Krisis Perlembagaan Malaysia 1988: Perbezaan antara semakan
Kandungan dihapus Kandungan ditambah
Tiada ringkasan suntingan |
Tiada ringkasan suntingan |
||
Baris 3:
'''Krisis Perlembagaan Malaysia 1988''' merupakan satu siri peristiwa yang dicetuskan oleh [[Pilihan Raya Umum Malaysia 1987|pilihan raya umum]] [[Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu]] (UMNO) pada tahun 1987 yang berakhir dengan penggantungan perkhidmatan dan kemudiannya penyingkiran [[Ketua Hakim Negara]] [[Saleh Abas|Tun Saleh Abas]] dari jawatannya yang dijamin tidak boleh dipecat oleh [[Perlembagaan Malaysia]]. Pemecatannya oleh [[Perdana Menteri Malaysia|Perdana Menteri]] [[Malaysia]], [[Mahathir bin Mohamad|Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad]] telah diperlihatkan sebagai satu penyekatan terhadap [[kebebasan kehakiman]] yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Malaysia.
==Campur tangan kehakiman dalam pertikaian politik==
Pada tahun [[1987]], UMNO mengadakan pemilihan jawatan-jawatan partinya. Buat pertama kali sejak dua belas tahun yang lalu, jawatan Presidennya dicabar. Tengku [[Razaleigh Hamzah]] yang merupakan calon "Pasukan B" untuk kepresidenan mencabar Dr Mahathir daripada kem yang digelarkan "Pasukan A". <ref>Means, Gordon P. (1991). ''Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation'' (Politik Malaysia: Generasi Kedua), m.s. 201. Percetakan Universiti Oxford. ISBN 0-19-588988-6.</ref>
Terwujud satu kempen yang amat gigih untuk mendapat sokongan daripada lebih kurang 1,500 wakil cawangan di seluruh negara yang akan memilih pegawai-pegawai parti. Penyokong-penyokong Razaleigh mengharapkan beliau akan menang, dan dalam Perhimpunan Agung UMNO tidak lama selepas pengiraan undi, terdapat khabar-khabar angin bahawa Razaleigh telah menang. Bagaimanapun, keputusan rasmi mengisytiharkan Mahathir sebagai pemenang, dengan 761 undi berbanding 718 undi untuk Razaleigh. [[Ghafar Baba]], calon Pasukan A untuk Timbalan Presiden, menewaskan [[Musa Hitam]] daripada Pasukan B, dan Pasukan A juga memenangi 16 daripada 25 dalam Majlis Agung UMNO. <ref>Means, p. 204.</ref>
Razaleigh's supporters were upset by the election, which they insisted had to have been rigged. Their anger was exacerbated by Mahathir, who went on to purge all Team B members from the Cabinet. <ref>Means, pp. 204–205.</ref> As a result, 12 UMNO members filed a [[lawsuit]] in the High Court, seeking a court order to void the election results and pave the way for a new election. The plaintiffs alleged that 78 of the delegates had been selected by branches not registered with the Registrar of Societies, and as a result were not eligible to vote. They also claimed that certain documents related to the election had been "tampered with". Although Razaleigh was not among the twelve plaintiffs, he was widely believed to be funding and co-ordinating the suit. <ref>Means, p. 206.</ref>
Later, one of the twelve withdrew from the case, but the remaining eleven continued to press on. The High Court eventually gave the parties a two week deadline to reach an out of court settlement. An UMNO "Unity Panel" was formed to handle the negotiations and reach a compromise. However, it soon became clear that the differences were intractable — Team B would settle for no less than a new election, while Team A insisted that the suit be withdrawn and a "face-saving" solution be reached which would allow some Team B members to remain in the party. Eventually the eleven plaintiffs declared they would seek a final judgement from the court. <ref>Means, pp. 215–216.</ref>
This did not please Mahathir, who had clashed on several previous occasions with the judiciary. In one instance, a government order revoking the work permits of two foreign [[journalist]]s critical of the government had been overruled by the Supreme Court. Mahathir began making heated attacks on the judiciary, telling ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', "''The judiciary says, 'Although you passed a law with a certain thing in mind, we think that your mind is wrong, and we want to give our interpretation.' If we disagree, the Courts will say, 'We will interpret your disagreement.' If we [the government and [[Parliament of Malaysia|Parliament]]] go along, we are going to lose our power of legislation.''" <ref>Means, p. 216.</ref> Mahathir also lashed out at "black sheep [judges] ... who want to be ... fiercely independent," accusing them of playing to public opinion. Immediately after this latter statement, the government reassigned several High Court judges to different divisions, including Justice [[Harun Hashim]] who was then hearing the UMNO case. However, as the latter case was already in progress, Harun's transfer would not take effect until the case closed. <ref>Means, pp. 217–218.</ref>
Harun was thus forced to make the final call on the case of the "UMNO 11". Although most of the evidence they had presented was not contested, the UMNO defence argued that not all possible remedies within UMNO had been exhausted. The plaintiffs, however, insisted that the fact that at least 30 unregistered branches had sent delegates to the UMNO elections should have been enough to nullify their results. In the end, Harun dismissed the suit, citing Article 41 of the Societies Act 1966, which stated any society would automatically become "unlawful" if any of its branches were not registered with the Registrar of Societies. As a result, Harun declared he had no choice but to declare UMNO "an unlawful society", thereby rendering "[w]hat happened in 1987" a nullity. In his decision, Harun blamed Parliament for forcing his hand: "If the old law was in existence... [one could] apply the [[common law]] principle, but here it seems the Parliament, to ensure strict compliance with the law, has made this provision look harsh." <ref>Means, pp. 218–219.</ref>
As soon as the decision was made public, Mahathir assured UMNO members that as the decision was based on minor "technicalities", the party could easily be restored as a lawful society. He also reminded the public that this did not threaten his status as Prime Minister, as only a [[no-confidence vote]] could lawfully remove him from power. <ref>Means, p. 223.</ref> Within a fortnight of Harun's decision, Mahathir announced the registration of UMNO Baru (New UMNO). UMNO Baru's leadership was almost entirely composed of Team A members, who proceeded to spend the next few months transferring the assets of the "old" UMNO to UMNO Baru. <ref>Means, pp. 224, 225, 226.</ref> The UMNO 11 pursued their case to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, still seeking to hold new elections for the "old" UMNO and having its lawful status restored. However, their appeal was rejected. <ref>Means, p. 227.</ref> Razaleigh then decided to form a new party focused on the "spirit of 1946" — the year UMNO had been founded. <ref>Means, p. 228.</ref> UMNO Baru in turn decided that the "Baru" was superfluous, and officially dropped it from its name, in effect claiming to be the true successor to UMNO instead of Razaleigh's party, which would eventually call itself [[Semangat 46]] (Spirit of 46). <ref>Means, p. 230.</ref>
{{terjemahan-bi|1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis}}
| |||