|
 The Bar Council has recently called for an impartial review of the 1988 judicial crisis. The call has received widespread support from civil societies, despite the lapse of 18 years since the events occurred, which indicates the traumatic and lasting effect those events have had on Malaysian society.
The Minister in charge of law indicated that a review might be considered if there are “new and important facts”. Tun Salleh Abas has responded with several. One of his revelations is that he was asked by the then prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir, to resign from his post as the Lord President, or else face dismissal.
Significantly, Tun Dr Mahathir now admits that he had indeed done so.
For the head of one branch of government (i.e. the Executive) to require or demand the resignation of the head of another branch of government (i.e. the Judiciary), is an obvious violation of the principle of separation of powers. It also amounts to an admission of executive interference in the judiciary. It mocks the rule of law, and strikes at the foundation of democracy. The serious implications contained in this admission must surely, in addition to the many other reasons that already exist, make a review of those events of 1988 imperative.
It is, quite simply, a question of seeking the truth. Are we not interested in the truth? Can we afford not to be? Is the Malaysian society not entitled to the truth?
When our current Prime Minister came into office, he had asked the people to always tell him the truth. He wanted the people to be frank with their views and their suggestions. The people, in this instance, are answering his call. We are saying that we need to seek the truth about these important matters. It is the Prime Minister’s turn to answer the people’s clamour for the truth.
A review cannot be denied by arguing that there must be “finality” in the case. The “finality argument” applies to a person seeking remedy. It does not, and cannot, apply to a society in pursuit of the truth. One cannot argue that, because we need finality in our legal or administrative processes, we should let the truth be buried, or history be packed with errors.
What had happened in 1988 has been consistently described, both domestically and internationally, as a judicial crisis. No one has sought to call it by any other name (such as “judicial reform”). This in itself is telling. This by itself cries out for a truthful re-examination.
This is a cry for justice. It is a cry to confront the truth.
Yeo Yang Poh
Chairman
Bar Council
28 September 2006 Related stories: Bar Council to decide next course of action Review 1988 judicial crisis, Bar Council urges Government
 |
News/Articles/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 023/2012: Talk on ISO 9001 | 2008 Quality Management System Certification
For the record, when the debate on the judicial crisis was in progress, Tun Salleh Abas's claim that he would be given a "plum job" if he agreed to go silently was met with a flat denial. No less than the then Attorney-General said that there was no such offer.
However, although Tun Salleh wrote in MAY DAY FOR JUSTICE that a third party was present when the offer was made, he did not name the third party in MAY DAY. Sir Peter Aldridge, a very senior New Zealand lawyer, named the third party in his book as Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolkader. Of course, the popular view is that Tan Sri Eusoffe committed suicide a few years later.
Today, despite the initial denials of the plum job offer, the truth is out. According to no less than our former Prime Minister, there is such an offer. However, he forget the actual details. That is understandable, given his advanced age.
This revelation must, in any event, constitute "a new and important fact" that warrants and justifies a review of the crisis so that we, as a young nation about to celebrate our 50th anniversary of Independence, can ascertain the truth and set ourselves free.
A review, if instituted, need never look for scapegoats. A review can give us a definitive account of what occurred so that all those who stood up courageously against all the odds can be honoured for their gallantry.
And once that definitive account has been given, we can reinstate the Rule of Law and the concept of Judicial Independence to where it was before the crisis. As a wit once said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.