The parliamentary reply of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, yesterday on judicial reforms and the RM10.5 million ex gratia payment to six judges who were victims of the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis for two decades” has raised more questions.
Firstly, Nazri most irresponsibly tried to rewrite history about the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis for two decades” when he denied that the judges, particularly the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two supreme court judges the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah were “sacked” , saying that they were asked to “retire early”.
Nazri was flying in the face of facts of history in making such a claim, for there can be no dispute that Salleh Abas, Wan Suleiman and George Seah were sacked after the outcome of the two “kangaroo” judicial tribunals set up by the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad time, while the other three judges, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdolcadeer were victimised when they were suspended and virtually “sent to conventry” for the rest of their judicial service after their suspension was lifted.
Why did Nazri openly mislead Parliament yesterday in his dishonest and revisionist version of Malaysian judicial history?
Secondly, Nazri backtracked from the promise of judicial reform given by his predecessor Datuk Zaid Ibrahim when he responded to my speech the day earlier (see video) and categorically denied that there is any plan to amend the Malaysian Constitution to restore the original wording of Article 121(1) and the position of judicial power in the Merdeka Constitution.
One of the first pledges of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when he became Prime Minister five years ago was to uphold the doctrine of the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, which implicity includes the restoration of the original wording of Article 121(1) on the inherent power of the judiciary, which was arbitrarily usurped by the Executive in a 1988 Constitutional amendment using the Barisan Nasional’s brute two-thirds parliamentary majority.
Nazri’s predecessor, Zaid Ibrahim has publicly stated that the restoration of Article 121(1) was one of the judicial reforms in the pipeline, and the then Chief Justice, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohammad had publicly supported such an amendment, when he said that the government’s proposal to amend Article 121(1) “shows that an amendment made in anger as a reaction to a decision of the court could last (only) for one generation” and that just as “water tends to find its own level”, the country was finding its way back “to the original provision”.
Why has the government lost its way and will on judicial reforms on the amendment of Article 121(1) after Nazri replaced Zaid, who resigned on a point of principle in September in protest against the abuse of power and arbitrary use of the Internal Security Act to detain senior Sin Chew reporter, Tan Hoon Cheng, DAP MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin.
A clear and unmistakable message must be sent to Abdullah, that he would have failed in his promise to push through judicial reforms before he steps down as Prime Minister next March if there is no constitutional amendment to restore the original wording and position of judicial power in Article 121(1).
The Prime Minister should direct Nazri, as the Minister responsible for shepherding the necessary legislation through Palriament on judicial reforms, to consult with the Pakatan Rakyat MPs to reach a consensus on the necessary constitutional amendments to ensure far-reaching judicial reforms – not only on the appointment of a Judicial Appointment Commission but also to restore the original wording of Article 121(1).
I hate to be cynical here, but Nazri and judicial (or for that matter police) reform are like matter and anti-matter, and as clear as day and night, or black and white. Nazri speaking of reform is double speaking, half truth and lip service. Nazri was one of the folks to have given Malaysians a half baked Special Complaints Commission instead of IPCMC, and he has been the antagonist of judicial reform since the day when he and Zaid Ibrahim debated on the issue. He was the one who said he is not convinced to reform the judiciary. How can then Badawi expect a man who does not believe in reform to spearhead the very reform he seeks? The answer is obvious – Badawi seeks no such reform. Even if he does, it’s simply his flight of fantasy, just like everything he’s promised Malaysians since 2004.
Nazri will claim that the court is independent because of RPK’s release today – but this is the typical remedy of UMNO to assuage the mounting anger of Malaysians – give Malaysians a bit of ground – hopefully they will forget the bigger issue.
No. Malaysians must stand firm on this one. They must learn to cry out at the top of their lungs at this latest none-action. Nazri, Badawi and even Najib must be censured if they fail to push forward with the reforms. The reforms are not Badawi’s alone. It is a collective decision of the cabinet that includes his DPM. The movement for change must be reinforced. It must be bigger than the mission of Pakatan taking over BN.
One idiotic chauvanist makes a blunder by dismissing five high court judges in one single day has resulted in the people having to pay more than 10 million in ex-gratia payment as compensation! Why take it on the people of Malaysia for the mistake of one big IDIOT? If more of such idiots are churned out, Malaysians will go broke while the “victims” will become millionaires!!! Malaysia Boleh! Malaysia Memang Boleh! Malaysia Memang Boleh (MATI)!
I distinctly remember Nazri saying that there is nothing wrong with the Judiciary some time ago.
Forced into early retirement or sacked same difference now. Just doublespeak from Umno and loud mouth Nazri. After some twenty years they changed the story of the ex LP and ex judges from being sacked to retirement. Can you believe that?
Tell me who is not skeptical as well as cynical about reforms that AAB is talking of. Just bcos they are still judges who are impartial or unafraid doesnt mean the battered image of our courts have disappeared.
Of course there is nothing wrong with the Judiciary.
If he dare to say the actual fact, he would be out of sight long time ago.
Only a liar will be giving different version of the same fact.
Article 121(1) has been debated over and over, but Abdullah does seem to be bothered, nor to take note.
Check the facts. Look at the newspapers 20 years ago. They clearly used the word “SACKED” as the front page headline. Which part of the word that Nazri doesn’t understand? Perhaps he should check the facts before making a complete idiot of himself.
I wonder when shall we ever stop paying for the blunders made by this arrogant ex-PM who still maintained he did not have anything to do with the judicial crisis. Perhaps till the sun don’t shine no more…
Those were the dark days of Malaysia’s Judiciary.
Anyone who read/heard the news would have had no doubt that the judges were SACKED.
Maybe the pensions were given to avoid being taken to court for constructive dismissal.
http://malaysiawatch4.blogspot.com/2008/11/malaysiakini-and-dismissed-judgeswhat.html
I don’t believe Badawi promised Article 121(1) as part of his agenda in the final days..
Restoring Article 121(1) would bring out the crazies in droves led by the likes of Pasir Salak…
Anyway, I don’t believe Badawi even understand the need to restore Article 121(1). Najib on the other hand probably does BUT lack the moral fibre for it…
Sir, How do vent my point of view if I have been blocked for my posting constantly?
[admin – All your comments were caught by our SPAM filter. This is because of your website address points to an image on flicker.]
“Datuk George Seah were “sacked” , saying that they were asked to “retire early”.”
The difference is the difference between actual dismissal and constructive dismissal. There is no difference.