Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Shocking tsunamic allegation against Salleh Abbas

From a letter to Malaysiakini by P Suppiah titled 1988 crisis: Salleh shot himself on the foot?

If Suppiah's allegations in the letter are true, they throw new light on the Salleh Abbas case. It’s a fairly comprehensive letter touching on the history, personalities, issues, contents and general discussions of the controversial judicial case which has since its event, cast a dark cloud over Dr M.

I have no way of knowing whether Suppiah’s contention can stand up to scrutiny by the legal fraternity. However as a layperson I just want to pick on one aspect of the accusations against Salleh Abbas, for two reasons – (1) I am a non-Muslim and (2) we all know that after Salleh Abbas' dismissal from the bench, he joined PAS and even stood as a party’s candidate in one of the GE (2004?).

By itself the (2) point above should be a private matter and be none of any body's business. But read on ...

Suppiah wrote (just extracts relevant to my selected specific topic):

Second allegation: At the launching of the book Malaysia Law and Law, Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trend on Jan 12, 1988 in his speech ….....

In the same speech he made special reference to the interpretative role of judges and
advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system not only in the interpretation of the civil law of Malaysia but in its general application.

In particular he advocated thus:
"This system consists mostly of the Quran and Hadith (tradition of Prophet Mohammad S.A.W.). The interpretation of these two sources of law is done according to the established and accepted methodology. Volumes of literature have been written as commentaries and exegesis of the Quaranic law the Prophet Mohammad’s Hadith or tradition. In this situation, not only is the judiciary bound by Islamic law as propounded by jurisconsult (muftis, who give legal rulings on particular matters), but as Parliament and the executive too are certainly bound by these rulings."

His attempt to restate the law generally along Islamic legal principles ignores the character of Malaysian society as one which is multi-religious and multi-racial with deep cultural differences. No responsible government can allow the postulation of such views by the head of the judiciary without causing fear and consternation among its non-Muslim population. Furthermore, his statement violates established principles of judicial interpretation widely accepted in the courts in Malaysia and in the Commonwealth.

Third allegation: He adjourned sine die the case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas, Kelantan and Another (Civil Appeal No 220 of 1986) which
involved the issue of a minor’s choice of religion. It was adjourned six times in the Supreme Court – Aug 18, 1986, Aug 25, 1986, Dec 1, 1986, July 30, 1987, July 31, 1987 and Aug 3, 1987. It related to the conversion from Buddhism to the Islamic faith.

As I said this sheds new light on the alleged religious proclivity of Salleh Abbas. I hope some lawyers would come out and confirm or reject this allegation by P Suppiah.

I checked with my Uncle and he seemed to recall the Teoh Eng Huat case – mind you, he wasn’t too sure whether it was Teoh Eng Huat but he recalled a Teoh whose 13 (or 14) years old daughter ‘eloped’ with her Malay teacher, running off to Kelantan to get married and of course in the process was converted to Islam.

The law is and indeed then would be quite clear on that a minor could not make decision of such magnitude. Additionally, Romeo should have been charged with kidnapping and statutory rape, and the minor returned to the care of her parents.

But alas, the civil court (all Muslim judges) shocked everyone by tap dancing away from its due responsiblity, with the distressed family highly traumatised over the shameless injustice.

It was hardly surprising that the frustrated father would have lodged an appeal.

Whether that was the same case P Suppiah has accused Salleh Abbas of adjourning sine die (meaning ‘indefinitely’ or worst case scenario like ‘never’), one wonders how in the world could a judge adjourn a case sine die 6 times.

If indeed it was the case my Uncle remembered, Suppiah’s allegation seems to imply the judge didn’t want the appeal to take place, I suppose, because it would then be bloody embarrassing to explain how a court closed one eye to the Islamic religious conversion of a minor by a man who by legal definition had ‘kidnapped’ and statutorily ‘raped’ her!

I hope someone would come along swiftly to refute this damning allegation of Salleh Abbas. I am shattered by this tsunamic allegation.

16 comments:

  1. "I am shattered by this tsunamic allegation."

    ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. i for one din bother much bout the hoo haa judge sacking..... who knows that the tun has political motive behind bringing down mahathir at that time by allowing umno lama succeeded in the appeal. by having umno lama illegal, mahathir by law was no longer PM. and by having umno reinstate back after ditch by mahathir, many of his followers might leap back to umno lama, and at the end mahathir cannot be PM. who knows the history will be written differently if the judge was not sacked, and mahathir became victim of conspiracy then....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Whether Teoh Eng Huat converted to Islam because of marriage or compulsion is secondary, the fact is that she did it voluntarily. She went into hiding because of attempts to deny her freedom to convert.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Teoh Eng Huat was the dad - the 13 year old daughter was the one who eloped with her teacher.

    13 to 14 years old means she was a minor - under a civil court a minor could not convert or marry without her parent's consent so the question of her action being 'voluntary' is totally irrelevant, in fact nonsensical. For example, universally a minor cannot vote because he/she would not have the maturity to exercise that free choice. Even the civil court which lamentably tap danced away in that case with regards to an issue regarding a 'minor' didn't dare use that word 'voluntary'.

    It was a case of 'robbing the cradle', with her teacher and the court bringing shame to a great religion.

    But we need to know what was the reason behind the allegation of Sallh Abbas adjourning the appeal sine die numerous times?

    Is the allegation true? If true, why? Did Salleh Abbas allow his religious conviction to interfere with his judicial responsibility? I like to think not, and i hope some answers may be forthcoming.

    ReplyDelete
  5. mariana: "she did it voluntarily.."

    So you agree with the muslim practice of child marriages, where pre-teen muslim girls are married off to much older men by their parents, without the girls' consent? Are you one of those 'fortunate' girls?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It may cast serious doubts about Salleh Abbas' personal religious attitudes as it relates to the balance of Civil law vs. Syariah.

    You might conclude he's just another wannabe Ayatollah (Ya, I know more than one such).

    Salleh Abbas is not standing for any political office. His occupation today is "farmer".

    It has no bearing on the issue of Mahafiraun's campaign to reduce the judiciary to a mere appandage of the Executive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm finding myself having to keep Ktemoc honest with almost every single one of his posts :-)

    Maybe I should take a break from visiting his website. Too aggravating, spoils my beautiful morning..

    ReplyDelete
  8. spoils your beautiful morning---Look out of the window every morning you wake up, and you will see the bird swooping down to grab the worm, the cat waiting to pounce on the bird and the dog gearing up to wallop the cat. This is the world we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  9. quote from wiki:"


    Soon after his conviction, Salleh was conferred the "Darjah Kerabat Yang Amat Dihormati (Al-Yunusi) (D.K.)", the highest honour the Sultan of Kelantan could confer.[12]

    Salleh contested the 1995 general election for the Lembah Pantai parliamentary constituency (an area in Kuala Lumpur which includes the neighbourhood of Bangsar) under the Semangat 46 ticket, and failed.[13]

    In the 1999 general election, Salleh was elected as Terengganu State Assemblyman for the constituency of Jertih on the ticket of PAS, an Islamic party. He did not run again in the 2004 general election due to poor health.[14]


    a top civil officer runs election ......

    ReplyDelete
  10. . … In our view, it is in this sense of dichotomy that the framers of the Constitution understood the meaning of the word "Islam" in the context of Article 3. If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, Article 162, on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution, unless such law is contrary to the latter.” - Salleh Abbas

    http://www.hindusangam.org.my/news/?id=37

    ReplyDelete
  11. "a top civil officer runs election ......"

    Correction...an ex-civil officer.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Correction...an ex-civil officer"

    Badawi also.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The choice made by the girl (even if she was a minor) was the right choice. She chose the truth (of Islam) as opposed to the pagan religions. While the kidnapping and marrying part may arguably be illegal, it was allowed in Islamic times, and in that light, may be accepted if the teacher's intentions were noble.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey...I have read the Hotel Lecture of Tun Salleh and there was nothing special about what he said unless you mean his was religious knowing that you are an athiest who hates believers. He is a man of conviction. You need to read the lecture, it is long and the point taken out of consideration was a general discussion.


    However, if he were to declare Malaysia an Islamic state (which he didn't) and therefore he was punished, wasn't Mahatir who himself declared Malaysia an Islamic state in 1988? How comes he wasn't punished? Wasn't Mahatir who again reiterated his earlier position in 2001? How comes he wasn't punished? Didn't Najis declare that last year? Was he punished? Didn't the Chief Justice, the disgraced Fairuz declare Malaysia courts should have a comprehensive Islamic laws and switch all together before he was exposed? What happened? Boy, stop your hallucination there. Also, read what Malik Imtiaz wrote about what instigated Mahatir into taking action. It was pure power struggle. Nothing more, nothing less. No Malaysian lawyer of any value however little has ever agreed to the assasination of Tun Salleh, no one. Mind you it was the Malaysian Bar, a secular bastion which always rallied to his support. If he did something bad, it would have opposed him outright. Your hatred is immense, but the good thing is that it consumes you alone while the ones you hate even aren't aware of your exsistence. Live long Tun Salleh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. that 'hate' word again ;-) - only anwaristas or ultra PAS would use it a la George Bush

    ReplyDelete