Salleh Abas: Ex-judge shocked at Bar Council’s ‘errors’

Ex-judge shocked at Bar Council’s ‘errors’

By M. KRISHNAMOORTHY

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Lord President Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas is shocked to learn that the Bar Council had erred in granting consultant status to retired judges.

“Having read the Bar Council’s statement by its secretary and other comments, it is necessary for me to state that for over two years since Feb 27, 2006, the firm of Salleh Abas, Yaacob & Sofiah has at my behest and personal directions, been corresponding with the Bar Council to have me admitted as a consultant.

“In none of these correspondences has the Bar Council ever provided any explanation other than that I have not met with the requirement of Rule 60(1) of the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978 as I have not been in active practice for at least 20 years.

“It is regrettable that only now members of the Bar Council have finally come out to give a clearer picture on their inability to accede to my request and the predicament they face should they do so,” Salleh said.

However, he added that it was surprising to read Council member Edmond Bon Tai Soon’s online statement on Feb 27 admitting that in light of the current Bar Council’s interpretation of Rule 60(1) and Rule 62 (Waiver), the previous Bar Council erred in granting a consultant status in favour of some retired judges.

Salleh said that he would leave it the legal fraternity to do the right thing.

“For public record, I wish to state that I was called to the Malaysian Bar on June 28, 1974 by the late Chief Justice Tan Sri S.S. Gill whilst serving then as Solicitor-General Malaysia.

“Whatever mistake done by the previous Bar Council in granting consultant status should not in the name of righting a wrong act to prejudice those who were already given consultant status,” Salleh said.

“I wish to slowly fade away from the legal scene and it is my desire nevertheless to still maintain a close relationship with the firm I helped established and, if possible, without the burden of being a partner.

“As far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed,” he added.

Salleh Abas: Former Judges got RM10.5m ex-gratia

Former Judges got RM10.5m ex-gratia
Husna Yusop

Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 6, 2008) : The government paid out a total RM10.5 million in ex-gratia to six former judges who were "sacked" in the 1988 judicial crisis, including RM5 million to former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, who revealed the quantum of ex-gratia payout, said Supreme Court judges the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawan Teh and George Edward Seah Kim Seng were paid RM2 million each.

Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdolcadeer were paid RM500,000 each, Nazri told the Dewan Rakyat in his winding-up speech on Budget 2009 today.

At the same time, he said they were also paid pension and gratuity for the past 20 years with Salleh receiving RM5,102.16 monthly, Wan Hamzah RM6,508.59, Seah and Azmi RM5,916.90 each and Wan Suleiman and Eusoffe RM4,815 each.

Datuk Ibrahim Ali (Ind-Pasir Mas) then asked for the reason for their compensation as it has created a perception that the government under the previous Prime Minister has been wrong in making its decision.

N.Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai) also interjected, asking whether the RM5 million was adequate for someone in a very high position like Salleh, who has suffered a lot from the decision, while the government could spend much more for other projects.

Mahfuz Omar

Nazri said the payment was not an admission of guilt on the part of the government, quoting a statement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in April when announcing the decision to pay ex-gratia to the former judges.

He said the case involved the question of one’s honour and dignity, therefore no one could actually put a price to it.

Mahfuz Omar (PAS-Pokok Sena) then asked why were the judges granted with both pension and ex-gratia since they have been sacked from their service, adding to clear their honour and dignity the government should have set up another tribunal to clear them from the actions taken against them.

Nazri said they were found guilty by a panel of tribunal and they were asked to take early retirement , "not sacked".

"They were not sacked. They were asked to retire early. It’s like optional. At 66, you can (receive) pension. Since they chose to retire, the pension was paid. The Pension Department would not pay (pension) if they had broken any laws.

"They did not break any laws. So, the pension was paid. They took early retirement, so the pension was on," he explained.

Wee Choo Keong

Wee Choo Keong (PKR-Wangsa Maju) said: "All this while, I thought the six were sacked because all the newspapers had reported it as such. I don’t understand what the minister is saying.

"They were not sacked but asked to retire early? That’s not correct. They were in fact dismissed by the tribunal. The tribunal cannot ask them to retire early.

"The setting up of the tribunal was to sack them, not to ask them to take early retirement. Please don’t fool us. Since they also received pension, the RM5 million is considered too high."

Nazri said the panel was not set up to sack them but to look at the case and decide on a judgment.

"To sack is a judgment. To recommend early retirement is a judgment," he said, adding newspaper reports cannot be quoted as reliable sources for valid information.

Salleh Abas: Six Former Judges Paid RM10.5 Million Ex-gratia

Six Former Judges Paid RM10.5 Million Ex-gratia

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 6 (Bernama) -- The government paid out RM10.5 million in ex-gratia payment to six former judges who were either sacked or suspended during the 1988 judicial crisis, the Dewan Rakyat was told Thursday.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Aziz said former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas received RM5 million while the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Tan Sri George Edward Seah Kim Seng were paid RM2 million each.

Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh, the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdolcadeer and Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin were paid RM500,000 each, he said when winding up the debate for the Supplementary Supply Bill 2008 at committee stage.

Tun Salleh, Wan Suleiman and Seah were sacked while Wan Hamzah, Eusoffe and Azmi were suspended during the crisis.

He said the decision to pay the ex-gratia was made by the cabinet.

Apart from the ex-gratia payment, the six judges also received a monthly pension -- with Tun Salleh receiving RM5,102.16, Wan Suleiman (RM4,815), Eusoffe (RM4,815), Wan Hamzah (RM6508.59) and Azmi (RM5,916.90).

Meanwhile, Wee Choo Keong (PKR-Wangsa Maju) said he would support the ex-gratia payment if the judges were indeed sacked and therefore had lost their pension eligibilities.

"I cannot understand, however, why the minister said that the judges were not sacked but were asked to resign early... all media reports said that a tribunal had ordered them to be sacked," he said.

In reply, Nazri said there had never been an order from a tribunal to sack them.

"There was never a panel formed to sack; and also, it is not proper to quote newspaper reports in the House and take them as something legitimate," he said.

At a news conference later, Nazri reiterated that the judges had been asked to resign.

"If they were sacked, they would not be entitled to receive pensions. They were asked to resign... that is why they receive the pensions," he said.

Nazri also said that the decision to reveal the amount of ex-gratia payment was made because of numerous requests, including from members of parliament, for the government to do so.

"We wished they had not pursued the matter so that we can keep our promise to the judges that we would not reveal the amount... but public interest overrides everything else," he said.

The Dewan Rakyat sitting continues on Monday.

-- BERNAMA

Commenting Malaysiakini: Why Bar rejected Salleh Abas

Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas is perturbed over the Bar Council’s decision not to give him a waiver on his application to be admitted as consultant of his firm. Salleh’s firm Salleh Abas, Yaacob and Sofiah first applied for him to be admitted as a consultant on Feb 27, 2006.

From Malaysiakini
Bar explains why it 'rejected' Salleh
Beh Lih Yi | Oct 24, 08 7:07pm
The Bar Council responds to a controversy on why it rejected former lord president Salleh Abas’ bid to rejoin a law firm he founded as a consultant.

Salleh puzzled by decision

Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas is perturbed over the Bar Council’s decision not to give him a waiver on his application to be admitted as consultant of his firm. Salleh’s firm Salleh Abas, Yaacob and Sofiah first applied for him to be admitted as a consultant on Feb 27, 2006.

A week after it submitted the application, council secretary Ragunath Kesavan replied in a letter that he could not be admitted because he did not meet the requirement to have been in active practice in the Bar for a minimum of 20 years.

When contacted yesterday, Salleh, who turns 80 next year, said the matter was being dealt by the firm’s partner Megat Shaharuddin Merican, who later revealed all the correspondence with the council and the Attorney-General’s office.

He said the Bar Council may, with the approval of Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, waive any of this ruling.

On Feb 14, 2007, Tun Salleh wrote to Gani whether he could get some dispensation on the rule.

The A-G’s office wrote back on April 17, 2007 that they were not in a position to accommodate his request as the waiver must be initiated by the council.

The A-G’s letter stated that council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan insisted on strict compliance with the rule.

On Dec 27, 2007, the firm wrote to Ambiga and highlighted the A-G’s comment.

After a request for a response, the Bar Council finally replied on Feb 12 this year, saying: “We regret that the Bar Council is not in a position to accede to your request in light of Rule 60.”

Rule 60 states the requirements for one to qualify as a consultant.

On July 22, the council replied that they were in the process of amending Rule 60.

When contacted yesterday, Ambiga said the rule did not adversely affect Salleh’s right to practise as he could continue to do so as a lawyer and partner of his firm.

“All decisions were collectively taken by the council.

“By March next year, Tun Salleh will qualify to be a consultant,” she said, adding that the council would issue a full statement today.

source: Salleh puzzled by decision Malaysian Bar Council.

Related Blog Postings

1 Cerita Pasal Loyar 52 minutes ago by abrashid ahmad
2 A non-explanatory explanation 2 hours ago by Rocky's Bru
3 Bar Council apparent biasness need the first reforms 23 Oct 2008 by Biggum Dogmannsteinberg
4 TUN SALLEH ABAS 22 Oct 2008 by caravanserai
5 of sharks and lawyers 14 Oct 2008 by Ken

patches of history on Shahrir and Salleh Abbas

In February 1988, Shahrir refused to join the new Umno which was banned and was among eight of the party's Supreme Council members left out of the Umno Baru pro-tem committee led by Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

With that decision, he became an independent member in Parliament and resigned as MP on April 1988, paving the way for a by-election where as an independent candidate, he defeated BN's Mas'ud Abdul Rahman, enabling him to become an elected MP for Johor Baharu. Shahrir was dismissed from the Dewan Rakyat when he refused to take his oath as a new MP before the then Speaker, Tan Sri Zahir Ismail (now deceased) as the latter was a member of the tribunal that had recommended Chief Justice Tun Salleh Abas be sacked from his judicial post.

But Shahrir eventually took his oath and one year later (1989) he returned to Umno by joining the Gertak Merah branch in the Johor Baharu division.

In the same year, he accepted the offer to be a party Supreme Council member and in 1990, became the Johor Baharu Umno division chief.

Tun Salleh Abbas and MATTHIAS CHANG

(please refer to http://bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com/)

Tun Salleh: Guilty or not guilty for judicial misconduct?
TUN SALLEH
GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY
FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT?

Found Guilty, But Still Not “Guilty”

It is incredible that after more than twenty years, the issue is still a matter for debate.

In the normal course of things, especially in trial matters, when an accused has exhausted all his legal rights and is found guilty, the matter of his guilt is deemed “settled”. The guilty party has to serve his punishment and then move on.

But in the case of Tun Salleh, the issue of his guilt still lingers on.

Why?

I blame it on the failure of the government at the material time to explain adequately to the people the reasons for the setting up of a Tribunal to investigate into the judicial misconduct of Tun Salleh, the former Lord President of the then Supreme Court of Malaysia.

This has led to the present sorry state of affairs concerning the Malaysian judiciary. How else can we explain that Pak Lah and his spin doctors can still exploit a “dead” issue to divert the attention of the people from his failures as a Prime Minister and the corrupt practices of his family in the process of amassing a fortune worth US$ billions?

Till today, the principal players involved in the events leading to the dismissal of the former Lord President have failed to explain and or rebut adequately the criticisms levied against them. I refer to Tan Sri Abu Talib, the former Attorney General who brought the charges against Tun Salleh upon a complaint from the Agong, Tun Hamid Omar, the former Lord President who succeeded Tun Salleh and presided at the Tribunal, and last but not least, the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. They owe it to themselves to mount a rigorous rebuttal to all the misperceptions and insinuations that have been orchestrated against them over the years.

I can say this because at the material time, I played a critical role in defending the judiciary in general and Tun Salleh in particular in several EGMs and AGMs of the Malaysian Bar. I had in a recent article expressed my regret in defending Tun Salleh.

Maybe this explanation for my stand in withdrawing my support for Tun Salleh will in some measure lift the veil and bring to light the critical issues that led to the dismissal of Tun Salleh.
But the ultimate responsibility to make things absolutely clear rest with the aforesaid principal players, and if they allow the present state of affairs to continue, they cannot then blame Pak Lah and his spin doctors for exploiting the issue to their advantage and opening themselves to be ridiculed further by their critics and political enemies.

Matters of Perceptions & Misperceptions

My motivation for rallying to the defence of the judiciary was simple enough. On hindsight and reviewing the events at the material time, and without the benefit of material facts that have since come to my attention, I am still of the view that my actions were justified.

Why?

I am a lawyer, with over thirty years of experience under my belt and by training, “conservative” in matters relating to the law.

It can be said without fear of contradiction that generally in most democratic countries, judges are held in the highest esteem and often times reflect the crowning achievement of respected practitioners who have mastered the skills of the craft. They must be of good character, well-versed in the law and of impeccable integrity.

So, when judges gathered together in conference with Tun Salleh, the then Lord President, to discuss in strict confidence about the alleged “comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the judiciary”, one can only conclude that matters must be very serious and antagonistic, and the conflict between the executive and the judiciary had come to a head.

Given the status enjoyed by the judiciary in Malaysia and the seniority of judges present at that meeting, it would not be unreasonable to empathise with the predicament faced by the judges, and for lawyers to instinctively rally to their cause.

While on the one hand, we respect the right of anyone, including the executive to criticize a judgment e.g. for not interpreting the law in accordance with the intentions of Parliament (a valid criticism), it cannot be right for any executive in any country to undermine the independence of the judiciary.

So, when the judges made that allegation against the executive, and there were no serious or effective efforts by the executive to explain that while reserving its rights to criticize, there was no intention to undermine the independence of the judiciary, lawyers were led to believe that the conflict was beyond the mere criticisms of erroneous judgments. This conclusion may well be misplaced and or incorrect. But nevertheless, it was the perception of a large number of lawyers.
How else can we explain the rigorous defence of the judiciary by the members of the Malaysian Bar at the material time?

I held that view on the facts available at the material time.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth

I have since discovered that the events that led to the dismissal of Tun Salleh were not as he explained in his book, “May Day for Justice”.

Tun Salleh’s contention was that his complaint to the Agong aroused the anger of the then Prime Minister that led to this “unconstitutional dismissal”.

How many Malaysians have read this complaint?

In fact, it was an earlier complaint against the Agong himself by Tun Salleh that triggered the demand by the Agong that Tun Salleh be dismissed for writing a scandalous and imprudent letter.

For reasons best known to the former Prime Minister and the former Attorney-General, this first letter was not made a subject matter of a charge of misconduct against Tun Salleh. I trust that in the near future, this matter will be brought to the attention of the public so as to dispel any illusions as to the reasons why the then Agong directed the former Prime Minister to dismiss Tun Salleh.

The second letter by Tun Salleh to the Agong alleging executive interference in the judiciary exacerbated the already precarious relationship between Tun Salleh and the Agong.
If, as alleged by Tun Salleh, it was the former Prime Minister who orchestrated the events that led to his dismissal, the letter of 5th May 1988 from the former Prime Minister to the Agong [which is reproduced in full below] will debunk this preposterous allegation.

———————————————————————

“[Customary salutations]

Your Majesty,

With all respect, I refer to Your Majesty’s Command that appropriate action be taken against Y.A.A. Tun Dato Haji Mohd Salleh bin Abbas on account of his letter to Your Majesty and to Their Royal Highnesses the Malay Rulers which was shown to me when I was in audience with Your Majesty on the 1st May 1988 at the Istana Negara.

I have been advised by the Hon’ble the Attorney-General that I cannot take any action against him except in the circumstances allowed by Article 125 (3) of the Federal Constitution. That Article allows termination of the appointment of a judge only on the ground of his behaviour or for other causes which clearly show that he is unable to discharge his functions properly. I will therefore investigate and examine the position of Y.A.A. Tun Salleh, and if there is evidence of any behaviour or other causes, which, in my opinion, clearly show that he is no longer able to discharge his functions as Lord President properly and in an orderly manner, I shall then make an appropriate representation to Your Majesty. In the meantime Y.A.A. Tun Salleh must be allowed to continue in service.

[Customary Conclusions]
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Dated 5th May 1988”
(Emphasis added)

—————————————————————————–

It is clear from the underlined words (and in spite of Tun Salleh’s protests in his book) that it was an order/command from the Agong that Tun Salleh be dismissed.

It is also equally clear that the former Prime Minister followed to the letter of the Constitution before taking any action as opposed to an immediate response and adherence to the Agong’s command. He was also duly advised by the then Hon’ble Attorney-General.

Additionally, the former Prime Minister did not suspend Tun Salleh upon receiving the command from the Agong, pending investigations.

So, how can it be said in the light of the aforesaid, that the former Prime Minister orchestrated the events that led to Tun Salleh’s dismissal?

More importantly, why did Tun Salleh refuse to apologise to the Agong for his insolent letter after he was informed of His Majesty’s command that he be dismissed?

Tun Salleh’s 2nd Letter to the Agong

The first letter to the Agong was the proximate cause for the Agong’s command that Tun Salleh be dismissed.

It is clear from the contents of Tun Salleh’s second letter to the Agong that the Agong had an additional reason to demand for Tun Salleh’s dismissal. Tun Salleh had in the letter admitted that he could no longer “discharge his functions orderly and properly” [a ground for dismissal under Article 125 (3) of the Federal Constitution].

So, how can Tun Salleh thereafter complain that there were no grounds for his dismissal and or that his dismissal was unconstitutional?

You be the judge.

I now reproduce the said letter for your perusal.

————————————————————

“[Customary salutations]

Ampun Tuanku beribu-ribu ampun,

I as Lord President on behalf of myself and all the judges of the country beg to express our feelings regarding the development in the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary.
All of us are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the Judiciary, not only outside but within Parliament.

However all of us are patient and do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution. Furthermore such action will not be in keeping with Malay tradition and custom. It is to be remembered that we are judges appointed and given letters of appointment by Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong and also Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Malay Rulers to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. As such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.

Other than that the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly. We all feel ashamed because we are not able to avoid from being looked down by those who do not understand our position under the Constitution.

This letter is an effort to convey our feelings to Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku with the hope that all those unfounded accusations will be stopped.

We beg for forgiveness and mercy.

[Customary conclusions]
Tun Dato Haji Mohd Salleh bin Abas
Lord President of Malaysia.”
(Emphasis added)

————————————————————————–

This letter coming from the Lord President is a scandalous letter by any measure – an ill-conceived and insolent letter.

The Agong is a constitutional monarch. Yet, in this letter, the Lord President, allegedly writing on behalf of the entire judiciary invites the Agong to take up cudgel with the former Prime Minister. The fact that the Agong referred the letter to the former Prime Minister shows that the Agong has a better grasp of his constitutional role than the Lord President, a man well-versed in law.

And given his confession that he is “mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly,” what choice has the Agong but to seek his dismissal?
There were other serious charges against Tun Salleh.

But in my opinion, this alone was sufficient to justify his dismissal as his conduct cannot but be deemed “judicial misbehavior” in the circumstances of the case.

If anyone brought the institution to disrepute and destroyed the integrity of the judiciary, it is Tun Salleh and not the former Prime Minister.

Adding insult to injury, and having accepted the fact that “judges appointed and given letters of appointment by Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong and also Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Malay Rulers”, Tun Salleh showed utter disrespect to the Agong [who convened the Tribunal] by refusing to appear before the said Tribunal to answer the charges.
If, an ordinary citizen is charged with any offences and is required by law to appear before a court of law, how can the highest judicial officer of the country refuse to appear before a Tribunal convened at the behest of the Agong?

And, as no one is above the law, even the Malay Rulers [as under the Constitution, they are required to attend before a Special Court, should they commit any offences], how can Tun Salleh justify his actions in not appearing before the Tribunal to defend himself, even if it is to complain that the Tribunal was not “properly constituted” [which I do not agree]?

Tun Salleh and his legal advisers, comprising very senior lawyers did a disservice to the rule of law by their arrogance.

Conclusions

There cannot be an independent judiciary in Malaysia so long as the myth persists that Tun Salleh was wrongfully dismissed.

Those lawyers and judges who persist in perpetuating this myth are responsible for the current sorry state of the Malaysian judiciary. And to allow Pak Lah and his spin doctors to exploit this myth for their political expediency show all too clearly that their agenda is not to preserve the independence of the judiciary, but rather to advance their own hidden agenda.

MATTHIAS CHANG
19TH MAY 2008
KUALA LUMPUR

Salleh Abbas, the court and the palace

"I therefore called upon Tun Salleh to openly explain the contents of the First Letter which he wrote to the Agong and the reasons for keeping silent all these years. Additionally, Tun Salleh must disclose whether he had disclosed and explained to his fellow judges about this letter to the Agong and the reaction of the Agong to his insolent letter.

The truth must come out.

Tun Salleh has demanded accountability and transparency. I now demand accountability and transparency from Tun Salleh.

I also demand from Pak Lah, Zaid Ibrahim, the Joker and Ambiga, the Lady-in-Waiting whether they were aware of this letter which Tun Salleh wrote to the Agong."

Read - Mathias Chang in Big Dog

Abdullah Badawi, Salleh ,Zaid, judges and lawyers.

minaq jinggo

BERITADARIGUNUNG:

Grand Ballroom, JW Marriot Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

Special dinner hosted by the Malaysian Bar Council and sponsored by the Malaysian Government. Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi delivered a special address entitled “Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust“.

UPDATES: FROM ROCKY BRU

"We were NOT invited," say Judges.
It hit me while the PM was reading out his speech on renewing trust in the judiciary last Thursday: Where were the Judges?

Only two of the "Big Four" were there, both at the main table - the CJ and the President of the Courts of Appeal.

500 or more guests in the hall - including KJ and 4th Floor boy Zaki - and none of our judges were there.

How come?

I learnt over the weekend that the judges were NOT invited to the dinner hosted by the Bar Council and paid for by the Government.

The Judges are furious. They were only told about the proposed Commission the week before the dinner, towards the end of the Conference of Judges in KL.

"Zaid Ibrahim, the de facto Law Minister, attended our Conference. You'd think he would have the courtesy of telling us Judges about the JAC and the dinner," one Judge told me.

Another Judge wondered about "hidden agenda".

"We were told it'd be an 11-member Commission based on a 4:5:2 composition: the big four judges, five from the Bar Council, and two others.

"Five from the Bar? And they didn't think Judges should be consulted on the proposed reforms of the Judiciary or the formation of the Comission? What's happening here?"

Zaid will have some explaining to do. If not, the PM could well be on the way to creating a new crisis in the judiciary instead of renewing the trust in the system.

Tun Salleh Abbas dari Cuit Sikit

Friday, April 11, 2008

Pak Lah Buat Keputusan Berdasarkan Anak Menantu Lagi

Mengapa Pak Lah dan Zaid Ibrahim begitu beria-ia mahu mengangkat kembali bekas Ketua Hakim Negara, Tun Salleh Abbas yang dipecat oleh Yang Dipertuan Agong beberapa dekad lalu? Jawapannya masih terdapat pada isu anak menantu.

Menurut sumber, Kamaluddin sedang mempengaruhi Abdullah untuk memulihkan kedudukan Tun Salleh Abas sebagai satu tanda sokongan (menutup rahsia?) kepada CEO Scomi, Shah Hakim Zain.

Siapakah Shah Hakim Zain ini dengan Tun Salleh Abas? Shah Hakim adalah menantu kepada Tun Salleh Abas.

Justeru isu Tun Salleh ini dibangkitkan semula bagi membolehkan Pak Lah membantu Kamaluddin dan CEO Scomi tersebut. 

http://cuitsikit.blogspot.com/2008/04/pak-lah-buat- keputusan-berdasarkan-anak.html

BERITADARIGUNUNG:

I was rendered speechless , Dr Mahathir

BY Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

"As I had anticipated, my comment on (Minister in the Prime Minister's Department) Dato Zaid Ibrahim's suggestion that the Government should apologise for the action taken against Tun Salleh Abbas would draw accusations against me for my alleged misdeeds during my tenure of office.

I regard this as an attempt to shut my mouth should I find occasion to criticise the present Government. It is always about "You were worse when you headed the Government", even if it is obvious that I had not done badly. 

Param Cumaraswamy's letter (The Sun, April 2, 2004) falls in that category. He wants to know why action had not been taken against me over the allegations made by Datuk Shafee Yahya (former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency) during the Anwar Ibrahim trial. 

The statement may be a sworn testimony in court but the accuracy of it cannot be accepted unquestioned. There were omissions and inferences which mislead. 

Counsel was of course interested in proving that Anwar did not inveigle Shafee into doing something wrong. But during the trial it was revealed that he did get a senior police officer to threaten and intimidate his accusers. 

I admit to calling up Shafee to ask him about the raid by the ACA on the office of the director of the Economic Planning Unit. I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid. He also said that he believed the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had set up the whole thing. 

I knew that Government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority. 

I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened. 

I asked many questions, many more than what he said in Court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid. 

He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work. 

I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant however senior had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless. 

These exchanges were carried out in my office. No other person was present. No notes were taken, nor was there any recording at least by me. So only the two of us would know what really happened or was said. 

What he said in court is his version. There is nothing to verify what he said nor is there anything to verify what I say now is wrong. It is a case of his words against mine, sworn testimony notwithstanding. He had obviously omitted his shouted accusations against me. Had what he said in court was all that happened, then it would not have taken more than three minutes. But what he said and what I said took longer than three minutes. 

I wonder how counsel knew of what happened in the privacy of my office. Even the Chief Secretary, the only person who was informed by Datuk Shafee could not have told counsel. Obviously it was Shafee who volunteered information. Why did he do this? 

I was not a party to the trial of Anwar. If I was to be accused, I should at least be heard. But clearly Shafee saw Anwar's trial as an opportunity to make statements detrimental to my reputation. 

Shafee was an angry man and what he said in court was opportunistic and seem to reflect his desire to take revenge against me. I can only assume that this was what motivated him, because what he divulged did not help Anwar much. But it did put me in a very bad light. 

As to why this case has not been followed, I can only assume that the courts are busy and there are tens of thousands of cases which have yet to be heard. Maybe the fault is with the Attorney-General or Police. I would not know. 

Still I welcome any investigation by impartial people as to the truth or otherwise of what I say in this letter. 

As for Param Cumarawamy and Karpal Singh, their hatred of me is well known and apparently has not abated even after I am no longer Prime Minister. 

Many lawyers were angry with me because I had quoted Shakespeare during a Cabinet meeting which says "the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers". I was only joking but they heard of it and believed I meant what I said. The judges also felt unhappy with me. 

Besides I had criticised the judiciary for disregarding the intention or objectives of the laws formulated by the legislative wing but instead interpret them based on the words used. Was I committing a crime for saying this? I was merely stating a fact. Can no one comment on the judiciary at all even when they disregard the interest of the country? In many developed countries it is common for the public to criticise the judiciary. 

As for Param, he made libellous remarks about a fellow Malaysian when he was a member of a Untied Nations Commission. He should have been hauled before a Malaysian court but he claimed immunity due to his appointment by the UN. 

My stand was that his immunity was only with regard to the specific work for the UN. If he breached Malaysian laws on matters not related to this work, then he cannot plead immunity. 

His libellous words against a Malaysian individual had nothing to do with his work for the UN. He should therefore be liable, and his immunity could not be invoked. But he got the UN to back him. It was even hinted that if Malaysia prosecuted him, then our case before the International Court of Justice on the issue of the ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan would be jeopardised. 

Accordingly, I agreed that he should not be prosecuted. Luckily it was only libel. Had Param Cumaraswamy murdered a person, and he claimed immunity, then there would indeed be a miscarriage of justice. 

I do not think my recalcitrance over his immunity endeared me to him. Now that I am not a Prime Minister, he has expressed his delight at saying that I should not criticise anything the present Government does because I was guilty of worse. 

I maintain that in the case of Tun Salleh Abbas, I did what was required of me under the Constitution and Malaysia's laws. I consider the suggestion that I should apologise as frivolous, unwarranted and stupid. 

If Param or Karpal is not convinced perhaps they should use their considerable knowledge of the law to shut my mouth." 

http://www.beritakmu.net/