyond his reach if he cannot muster the same courage at playing dirty politics. He does not have the stomach for it.

On the other side, he continue to speak up sporadically on several issues but achieve very little if he does not take his struggle to the main street. 

If Ku Li is only interested in giving lectures, he should know that this is a last curtain call for him. Umno does not want to risk having a semi-rebel and a holier-than-thou elected member of parliament in the next sitting. 

They needed someone who will pledge full loyalty to the leadership. This is not something Ku Li can give if he continues to feel that he should have been the leader Umno never fortunate enough to have. 

So, with time running out and shine fading from his political star Ku Li should really ask himself what he wants to leave behind as a legacy. 

He should take a leaf from Pak Samad's experience and contemplate to do something really meaningful, effective and memorable from the last mile of his political career. 

Standing as an independent is not one of the smarter option. Losing his seat as an independent would mean Ku Li as a personal brand is destroyed and tarnished. 

He should only go for the Gua Musang seat if he has finally figured out what he wants to do with his mandate and voice in parliament.

It cannot be one filled with reluctance and oblivion. 

Otherwise, he should protect his integrity and credibility by riding into the sunset. 

Will the real Ku Li finally stand up?
































Operation Lalang Revisited 

The more serious event involving the direct abuse of human rights occurred in 1987. Just the year before there was yet another patent abuse of human rights in form of the Memali incident (See box). The 27 October political crackdown on opposition leaders and social activists known by its police code name, "Operation Lalang" (weeding operation) saw the infamous arrest of 106 persons under the ISA and the revoking of the publishing licenses of two dailies, The Star and the Sin Chew Jit Poh and two weeklies, The Sunday Star and Watan. As this event is possibly the most significant in Malaysian political history since the May 13, 1969 ethnic riots, it bears some recounting.
karpal
Karpal: among the 106 detained in 1987
Among the more prominent detainees were the opposition leader and DAP Secretary-General Lim Kit Siang, ALIRAN President Chandra Muzaffar, DAP Deputy Chairman Karpal Singh, MCA Vice President and Perak Chief Chan Kit Chee, Dong Jiao Zhong (Chinese Education Associations) Chairman Lim Fong Seng, Publicity Chief of the Civil Rights Committee, Kua Kia Soong. PAS Youth Chief Halim Arshat, UMNO MP for Pasir Mas Ibrahim Ali and UMNO Youth Education Chairman Mohamed Fahmi Ibrahim. Although most of the detainees were released either conditionally or unconditionally, 40 were issued detention order of two years. Included were Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh plus five other party colleagues, a number of PAS members and many social activists. A categorization of the initially named detainees, numbering 97, gives the following breakdown: political parties: 37; social movements: 23; individuals: 37 (Saravanamuttu, 1989:239).
The political developments which brought this second largest ISA swoop in Malaysian history (exceeded only by the number detained during the May 13 riots) were sparked ostensibly by mounting political tensions having strong racial overtones. According to the White Paper explaining the arrests, various groups who had played up "sensitive issues" and thus created "racial tension" in the country had exploited the government's liberal and tolerant attitude. This racial tension made the arrests necessary and further, forced the government to act "swiftly and firmly" to contain the situation. (As cited in AI, 1988: 10).
The Memali Siege A team of 200 policemen under orders from Acting Prime Minister an Home Minister Musa Hitam lay siege on kampung (village) houses in Memali, Kedah, occupied by an Islamic sect of about 400 people led by one Ibrahim Mahmud a.k.a. Ibrahim Libya.
The police action left 14 civilians and four policemen dead. The villagers were armed with a few hunting rifles and spears and other rudimentary weapons. The police used heavy armored vehicles to mow down the houses. At the height of the assault some villagers, men and women, came out in the open in a state of frenzy and hysteria.
Thirty-six persons involved in the incident were arrested under the ISA on January 1986 but later released in June. The government published a White Paper and showed an official video recording of the incident on national television.
ARENA, 1992: 25
The sensitive issues were brought on by what appeared innocuously enough as Education Ministry appointments of some 100 senior assistants and principals to vernacular Chinese schools. This provoked a storm of protest when it was learnt that those appointed were not Chinese (Mandarin)-educated. Politicians from the MCA, the DAP and GERAKAN, the major Chinese-based parties joined the protests and on 11 October 1987, the Dong Jiao Zhong (Chinese educationists) held a 2,000-strong gathering at the Hanainese Association Building, beside the Thian Hou Temple in Kuala Lumpur, which evoked racially provocative speeches from the Chinese politicians present. The meeting resolved to call a three-day boycott in Chinese schools if the government did not settle the appointments issue.
In the event, even though the boycott was called off, albeit at the eleventh hour, the stage was set for a mirror response from the Malays, led by UMNO Youth. A mass rally of 10,000 was held at the TPCA Stadium in Kuala Lumpur and, by then, UMNO politicians had began to condemn MCA leaders for their collusion with the Dong Jiao Zhong and the opposition DAP. Amidst calls from both sides for the resignations of MCA Deputy President and Labour Minister Lee Kim Sai and UMNO Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim, UMNO announced the holding of a mammoth rally in KL to celebrate its 41st Anniversary, which it was claimed would see the attendance of half a million members.
The proposed UMNO rally was the ostensible reason for the Inspector General of Police to precipitate the 27 October crackdown. Had the rally been held it was not improbable that racial riots could be sparked by the incendiary speeches of UMNO politicians. To make matters worse, a tinder box situation was already created by the rampage of a Malay soldier (a.w.o.l.) who killed a Malay and two Chinese with an M16 rifle in the Chow Kit area -- also the scene of the May 13 bloodbath -- straddling two large Chinese and Malay communities. The pundits have it that the Prime Minster had to have a quid pro quo for cancelling the UMNO rally. Hence the arrests of prominent Chinese politicians. In retrospect, some of the culprits like Lee Kim Sai escaped arrest while many opposition members and activists with nothing to do with racial incitement were put in. Most of the government party people also saw early release while the dissidents generally served detention terms up to two years (Appendix 1).
In any case, the incident provided Mahathir's government with the excuse to further tighten the executive stranglehold on politics by further restricting fundamental liberties. In the following year, the Printing Presses and Publishing Act was given more bite by a requirement that printers and publishers had now to apply for new licenses annually whereas they were only required to renew them yearly before. In addition if any license is revoked, it could not be challenged in court. A prison term was added that publication of false news could land a publisher in jail for up to three years. Amendments were also made to the Police Act making it practically impossible to hold any political meeting, including a party's annual general meeting, without a police permit. An illegal meeting could earn the person concerned a fine of RM10, 000 and a jail term of one year. (New Straits Times, 5 December 1987, Aliran Monthly, 1988, Vol. 8:3).






































August 30, 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 30 — The High Court here dismissed lawyer Karpal Singh's application to issue subpoenas against former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad, former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman and current attorney-general Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, in his application to strike out a sedition charge.
However, justice Datuk Azman Abdullah allowed the subpoena against Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) Appellate and Trial Division head Datuk Kamaluddin Md Said, which was issued by him on May 15.
Azman also dismissed Karpal Singh's notice of motion to drop the sedition charge against him on the ground that the AGC's office was bias in exercising its "prosecutorial discretion" in charging him.
With the court's decision today, Karpal Singh will take the witness stand on Nov 2 on the charge of uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama, Kuala Lumpur, between noon and 12.30pm on Feb 6, 2009.
Karpal Singh, 71, was alleged to have said that the Sultan's removal of Mohamad Nizar as Perak Menteri Besar and Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir's appointment to the position could be questioned in a court of law.
In June 11, 2010, Karpal Singh was discharged and acquitted by the High Court at the end of the prosecution's case, but was later ordered to enter his
defence after the prosecution appealed the matter.
In his written judgement, Azman stated that the AG was empowered under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution to charge or discontinue any criminal proceedings.
He said the AG was permitted to take into account public interest when deciding on the charges to be preferred against an accused.
Azman also said it was not for the court to compare the alleged seditious words uttered by Dr Mahathir during a parliamentary debate and words used by Karpal Singh during his press conference.
On the subpoena applications, Azman said other than Kamaluddin, the three witnesses (Dr Mahathir, Abu Talib and Abdul Gani) were not relevant witnesses and were not involved on the current charge faced by the accused.
On his decision to allow a subpoena against Kamaluddin, Azman said, " This court agrees with the applicant's contention that Kamaluddin is a relevant witness based on what he had told the court of appeal."
Meanwhile, deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin told reporters that Kamaluddin will be filing an application to set aside the subpoena issued by the court.
Karpal Singh said he will file a notice of appeal against the High Court decision on Monday. — Bernama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 









Only Ku Li can put M’sia on right footing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad gambled away Malaysia's foreign reserve in 1992-1993.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviving the Bank Negara Forex Debacle: Who is Really Accountable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tangled Web UMNO Weaved (1) & (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

UMNO has a long tradition of parting with its leaders for various reasons

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ku Li thinks BN may win only 3 states: Told Nizar to "get ready" to rule Perak again

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only Ku Li can put M’sia on right footing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Razaleigh tells UMNO: Solve oil royalty, infrastructure before talking about capturing Kelantan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WE NEED TO TELL THE WORLD OUR GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Royal boost for Pakatan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Royalty: Kings or Pawns?

 

 

 

 










Now, more than ever before, His Majesty must act in the best interest of the rakyat and the nation

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sultan’s Daulat Is A Myth

by M. Bakri Musa, Morgan-Hill, California
(First of Three Parts)
Book Review: Ampun Tuanku. A Brief Guide to Constitutional Government. Zaid Ibrahim. ZI Publications, Petaling Jaya, 2012. ISBN 9 789675 266263 256 pp.
As a youngster in 1960 I had secured for myself a commanding view high atop a coconut tree to watch the funeral procession of the first King, Tuanku Abdul Rahman. My smug demonstration of my perched position drew the attention of the village elders below. They were none too pleased and immediately ordered me down.
“Sultans have daulat,” they admonished, “you cannot be above them.” Apparently even dead sultans maintained their daulat. I did not dare challenge my elders as to what would happen once the king was buried; then we all would be above him.
To put things in perspective, this attribution of special or divine powers to rulers is not unique to Malay culture. The ancient Chinese Emperors too had their Tianming, Mandate from Heaven. That however, was not enough to protect them.
Even though it has deep roots in Malay society, this daulat thing is a myth. The Japanese, despite their own “Sun Goddess” tradition, had no difficulty disabusing Malay rajas and their subjects of this myth. The surprise was not how quickly the sultans lost their power and prestige, or how quickly they adapted to their new plebian status during the Japanese Occupation, rather how quickly the Malay masses accepted this new reality of their rajas being ordinary mortals sans daulat.
Only days before the Japanese landed, any Malay peasant who perchance made eye contact with his sultan, may Allah have mercy on him for the sultan certainly would not. When the Japanese took over, those rajas had to scramble with the other villagers for what few fish there were in the river and what scarce mushrooms they could scrape in the jungle. Nobody was bothered with or took heed of the daulat thing. So much for it being deeply entrenched in our culture!
To pursue my point, had the Malayan Union succeeded, our sultans today would have been all tanjak (ceremonial weapon) and desta (headgear); they would have as much status and power as the Sultan of Sulu. Across the Strait of Malacca, hitherto Malay sultans are now reduced to ordinary citizens. They and their society are none the worse for that.
Today’s slightly better educated Malay sultans and crown princes (there are no crown princesses, let it be noted) would like us to believe in yet another myth, this time based not on our culture but constitution. They believe that it provides them with that extra “something” beyond their being mere constitutional head.
This new myth, like all good fiction, has just a tinge of reality to it. The Reid Commission had envisaged the Conference of Rulers to be the third House of Parliament, after the elected House of Representatives and the appointed Senate. It would be a greatly reduced House of Lords as it were, to provide much-needed “final thought” to new legislations.
That assumption had considerable merit, at least in theory. As membership is hereditary, those rulers would be spared from having to pander to the masses as those elected Members of Parliament, or please their political patrons as with the senators. Additionally, this third house would be non-partisan.
An expression of this “Third House of Parliament” function is that all senior governmental including ministerial appointments have to be ratified by the Conference of Rulers. However, unlike the transparent deliberations of the “advice and consent” function of the United States Senates where senior appointees are subjected to open confirmation hearings, the proceedings of the Conference are secret. We know only those who have been accepted, not those rejected or why.
Zaid Ibrahim’s Ampun Tuanku. A Brief Guide to Constitutional Government addresses what should be in his view the proper role of sultans in the Malaysian brand of constitutional monarchy, specifically whether they have this “something extra” beyond what is explicitly stated in the constitution. As a lawyer Zaid is uniquely qualified to write on the matter. He is no ordinary lawyer, having once headed the country’s largest legal firm and served as the nation’s de facto Law Minister.
The title notwithstanding, this highly readable book is more persuasive than descriptive; more political science treatise, less legal brief. The expository flow is smooth, logical and highly convincing. It is refreshingly free of legal jargon or references to court cases that typically pollute commentaries by lawyers. To Zaid, the constitution does indeed grant Malay sultans that something extra, but not in their capacity as the titular head of the government, rather as their being head of Islam and defender of the faith.
Zaid explores the many wonderful opportunities possible as a consequence of this second function without having to invoke additional “special powers.” I will pursue his novel ideas and wonderful suggestions later. At 40 pages, his chapter on this issue (“The Rulers and Islamization”) is the longest, and deserves careful reading especially by the royal class. He puts forth many innovative ideas that if pursued would benefit not only Malays but also all Malaysians.
With active and enlightened engagement by the rulers and Agong, Islam would emancipate Malays just as it did the ancient Bedouins, and in the process enhance race relations. That would be a pleasant if somewhat radical departure from the current environment where Islam not only deeply polarizes Malays but also sows much interfaith and interracial distrust.
In all other aspects the sultans and Agong are bound by what is explicitly stated in the constitution. Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy, Zaid stresses, and our sultans and Agong must abide by the wishes of the rakyat as expressed through their elected representatives in the executive branch. If citizens have made their wishes clear through an election that they would prefer a certain party and individuals to lead them or certain legislations enacted, the sultan must abide by that decision regardless of where his personal sympathy lies.
In short, there are no penumbras of rights and privileges emanating from those hallowed clauses of our constitution. The matter is clear: Sultans are bound by the law. Sultans cannot claim a penumbra of power based on daulat or divine mandate, as the Sultan as well as the Raja Muda of Perak tried to argue recently. Daulat is fiction.
This principle is central and must be defended against any incursion or erosion. Zaid is rightly distressed, for example, when the Sultan of Trengganu (who was also the Agong at the time) prevailed in making his choice of Ahmad Said as Chief Minister when the citizens had explicitly elected the state UMNO leader Idris Jusoh.
This erosion was possible only because of the weak leadership of then Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. Similar incursion occurred in Perak, this time on a much more blatant and ugly level.
The situation in Perak is particularly instructive. Before becoming sultan, Raja Azlan Shah once served as the country’s Chief Justice. As Zaid reminds us in his book, in that capacity Raja Azlan clearly articulated that the powers of the Agong are well circumscribed by the constitution. As sultan however, he claimed his “special powers.” That was his justification for imposing his solution on the state’s political crisis during the post-2008 election crisis to favor the Barisan coalition.
Such palace incursions and our acquiescence undermine the very principle of our democracy. On a more practical level, if that proves to be the new norm, our chief and prime ministers would then be beholden to their Sultans and Agong, not the rakyat. Our ministers (menteris) would then revert to their role in feudal Malay society, as hired hands of the palace and not the people’s chief executive.
In a democracy, daulat (sovereignty) resides with the people, not the rajas. Our constitution is clear on that point, as Zaid repeatedly reminds us. We must constantly defend this principle lest it be eroded.
Next: Part Two:  Origin of the Daulat Myth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 














Tengku Razaleigh 2012 - Why I challenged Mahathir?  

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4FMWOTL4Sk






































 




























 

Tengku Razaleigh 2012 - Why I challenged Mahathir?  

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4FMWOTL4Sk

 

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment