from: www.bernama.com.my
Poverty line to be adjusted
KUALA LUMPUR, mon:
The national poverty line will be adjusted, taking into account current inflation rate.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Senator Datuk Amirsham Abdul Aziz said this was because the national poverty line currently in use had not taken into account the knock-on effect of the recent oil price increase. “The government is aware of the effects of inflation and price hike of goods on household expenditure.
The poverty line will be updated from time to time, taking into account the current inflation,” he said in reply to Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim (PKR-Bandar Tun Razak) in the Dewan Rakyat here today. Abdul Khalid had asked whether the government was aware that the national poverty line currently in use was too low and illogical to fend for a family, and asked the government to give the percentage of poor households in each state if the minimum monthly household income were to be raised to RM1,500.
Currently, the national poverty line is based on the minimum monthly household income of RM753. It is defined as the income that enables a household to meet its basic needs in terms of food and not food that enables each member to function in society.
Amirsham said if the national poverty line was raised to RM1,500 as proposed by Abdul Khalid, poor households would make up about 24.3 percent of the total number of households. To another question from Abdul Khalid on the status of the proposal on minimum wage, he said the matter was still under consideration and could not be announced yet.The minimum wage of RM900 and cost of living allowance of RM300 had been proposed by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress to help the people cope with the rising cost of living.
my thoughts:
imagine that. if the government were to raise the poverty line to rm1500, our poverty rate would shoot up to almost 25%. mind boggling! we are a poor country after all - poor in the sense we have a lot of poor people.
the current poverty line is based on the minimum monthly household income of RM 753. why and how the government arrived at this figure is a mystery, at least to me. i believe we can all agree on one thing. nobody in this country could live comfortably with that income level. regardless whether it is an urban or a rural area. no way. imagine a family of four with an income of RM 800 - just above the poverty line. there is no way they could lead an acceptable quality life.
so it is useless to have an indicator that is not practical at all. and does not provide a true picture of the quality of living of the people.
therefore, i propose two sets of poverty line to be established - Urban Poverty Line (UPL) and Rural Poverty Line (RPL). the government already has the definition of urban. so there is no issue of what is urban, what is rural. it is crucial to have these two sets of poverty line, as the approach to tackle urban poor and rural poor might be completely different. a 'one solution fits all' program would definitely fail to address the different needs and problems of the urban and rural folks.
so what would be the quantum? honestly, i dont know. maybe RM1500 for UPL. and RM 1000 for RPL. those figures may be good starting points for consideration.
we may take pride in our success of reducing poverty since our independence. yes have we succeeded on many fronts. but in our determination to alleviate poverty using the current set standard, we may have 'missed' the emergence of a new group of poor. these poor may not be poor with present definition. but there are definitely poor in the current economic scenario.
the point is let's not be 'syok sendiri'. we may continue to succeed alleviating poverty using the RM 753 criteria. we may even succeed in eradicating hardcore poverty by 2010. but are we really helping the poor? are we afraid that if we were to raise the poverty line, then the poverty rate would increase and thus indicating a failure? that should not be the case. in fact, we would do justice to the deserving.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
mind your own business...
from: www.utusan.com.my
Dominasi UMNO perlu dikurangkan - Tsu Koon
Petaling Jaya 20 Jun - Gerakan hari ini menggesa dominasi UMNO dalamBarisan Nasional (BN) dikurangkan sebaliknya setiap 14 parti komponen diberi hak yang sama untuk bersuara dan menentukan hala tuju gagasan itu.
Pemangku Presidennya, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon mendakwa hak sama rata kepada parti komponen yang terkandung dalam Perlembagaan BN tidak lagi diamalkan sejak bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad mentadbir negara pada 1980an.
''Amalan hanya seorang pemimpin (daripada UMNO) yang berkuasa dalam BN perlu dihentikan bagi memulihkan kembali keyakinan rakyat," katanya.
Beliau berkata demikian ketika menyampaikan ucapan pada program bual bicara parti itu di Ibu Pejabat Gerakan Selangor di sini malam ini.
Tsu Koon berkata, langkah awal supaya dominasi UMNO dikurangkan boleh dilakukan sekiranya BN mengadakan mesyuarat lebih kerap dan bukannya seperti sebelum ini hanya sekali dalam tempoh dua tahun.
''Saya gembira kerana terdapat usaha-usaha positif untuk mengubah BN dan perkara ini terbukti apabila mesyuarat selepas pilihan raya umum lalu dilakukan hampir setiap bulan.
''Banyak lagi perubahan yang kita harapkan termasuk UMNO perlu menghormati Perlembagaan BN yang digubal pada 1974 yang menyatakan bahawa setiap keputusan yang dibuat perlu sebulat suara," katanya.
Dalam pada itu, Tsu Koon berharap UMNO berubah dengan memberikan peluang kepada golongan liberal Melayu untuk menerajui kepimpinan parti itu.
''Golongan ini seperti Naib Presiden UMNO, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin; Ketua Wanita parti itu, Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz dan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim adalah lebih bersikap terbuka dan dapat diterima oleh bukan Melayu.
''Langkah ini penting kerana bukan Melayu pada pilihan raya lalu beralih kepada pembangkang disebabkan bimbang dengan usaha kerajaan BN diterajui UMNO memberi penekanan kepada Islam sebagai satu cara hidup dan bukan negara sekular seperti diperjuangkan golongan liberal," ujarnya.
my thoughts:
BN is a coalition of 14 political parties representing various communities in the country. it is a coalition based on mutual respect and understanding of each other's roles, agendas and responsibilities. one should never interfere in each other's internal affairs. that is the basic rule! and it must be observed at all times. this is important to preserve the goodwill and overall interest of BN. as such, these statements made by TS Koh is totally unwarranted and highly improper.
ONE. to say that UMNO dominates BN is not entirely correct. UMNO leads BN. UMNO is the largest party within BN. representing the biggest community in the country. therefore, it is only natural for UMNO to head and lead the coalition. anyway, why not? someone must set the direction and gameplan of BN. it might as well be UMNO.
TWO. TS Koh has gone over the line by suggesting who should be leaders of UMNO. my dear Tan Sri, let UMNO members decide who should be the leaders of UMNO. nobody should tell them who to elect. moreover, from someone who is not a party member. not from the community. what do you get by suggesting this? if everybody were to follow your act, then this would create havoc within BN. someone in UMNO may then suggest that Mr A should be the President of Gerakan. or someone in MCA may suggest that Mr X should be the President of MIC. follow the drift?
i have more to say. but i will stop now. otherwise you might accuse me of interfering with your party.
so please my dear Tan Sri. mind your own business...
Saturday, June 21, 2008
My Lord...
from: thestar.com.my
Former judge hits out at Dr M
by Audrey Edwards
KUALA LUMPUR: A retired Federal Court judge has lashed out at Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad alleging that the former premier had wanted to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution because he wanted the judiciary to be under his control.
judges are a special breed. they have to be intelligent, impartial, patient, and most importantly - just. they must also practice restraint whenever they are criticised by other parties. they lead a quiet life. away from public spotlight. and limit their social sphere.
i have great respect for judges. they are actually our protector - guarding and upholding our constitution. they perform a balancing role, providing stability and completing the triangle of government - executive, legislature and judiciary.
as such, i am mindful when i write about judges. but i have a number of issues with the ex gratia payments to judges.
ONE. as i mentioned before, i disagree with the ex gratia payment to the judges involved in the 1988 judicial crisis. my reason is simple. if the government felt that terrible injustice had been inflicted upon these judges, a new inquiry should have been set up to review the findings of the original tribunal. prove to us - the rakyat, that such act of injustice had actually happened. acting arbitrarily without the necessary due process is the act of an irresponsible government.
plus, if the government is truly sincere to clear the names of the judges, they should have gone all the way ie publicly apologise to the judges and reinstate their full entitlements. not just a one-off payment. why stop there rite?! go all the way.
TWO. with due respect to TS Azmi Kamaruddin, i have to ask this. why is he getting the ex gratia payment? yes he was suspended during the 1988 episode. but he was reinstated and served till his retirement. same goes to TS Eusoff and TS Wan Hamzah - they were both reinstated. not that i agree, but i understand why payments were made to Tun Salleh, TS Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Seah. they were removed from the judiciary and lost all. one could only imagine what they went through.
so on what basis? yes as stated, TS Azmi lost the opportunity for promotion to higher judicial office. implying that he was put in 'cold-storage' after the 1988 episode. if that is the basis, then the government should also make payments to other government officers who were put in 'cold-storage' and bypassed for promotions by their bosses. it would only be fair.
THIRD. i totally do not understand the stand taken by the government not to disclose the amount paid to the judges. this secrecy is not befitting of a transparent government. this is public's money! not your own piggy bank. that you could do whatever you want without telling us the rakyat.
Former judge hits out at Dr M
by Audrey Edwards
KUALA LUMPUR: A retired Federal Court judge has lashed out at Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad alleging that the former premier had wanted to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution because he wanted the judiciary to be under his control.
“I believe the Prime Minister at the time wanted to become a dictator; I may be wrong but this is my conclusion,” Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin yesterday told reporters after receiving ex-gratia payment from the Government for the pain and loss he suffered during the 1988 judicial crisis.
Previously, Article 121 stated that judicial power of the Federation was “vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law” but it was replaced in 1988 to place the courts’ jurisdiction in the hands of Parliament.
Azmi, 75, who received the payment from de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, said: “He wanted to amend Article 121 which calls for the separation of powers. He already headed the Legislature and Executive. Now, he also wanted the judiciary under him.”
Adding that Dr Mahathir was “very clever” and always “killed two birds with one stone”, Azmi alleged that Dr Mahathir’s agenda was tied to the Umno 11 case involving then Umno vice-president Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah whose supporters had challenged his post as Umno president.
“With the judiciary under him, he could tell judges what to do. I am sure he will deny it,” said Azmi who was among six judges involved in the judicial crisis two decades ago.
Tun Salleh Abas, sacked as Lord President of the then Supreme Court (renamed Federal Court in 1994), also received his payment yesterday. The others who have already accepted the undisclosed payment were then Supreme Court judges Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Wan Mohamed Salleh and Datuk George Seah.
Compensation was also given to the families of the late Supreme Court judges Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh.
Azmi broke down and cried when he started talking to reporters at his house. He said his remaining 10 years as a judge were the worst days of his life where he only heard “simple cases” and lost the opportunity of being promoted.
“It (the payment) brings to an end the shameful episode of 1988.”
my thoughts:judges are a special breed. they have to be intelligent, impartial, patient, and most importantly - just. they must also practice restraint whenever they are criticised by other parties. they lead a quiet life. away from public spotlight. and limit their social sphere.
i have great respect for judges. they are actually our protector - guarding and upholding our constitution. they perform a balancing role, providing stability and completing the triangle of government - executive, legislature and judiciary.
as such, i am mindful when i write about judges. but i have a number of issues with the ex gratia payments to judges.
ONE. as i mentioned before, i disagree with the ex gratia payment to the judges involved in the 1988 judicial crisis. my reason is simple. if the government felt that terrible injustice had been inflicted upon these judges, a new inquiry should have been set up to review the findings of the original tribunal. prove to us - the rakyat, that such act of injustice had actually happened. acting arbitrarily without the necessary due process is the act of an irresponsible government.
plus, if the government is truly sincere to clear the names of the judges, they should have gone all the way ie publicly apologise to the judges and reinstate their full entitlements. not just a one-off payment. why stop there rite?! go all the way.
TWO. with due respect to TS Azmi Kamaruddin, i have to ask this. why is he getting the ex gratia payment? yes he was suspended during the 1988 episode. but he was reinstated and served till his retirement. same goes to TS Eusoff and TS Wan Hamzah - they were both reinstated. not that i agree, but i understand why payments were made to Tun Salleh, TS Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Seah. they were removed from the judiciary and lost all. one could only imagine what they went through.
so on what basis? yes as stated, TS Azmi lost the opportunity for promotion to higher judicial office. implying that he was put in 'cold-storage' after the 1988 episode. if that is the basis, then the government should also make payments to other government officers who were put in 'cold-storage' and bypassed for promotions by their bosses. it would only be fair.
THIRD. i totally do not understand the stand taken by the government not to disclose the amount paid to the judges. this secrecy is not befitting of a transparent government. this is public's money! not your own piggy bank. that you could do whatever you want without telling us the rakyat.
Friday, June 20, 2008
flip-flop..flip-flop..flip-flop...
from: www.bernama.com
Twice Monthly Pay May Not Be Implemented, Says Subramaniam
KUALA TERENGGANU, June 20 (Bernama) -- The government may not implement the twice salary payment per month, following protests from many quarters, said Human Resource Minister Datuk Dr S Subramaniam.
He said, ever since Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's announcement on the plan, various reactions were received, with the protest outnumbering the support.
This included protests from Cuepacs and political party leaders, describing the plan as troublesome and not helping the civil servants in managing their expenses and cash flow, due to the recent fuel price hike.
However, Subramaniam explained, the final decision on the plan would be made in the next Cabinet meeting.
"Many said that the plan would cause problems for them. We will discuss the matter in the next Cabinet meeting and make the final decision," he told reporters after officiating the Terengganu MIC Delegates Conference 2008, here Friday.
Subramaniam said during the last Cabinet meeting and the Barisan Nasional (BN) meeting Thursday, the government had agreed to reconsider the plan if the workers felt that it was troublesome.
The prime minister, on June 11 announced that the government would pay the salary of its employees in two installments a month from August as a measure to ease the impact of the recent fuel price increase on the people.
my thoughts:
ten day ago, PM Abdullah Badawi made the announcement. and now the government may not implement it at all. what the hell is going on here?!
i totally disagree when it was first announced. i dont see much value, if any, with this proposal. i may be wrong, but wouldnt it create more work for the people in charge? plus an increase in cost - wouldnt the cost now double as you have to do the paperwork etc twice with this proposal?
so it is a relief that the government is actually considering scrapping this proposal. however, it is disturbing to see the government 'flip-flopping' with its decision. you cant help but to ask - how did the government make the decision? didnt it consult with other parties eg Cuepacs etc? the government wanted to be seen as being pro-active and compassionate by proposing it in the first place. but it backfired big time!
we are facing multiple crisis now - fuel. food. leadership. in this critical time, we need to have full confidence in the government.
do you?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
the end justify the means...
from: thestar.com.my
SAPP's vote of no confidence against PM
KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) has lost confidence in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, it said at a press conference here Wednesday.
In the coming sitting of the Parliament session on Monday, its two Members of Parliament will support a vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister, the party said.
Whether its MPs table the vote of no confidence, or whether other MPs will do it, would be determined in due course, it said in a statement.
SAPP’s two MPs are Datuk Eric Enchin Majimbun (P171 Sepanggar) and Datuk Dr Chua Soon Bui (P190 Tawau).
The party also has four state representatives.
The statement was read out by Dr Chua and signed by Majimbun, who was overseas on official duties. He will be back for the Parliament sitting next Monday, June 23.
The statement listed four areas of dissatisfaction with Abdullah's premiership:
1) That no concrete action had been taken on the issue of illegal immigrants, despite repeated requests by SAPP and other Barisan component parties;
2) That the government had offered no holistic economic solutions to cushion the blow of the sudden hike in fuel prices, which had greatly burdened the people and threatened further hardcore poverty;
3) That not enough attention had been paid to issues raised by the people of Sabah -- poor delivery systems, corruption, wastage, lack of transparency and accountability -- and that SAPP would have failed in its duty as elected representatives if these issues continued to be ignored; and
4) That the people have lost confidence in Abdullah, and that if he can't perform, he should step aside and make way for another leader to take over.
Talk had been rife Wednesday morning that SAPP was going to abandon the Barisan Nasional coalition and defect to the Pakatan Rakyat alliance.
The party is running a poll on its blog, asking members of the public whether it should stay on in Barisan, leave the coalition but remain independent, or join Pakatan.
At press time, there were 2,828 votes tallied, with 85% (2,411 votes) asking SAPP to join Pakatan. Only 2% (80 votes) urged it to stay on with Barisan, while the remainder suggested it quit Barisan but remained unaligned.my thoughts:
shocking but kind of expected. that was my reaction when a friend sms the news to me at about 2pm. expected coz this has been bandied around for sometime.
one thing is clear now. all the visits, and meetings between PM Abdullah Badawi and Sabah leaders in the last few months have failed. the damage control is down the drain. plus the 'gifts' to Sabah announced by PM Abdullah Badawi recently eg: abolishment of JPPS, the establishment of SDO, additional grant of RM 1 billion, establishment of Cabinet Committee to tackle illegal immigrants etc etc, have failed to appease some leaders. mind you, the announcement was made by PM Abdullah Badawi on 31 May 2008 - barely 3 weeks ago.
so what next? that is not clear as yet.
1. would they succeed with the vote of no confidence, if they were able to table it in the first place? i dont think so. SAPP is a small party. their representation in Parliament is very small. as such, their clout/influence is minimal. i believe they know that they would not succeed. but even before they actually table it in Parliament, they have succeeded. embarassing PM Abdullah Badawi!
2. should BN take any action against SAPP? definitely. SAPP has been naughty. their action is against the spirit of BN. and they must be punished. no two way about it. plus an action against SAPP would preserve the equilibrium and sanity in BN.
3. would BN take action against SAPP? they have to. by proposing to table the vote of no confidence, and staying put in BN, SAPP is actually saying " I dare you to take action against me!" therefore, BN must take action against SAPP. no action means no balls. as simple as that.
4. what action? expel SAPP from BN. anything less is a joke.
so do i agree with this action by SAPP? nope.
the end justify the means?! tepuk dada tanya selera. burrghhh..i am full now. :)
Monday, June 9, 2008
the saga continues...
from www.chedet.com
The Tun Salleh Saga
1. When the Government gave ex-gratia payments to the judges involved in the Tun Salleh Abas removal as the Lord President of Malaysian courts, the question that needs to be answered is whether it is because of Government regrets over something that happened not during the period this Government was in power or is it because of a desperate attempt to win support after the disastrous results of the election of 2008.
2. Had the present Government felt regret, it should have paid ex-gratia payment (for want of a better term) upon achieving power. But obviously it only felt regret lately, after its brand new de facto Minister of Law, who incidentally was suspended for money politics, suggested the move in order to win the approval of the Bar Council.
3. But what was at the back of this political feeling of guilt by this Government. Was it because of the injustice done? Or was something unfair and unlawful committed by the previous Government.
4. Most people know about Tun Salleh’s dismissal but few care to find out what really happened. Some believe that the action against Tun Salleh was because he had proposed a panel of 12 judges to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings that UMNO was an illegal organisation. Others believe it was because he was biased against UMNO in his judgements.
5. None of these is true. Tun Salleh had not been biased against the Government. He dismissed the application by Lim Kit Siang in the case involving UEM and the Government, for an interim injunction made by a lower court in a lengthy judgement made by him as President of the Supreme Court. In numerous other cases his judgement favoured the Government. As to the panel to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings, a bigger panel could actually be good for UMNO, which wanted nothing more than the validation of the election results making me President and Ghafar Baba Deputy President. Whether the panel rejects or approves Judge Harun’s decision, UMNO and UMNO Baru would not be affected.
6. The truth is that the case against Tun Salleh was triggered by his letters to the Yang di Pertuan Agong which were considered by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting to him.
7. In his first letter Tun Salleh had written to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the noise made during some repair work at the Agong’s palace near Salleh’s house.
8. This alone can be considered as very improper. A man as senior as he was could have asked to see the Agong and verbally informed him about the noise.
9. But to compound the act of les majesté he sent copies of his letter to the other rulers. This implied that he did not have faith in the Agong and wanted the other Rulers to apply pressure on him.
10. This was followed by another letter to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the behaviour of the executive i.e. the Prime Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers.
11. In this letter Tun Salleh said inter alia, “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.”
12. He went on to say in his letter “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
13. He asserted that he and all the judges “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
14. This statement was obviously untrue as before the letter was sent, in a speech at the University of Malaya when he was receiving his honorary doctorate, he complained about “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” inferring that this was not in keeping with “the rule of law” and that the “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed.”
15. He went on to say “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play than the roles played by the politicians.”
16. Further he said, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary.”
17. Again when making a speech at the launching of a book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh had said, among other things, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” He added, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….”
18. “Apart from this,” he continued, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.”
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
20. These two speeches were delivered on 1st August 1987 and 12th January 1988 respectively. But Tun Salleh’s letter to the King was dated 26th March 1988. As I pointed out earlier it is not true that he did not speak about his accusations against the Government in public because he maintains that “such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution” and that “it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
21. All his statements in these two speeches clearly contain his criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Government long before he wrote his letter to the King.
22. Another point raised in his letter to the Agong is that “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
23. In Section 125 of the Federal Constitution, under clause (3) the grounds for removing a judge, apart from misbehaviour include infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office.”
24. By his own admission Tun Salleh was not able “to discharge his functions orderly and properly.” He was therefore unfit to continue to be a judge.
25. Section 125, Clause 4 provides for “the Yang di Pertuan Agong to appoint a Tribunal …. and refer the representations to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.”
26. The two letters from Tun Salleh were regarded by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting particularly the copies sent to the other Rulers.
27. During one of my weekly meetings with the Agong, DYMM expressed his annoyance over the letters and simply requested that I dismiss Tun Salleh Abas from being the Lord President of the Malaysian Courts. He writes in his own handwriting his request on the margin of Tun Salleh’s first letter, regarding the noise made by the work on the Agong’s residence.
28. To the Agong it was a simple matter. He had appointed the Lord President and therefore he was entitled to remove him. I thought it was best for me to inform Cabinet and seek the advice of the Attorney-General.
29. I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in accordance with the intention or objective of the laws. I did suggest that if the laws were interpreted differently from what the Government and the legislators intended, then we would amend the laws. During a cabinet meeting I had in jest quoted Shakespeare’s words, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” Only a nitwit would think that I meant what I said literally. But apparently lawyers and judges took umbrage over what I said and regarded me as their enemy (about to hang them, I suppose).
30. I also criticised judges for making laws themselves through their interpretations and subsequently citing these as their authority. I believed that the separation of powers meant the Legislators make laws and the judiciary apply them. Of course if the laws made by the legislators breach the provisions of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, then judges can reject them.
31. Again some judges simply refused to hear cases involving the death penalty, pushing these unfairly on to other judges.
32. It is the view of most jurists that “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Peter Aldridge Williams QC).
33. The above writer quoted McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it.”
34. Yet Tun Salleh took the view that I was subverting the independence of the judiciary when I expressed views on how judges frustrated the objectives of the legislators.
35. Through the grapevine I heard of the judges’ displeasure with me. But I did not take any action, certainly not to remove Tun Salleh. I only acted after the Agong complained about the two letters.
36. The Cabinet agreed that we must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Constitution. I therefore advised the Agong that Tun Salleh could not be removed unless the Agong appoints a Tribunal to hear the complaints against him and make recommendations to the Agong.
37. Upon the Agong agreeing, the Government selected six judges and former judges for His Majesty to consider. The members included foreign judges in the person of the Honourable the Justice K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Chief Justice Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Honourable Mr Justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
38. The Chairman was the Chief Judge (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. The other members were Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Chief Justice (Borneo), Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain, Retired Judge and Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail, Retired Judge.
39. The inclusion of foreign judges was to make sure the Tribunal would not be biased.
40. It is unfortunate that Tun Salleh Abas refused to appear before the Tribunal. Instead he depended on his colleagues to try to prevent the findings of the Tribunal from reaching the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
41. What the five judges who were sympathetic to him did was certainly not in keeping with Tun Salleh’s expressed views in his talk during the launching of the book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend, “when he said “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
42. The five judges had ignored rules and procedures and the requirement to get the approval of the (Acting) Lord President, as well as wait for the findings by Mr Justice Ajaib Singh on the same matter. Instead they cancelled courts sittings in Kota Bahru which were scheduled for the judges, and held a sitting of the Supreme Court in Kuala Lumpur to hear an application by Tun Salleh Abbas for prohibition proceedings to determine his position.
43. The Supreme Court of five judges with Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman presiding heard an ex parte oral application by Tun Salleh’s lawyer, retired for a few minutes, returned and unanimously made an order for stay restraining the Tribunal from submitting any recommendations, report or advice respecting the enquiry to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong until further order.
44. Subsequently the Acting Lord President, set up a Supreme Court of five judges which negated the decision of the Wan Suleiman Court.
45. I would like to repeat that despite public criticisms made against me by Tun Salleh, I did not take any action against him. I only did so after he insulted the Agong and the Agong requested me to have him removed. Of course some would still say I influenced the Agong. But throughout my 22 years I had never involved the rulers in politics or my personal problems. The records are there for all to see.
46. I was very concerned over the forcible removal of Tun Salleh. And so I tried to get Tun Salleh to resign on his own so as to avoid a scandal. He agreed at first but he withdrew the following day.
47. I then went about getting the Tribunal approved and set up. Naturally I had to consult the Attorney-General and others who were familiar with judges. Once the Tribunal was set up my involvement ended.
48. When Tun Salleh and the other judges had their services terminated, they should not be paid their pensions. But following appeals by Attorney-General I agreed that they should be paid their full pensions. They therefore did not suffer any financial loss and their pensions were computed from the time they left.
49. These are the facts relating to the dismissal of Tun Salleh. It was he and his fellow judges who brought disrepute to the judiciary.
50. I write this to record things as they happened. I do not expect my detractors to stop saying that I destroyed the judiciary. They are my prosecutors and they are also my judges. To them I will always be the Idi Amin of Malaysia as claimed in Tun Salleh’s book “May Day for Justice”. Sadly many who so readily condemn me were judges.
The Tun Salleh Saga
1. When the Government gave ex-gratia payments to the judges involved in the Tun Salleh Abas removal as the Lord President of Malaysian courts, the question that needs to be answered is whether it is because of Government regrets over something that happened not during the period this Government was in power or is it because of a desperate attempt to win support after the disastrous results of the election of 2008.
2. Had the present Government felt regret, it should have paid ex-gratia payment (for want of a better term) upon achieving power. But obviously it only felt regret lately, after its brand new de facto Minister of Law, who incidentally was suspended for money politics, suggested the move in order to win the approval of the Bar Council.
3. But what was at the back of this political feeling of guilt by this Government. Was it because of the injustice done? Or was something unfair and unlawful committed by the previous Government.
4. Most people know about Tun Salleh’s dismissal but few care to find out what really happened. Some believe that the action against Tun Salleh was because he had proposed a panel of 12 judges to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings that UMNO was an illegal organisation. Others believe it was because he was biased against UMNO in his judgements.
5. None of these is true. Tun Salleh had not been biased against the Government. He dismissed the application by Lim Kit Siang in the case involving UEM and the Government, for an interim injunction made by a lower court in a lengthy judgement made by him as President of the Supreme Court. In numerous other cases his judgement favoured the Government. As to the panel to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings, a bigger panel could actually be good for UMNO, which wanted nothing more than the validation of the election results making me President and Ghafar Baba Deputy President. Whether the panel rejects or approves Judge Harun’s decision, UMNO and UMNO Baru would not be affected.
6. The truth is that the case against Tun Salleh was triggered by his letters to the Yang di Pertuan Agong which were considered by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting to him.
7. In his first letter Tun Salleh had written to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the noise made during some repair work at the Agong’s palace near Salleh’s house.
8. This alone can be considered as very improper. A man as senior as he was could have asked to see the Agong and verbally informed him about the noise.
9. But to compound the act of les majesté he sent copies of his letter to the other rulers. This implied that he did not have faith in the Agong and wanted the other Rulers to apply pressure on him.
10. This was followed by another letter to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the behaviour of the executive i.e. the Prime Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers.
11. In this letter Tun Salleh said inter alia, “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.”
12. He went on to say in his letter “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
13. He asserted that he and all the judges “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
14. This statement was obviously untrue as before the letter was sent, in a speech at the University of Malaya when he was receiving his honorary doctorate, he complained about “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” inferring that this was not in keeping with “the rule of law” and that the “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed.”
15. He went on to say “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play than the roles played by the politicians.”
16. Further he said, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary.”
17. Again when making a speech at the launching of a book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh had said, among other things, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” He added, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….”
18. “Apart from this,” he continued, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.”
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
20. These two speeches were delivered on 1st August 1987 and 12th January 1988 respectively. But Tun Salleh’s letter to the King was dated 26th March 1988. As I pointed out earlier it is not true that he did not speak about his accusations against the Government in public because he maintains that “such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution” and that “it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
21. All his statements in these two speeches clearly contain his criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Government long before he wrote his letter to the King.
22. Another point raised in his letter to the Agong is that “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
23. In Section 125 of the Federal Constitution, under clause (3) the grounds for removing a judge, apart from misbehaviour include infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office.”
24. By his own admission Tun Salleh was not able “to discharge his functions orderly and properly.” He was therefore unfit to continue to be a judge.
25. Section 125, Clause 4 provides for “the Yang di Pertuan Agong to appoint a Tribunal …. and refer the representations to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.”
26. The two letters from Tun Salleh were regarded by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting particularly the copies sent to the other Rulers.
27. During one of my weekly meetings with the Agong, DYMM expressed his annoyance over the letters and simply requested that I dismiss Tun Salleh Abas from being the Lord President of the Malaysian Courts. He writes in his own handwriting his request on the margin of Tun Salleh’s first letter, regarding the noise made by the work on the Agong’s residence.
28. To the Agong it was a simple matter. He had appointed the Lord President and therefore he was entitled to remove him. I thought it was best for me to inform Cabinet and seek the advice of the Attorney-General.
29. I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in accordance with the intention or objective of the laws. I did suggest that if the laws were interpreted differently from what the Government and the legislators intended, then we would amend the laws. During a cabinet meeting I had in jest quoted Shakespeare’s words, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” Only a nitwit would think that I meant what I said literally. But apparently lawyers and judges took umbrage over what I said and regarded me as their enemy (about to hang them, I suppose).
30. I also criticised judges for making laws themselves through their interpretations and subsequently citing these as their authority. I believed that the separation of powers meant the Legislators make laws and the judiciary apply them. Of course if the laws made by the legislators breach the provisions of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, then judges can reject them.
31. Again some judges simply refused to hear cases involving the death penalty, pushing these unfairly on to other judges.
32. It is the view of most jurists that “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Peter Aldridge Williams QC).
33. The above writer quoted McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it.”
34. Yet Tun Salleh took the view that I was subverting the independence of the judiciary when I expressed views on how judges frustrated the objectives of the legislators.
35. Through the grapevine I heard of the judges’ displeasure with me. But I did not take any action, certainly not to remove Tun Salleh. I only acted after the Agong complained about the two letters.
36. The Cabinet agreed that we must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Constitution. I therefore advised the Agong that Tun Salleh could not be removed unless the Agong appoints a Tribunal to hear the complaints against him and make recommendations to the Agong.
37. Upon the Agong agreeing, the Government selected six judges and former judges for His Majesty to consider. The members included foreign judges in the person of the Honourable the Justice K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Chief Justice Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Honourable Mr Justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
38. The Chairman was the Chief Judge (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. The other members were Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Chief Justice (Borneo), Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain, Retired Judge and Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail, Retired Judge.
39. The inclusion of foreign judges was to make sure the Tribunal would not be biased.
40. It is unfortunate that Tun Salleh Abas refused to appear before the Tribunal. Instead he depended on his colleagues to try to prevent the findings of the Tribunal from reaching the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
41. What the five judges who were sympathetic to him did was certainly not in keeping with Tun Salleh’s expressed views in his talk during the launching of the book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend, “when he said “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
42. The five judges had ignored rules and procedures and the requirement to get the approval of the (Acting) Lord President, as well as wait for the findings by Mr Justice Ajaib Singh on the same matter. Instead they cancelled courts sittings in Kota Bahru which were scheduled for the judges, and held a sitting of the Supreme Court in Kuala Lumpur to hear an application by Tun Salleh Abbas for prohibition proceedings to determine his position.
43. The Supreme Court of five judges with Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman presiding heard an ex parte oral application by Tun Salleh’s lawyer, retired for a few minutes, returned and unanimously made an order for stay restraining the Tribunal from submitting any recommendations, report or advice respecting the enquiry to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong until further order.
44. Subsequently the Acting Lord President, set up a Supreme Court of five judges which negated the decision of the Wan Suleiman Court.
45. I would like to repeat that despite public criticisms made against me by Tun Salleh, I did not take any action against him. I only did so after he insulted the Agong and the Agong requested me to have him removed. Of course some would still say I influenced the Agong. But throughout my 22 years I had never involved the rulers in politics or my personal problems. The records are there for all to see.
46. I was very concerned over the forcible removal of Tun Salleh. And so I tried to get Tun Salleh to resign on his own so as to avoid a scandal. He agreed at first but he withdrew the following day.
47. I then went about getting the Tribunal approved and set up. Naturally I had to consult the Attorney-General and others who were familiar with judges. Once the Tribunal was set up my involvement ended.
48. When Tun Salleh and the other judges had their services terminated, they should not be paid their pensions. But following appeals by Attorney-General I agreed that they should be paid their full pensions. They therefore did not suffer any financial loss and their pensions were computed from the time they left.
49. These are the facts relating to the dismissal of Tun Salleh. It was he and his fellow judges who brought disrepute to the judiciary.
50. I write this to record things as they happened. I do not expect my detractors to stop saying that I destroyed the judiciary. They are my prosecutors and they are also my judges. To them I will always be the Idi Amin of Malaysia as claimed in Tun Salleh’s book “May Day for Justice”. Sadly many who so readily condemn me were judges.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
score points...
1st june 2008
from: www.nst.com.my
Azalina: Mokhzani should quit SIC
Azalina said in a statement she was surprised at and disappointed with Mokhzani's stand to continue as SIC chairman when Ismail Sabri had called for his resignation, citing the post as a government appointment.
"Mokhzani should know that SIC is a government entity and he should resign in the interest of the sport," said Azalina, who is also an Umno supreme council member.
"His continued presence is going to hamper the sport because the government's support will have to be reviewed."
Mokhzani, who on May 21 quit Umno, as his father and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had done, had said in response to Ismail Sabri's call that he would continue to hold the post as he had not received a directive from either Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad or the Finance Ministry to resign.
SIC is a subsidiary of Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad, which is controlled by the government through Khazanah Holdings.
Azalina said Mokhzani had been disrespectful when he said that if Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi wanted him to resign, he (Abdullah) could do so by penning in the date on his undated resignation letter which he had signed when he was appointed to the post in 2003.
"Mokhzani should be a gentleman with principles and resign. His action now is certainly disrespectful. SIC does not belong to him and since he is no longer with the government that appointed him, he should just leave with dignity," said Azalina. -- Bernama
31st may 2008
from: www.nst.com.my
Mokhzani told to step down as SIC chairman
PUTRAJAYA: Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Ismail Sabri Yaakob has asked Datuk Mokhzani Mahathir to resign as Sepang International Circuit (SIC) chairman, citing the post as a government appointment.
"The post belongs to the government. As he (Mokhzani) has left Umno, in principle, he has to relinquish the position," said Ismail Sabri, citing SIC as a subsidiary of Malaysia Airport Holdings Berhad, which is controlled by the government through Khazanah Holdings.
Following the move by his father and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Mokhzani resigned from Umno on May 21.
Ismail Sabri yesterday boycotted the launching ceremony of the Malaysian International Super GT held at the ministry. By coincidence, he chaired a post-cabinet meeting of his ministry in the same building.
Asked why he did not attend the ceremony, he said, "In principle when he (Mokhzani) left Umno because he no longer had faith in the prime minister's (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) leadership, he is also not confident of me as a minister appointed by the prime minister.
"So why should I attend the ceremony? It's not that I do not like motoring sports, but as a cabinet member, it was not proper," said Ismail Sabri.
In his response, Mokhzani who was the former Umno Youth secretary said he would not step down as there was no directive from MAHB or the Finance Ministry.
He said Ismail Sabri should refer the matter to MAHB or the Finance Ministry.
"There is no directive for me to step down. As such, I will continue to carry out my duties as SIC chairman," said Mokhzani when contacted.
He said if the prime minister wanted him to resign, he (Abdullah) could do so by marking the date on his undated resignation letter which he had signed when he was appointed to the post in 2003. -- Bernama
my thoughts:
ridicolous!
imagine that. A minister boycotting the launch of an international event that would promote and benefit the country. what does he gain by boycotting the event? score extra points with his boss? couldnt he see pass the politics? as a rakyat, i am totally disgusted! and i am sure many more share this feeling. as a minister, he should be intelligent enough to know the difference. politics has no business in sports.
with all due respect to Dato Ismail Sabri, his line of thinking could cause embarassment to the government. i am no longer an UMNO member. maybe someone in UMNO should demand the government to show proof that the chairmen, CEOs and senior management of all GLCs are UMNO members. or the very least fully support UMNO. otherwise, his call for Dato Mokhzani to step down is actually a punishment. and simultaneously aimed to 'hit' Tun M. nothing more, nothing less. and nothing to do with Dato Mokhzani's capability to chair SIC. the rakyat would see it as the action of a vindictive government. imagine the points you are going to score with the rakyat.
plus, i am flabbergasted that a minister could really say this - "His continued presence is going to hamper the sport because the government's support will have to be reviewed." this is a 'threat'. no two way about it. all this while, the government has been singing praises on the success of SIC. promoting malaysia to the world. bringing in tourists. etc etc. and yet, now willing to jeopardise this success. just because the Chairman is no longer an UMNO member?! what a load of cr*p! is this how this government thinks and acts?
to be fair, these may be comments from over eager 'employees' trying to score points with their Boss. so may not actually be the stand of the government. what say you, Boss - any points scored?!
from: www.nst.com.my
Azalina: Mokhzani should quit SIC
KUALA LUMPUR: Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said yesterday joined Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Ismail Sabri Yaakob in calling for Datuk Mokhzani Mahathir's resignation as chairman of Sepang International Circuit (SIC).
"Mokhzani should know that SIC is a government entity and he should resign in the interest of the sport," said Azalina, who is also an Umno supreme council member.
"His continued presence is going to hamper the sport because the government's support will have to be reviewed."
Mokhzani, who on May 21 quit Umno, as his father and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had done, had said in response to Ismail Sabri's call that he would continue to hold the post as he had not received a directive from either Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad or the Finance Ministry to resign.
Azalina said Mokhzani had been disrespectful when he said that if Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi wanted him to resign, he (Abdullah) could do so by penning in the date on his undated resignation letter which he had signed when he was appointed to the post in 2003.
"Mokhzani should be a gentleman with principles and resign. His action now is certainly disrespectful. SIC does not belong to him and since he is no longer with the government that appointed him, he should just leave with dignity," said Azalina. -- Bernama
31st may 2008
from: www.nst.com.my
Mokhzani told to step down as SIC chairman
PUTRAJAYA: Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Ismail Sabri Yaakob has asked Datuk Mokhzani Mahathir to resign as Sepang International Circuit (SIC) chairman, citing the post as a government appointment.
Following the move by his father and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Mokhzani resigned from Umno on May 21.
Ismail Sabri yesterday boycotted the launching ceremony of the Malaysian International Super GT held at the ministry. By coincidence, he chaired a post-cabinet meeting of his ministry in the same building.
Asked why he did not attend the ceremony, he said, "In principle when he (Mokhzani) left Umno because he no longer had faith in the prime minister's (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) leadership, he is also not confident of me as a minister appointed by the prime minister.
In his response, Mokhzani who was the former Umno Youth secretary said he would not step down as there was no directive from MAHB or the Finance Ministry.
He said Ismail Sabri should refer the matter to MAHB or the Finance Ministry.
"There is no directive for me to step down. As such, I will continue to carry out my duties as SIC chairman," said Mokhzani when contacted.
He said if the prime minister wanted him to resign, he (Abdullah) could do so by marking the date on his undated resignation letter which he had signed when he was appointed to the post in 2003. -- Bernama
my thoughts:
ridicolous!
imagine that. A minister boycotting the launch of an international event that would promote and benefit the country. what does he gain by boycotting the event? score extra points with his boss? couldnt he see pass the politics? as a rakyat, i am totally disgusted! and i am sure many more share this feeling. as a minister, he should be intelligent enough to know the difference. politics has no business in sports.
with all due respect to Dato Ismail Sabri, his line of thinking could cause embarassment to the government. i am no longer an UMNO member. maybe someone in UMNO should demand the government to show proof that the chairmen, CEOs and senior management of all GLCs are UMNO members. or the very least fully support UMNO. otherwise, his call for Dato Mokhzani to step down is actually a punishment. and simultaneously aimed to 'hit' Tun M. nothing more, nothing less. and nothing to do with Dato Mokhzani's capability to chair SIC. the rakyat would see it as the action of a vindictive government. imagine the points you are going to score with the rakyat.
plus, i am flabbergasted that a minister could really say this - "His continued presence is going to hamper the sport because the government's support will have to be reviewed." this is a 'threat'. no two way about it. all this while, the government has been singing praises on the success of SIC. promoting malaysia to the world. bringing in tourists. etc etc. and yet, now willing to jeopardise this success. just because the Chairman is no longer an UMNO member?! what a load of cr*p! is this how this government thinks and acts?
to be fair, these may be comments from over eager 'employees' trying to score points with their Boss. so may not actually be the stand of the government. what say you, Boss - any points scored?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)