Show Cause Letter against Hamid Sultan Damaging for Judiciary’s Image

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is deeply concerned with the reports that Court of Appeal judge, Hamid Sultan Abu Backer was issued a show-cause letter by the Judicial Ethics Committee for the allegation of judicial interference and his recent judgment on the Federal Constitution.

Continue reading “Show Cause Letter against Hamid Sultan Damaging for Judiciary’s Image”


Press statement by Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser 4 Jan 2017

Mahathir has tried in vain to wriggle out of the responsibility for Operation Lalang. Now he is attempting to put the blame for the sacking of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and three other Supreme Court judges on the Agung. As I have pointed out often enough, these two outrages against Malaysian democracy in 1987 and 1988 respectively are inextricably linked. I am surprised that the opportunist politicians and crypto-Mahathiristas in Pakatan Harapan and the lawyers who were outraged in 1988 have so quickly forgotten recent Malaysian history or have lost their tongues. Let me remind them of Lord Denning’s words:

“Silence is not an option when things are ill done.”

We know that 1987 was a time during Dr Mahathir’s term when he was faced with the biggest threat to his rule, with Team B under Tengku Razaleigh challenging the results of the UMNO elections. A Supreme Court decision in Team B’s favour would have meant the end of Mahathir’s grasp on power.

Thus, in the run up to Operation Lalang and before the assault on the judiciary resulting in the sacking of the Lord President and several other Supreme Court judges, the ruling party catalysed a tense situation in the country by creating “sensitive” issues involving the sending of non-Mandarin qualified administrators to the Chinese schools, the conversion of Muslims to Christianity and even threatening to organize a 500,000-people UMNO rally in the capital. All the ensuing tension was to justify unleashing ‘Operation Lalang’ to deal with the so-called “threat to national security”.

The Tunku, at the time in his twilight years had more perception and integrity than Mahathir in his prime and certainly enough political nous to see how Operation Lalang was orchestrated:

“UMNO was facing a break-up. The Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s hold on the party appeared critical when election rigging was alleged to have given him a very narrow victory over Tengku Razaleigh. The case alleging irregularities brought by UMNO members was pending in court. If the judgement went against him he would have no choice but to step down. So, he had to find a way out of his predicament. A national crisis had to be created to bring UMNO together as a united force to fight a common enemy – and the imaginary enemy in this case was the Chinese community.” ( K.Das/ SUARAM: ‘The White paper on the October Affair and the Why? Papers’, SUARAM Petaling Jaya 1989: 10)

In the Foreword to ‘May Day for Justice’ written by Tun Salleh & K. Das after the sacking of the Lord President, the Tunku further wrote:

“I do not know how any honourable government can stay in office after this book has been published. It constitutes a denunciation which cannot be answered without confessing to the most dishonourable conduct in public life…it struck a terrible blow, not only to the independence of the Malaysian Judiciary – and ruined the careers of at least three honourable men – but to national pride itself.”

In another Foreword, the Hon Justice Michael Kirby CMG Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) had this to say:

“Singled out for particular mention was the concern of the ICJ about the campaign of attacks on the judiciary by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the inducements made to the Lord President to resign his office quietly, the apparently biased constitution of the tribunal set up to enquire into his removal, the inclusion in the tribunal, as its chairman, of a judge who succeeded to the Lord President’s office, the unprecedented action of that judge in securing the removal and suspension of Supreme Court judges who provided a stay to allow the constitutionality of the tribunal to be tested in the Malaysian Supreme Court, and the “unpersuasive” report of the tribunal following which the Lord President was removed.”

The highly respected former Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Bin Hashim had this to say on the sordid affair and he pointed his finger squarely at PM Mahathir:

“The disgrace brought to Malaysia by the Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in dismissing the Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas, and two senior Supreme Court judges will long hang round his neck like an albatross. What the PM did astounded the nation and the appalling news was swiftly spread to all four corners of the globe…Tun Salleh has since revealed all the facts leading to, and regarding the so-called inquiry into his alleged misbehaviour. Facts which because of the Prime Minister’s total control of the mass media he was able at the time to keep from public knowledge and which were also kept out of the knowledge of the two foreign members of the Tribunal who came from Sri Lanka and Singapore.” (K. Das, ‘Questionable Conduct over that May day Caper’, 1990)

The Malaysian Bar Council at the time also did not mince their words in a statement:

“From the Prime Minister’s attacks on the Judiciary, it appears that he seriously misconceives the doctrine of the separation of powers…It is not for the Executive to tell the judges how to construe the laws.”

In 1990, when Lim Kit Siang was opposing Mahathir, he had alleged:

“The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General had refused to throw light on this shocking discrepancy, which raised doubts as to whether the Prime Minister ever had an audience with the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong on 1 May 1988…Grave doubts and mystery surround the judicial crisis of 1988…This clearly shows the parentage and background of the book ‘Judicial Misconduct’ – that it is not an independent assessment but an apologia for the Government assault on the Malaysian Judiciary.” (K. Das, ‘Questionable Conduct over that May Day Caper’, 1990)

There were many other eminent jurists from around the world who were aghast at this flagrant assault on one of the vital institutions of any democracy: Geoffrey Robertson QC; Hugo Young; P.N. Bhagwati, Former Chief Justice of India; Prof. Andrew Harding writing for the Commonwealth Judicial Journal; Bernard Levin of The Times, London; Professor F.A. Trinidade of The Law Quarterly Review; Nihal Jayawickkarama of the University of Hong Kong. All of them were quite clear in pointing their fingers at the Prime Minister of the day for the sacking of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas – Dr Mahathir.

In his book ‘May Day For Justice’, Tun Salleh Abas’ denunciation of then Prime Minister Mahathir begins on the first page itself:

“When all else is forgotten, this question alone may remain to haunt us: Did I lie when I said the Prime Minister of Malaysia accused me of being biased in cases involving the political party, UMNO? Did I invent this story that the prime Minister raised the matter when he gave me the reasons why I was found unsuitable to remain Lord President of the Supreme Court of Malaysia and should therefore step down? That because of my speeches about UMNO I was biased as a judge?

“I have no doubt – and few would now disagree – that it was the UMNO saga that led to my destruction as a judge.”

I urge those who have forgotten or were too young to know the truth about Mahathir’s assault on the Malaysian Judiciary to read the two books by Tun Salleh Abas and K. Das. Try as he may, Mahathir will never succeed in changing Malaysian history as long as there are still good men and women ready to defend the truth, justice, democracy and human rights…

Sodomy II: The Crumbling Credibility of the Malaysian Judiciary Reaffirmed!

Press Statement: 16 May 2011

Sodomy II: The Crumbling Credibility of the Malaysian Judiciary Reaffirmed!

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is most concerned with the outcome of the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning, where trial judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, has found a prima facie case against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and has ordered him to enter his defence.

Anwar is charged with sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at the Desa Damansara condominium on June 26, 2008. If found guilty under section 377B of the Penal Code, Anwar could face a jail term of not less than five years and a maximum of 20 years.

SUARAM has expressed concern during the trial with the apparent bias of the court proceedings; which was demonstrated time and again when Anwar’s defence team was denied access to medical reports and other documents, a defendant’s fundamental right to due process.

This led to the ridiculous scenario of doctors, who were being cross-examined by defence lawyers, but who were unable to refer to notes that they had made during the medical examination of Saiful Bukhari, since access to the notes would also have to be granted to the defence.

SUARAM also disagrees with the judge’s acceptance of the testimony of the three doctors; as it is clear that there are clear contradictions in their testimonies; to be the basis that there was indeed penetration, which requires the defence to call its case. But then again the trial judge himself had shown so much inconsistency by reversing his decision, from initially rejecting to accepting the DNA samples obtained from the lockup room where Anwar was detained.

In delivering his decision, the trial judge was reported to have commented on the credibility and truthfulness of the main witness in the case, Saiful Bukhari Azlan. SUARAM is concerned with the judge’s comments as he appears to have prejudged the case before the defence has presented its case. It is laughable that the trial judge would go out of his way to say that Saiful Bukhari was a “credible and truthful witness” when the said witness has given contradictory statements and was even romantically involved with one of the prosecutors in the case.

It is important to note that that the very basis of Anwar’s defence is that there is a political conspiracy to victimise him and as such, illogical and unlikely claims, loopholes in stories and inconsistencies in the testimonies cannot be disregarded and must be given due consideration. SUARAM feels that the judge, in establishing that there is prima facie, had not taken account of these factors.

This morning’s outcome has reconfirmed what SUARAM has repeatedly warned all along; that the courts have become mere puppets to the government of the day, succumbing to political pressures and making biased political decisions instead of legal decisions based on justice and fair play. The credibility of the Malaysian judiciary is further crumbling, as the ruling powers bend over backwards to hold on to their might and strengthen their grip on power.

Released by,

Hasbeemasputra Abu Bakar