Judiciary / MUST READ / Tun Dr Mahathir

The two sides of a coin : The Crisis of 1987 – 1988

Yesterday, I accidentally came upon several interesting articles by Datuk George Seah through Melvin Mah. Took me about 1 hour to read all the articles and comprehend their contents. Please bear with me as I try to dissect one of biggest judiciary issue of all time. This article may be long and tenuous for some so just sit back, adjust your eyesight and just bear with me on this one.

I think people have been grossly misdirected in blaming solely Tun Dr Mahathir for the judiciary crisis in 1988. This is partly because of the strong accusation from the opposition and the silence of Dr Mahathir in clearing the air.

So what is the judicial and constitutional crisis of 1988? Does it affect everyone? Does it affect our day to day lives? Why are we so angry? Are we assuming that the normal laymen will not get justice in the courts because of what happened in 1988? Honestly, if you were suspected to murder someone, and were dragged to the high court, would you scream on top of your lungs saying that the courts will not be independent or clean because 20 years ago, a Lord President was unjustly dismissed? Is our judicial system unfair in dispensing justice to every Malaysian Tom, Dick and Harry?

A couple of months ago when a rapist was sentenced to a 15 years jail term, was that an unfair judgement by the judge? After 1988, several thousands of cases were dispensed justice by the judges. How come nobody cried foul on all the verdicts? What exactly are we saying when we shout ‘the Malaysian judiciary is in shambles because of the 1988 judiciary crisis’?

Again, did the 1988 crisis affected you directly? If people are still relying on the court to settle disputes then surely the court’s credibility is still intact. Logic dictates, you can’t be accusing one thing for being unjust and unclean but at the same time still believing it to be the sole dispenser of justice. Even the opposition uses the courts to sue the government. If they have no confidence in it, then why use the courts at all? When even the opposition gives this sort of stamp of approval, won’t the public use it in earnest as well? It is highly immoral of some quarters to shout about the so called injustice being done 20 years ago and berating about the downfall of the judiciary system when they themselves benefited from it at one time or the other (e.g., Karpal Singh won several cases in which he was the defence counsel. Did he ever complain about the courts when the verdict went his way?)

Okay, enough digressing. Let’s move on to my next point – What really happened?

I read with keen interest on what Datuk George Seah had to say regarding the matter. What a long read it was. But highly interesting and revealing. In short, in my opinion, it wasn’t entirely the fault of Tun Dr Mahathir. The sacking of Tun Salleh Abas can allegedly be seen as a form of coup d e’tat by the ones who benefit most from the sacking – Tun Hamid Omar, the acting Lord President at that time and several other judges. Compounded by the fact that the Agong at the time was unsupportive and possibly hold a grudge against Tun Salleh. Now, I am not accusing. I am just analysing it based on the turn of events described by Datuk George Seah and also via the admittance by Tun Salleh Abas pertaining his meeting with the then Prime Minister at the latter’s office on that fateful day on May 27th, 1988. We shall explore and dissect the turn of events which had led to my conclusion one by one. Hopefully, the people out there would stop all these blaming game and move forward. No point of trying to gain political mileage if the basis of your accusation is wrong from the start.

Through Datuk George Seah’s articles;

It all started on the 24th April 1987. The then Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad just won a bitterly fought battle for the Umno presidency by a majority of 43 votes. Even though in the run up to the elections, Tengku Razaleigh only received 20 over nominations from Umno divisions as compared to 100 over by Dr Mahathir, the thin majority he received during elections were a surprise to many pundits. Subsequently, the losers (Team B) unable to accept the defeat, began to find faults within the election system. Note that several current ministers in the cabinet now were part of this Team B such as the Prime Minister himself (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), Datuk Seri Rais Yatim, Datuk Shahbery Cheek, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Datuk Shahrir Samad etc.

A civil suit propagated by a meeting at Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s house were filed by a band of 11 Umno members in the high court. Among the plaintiffs’ lawyers were Datuk Seri Sheikh Radzi and Marina Yusuf. They sought to annul the elections based on unregistered Umno branches and therefore hoping the courts would declare that the elections were null and void and have no effect. However in the end, on 4th February 1988, the presiding judge, Dato Harun Hashim declared that Umno itself is an unlawful society (due to some branches were not registered), and since Umno is an unlawful society, the Umno 11 have no legal standing to seek reliefs from the courts. His exact words were:

“as members of UMNO, cannot acquire any right which is founded upon that which is unlawful. The Court will therefore not lend its aid to the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs (UMNO 11). Having said that, I do not think it is necessary to deal with the other issues and I accordingly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim”.

In other words, Umno was declared illegal and unlawful through the undoing of Umno 11 who tried to find small technical errors in order to overturn the recent Umno elections to their favour. Basically, the oldest Malay institution were rendered powerless by a bunch of extreme sore losers (Team B). It is so irresponsible for certain quarters to accuse Dr Mahathir as the main villain in deregistering Umno in 1988.

For several months leading to the sacking, the government had lost several landmark cases against them. Even an ISA detainee Karpal Singh, whom had incited racial tension and hatred in October 1987 was released by the Supreme Court only on the basis of a mere technicality. This made the government nervous since having a strong power of the legislation is very important in order to run the country efficiently. Dr Mahathir made scathing attacks towards the judiciary by declaring them to be too fiercely independent up to a point of willing to jeopardize the security of the nation. He famously told Time Magazine about what he thinks of the judiciary:

“The judiciary says (to us), ‘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.’ If we [the government and Parliament] go along, we are going to lose our power of legislation. We know exactly what we want to do, but once we do it, it is interpreted in a different way, and we have no means to reinterpret it our way. If we find out that a court always throws us out on its own interpretation, if it interprets contrary to why we made the law, then we will have to find a way of producing a law that will have to be interpreted according to our wish.”

With that in mind, several judges began to feel uneasy by the attacks from the legislative branch of the government especially the ones made by the then Education Minister, Encik (now Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim in Penang whereby he accused the judges as wanting to be above criticisms. Hence, a complaint letter was drafted and signed by 20 judges to be sent to the then Agong on 25th March 1988.

Cross referencing with what Tun Salleh Abas mentioned in his book, May day For Justice, (let me point out here that in its foreword, Tunku Abdul Rahman, our first Prime Minister, claimed that any Lord President is beyond reproach. Lord Presidents must never be questioned or removed as the thought of removing a Lord President is very repugnant. I find it a bit odd as we as a person will not escape making mistakes or immune to temptations. We are not ‘maksum’ like the Prophets of God) he said that Tun Hamid Omar were showing odd behavior prior to his suspension by ways of cutting short his own intended holiday as well as seemingly working against him behind his back. Along with another 3 judges, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani, Dato Harun Hashim and Datuk Ajaib Singh, we can see that a major conspiracy had taken place behind Tun Salleh’s back which was spearheaded by Tun Hamid Omar.

To cut the story short, Tun Salleh was suspended on the 26th May 1988 and was eventually charged on 4 counts of improper conduct and misbehavior unbecoming of a Lord President. Among others, were the distribution of letters to all rulers dated 25th March 1988 which the Agong took exception. This date would be the point of reference for all the subsequent events that will flow through. In other words, the conspirators used this letter to tarnish the Lord President’s good name. As he was on holiday leave in Los Angeles and London and then umrah in Mecca for nearly 8 weeks, there were ample time and space for the conspirators to make their move. Upon returning on the first day of Raya on 17th May 1988, Tun Salleh’s fate had in fact already been sealed.

Please take note that the Prime Minister at that time had no powers to remove the Lord President as evident in the Article 125(3) of the Constitution:

“If the Prime Minister, or the Lord President after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the grounds of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with Clause 4 and refer the representation to it; and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the Judge from office.”

And the infamous Tribunal was duly set up. Headed by Tun Hamid Omar himself as the Acting Lord President. Two days before the commencement of the tribunal, the other rulers met Tun Salleh Abas and they were willing to forgive him for the breach of protocol in the said letter. But to his utter dismay, the Agong was adamant in his decision to suspend him.

In another incident, Datuk George Seah expressed his disbelief in knowing that it was Tun Hamid Omar who had complained to the Prime Minister which led to the setting up of another tribunal, chaired again by Tun Hamid Omar to suspend all five Supreme Court judges. The five judges were deemed guilty by the 2nd tribunal for issuing an Interim Order to challenge the legality of the first Tribunal.

It was interesting to know that before the Interim Order was sealed by the 5 judges, the most senior judge after the Lord President, Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman had invited Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani to be part of the 5 judges but was vehemently declined by the latter saying that if he did, then they “would be staging a revolution” which he did not agree with. Around this time, Dato Harun Hashim, the famous high court judge whom had declared Umno illegal a couple of months earlier was promoted by Tun Hamid Omar to be one of the Supreme Court judge. Incidentally, Dato Harun Hashim and Tun Hamid Omar are related to each other as in-laws. Tun Salleh even stated explicitly in his article that he was most suspicious of the conduct of several of his so called friends whom are Tun Hamid Omar, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani, Dato Harun Hashim and Datuk Ajaib Singh during the preceding weeks leading up to his sacking.

In the end, together with Tun Salleh Abas, Datuk George Seah and Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman were removed from office. This sad episode actually illustrates the huge chasm of the interpretation of the law between 2 branches of the government. Dr Mahathir strongly believes in the reason and the spirit of the law while Tun Salleh Abas upholds the sanctity and purity of judges and the law. One believes in the power of the legislation while the other advocates the total and absolute independence of the judiciary. Both are correct. Both are wrong. The coin has two sides.

More interesting also is the revelation by Tun Salleh Abas that – “although the Prime Minister at that time was deemed responsible for bringing down the judiciary, the judiciary itself could not have been brought down without the help of its own self. But there were also desperate judges then who had no qualms about stabbing a friend in his back in order for their own dreams to be fulfilled”.

There were indeed victims of the whole drama. The people involved and the system. Obviously during the fight for supremacy only 1 side will prevail. However it did not justify the use of guile by some of the judges. Tun Salleh Abas stressed that Tun Hamid Omar tried to undermine his appointment as Lord President in 1984 and repeatedly made unilateral decisions during his tenure as Acting Lord President in 1988.

The years of 1987 and 1988 can be deemed as the most trying years for the then Prime Minsiter. Apart from the devastating Umno elections in 1987, which proves to be the watershed for several amendmends in the Umno Constitution and the suspension of the Lord President in 1988, we witnessed the rise of racial tension and an unprecedented power struggle between the Malays and the Chinese. The events were best captured in these articles below:

By Graham K Brown – Balancing the Risks of Corrective Surgery: The political economy of horizontal inequalities and the end of the New Economic Policy in Malaysia

The first indication that sections within the MCA was willing to push a harder line for the resolution of Chinese grievances came in November 1986, when the Selangor branch of the MCA, which was headed by the national deputy president and Labour Minister Lee Kim Sai, passed a resolution calling for the abolition of bumiputera status for the Malays and the East Malaysian natives. The resolution provoked an immediate backlash from UMNO members, who interpreted it as a demand for the end of the cherished Malay ‘special rights’. Forty-six UMNO MPs wrote to Mahathir, asking him to sack Lee from the cabinet, who himself offered to resign. Whilst the rift was quickly patched over in public – the Selangor MCA withdrew the resolution and the Sultan of Selangor publicly reprimanded Lee and warned him not to question Malay special rights – many within UMNO remained unappeased, and it contributed to deteriorating relations between the parties, most notably in the virtual demonisation of Lee that was to arise later in 1987 (Asiaweek, 23/11/1986).

Tensions between the MCA and UMNO soon spilled over into broader ethnic tension with Malaysian society. Language and education issues – a political flashpoint since the days of the Malayan Union plan in the 1940s and, as we have seen in relation to the Merdeka University controversy, accentuated by the social programme of the NEP – proved to be the spark point for the escalation of tensions.

The first round of protests came in August, when Universiti Malaya instituted a ruling limiting the use of Mandarin, Tamil and English in the teaching of elective subjects. The decision provoked demonstrations from non-Malay students, who interpreted the ruling as an attempt by the administration to boost the academic performance of the Malays compared to the other ethnic groups (NST, 02/08/1987).

The ever-belligerent UMNO Youth soon waded into the controversy, criticising the demonstrators but doing nothing to prevent counter-demonstrations by students supportive of the university’s move (NST, 04/08/1987).

As the protests continued, police were forced to keep the contending groups of demonstrators apart (NST, 18/08/1987).

By October, the DAP had become involved in the protests and the police were making numerous arrests (NST, 10/10/1987).

The Universiti Malaya uproar was soon overshadowed, however, by a national level dispute, also concerning language and education, when the Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced the promotion of around ninety teachers who were not educated in Chinese-language schools to senior positions in government-supported Chinese-language primary schools. The promotions caused a storm of protest from the Chinese community, which saw the move as an attempt to ‘change the character of the Chinese schools’, and perhaps ultimately pave the way for their disestablishment (Tan 2000: 244).

Although Anwar quickly backed down over the appointments, Chinese opposition parties and educationalist groups continued to protest, demanding the instant withdrawal of the appointees. Again, the Chinese parties in the BN were clearly pressurised by the protests into adopting a more chauvinistic position, for fear of losing ground to the DAP. In a sensational turn, the MCA and members from other Chinese parties in the BN, again led by Lee Kam Sai, thus joined a protest rally with the DAP and other Chinese-based opposition parties, calling for a boycott of the schools involved (NST, 12/10/1987).

The boycott saw over thirty thousand children kept away from school by their parents (NST, 16/10/1987).

The cycle of protest was intensified by a series of counter-demonstrations organised by various groups with UMNO. On the same day as the MCA-DAP joint rally, some five hundred UMNO members also held a demonstration, but the primary target of their anger was their coalition partner the MCA, rather than the DAP; demonstrators burnt MCA flags and posters (NST, 12/10/1987).

Subsequently, on October 17, UMNO Youth held a rally at a disused stadium in Kampung Baru, a large Malay district in Kuala Lumpur. The rally, attended by some six thousand people, was highly chauvinistic, and the target of the protesters wrath was against the government MCA rather than the opposition DAP. Banners called for the resignation and of Lee Kim Sai, and urged the MCA to ‘go to Hell’ (pergi Jahanam). Other banners expressed broader and often violent anti-Chinese sentiments: ‘May 13 has begun’, a reference to the ethnic riots of 1969, and ‘Soak [the kris] in Chinese blood’ (Malaysia 1988: 17).

The UMNO Youth president, Najib Tun Razak, addressed the crowd, calling for Lee’s resignation and demanding that the MCA acquiesce to government policy, or else leave the BN (Asiaweek, 20/10/1987).

By the end of October 1987, then, ethnic tensions in the country were reaching critical levels. As news spread of freak shooting incident when an army sergeant (Prebet Adam) ran amok killing one Chinese and wounding another Chinese and a Malay in the Chow Kit area of Kuala Lumpur, the centre of the 1969 riots, many people rushed to stockpile food, fearing the outbreak of rioting. Increasing public attention was focussed on a mass rally planned for 1 November to celebrate UMNO’s fortieth year, postponed since 1986 (the actual anniversary) and relocated from Johor (UMNO’s birthplace) to Kuala Lumpur. Up to a half million Malays were expected to join the rally, in what was seen by many as a show of strength by Mahathir against the UMNO dissidents (Asiaweek, 06/11/1987).

With ethnic tensions running high, however, it was feared that the rally would prove to be the spark point for fresh riots. In such a context, there was little doubt that the government needed to take action to calm sentiments and prevent an escalation of conflict.”

Now if you’re the PM, what would you do at this point?

By Khoo Boo Teik – Paradoxes of Mahathirism : An Intellectual Biography of Mahathir Mohamad

On Tuesday, 27 October 1987, the police launched Operasi Lalang [Operation “Weed Out”] within the first day, Operasi Lalang made fifty-five arrests, all under the ISA [Internal Security Act which provides detention without trial] of DAP (Democratic Action Party) MPs, a DAP state assemblyman, second echelon MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) leaders, Chinese educationists, prominent NGO figures, and university lecturers.

Three newspapers, The Star, Watan, and Sin Chew Jit Poh, were suspended indefinitely.
Over the next few days, more people were arrested, including politicians from Pemuda UMNO (UMNO Youth) … Gerakan, PAS (Malaysian Islamic Party,) and the PSRM (Malaysian Socialist Party,) local Muslim teachers, members of some Christian groups, and other NGO activists.

The arrests spread geographically from Peninsular Malaysia to Sarawak where local environmentalists and anti-timber logging natives were also detained. The waves of arrests, though lessening after October, continued until the number of detainees reached a peak figure of 119 in December.

On a side note, after Umno was declared unlawful and cease to exist on 4th February 1988, Malaysia effectively had no Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and many other ministers from Umno. The next leader in line was non other than Datuk Seri (now Tun) Ling Liong Sik as MCA holds the most seats in the Dewan Rakyat. He chaired the subsequent cabinet meeting without the presence of all Umno ministers including Dr Mahathir. Malaysia was effectively ruled by an MCA President at that time even if it was for a short while. MCA could have staged a coup d e’tat of the country on their own but they did not. For that, Umno was forever grateful to the MCA.

In conclusion, it is easy to criticise in retrospect on what had happened in the past. Being a leader is never easy. Only the brave, the decisive, the intelligent and the wise will succeed. Doing what is right may not necessarily be as vital as doing what is best for the nation and its people. Even when the decision proves to be very unpopular. Only time will tell and history be the judge. Wallahu’alam.

Please note that my observation and analysis is solely based on my opinion on the articles by the affected parties which are available online. Any facts which may have escaped me or some events that happened which were not disclosed to the public may certainly strengthen or weaken my findings above. Therefore I beg anyone whom has the knowledge and evidence to substantiate their own findings to share with us here. However, it is hoped that the evidence and knowledge shared were obtained from the main parties affected and not through hearsay or third party referrals. Thank you.

20 thoughts on “The two sides of a coin : The Crisis of 1987 – 1988

  1. Pingback: Pak Lah’s part in the 1988 judiciary crisis - Jed Yoong

  2. How UMNO came to be declared illegal after Mahathir won is something needed careful thought. He, being caught with “Phantom” support of unregistered branches and found himself with the party he represented be declared void after Pak Lah’s effort.
    Of course Pak Lah being the opposite site went on to seek judiciary judgment he is entitled to like any Malaysian citizen, if judiciary circle were not as “independent” back then, it would not have yielded such result. Pak Lah was just a whistle blower that blown the cover of a cheater.
    If Mahathir did come clean , none of this would have started. He is utterly disgusted by the independence of judiciary system, of course, he enlisted help of royalty to sack the judges knowing then Agong fell foul of law a few times and did not get favorable ruling.
    Simply put, Mahathir was caught cheating in football game, decided to take way all the referee and using his friend as referee so that he can be winner all the time.
    Nope, the ball already rolled well before the 11, just that judiciary system become collateral damage along the process, is it not ? That’s why public still wanted Mahathir to apologize to Tun Salleh, not just Karpal.

    Dear woody,

    u said, trying to get the help of agong to sack the judges so that he remain in power is, to me, an illogical thing to do. he IS in power at that time. Umno baru was set up in end of February 1988 and he remain the president. Tun Salleh was sacked in August 1988. In fact, the act of Umno 11 getting Umno declared illegal was a blessing in disguise. He established a new party and all the team B members joined Semangat 46. Except for a few unprincipled people like Pak Lah himself who remained in Umno Baru. If you are so disgusted with Dr M, why didn’t you join Ku Li in S46? Shahrir Samad even contested as an independent on 25 August 1988 in a by election in JB but he didn’t join S46. Musa Hitam got out from S46 and join Umno Baru right after Dr M got a heart bypass in 1989 thinking Dr M might die soon and he would reclaim his place. What an opportunist. Pak Lah wasn’t the whistle blower for sure. I commented about this in http://www.jedyoong.com already. Anyway, all this is already history. Only the people involved know the real story. Who are we to pass judgement? My article above was to see two sides of the coin. I was sympathetic on both sides. Tun Salleh’s and Dr M’s. Frankly, I do not care about the state of the judiciary as I am just an average guy living a modest life. I don’t think I’m gonna be in tried in a court case in front of a judge anytime soon 🙂 and right now I don’t care whether the judge is corrupt or not. Well who knows in the future.. I apologise for being apathetic but I got a lot of other things to worry about than to assume the state of our judiciary. Let the Bar Council or the Supreme Court clean itself first. Let them weed out the corrupt among them themselves.


  3. I read it with great interest and attention. Well done! This is the best service any Malaysian could have done. I’ll try to circulate links to your post.

    To be honest, I had always had a mixed feelings regarding what actually happened in the crisis. Politics are like a stage, and the politicians are the actors. None of them could serve their own agenda, save the director’s. All of them played unknowingly into a particular fate, perhaps that’s where God comes in.

    Who is to blame? Only ignorance deserves such, but an investigation will put a close to that mysterious moment of our history and reconcile us with our past, and everyone in it.


  4. Dear Sir,

    “u said, trying to get the help of agong to sack the judges so that he remain in power is, to me, an illogical thing to do. he IS in power at that time. Umno baru was set up in end of February 1988 and he remain the president. Tun Salleh was sacked in August 1988.”

    Yes, indeed it was , I even read about it in Newsweek and Times while in college. Well, along 1988, he could not afford to have anymore challenges coming from within UMNO, if there were to be “another 11” went to court again. He himself probably become illegal too, yes, he had to act fast to quickly remove those that may not be passing favorable judgment on his side from legal circle.

    “If you are so disgusted with Dr M, why didn’t you join Ku Li in S46? ”

    Me ?! I will be honored if invited. But that party is no more-lah. 🙂

    I am not disgusted with him, I even attended a few of his opening ceremonies and listen to his speeches while I was young. I just thought he is too high handed to wipe out the independent judiciary branch for his own convenience. In doing so, he seditiously flamed the fire through Royalty (yes ,”Enlisted ” used here as summary ) to help him achieve his aim of keeping the judges off his back. His rift started much longer before that, that’s why the phrase “Hang the Lawyers! Hang the Judges!” *ding*.

    It is very convenient to say “who are we to pass judgment on anyone ” Since you have written such a nice piece of analysis, reader normally assumed your opinion and judgment counts in here. My point here is, he was in power and almost losing it, he seditious flamed the situation leading up to the sacking, of course borrowing the Royalty’s gun. Remember who was the kind ? *ding*

    The beauty about blog and internet is, we are free to exchange what we disagree without getting blackeye !!!

    I forgot to say, Thank you for a great analysis.


    Aiyoh woody.. sorry for the confusion, when i said “If you are so disgusted with Dr M, why didn’t you join Ku Li in S46? ” i really meant to tell Pak Lah that actually, not you Woody. 🙂 and of course, i’m just stating 2 sides of the story here based on the articles by the people who were in the middle of it – Tun Salleh Abas and Datuk George Seah. My final analysis is; Dr Mahathir, his entire cabinet at that time, the royalty and the judiciary itself were to be blamed, not just Dr Mahathir as what most people would like to think.

    thanks for the comment ya!


  5. Kudos.

    Can you find out what was exactly in Tun Salleh Abas on Tun Mahathir? Tun Salleh might be abke to tell frankly.

    JMD : Hi. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say actually. I think u missed a few words… 🙂


  6. Shafudin~

    Read this book, Mayday for Justice , by Tun Salleh Abas as told to K Das. Available in any bookstore near you.

    As of tonight (17-Apr), In Pak Lah’s keynote speech to Bar council members, though short of a formal apology, 6 honorable righteous man that symbolized the pillar of our once glorious independent thinking man of justice, were once again mentioned .

    One of my favorite was Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, he ended his own life a few years after his wife died. He used to pen out Latin Love Poem and took out a full page ad on anniversary for her. A pretty tragic way for him to leave us.



  7. Woody – I still remember being so fascinated with the poems. They were definitely beautiful. I wish I had saved them.


  8. Hey, it’ll be great if you do a write-up about DSAI

    JMD: yeah but i don’t know where to start. there’s so many angles to choose from. whether to focus on how his brother, who was a drug addict when he was young, could become the biggest shareholder in IOI Group in 1996 due to DSAI’s position as minister of finance. Or, to focus on all his pro IMF remedy which he (wrongly) predicted could bring abt the downfall of the then PM at the time. Or, his meteoric rise in Umno as soon as he joined it in 1982… Hmmm..


  9. Great piece of work.. take a lot of effort to come out with this information… I agree with you bro, JMD, it is a two side coin..

    TDM or TSA have their own priority and own believe.. So in a struggle one of the people need to make way. So if I sit in the legislative side, maybe I suport what TDM has done and if I sit at the judiciary side, I may have support TSA.. But of course a ship cannot have two captan.

    I believe you can have another write-up on the DSAI crisis, it maybe also a two side of the coin story…

    On TSA vs TDM, one of the point that need to be clear is that, TDM use the proper channel to address the issue. The setting up of a tribunal shows that it is done according to the law. There is also TSA letter to Agong, which can be intepreted in a different ways.

    But, there will always strong supporter of both side of the coin. Personnally, I believe that the only judge that can give a fair judgement to this case is God…As human being, I can always influenced by our believe of the system, and that can easily clouded our judgement…

    JMD : am working on it. but will take some time. credible references are hard to find.


  10. Pingback: The CEO and the Pegawai Tadbir explored further « Jebat Must Die

  11. Pingback: Now why did Tun Salleh Abas never mention about his first letter? « Jebat Must Die

  12. JMD,

    a very good and analytical article you wrote here, wonder how much time you spend researching it. It was well written and in understandable language too.

    The beauty of our country for me is the “multi-racial” life that we have. My friends (from other races) and I can talk and argue about everything but at the end of it, we are able to reconcile. I sincerely think that this was possible due to the policies that were put in place by our forefathers in power (Merdeka era) and are still being respected by all. Just this morning, I was awaken by the noise of fire-crackers and guess what, my Indian neighbour lit them to start off their daugther’s wedding day today! How assimilate we are today. I live in a low cost flat comprising of all races mainly Chinese here in Penang.

    This is to show that there are 2 important aspects that our beloved country have in place : 1 – the people in power knows how to react and decide what to do, and 2 – tolerance and respect for each other. If the people in power let hatred being sowed into our society without taking preventive action, we won’t enjoy the same relation as now with each other. This is to say that whoever is in power must act and react to our society needs promptly.

    The 3 pillars of power in our Government : Legislative, Executive and Judiciary should work hand in hand to ensure that we and our children and their children and their children would be able to live side by side in harmony, happy and respect of each other. Please work harder. Follow the rules of law and respect it.

    Thanks for the space JMD.


    JMD : I just love to read. It’s gratifying to finally understand an issue from different perspectives. Thanks from reading this blog ya.


  13. Saya ingin mengucapkan berbanyak terima kasih kepada anda kerana bersungguh untuk menyediakan semua maklumat yang didapati dan disusun untuk dibaca dengan mudah dan berkesan oleh pembaca yang berminat.

    Dengan tersedianya maklumat menyeluruh gambarannya ini, pada pandangan saya dapatlah pembaca mencari kebenaran dan menyokong pihak yang benar.

    Disini saya dengan rendah diri ingin berkongsi maklumat saya dengan anda berkenaan krisis kehakiman 1987-1988, sekiranya dapat dijadikan bahan rujukan tambahan untuk kajian anda.

    Saya mendapat maklumat ini dari YBG Tun Mahathir sendiri semasa saya menghadiri ucapan yang diadakkan beliau di Club Golf And Country di Port Dickson pada 12 July 2008 baru-baru ini.

    Didalam ucapan itu, beliau telah ditanya oleh hadirin yang hadir tentang krisis kehakiman itu.

    Beliau menerangkan bahawa istana Agong pada ketika itu yang terletak di Kuala Lumpur sedang melalui proses pengubahsuaian, dan proses itu berlaku sehingga waktu malam dan mengeluarkan bunyi bising kepada kawasan persekitaran.

    Tun Salleh Abbas berpendapat ini telah menggangu kenteraman awam. Lantas beliau (Tun Salleh Abbas) telah menulis surat kepada Agong menyatakan rasa tidak puas hatinya tentang pengubahsuaian istana yang menggangu ketentraman awam. Dan Tun Salleh Abbas juga telah menghantar surat yang sama kepada semua sultan di kesemua negeri yang bersultan.

    Ini telah menimbulkan kemurkhaan Yang Dipertuan Agong yang berpendapat Tun Salleh Abbas telah menjatuhkan imejnya dihadapan Sultan-Sultan, dan juga sudah tidak mempercayianya lagi sebagai Agong yang melantik beliau.

    Namun begitu Agong telah sudi mengampunkan tindakan itu.

    Tidak lama selepas kejadian surat itu, Tun Salleh Abbas telah sekali lagi menulis surat kepada Agong mengkritik Baginda (saya minta maaf saya sudah tidak ingat apa kandungan surat itu kali ini- commentator) dan surat itu juga telah dihantar kepada semua Sultan-Sultan.

    Agong telah menjadi murkha dan telah memanggil Datuk Seri Dr Mahatir supaya memecat Tun Salleh Abbas.

    Dr Mahatir menyatakan kepada Agong bahawa Tun Salleh Abbas tidak boleh dipecat begitu sahaja. Tetapi hendaklah disediakan satu tribunal perbicaaran yang adil kepada beliau.

    Perbicaraan telah berlaku melalui tribunal ini ke atas Tun Salleh Abbas.

    Namun begitu Tun Salleh Abbas telah sengaja tidak menghadirkan diri dalam proses perbicaraan ini sebagai tanda protes beliau.

    Namun begitu perbicaaran telah berlangsung tanpa kehadiran beliau. Dan keputusannya beliau di didapati melakukan kelakuan yang tak setaraf dengan ketinggian seorang ketua hakim negara (misconduct behavior).

    Setakat itulah maklumat yang saya ada. Sebarang kekurangan dalam maklumat ini, saya pohon maaf. Iayanya berpunca daripada kelemahan saya. Namun begitu saya harap ianya dapat membantu anda sedikit sebanyak.

    Anda boleh mengesahkan kebenaran maklumat saya ini dengan berhubung dengan pejabat Tun Mahatir sendiri sebagai pengesahan.

    Terima kasih banyak kerana sudi membaca maklumat saya.


  14. Pingback: A million thank you’s | Jebat Must Die

  15. This is a wrong analysis. You got all your facts wrong, obviously you’re a pro BN. Anyone who believes it is just plain ignorant. Get the right facts before you say anything.


Astound us with your intelligence!

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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