©New
Straits Times (Letters Section) (Used by permission)
by Manjeet Singh Dhillon, Kuala Lumpur
IN doing what the government has done in relation to the Tun Salleh Abas issue
and in openly recognising the loss and grievances of the affected judges, the
government is saying that all that was done in the rather hasty, embarrassing
"show" to remove Salleh and the other affected judges was wrong.
To put it simply, what is being said in so many "diplomatic" words is that the entire exercise then was flawed and all that the unfortunate judges did were right and that they should never have been subjected to what occurred then.
Right? Right! The compensation and money payments? Surely that confirms the
admission and acknowledgement.
The expression "ex gratia" means nothing. It is a lawyer's way of saying "we
were wrong but cannot say that openly so we will hide behind this small
expression –– it actually means the same thing". I wish someone would openly
come out and say the whole thing in simple, clear words.
That may well explain why Salleh's, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin's and the late Tan
Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader's family have yet to make up their minds on the
compensation issue. After all, money matters little at times –– name, honour and
dignity matter far more. You can give Salleh all the money in the world but he
still remains a "sacked" judge. Money by itself cannot restore a man's good name
and it never removes a stigma.
In 2006, I wrote about the state and status of the affected
judges. I said then:
"But the affected judges? Yes, I have great empathy for them. They were good,
honest men who stood for what was right and then, unjustly, paid a price that
was grossly unfair and totally wrong. But the history of the world is replete
with such sacrifices –– where good, decent, honest, upstanding men pay with
their lives for standing up for what was right.
"But history also teaches us how we repay these men for their sacrifices. We
remember them and their deeds, we subscribe to their beliefs and we follow in
their footsteps so that all they 'died' for does not die with them. And we
embroider the legend of their exploits into the fabric and psyche of the nation.
And if at some appropriate time in history their good names can be restored,
then it should be done."
I am glad that the appropriate time has come but I am disappointed that their
good names have not been restored as it should be done.
I observed the 1988 judicial crisis, in turn as the secretary, vice–president
and then president of the Bar. The judiciary was decimated and the paths to
judicial decay were opened. The rest, culminating in the Lingam video scandal,
is now history.
The recent moves and attempts at bridging the divide that exists in the nation's
belief in its judiciary are welcome. However, the loosening of the 1988 judicial
straitjackets is at best, still ambivalent.
It is, however, strange that in all the speeches centring on the Salleh debacle,
the Bar's telling role and that of many others have been avoided. The
government's recent moves have clearly vindicated the Bar in all it did then.
Regrettably, the role of the Bar and of the council then has been accorded short
shrift. In the telling of the 1988 shenanigans, the players on both sides of the
divide should not be quickly forgotten. Who can forget the disappearing court
seal, the role played by Tun Hamid Omar and that of the then attorney–general?
They, and many others, were party to what happened and should be asked to
account –– at least until they claim the "superior orders" defence!
History shows, besides the affected judges, the only other person to be punished
was the then secretary of the Bar who was found guilty of contempt and fined
RM5,000 for questioning the conduct of Hamid for acting the way he did against
Salleh.
And that finding of contempt was resuscitated last year, some 16 years after the
event, and used as grounds to strike the 1988 Bar secretary off the rolls of the
Bar of a fellow Asean nation.
So if the affected judges have a grievance for what was done to them then and
their grievance continues even now, then so do others.
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim's handshakes and visits to the affected judges are thus in
the order of things welcome. Hence, this invitation that in keeping with the
recent walkabout by him to the houses of those affected by the 1988 crisis, he
may wish to make a slight detour and visit some of the others who were there
when the deeds were being perpetrated.
Surely, in the order of things as they are being played out now there are many
others who deserve, at the least, a handshake, and equally, others who need to
have their conduct reviewed.
Closure should never require either the sweeping of misconduct under the carpet
or the ignoring of those who were affected by the misconduct. Only when that
happens will there be accountability and transparency.