A Doctor in The House: A Memoir of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (88 page)

By tradition, the Prime Minister sees the Agong every Wednesday morning before chairing the Cabinet meeting. This was mostly a matter of courtesy, but occasionally the Agong would give his opinion of the Cabinet papers or bring up matters which he felt the Prime Minister needed to know. At one such meeting in early 1988, the Agong showed me a letter that Tun Salleh had written to him, complaining about the noise that was being made in the course of repairing the Agong’s private residence near Tun Salleh’s own house. The Agong felt insulted—it was not in keeping with Malay custom to write a letter of complaint to a Ruler, much less the King. A very senior officer of the Government should seek an audience and politely mention the matter. But Tun Salleh had not only written the letter, he had also forwarded copies to all the other Rulers, a move the Agong regarded as an attempt to pressure and embarrass him.

He then insisted that I remove Tun Salleh as Lord President, a decision he noted in the margin of Tun Salleh’s letter.

Although strictly speaking it was the Agong who appointed the Lord President and, according to the Interpretations Act he should have the right to dismiss his appointee, the Cabinet on the advice of the Attorney-General believed that the provisions of the Constitution on the removal of the Lord President and judges could not be ignored. We had therefore to set up a tribunal to hear the case against Tun Salleh. This was tricky as we had to take into consideration the sensitivities of the case. Besides, the Interpretations Act did not apply to the Constitution, according to legal authorities.

The Agong’s annoyance only increased when Tun Salleh wrote a second letter, this time complaining about government interference with the Judiciary. Again, he sent copies to the other Rulers. In this second letter he complained that the Prime Minister had made:

“…
. various comments and accusations … against the Judiciary, not only outside but within Parliament. All of us (the judges) are patient and do not like to make the accusation publicly because such action is not compatible with our action as judges under the Constitution. Furthermore such action will not be in keeping with Malay tradition and custom …. As such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
 

He continued,

“
Other than that, accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and caused us mental anguish to the extent that we are unable to discharge our functions in an orderly and proper fashion. We all feel ashamed because we are not able to avoid being looked (down) upon by those who do not understand our position under the Constitution.”
 

What the tribunal would decide would be anybody’s guess. Should it favour Tun Salleh we would have an embarrassment on our hands. The Agong would not be pleased. But if his dismissal was made necessary by the tribunal’s finding that he had not behaved properly as a senior member of the Judiciary, the onus would be on the Government to take the necessary action. That would not look good either.

I thought it would be best if the case were to be settled without resorting to a tribunal. The publicity regarding the removal of the highest judge in the country would not be good for the Judiciary or the Government. It would certainly not be good for me. So I decided that I would try and persuade Tun Salleh to resign on his own.

On 27 May 1988 at a meeting in my office, I asked Tun Salleh to consider resigning instead of being removed from his position. I told him of the Agong’s request and his agreement to the setting up of a tribunal. Tun Salleh agreed and offered his resignation in a letter dated the following day. In it, he wrote: “To avoid embarrassment all round I have considered the matter and I have decided that it is better in the national interest for me to retire immediately after taking all leave due to me, that is 96 days and the leave is to commence from today.” The tone of his letter did not reflect any anger and I heaved a sigh of relief. But before the day had passed, Tun Salleh withdrew his resignation and indicated that he would rather face the tribunal and clear this name.

Tun Salleh demanded that the tribunal be made up of his peers. We obviously could not find enough former Lord Presidents, but those chosen were either former senior judges or those still sitting on the bench. Tun Hamid Omar, who by then was the Acting Lord President, chaired the tribunal. The other members were former judge Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zain; former judge and Speaker of the Lower House Tan Sri Mohamed Zahir Ismail, and the Chief Justice of Borneo Tan Sri Lee Hun Hoe. To ensure Tun Salleh had a fair hearing, two foreign judges were included: a Sri Lankan named K.A.P. Ranasinghe and the highly-regarded judge of the High Court of Singapore, T.S. Sinnathuray.

In the event, Tun Salleh refused to appear before the tribunal and gave two reasons for his objection. First, he alleged that the tribunal was not properly constituted. Second, he claimed that the Queen’s Counsel he had engaged to represent him was barred from participation. The tribunal therefore had no choice but to listen only to the Attorney-General’s presentation and use it to make its decision. Even as the tribunal was sitting, Tun Salleh tried to stop the proceedings through an ex-parte motion for an order of prohibition against the tribunal on constitutional grounds, to prevent it from deliberating and making recommendations to the King.

As Tun Salleh’s attempt to stop the proceedings of the tribunal through the ex-parte motion was not heard by then, the tribunal sat and deliberated over the evidence presented to it.

The tribunal heard the case on 29 June and completed its proceedings the next day. As Judge Datuk Ajaib Singh postponed hearing the ex-parte motion to 4 July
—
because the Attorney-General could not be present—Tun Salleh applied for a temporary stay order at the Supreme Court to prevent the tribunal’s report from being submitted to the King. Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh, Supreme Court Judge, immediately convened and led a five-judge bench to hear the case. The five were Datuk George Seah, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Wan Mohamad Salleh and Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman. It was quite clear they had a predetermined idea and came together to approve the stay order. The acting Lord President’s approval was not sought as was required, and the judges arbitrarily postponed the other cases they were due to hear.

As judges, the five-men bench ought to have used proper legal channels to refute or reject what the Government had done. They could have registered their protests as individuals, or they could have become appellants and had other judges listen to their case.

Instead, they chose a way which seemed like they wanted to use their position to frustrate the work of a legally constituted tribunal.

On the same day this group came together, Ajaib Singh heard the Attorney-General’s presentation, with documents showing the King’s views regarding the suspension of Tun Salleh. Ajaib Singh then dismissed Tun Salleh’s application for prohibition.

It was not the first letter (regarding the noise caused by repairing the Agong’s house) but Tun Salleh’s second letter of complaint
—
this time against me
—
that was entered as evidence in the Attorney-General’s presentation to the tribunal. Perhaps there was some sensitivity about the first letter which prompted the Attorney-General’s decision. In any case that was what he did. He also cited the two speeches by Tun Salleh about me and the Government as evidence of misbehaviour by the Lord President. I had never heard or complained about these speeches. As a result, the case for the removal of Tun Salleh appeared to be initiated because of his remarks against me. That in fact it was the Agong who instructed me to remove Tun Salleh because of the first letter complaining about the noise seemed to have been completely ignored.

I had never spoken or written about this line taken by the Attorney-General implicating me because, for a long time, I believed he had used the first letter with the Agong’s instruction when presenting his case to the tribunal. In the course of writing these memoirs and in my explanation to Matthias Chang, my former political secretary who was one of the lawyers who vilified me for what he believed I did, I suddenly realised why the lawyers and the judges were so much against me. They thought it was because of what Tun Salleh said against me that resulted in his dismissal.

I recently called the Attorney-General at the time, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, and asked him where was the first letter. He said it was with the Government. I can have no access to it now but I am prepared to swear on the Quran that it was the letter and the instruction from the Agong which caused action to be taken to remove Tun Salleh Abbas.

On 8 August, Tun Salleh was found guilty of misconduct and, following the tribunal’s recommendation to the King, was formally removed from office. A second tribunal was then set up to investigate allegations of misconduct by the five Supreme Court Judges. This tribunal was made up of Datuk Edgar Joseph Jr., as Chairman, M.D.H. Fernando from Sri Lanka, P. Coomaraswamy from Singapore, Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin and Tan Sri Lamin Mohd Yunus. The outcome was that Wan Suleiman and Seah were removed from office. Under normal circumstances they would all have lost their pensions, but upon appeal by the Attorney-General I approved their being paid full pensions, including the derivative pensions due to them.

Lawyers and the foreign Press regarded the removal of these judges as proof that I had undermined the independence of the Judiciary. However, the removals were done in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, and it was the tribunal that made the decision. Action taken against the Lord President was founded on the improper letters to the Agong and Tun Salleh’s speeches. Also crucial was the fact that it was the Agong who commanded that Tun Salleh be removed. However, none of this is believed.

In his book 
May Day for Justice
, Tun Salleh took pains to explain his belief that my audience with the Agong never took place: that I had lied to the Attorney-General, who in turn repeated that lie to the tribunal. He also pointed out that the date in my letter to the Agong, 1 May 1988, was a Sunday, and not a Wednesday, when the audience with the Agong had taken place. Perhaps the date was wrong. It often happens in the courts and elsewhere that an incorrect date is given to an event. But it is too simplistic to imagine that just because the wrong date is given, the event never took place. Besides, the letter may have been typed on a day before I met the Agong.

I could never have had the Agong become a witness to confirm the details of the meeting as this would not have been right. The Attorney-General had Tun Salleh’s letter of complaint with the Agong’s notation in the margin. But as has been pointed out, the first letter was not produced as evidence before the subsequent tribunal for reasons that are best known to the Attorney-General, and he is in a position to verify whether or not the letter existed.

Because I view certain actions by certain lawyers (particularly those involved in politics) with some animosity, people often assume that much of what I have done in public life that touched on legal issues has been motivated by a desire to get back at the legal community as a whole and cut them down to size. Many people, especially lawyers themselves, seem happy to encourage that idea. The trouble with their view is that it simply happens to be wrong. I have criticised doctors, even though I am one. My criticism of the Malays is well known. It does not mean I hate them. I always believe that when something is done which is wrong, someone needs to tell the person concerned.

Some incredulous readers will ask why, as an elected Prime Minister of this country, I was prepared to dismiss the Lord President, the highest judicial officer in the land, simply at the Agong’s behest and on his personal demand. I had after all been tough on the Rulers and I had taken actions which were not to their liking. I had publicly clashed with Their Royal Highnesses. I could have blankly refused the command of the Agong.

But I did not. I had taken the letter and showed it to the Cabinet and asked them what they thought of it. I cannot remember anyone advising me to ignore it or to appeal to the Agong to do anything else.

I asked the Attorney-General, and as far as I can remember he talked about the procedures as given in the Constitution. I write all this now not to shift the blame to someone else. The final decision and the responsibility for initiating action against Tun Salleh was mine.

To many modern Malaysians, the fact that a Prime Minister should accede in that way to the Agong’s demand may seem not just undesirable but also improbable. But that is the truth as to what happened. This account of how it happened is not offered to exculpate me, nor is it provided in an attempt to avoid responsibility and lay the blame upon others. It is related simply as an attempt to explain what really happened at the time.

I expect the members of the legal profession who had never been friendly towards me will find this story totally unbelievable. But that is their right. It does not alter the facts. Many see only what they wish to see. When what is placed before their eyes seems not to be in keeping with their preconceived ideas, their perception of things, the tendency is to reject it. For me that is simply human nature and it has to be accepted.

Labels carry much weight with the public, especially political labels. Once, when I was called a “Malay ultra”, everything that I did
—
however harmless
—
would be regarded as extreme. Later I was branded a legal vandal, an accusation that stuck and will likely stay with me for the rest of my life.

In Tun Salleh’s book, he refers to the case of Alfred Dreyfus, the Jewish officer in the French Army who was accused of being a spy and condemned to exile on Devil’s Island. It was Émile Zola, the great French writer, who fought for Dreyfus’s vindication, beginning with his famous newspaper article entitled 
J’accuse
. Because of Zola, Dreyfus was rehabilitated. If Tun Salleh thinks of himself as the unfortunate Dreyfus, he should be happy that there are so many Zolas among his brother lawyers. For the vilification against me I expect no Zola.