HAD the problem during first perplexing to interpret it all since the remarks came from someone of the tall standing. It was like "Can we believe this?" or "Did he essentially contend this?"
It's been three days as good as given there is no rejection or clarification, the news portal contingency have quoted him as good as another authorised thoughts correctly.
In the nutshell, to Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, the former arch justice, almost everything which is wrong with our law is all due to Tun Mahathir Mohamad -- arch tyrant, he the all-intimidating politician, the budding minister who whipped everybody into submission.
In his address during the weekend to honour the birthday of our first PM Tunku Abdul Rahman, amongst alternative things, Dzaiddin pronounced Mahathir had quiet the law for good over dual decades.
He spoke about the amendments in 1988 as good as 1989 pertaining to judicial review, the amendment to Article 121 of the sovereign Constitution, which effectively clipped the judiciary's wings.
Thus the courts have turn subservient to politicians in the senior manager arm of the government, pronounced Dzaiddin. A sweeping statement though the portal's inform did not contend if Dzaiddin had referred to specific cases to behind his claim.
Also mentioned by Dzaiddin was the sacking of then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas due "to clashes in in between the dual over the roles of the dual arms of the government".
At the same event Bar Council boss Lim Chee Wee had his take as well upon Salleh: "We contingency never allow the PM to pouch judges.....Salleh was sacked since he made the judicial attestation unlucky to the supe! rvision of the day."
What set me thinking was primarily this: If Dzaiddin was organisation in his idea which Mahathir had messed up with the law given 1988/89, because did he stay upon as the judge? Can the decider who's quiet be expected to do what is compulsory of him though fright or favour?
I'm reminded of the late lawyer Raja Aziz Addruce who refused to appear in court when Tun Hamid Omar was the LP. It doesn't make the difference if we agree or disagree with him though during slightest Raja Aziz kept his element intact.
In the box of Dzaiddin, not usually did he stay upon as the decider though additionally supposed the appointment as CJ in Dec 2000 as good as served until his early retirement in March 2003. It was an appointment by the Agong though behaving upon the recommendation of the PM. Was it not Mahathir who was the PM during which time?
Was the problem with Salleh not the result of him incurring the exasperation of the late Agong? The decision to form the tribunal to hear the box against him was taken usually after Salleh had changed his thoughts about resigning.
I have no disbelief which there was no adore lost in in between Mahathir as good as Salleh though the actuality stays which the brawl proposed when the Agong didn't wish Salleh around.
The alternative actuality is which Mahathir left office! about 8 1/2 years ago. Still not sufficient time for the law to get behind into shape?
But what if those who led the law after Dzaiddin, as good as the present too, don't agree with his views? Would not which be an insult, an affront to their grace as good as integrity? Still fearful of the Mahathir who left bureau in late 2003, or any alternative supervision politician?
Even if Mahathir was such the male would you, by your own admission, offer underneath such the person when there were alternative options available?
Would you, again by your own indirect admission, allow yourself to be put down, to be resigned as good as to be intimidated by this man, usually to speak out years later?
I know we wouldn't. Malu.
It's been three days as good as given there is no rejection or clarification, the news portal contingency have quoted him as good as another authorised thoughts correctly.
In the nutshell, to Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, the former arch justice, almost everything which is wrong with our law is all due to Tun Mahathir Mohamad -- arch tyrant, he the all-intimidating politician, the budding minister who whipped everybody into submission.
In his address during the weekend to honour the birthday of our first PM Tunku Abdul Rahman, amongst alternative things, Dzaiddin pronounced Mahathir had quiet the law for good over dual decades.
He spoke about the amendments in 1988 as good as 1989 pertaining to judicial review, the amendment to Article 121 of the sovereign Constitution, which effectively clipped the judiciary's wings.
Thus the courts have turn subservient to politicians in the senior manager arm of the government, pronounced Dzaiddin. A sweeping statement though the portal's inform did not contend if Dzaiddin had referred to specific cases to behind his claim.
Also mentioned by Dzaiddin was the sacking of then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas due "to clashes in in between the dual over the roles of the dual arms of the government".
At the same event Bar Council boss Lim Chee Wee had his take as well upon Salleh: "We contingency never allow the PM to pouch judges.....Salleh was sacked since he made the judicial attestation unlucky to the supe! rvision of the day."
What set me thinking was primarily this: If Dzaiddin was organisation in his idea which Mahathir had messed up with the law given 1988/89, because did he stay upon as the judge? Can the decider who's quiet be expected to do what is compulsory of him though fright or favour?
I'm reminded of the late lawyer Raja Aziz Addruce who refused to appear in court when Tun Hamid Omar was the LP. It doesn't make the difference if we agree or disagree with him though during slightest Raja Aziz kept his element intact.
In the box of Dzaiddin, not usually did he stay upon as the decider though additionally supposed the appointment as CJ in Dec 2000 as good as served until his early retirement in March 2003. It was an appointment by the Agong though behaving upon the recommendation of the PM. Was it not Mahathir who was the PM during which time?
Was the problem with Salleh not the result of him incurring the exasperation of the late Agong? The decision to form the tribunal to hear the box against him was taken usually after Salleh had changed his thoughts about resigning.
I have no disbelief which there was no adore lost in in between Mahathir as good as Salleh though the actuality stays which the brawl proposed when the Agong didn't wish Salleh around.
The alternative actuality is which Mahathir left office! about 8 1/2 years ago. Still not sufficient time for the law to get behind into shape?
But what if those who led the law after Dzaiddin, as good as the present too, don't agree with his views? Would not which be an insult, an affront to their grace as good as integrity? Still fearful of the Mahathir who left bureau in late 2003, or any alternative supervision politician?
Even if Mahathir was such the male would you, by your own admission, offer underneath such the person when there were alternative options available?
Would you, again by your own indirect admission, allow yourself to be put down, to be resigned as good as to be intimidated by this man, usually to speak out years later?
I know we wouldn't. Malu.
Posted byAziz
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment