I want to know what was it that Tun Salleh Abas did that was deemed for the greater good of the country?
For writing two letters to the Yang Di Pertuang Agung on his displeasure on the perceived interference of the then Prime Minister? By doing that, we are to extrapolate that Tun Salleh is upholding the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary?
You mean judges are beyond reproach that their indiscretions and whatever wrongs they do cannot be criticised? And if they are criticised they shrink and cannot impart their duties to the best of their abilities? They sulked and sat in the corner for 20 years until Madam Ambiga rides into town?
You mean two letters can be allowed to undermine the credibility of the government?
Sometimes I think lawyers like Ambiga and likeminded persons like her relish in ‘correcting’ things like that which happened to Tun Salleh because of this self inflated notion, that really those who must have immunity from public scrutiny are lawyers themselves.
In this country judges are not elected representatives and in practice will not enjoy the same status as elected representatives. The latter can truly be seen as voice of the people. Whether judges or those who arrogate to themselves the custodianship of the voice of conscience of the people, do in fact enjoy that claim, will need to have that claim compared to the practicality of political interests.
Then indeed will the notion of for the greater good for the country be upheld.
I am not a lawyer, but I think the secrecy with which the bar council president and her partners established a panel of eminent persons to review the findings of two panels approved by the Yang Di Pertuan Agung, is very suspicious indeed. Why the need for secrecy? Was this panel of eminent persons( who established their eminence?) sanctioned by the government or the Agung?
No one knows when this panel was formed and who were empanelled. No one knows whether any witnesses were called and whether the person most affected by this kangaroo panel, Tun Mahathir was given a chance to have the right of reply.
As I remember it, Tun Salleh was called by the tribunals of 1988, but he refused. Needless to say, one can only conclude that Tun Salleh must have felt the tribunals were beneath him.
Tun Salleh Abas is a smallish man, but his smallish-ness is exceeded only by the massiveness of his pride. For 20 years he hungered for emotional vindication. And the panel formed by Mrs Ambiga feeds nicely into this emotional hunger.