dunno why, but totally feel unease after reading chedet'comment on tun salleh abbas case..
i do respect and appreciate Tun but sorry Tun, for this time we are sharing different views, i stand to disagree with ur one side explanations..but quoting from Voltaire i'll sure will do the same to u..
Voltaire once said "I dissapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
i quoted comments from one of ur blog's commentor, i stand to agree with him this time:
Loh said...
This is a classic example of rule by law rather than rule of law.The words ‘let us mentally disturbed to the extent’ say only that the accusations could bring such harms to the person concerned, bordering on the inability to functions orderly and properly. The intention was to say that the accusations were harmful, and they should not be repeated. It is not a letter to inform the King that they are at the stage of inability to serve, as to be interpreted as admission of inability. TDM has conveniently taken advantage of the wording in the constitution to equate it with the content of the letter as admission of failure to serve, and TDM seized the opportunity to have Tun Salleh removed. Yes TDM only needed to get the tribunal convened, and the Tribunal can finish the job of removing Tun Salleh for him.
TDM said that the King was angry with Tun Salleh, and wanted him removed. Are we to believe that TDM God-worshipped the King and his wishes were TDM’s command? If that were true, TDM would not have moved against the rulers, and changed the constitution to make the Sultans liable for prosecution on personal conducts. If the King’s anger did not meet with TDM’s secret desire to have Tun Salleh removed, he could have appealed to the King to forgive Tun Salleh for whatever mistakes that Tun Salleh had committed. The King would have certainly accepted the suggestion of the PM. TDM could have advised Tun Salleh to apologize to the king for writing the letter which the King considered to be offensive.
The constitution had the provision to remove judges to prevent injustices that might be committed by judges, in their official capacity. There are not to be removed for personal actions which have no relation to his official functions, such as writing a letter that incurred the displeasure of the King. In fact the King might have said to TDM in jest that he wanted Tun Salleh removed, so that TDM could inform Tun Salleh to make the required amend. But TDM jumped on the opportunity presented by the King to have TDM removed.
Senior government officers might be provided with official cars for their official use. On the way to his office, the officer might take a detour to drop his children at school. That happens for sure and the officer can be charged for corruption if it is so intended. Anwar Ibrahim was charged for corruption and jailed for six years just because he directed investigations on accusation against him. As the DPM of the country, it is in the interest of the government stability that he should do what he did. But according to the court Anwar was said to have acted beyond his authority. Tun Salleh suffered the same fate because a trifling matter was classified as a most serious crime that he had to be dismissed so that law could be upheld. If that was the standard of rule of law, there would not be any minister or government officers left in TDM’s administration.
RPK said in his MalaysiaToday about the letter by Tun Salleh complaining about the noise of construction in the Palace. I thought it was a joke. It is indeed a joke that a letter of complaint could get a Lord President sacked. It gives the impression that the King of Malaysia in 1988 was as fearful as Emperor Yung Zhen of the Ching Dynasty where words can cause the head of the writer. Some 250 years later in a country of constitutional monarchy, letter can cause the career of the head of one of the three branches of government. TDM wants us to believe that he was hapless that he had to act on the wishes of the King, as though if the King had wanted him to prostrate, he could not stand. How convincing.
Loh said...
“I agree with you Tun that the letter by Tun Salleh to YDPA was a disrepect to YDPA, and in that two letters, Tun Salleh himself admitted that he `was mentally disturbed' and `could not discharged his functions properly.' Since Tun Salleh decided not to defend himself over those admission, he deprived himself the oppurtunity to explain what those statements means. Anyway, Tun Salleh was duly removed acccrding to law, and was given his pension out of `mercy'. Now, an additional ex gratia payment for `whose mistake'?
-Assoc Prod Dr Abdul Rani Bin KamarudinLaw Faculty IIUM-”
So, the conclusion is a disrespect to YDPA is a crime where the perpetrator had to be punished to the end. The person cannot be given a chance to contrite, and the law had to be upheld. There is a pardon board to appeal to the King to show mercy for far more serious matter resulting in capital punishment. Yet lawyer believes that law precedes all consideration, and the accused should be found guilty and punished, and then appeal for pardon could be arranged.The ACA had held files on 18 sharks, but they are yet no prosecution. Is corruption a more acceptable crime, than words not intentionally meant for insults, but felt by recipient as a disrespect? The disrespect could not have cause hurts that make the recipient not able to function in his official capacity, but corruptions hurt many in different ways. Did the government headed by TDM know not what harms the nation more. TDM must have been in glee having the excuse to remove Tun Salleh. -finish quoting-
i doubt on many reasons, but enough to say judiciary must be maintained to be independent, impartial and unbiased..for tun's fan, specially fiance dearie, don't take it to heart coz it's mere an amateur heart belief opinion,ahaks :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment