Semakan pada 16:12, 27 Julai 2006 sunting PM Poon (bincang \| sumb.) 28,020 suntingan Tiada ringkasan suntingan ← Suntingan sebelumnya		Semakan pada 16:39, 27 Julai 2006 sunting batalkan PM Poon (bincang \| sumb.) 28,020 suntingan →‎Pindaan-pindaan perlembagaan Suntingan berikutnya →
Baris 26: ==Pindaan-pindaan perlembagaan== Kes "UMNO 11" hanya merupakan salah satu daripada sebilangan kes yang menjengkelkan Dr. Mahathir dan kerajaannya. Kes terhadap dua orang wartawan yang tersebut di atas tertimbul ketika [[John Berthelsen]] dan [[Raphael Pura]] menulis sebuah siri makalah terhadap urusniaga-urusniaga kewangan yang dilaksanakan oleh pegawai-pegawai kerajaan yang diragui tidak etika dan sah. ''[[Jurnal Asian Wall Street]]'' yang menerbitkan makalah-makalah itu diharamkan dengan segera, dan Dr Mahathir selaku [[Kementerian Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri\|Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri]] membatalkan permit-permit kerja Berthelsen dan Pura. Bagaimanapun, Mahkamah Agung mengubah pembatalan permit kerja Berthelsen disebabkan dia tidak diberi peluang untuk menjawab tuduhan-tuduhan kerajaan. Disebabkan ini, pengharaman ''Jurnal Asian Wall Street'' juga ditarik balik. <ref>Means, m.s. 140, 236.</ref> 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. 236–237.</ref> Dalam lagi satu kes, Mahkamah Agung menggunakan kuasa [[kajian semula kehakiman]], dan membatalkan pindaan-pindaan kepada [[Kanun Prosedur Jenayah]] yang memberikan kuasa kepada [[Peguam Negara]] untuk memulakan prosiding jenayah di Mahkamah Tinggi tanpa melalui Mahkamah Majistret. Selepas [[Operasi Lallang]] pada tahun 1987 di mana kerajaan menahan beberapa penentang politik tanpa [[perbicaraan]] di bawah [[Akta Keselamatan Negeri (Malaysia)\|Akta Keselamatan Negeri]] (ISA), Mahkamah Tinggi meluluskan permohonan [[Karpal Singh]] untuk dibebaskan daripada penahanan disebabkan keteknikan-keteknikan terhadap cara beliau ditahan. <ref>Means, m.s.. 236–237.</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>

Krisis Perlembagaan Malaysia 1988: Perbezaan antara semakan