Skip navigation

Something interesting I got from an e-mail.

Tan Sri Salleh's Open Letter to Dr.M- best & beautifully written;
The clarity of Tun Salleh's mind and his command of English reduces
to a clown in Malaysian history !
The Tun Salleh Saga - an open reply to Dr Mahathir
Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh
To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained
your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding
of the Royal Commission on the Lingam tape. I must confess that I was not moved
to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog
has apparently written about it. However, after having read your
latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to
put things on record and in proper perspective.
It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of  manipulation.
When everything else fails, what better way than to stoke racial
sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in
Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsibly pointed out that
the Malays are  the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to
continue. You then quickly followed it up in Japan when you again
reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you,
other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay
rights. Samuel Johnson's 'patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel' would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I
would make an exception. Just change the word 'patriotism' to
'racialism' and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.
When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim,
I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the
tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal.
How very convenient of you, Dr M. Of course you had conveniently
overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice
as the then Prime Minister.
And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth,
according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas removed
because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining
about His Majesty's renovation work.
So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask? That is the first
question which came across my mind while reading your post.
The second question is this. Since when have you become a Royalist so
much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The
King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a
letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it
up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal
You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very
same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the
powers  of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the
tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir
Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for
Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the
law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly
become so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh
The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is, of course,
not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well
surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the
issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not
charged over THAT letter?
If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writing such
a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY?
If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty,
why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King?
W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter
has appeared and becomes an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about
that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during
the Lingam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last
week about the same letter?
Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about
this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks.
By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your belligerent
attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state
mass media, that is the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and
the Malays Rulers.. The whole propaganda machine was used to smear the King
and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown
on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed
in newspapers.
Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda
machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the
Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang
Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about
how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be.
And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the
King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas?
Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King
said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody
who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and
dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?
Dr M, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that
everybody else is stupid! You then mention in your blog that it was your
opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not
fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it
that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord
President who was photographed with a certain lawyer overseas? Wouldn't
that constitute a wrongdoing?
That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the
media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or
how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had
written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a
which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a
Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of
you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events
during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?
You now charge, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had
interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the
law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented. Dr M, I remember clearly in
one speech, you likened the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would
now say it was all in jest.
Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a
decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would
deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know
that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms,
namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably
to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase 'check and
balance' was missing from your administrative lexicon which was probably
reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.
Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the
judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to
take away 'judicial powers' from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M,
Malaysia would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth (I say
Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems)
whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature
says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was,
and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy..
Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's
stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is
stupid! You somewhat deny that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do
with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a
full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a
balance of probability, otherwise.
Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul
Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this
character later in this post.
On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended,
Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any
application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the
appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the
haste? Nobody knows.
That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges
comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself
and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas.
How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to
his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond
me or my intellect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the
appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court
Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny
brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this
Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post.
If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I
ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to
postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed
to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord
President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?
Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the
statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the
presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you
allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because,
among others, of his
bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal.
He said he was taking notes during the said meeting.  While he could
remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the
meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your
attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to
say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during
the meeting when asked by the tribunal members.. If he was so sure that
he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why
then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO
case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of
embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask
Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief
Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely,
partial and momentary lapse of memory.
On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the
sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under
appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in
blog Dr M? And let the people who read it judge the matter after having
been fed with all relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are
relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own
purpose and objectives.
I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time for
me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh
Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was
suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the
event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh
Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously
conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be
done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have
forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?
Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the
King date 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really
know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the
renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never
mentioned in any of
the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the
King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary.. I
will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter.. But what Dr M had
failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this
letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on
25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid
Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the
said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that
Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal.
Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that
Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the
renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend
all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the
same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be
its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly,
how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its
Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd
question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to
understand it, let alone grasp it.
Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time
Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the
work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They
brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your
action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME
magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt
proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as
the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge
remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process
of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as
usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all
the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over
a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of
course you then had to accuse 'certain Judges' as interfering with
You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a
level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you
do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying
down while waiting for pension?
You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the
chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration
system. As much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh
Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which
he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and
collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the
attacks leveled
against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him
to lodge a police report over the matter?
By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politician is
trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you,
of course, forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your
blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated
the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the
law along Islamic legal principles against the multi-racial and
multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in
your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of
losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published
by you in your blog?
Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim's or Abdullah
Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody
would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version
is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story.
And let the people, and history, be the judge.
Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)?
The beauty is that it is a set of laws common to all the people. That means,
when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know.
The common people. Me, and your readers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: