Krisis Perlembagaan Malaysia 1988: Perbezaan antara semakan

Kandungan dihapus Kandungan ditambah
PM Poon (bincang | sumb.)
PM Poon (bincang | sumb.)
Tiada ringkasan suntingan
Baris 25:
Razaleigh kemudian memutuskan untuk membentuk parti baru yang menumpukan kepada "semangat 1946", iaitu tahun UMNO diasaskan. <ref>Means, m.s. 228.</ref> UMNO Baru kemudian memutuskan bahawa perkataan "Baru" tidak diperlukan, dan menggugurkannya secara rasmi dan oleh itu, menuntut diri sebagai waris UMNO yang benar, bukannya parti Razaleigh. Akhirnya, Razaleigh menggunakan nama [[Semangat 46]] untuk partinya yang baru. <ref>Means, m.s. 230.</ref>
 
==Pindaan-pindaan perlembagaan==
{{terjemahan-bi|1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis}}
The "UMNO 11" case was just one of a number which had irritated Mahathir and the government. The case of the two journalists mentioned earlier had begun when [[John Berthelsen]] and [[Raphael Pura]] authored a series of articles on financial transactions of dubious ethical and legal nature carried out by government officials. The ''[[Asian Wall Street Journal]]'' which published them was promptly banned from the country, and Mahathir in his capacity as Home Affairs Minister had Berthelsen's and Pura's work permits revoked. However, the Supreme Court overturned the cancellation of Berthelsen's work permit because he had not been given a chance to answer the charges of the government. As a result, the ban on the ''Asian Wall Street Journal'' was also lifted. <ref>Means, p. 140, 236.</ref> In a different case, the Supreme Court used its power of [[judicial review]], and nullified amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code which gave the Attorney-General the power to initiate criminal proceedings in the High Court without first going to a Magistrate's Court. After [[Operation Lallang]] in 1987, where the government detained several political dissidents without trial under the [[Internal Security Act (Malaysia)|Internal Security Act]] (ISA), the High Court granted [[Karpal Singh]]'s application to be released from detention due to technicalities in the way he had been detained. <ref>Means, pp. 236&ndash;237.</ref>
 
This last case did it for Mahathir. The following week, he submitted several constitutional amendments to Parliament, disvesting the courts of the "judicial power of the Federation" and giving them only such judicial powers as Parliament might grant them. In justifying the amendments, Mahathir stated: "...the courts have decided that in enforcing the law they are bound by their interpretations and not by the reasons for which Parliament formulated these laws ... lately the judiciary had seen fit to touch on matters which were previously regarded as solely within the executive's jurisdiction." <ref>Means, p. 237.</ref>
 
The Lord President of the Supreme Court, Tun [[Salleh Abas]], was pressured by his fellow judges to respond to the government's actions. Salleh decided to convene a meeting of all 20 judges from the Supreme and High Courts in the capital of [[Kuala Lumpur]]. At the meeting, they agreed not to publicly reply to Mahathir's criticisms. Instead, they wrote a confidential letter to the [[Yang di-Pertuan Agong]] (King) and the Malay rulers, expressing their grievances. The proposed letter, which was unanimously approved, was written by Salleh Abas. The letter stated the judges' disappointment "with the various comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the Judiciary," but did not demand specific action be taken &mdash; instead, it ended with an expression of "hope that all those unfounded accusations will be stopped". <ref>Means, p. 238.</ref>
 
==Penggantungan jawatan dan pemecatan Tun Salleh Abas==
In 1988, Tun Salleh Abas was brought before a tribunal convened by the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad on the grounds of misconduct. The tribunal was chaired by Tun Hamid Omar. In response to the tribunal, Tun Salleh Abas filed a suit in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur to challenge the constitutionality of the tribunal. While proceeding with the suit, Tun Salleh Abas applied for an interim stay against the tribunal until [[July 4]], 1988. The request was denied.
 
Later however, five judges of the Supreme Court convened and granted Tun Salleh Abas an interlocutory order against the tribunal. Upon receiving the order, Tun Salleh Abas' solicitors proceed to the Parliament to represent the chairman of the tribunal the interlocutory order. The gate leading to the Parliament however was locked and Tun Salleh Abas' representative had to call in the police to be guaranteed a passage into the [[Parliament of Malaysia|Parliament]]. Eventually, the order was presented to the tribunal chairman.
 
Soon after, the five judges were suspended. Out of the five, three were removed. This effectively suspended the Supreme Court. With the Supreme Court suspended, the challenge toward the legality of the tribunal could not be heard. The tribunal later removed Tun Salleh Abas from his office.
 
The irregular dismissal of Tun Salleh Abas led the Bar Council of Malaysia refusing to recognize the new Lord President. Around the same time, the Federal Constitution was amended to divest the courts of the "judicial power of the Federation", granting them instead such judicial powers as Parliament might grant them.
 
==Pusaka==
Although many from the ranks of the opposition as well as the former government such as [[Tunku Abdul Rahman]] considered the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas abhorrent, Mahathir's supporters insisted that it had liberated the Malaysian judiciary from a colonial mindset. The sacking of several justices was justified by claims that these judges had been abusing public funds for their personal expenses &mdash; such as the purchase of luxury furniture from [[Italy]]. It was also claimed that the sackings had eliminated deadwood and improved efficiency in the courts, as evinced by a reduction in their backlog. <ref>Maidin, Zainuddin (1994). ''The Other Side of Mahathir'', pp. 99, 101. Utusan Publications & Distributors. ISBN 967-61-0486-8.</ref>
 
The effects of the crisis can still be felt today, as the Malaysian judiciary was so thoroughly cowed by the crisis that it never recovered its previous decision making independence. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the [[Anwar Ibrahim]] trial, wherein a guilty verdict was entered under extreme pressure from the government.
 
==Nota dan rujukan==
<references/>
 
===Rujukan lain===
*Datuk George Seah (2004). [http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2004a/4m.html "Cerita tersirat"] &ndash; dicapai pada 30 Disember 2005.
*Datuk George Seah (2004). [http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2004a/5h.html "Terdapat sesuatu yang bergolak di KL"] &ndash; dicapai pada 30 Disember 2005.
*Datuk George Seah (2004). [http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2004a/6f.html "Drama di ibu negara"] &ndash; dicapai pada 30 Disember 2005.
*Datuk George Seah (2004). [http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2004b/7i.html "Penggantungan Mahkamah Agung"] &ndash; dicapai pada 30 Disember 2005.
*Datuk George Seah (2004). [http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2004b/8k.html "Kolonel-kolonel menghakimi jeneral-jeneral?"] &ndash; dicapai pada 30 Disember 2005.
 
[[Kategori: Politik Malaysia]]