Friday, April 28, 2017

Why Mahathir hates AAB

Continuing my leisurely perusal of Rehman Rashid's Peninsula: A story of Malaysia, I came to its page 20 of its 2nd edition (2016), and read the following (reproduced in parts here):

Mahathir cast about for someone to succeed him, settling as though by default on Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

lthough ..... I have little doubt that the main factor in Mahathir's decision was Pak Lah's antipathy for Anwar ..... If nothing else, Mahathir felt reasonably sure Abdullah would not, in some fit of reconciliatory euphoria, offer Anwar amnesty from the charges levelled against him.

Prior to all the above, AAB had confided to friends that Anwar was not brought up or had grown within UMNO and was merely bud-grafted into the party.

Of course we know that Mahathir was the man who had had Anwar parachuted into UMNO where 'twas said he feared Anwar becoming PAS president (as was envisaged and planned for by the late PAS president Fadzil Noor) and becoming a real threat to UMNO.

Who knows, Hadi Awang was probably pissed off with Fadzil selecting Anwar as his political heir (as president of PAS), wakakaka, hence Hadi Awang's silent animosity towards Anwar even up to today.

Did AAB mean that Anwar being bud-grafted into UMNO would lack the UMNO values including inclusiveness in sharing spoils a la kongsi bersama2? Wakakaka.

At that time when Anwar was on a meteoric rise, it was rumoured his faction in UMNO was feral, ferocious and f**king-grab-it-all in their attitude towards the UMNO's gravy train. Thus his faction upset and was feared by other UMNO factions, leading them to sharpen their knives and further poison their santau (wakakaka) for Mr Manmanlai.

AAB was chosen not so much because Mahathir felt he could easily manipulate the former civil servant (but there was that too) but more because he had believed AAB would not free his bete noire Anwar.

If that was Mahathir's principal consideration in selecting AAB, then the old man must have hated Anwar with a deep deep deep vengeance to rival the Marina Trench. Yes, let's not forget that Anwar was the man who had the effrontery to stage a coup d'etat against his mentor in 1998, wakakaka.

But guess what?

In 2004, just a year into AAB's term, the court overturned the sodomy charges against Anwar on technicalities and freed him on 02 September that year.

That must have driven Mahathir round the bend.

Obviously the old man must have had a whiff of what was going to happen well ahead because he was already undermining AAB even as his first (wakakaka) successor stepped into office, saying AAB had betrayed their 'gentlemen's agreement' in which the successor (the first one of Mahathir's preposterously claimed two successors, wakakaka) would not alter courses Mahathir had set.

How brazenly preposterous to assert his (Mahathir's) policies would remain set in concrete even with a new PM. But then he was used to having his dictatorial ways for 22 years and which must have led him to believe he was the Imperial Emperor of Malaysia.

But was one of their agreements NOT to ever free Anwar until he finished his imprisonment?

In the end, because Mahathir ferociously campaigned against and thus undermined Pak Lah, much to Pakatan's delight, UMNO lost 5 states and its 2/3 federal parliamentary majority in 2008.

Yet UMNO was silly enough to subsequently (after AAB's regsination) accept such a person back into the party like a conquering hero while delegating the real compassionate and just hero AAB to the backwaters.

But Pak Lah did not stop there. Post 2008 GE Pak Lah reshuffled his cabinet to include Zaid Ibrahim as de facto Law Minister. Zaid then called for the government to apologise to former Lord president Salleh Abas who was sacked by the Agong on advice of Mahathir.

Guess how Mahathir must have been jumping up and down in rage in his home, wakakaka.

Wikipedia informs us about Mahathir's draconian treatment of an up-righteous judge, one of Malaysia's finest:

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 4 July 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 present 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. Eventually, the order was presented to the tribunal chairman.

* wakakaka, a known Malaysian tactic which was demonstrated in Sabah in 1994. Anwar was then BN director of elections in that state

Soon after, the five judges were suspended. The judges were Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah.

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. Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah were also removed from office. The other three judges were later reinstated.

The irregular dismissal of Tun Salleh Abas led the Bar Council of Malaysia refusing to recognise 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.


A major critic to Mahathir's actions include Malaysia's first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. In a New York Times article, he was said to be "disgusted" at the actions. His views however were criticised by the then Education Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, who claimed that the Tunku was ″a grand old man who has done his bit.″

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 — 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.

But there was no forgiveness for Mahathir despite de facto Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim calling for the government to apologise to former Lord president Salleh Abas. Wikipedia reports:

Zaid's proposal was criticised by former Bar president Param Cumaraswamy, who insisted that Mahathir's administration, not Abdullah's, should assume responsibility:

"Those who perpetrated the transgressions are still alive and they must be called to account for their conduct and seek forgiveness from the six valiant judges, their families and Malaysians generally for the sacrilege committed to the temple of independent justice."

kaytee's comments: Fat hopes Param when he won't even apologise to Anwar recently.

He also proposed that the government compensate the three sacked judges since "reinstatement of the three dismissed is no longer possible."

Karpal Singh, lawyer and opposition member of Parliament, agreed: "Calling for the present administration to apologise is not a step in (the) right direction. It is not the present administration that convened those tribunals." 

Instead, Karpal suggested that a Royal Commission be set up. A few days later, The Malaysian Insider, a news website, reported that the Cabinet was critical of the proposal, citing the potential for legal liability if the government admitted wrongdoing. Zaid said that the proposal was still being considered, and that "we have to wait."

In April 2008, at a dinner with 600 members of the Bar and leaders from the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition, Abdullah acknowledged the impact of the crisis:

To a large extent, the events of 1988 have fueled much of the disagreement on how to move on. ... I can say with a clear conscience that I abided and will continue to abide by the principle of separation of powers, leaving the matter of justice to the judiciary. And yet the legacy of 1988 haunts us until today. ... For many, the events of 1988 were an upheaval of the nation's judicial system. Rightly or wrongly, many disputed both the legality and morality of the related proceedings. For me, personally, I feel it was a time of crisis from which the nation never fully recovered.

He then announced that the government would make ex gratia goodwill payments to the sacked and suspended judges: 

"I do not presume to equate your contribution, pain and loss with mere currency but I hope you could accept this as a heartfelt and sincere gesture to mend what had been."

However, he refused to explicitly apologise for the events of 1988 or otherwise review them, saying it would "prolong the sense of crisis". 

Abdullah also announced his intention to set up a judicial appointments commission as part of his plans to reform the judicial system. Two of the six judges involved in the 1988 crisis — Tun Salleh Abas and Azmi Kamaruddin — and the families of the other four were present.

Zaid welcomed Abdullah's announcement in spite of the lack of a formal apology, saying: "(One) can say sorry in other ways." 

George Seah's son told the press that although all his father wanted was an apology, the family would not reject any goodwill payments. Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh's wife said: "Although I thank the prime minister, I feel less than satisfied at his decision (not to make a straightforward apology). This is not the end of the story for me. (Without an apology) I don't know, people don't know, that my husband was not guilty. I want my husband's name to be cleared. I feel my husband was innocent. He was an honest judge...Even so, I am thankful that our prime minister cares about us enough (to do this much)."

Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader's granddaughter regretted that acknowledgement had been so late in coming: "I wish he was here. He's the main person affected by all this. It's a different case from the others (Salleh and Wan Suleiman) because he was reinstated. It's been 12 years. It should have been solved earlier."

Tun Salleh Abas however welcomed Abdullah's statement, saying: "I feel great. It was something I didn't expect. I suffered so much humiliation ... so much so I ran away from the public and took solace in being a farmer.

Mahathir had caused so much trouble to so many people. To paraphrase Winston Churchill's famous 'to the few' eulogy, may I say:

Never in the field of Malaysian politics have so much suffering being rendered to so many by just one person.

And you want to vote for him?

But his hatred for Anwar was what made him choose AAB, and the latter freeing Anwar in 2004 was what turned him so ferociously against his (first, wakakaka) successor, and not so much because of the crooked bridge.

AAB made Mahathir hate him more when Pak Lah made the just gesture of reconciliation with the judges Mahathir hated.

Yet now he has the brazen thick skin to shake hands with Anwar.


  1. mahathir vs hadi i will anytime vote the former.

    mahathir vs najib i will oso vote the former.

    hadi vs najib i will vote a dog.

  2. It is a dog eat dog's world.When Mahathir had the judges sacked,Anwar defended him.So when Mahathir had Anwar jailed for sodomy,Anwar deserved it too.What goes around comes around.Anwar's punishment for all his wrongdoings had gone a full cycle plus some.

    1. n dap have no problem to kiss anwar then, n now mahathir. dap is oso very dog, but i would still give my vote to dog n not the dedak gang, both giver n taker.

  3. "the court overturned the sodomy charges against Anwar on technicalities"

    I am no AI lover but I've to say, the statement is mischievious because the word "technicalities" in the sentence can lead to a lot of misunderstanding. It's bordering misleading assumptions, pretending to be neutral but projecting a hint of guilt.

    In as far as I understand, the court positively ruled AI has not been proven guilty and all the evidences induced by the prosecution were found faulty without merit. In fact the high court judge who made the judgement was "censored" by the supreme court judges who over-ruled the original jugement.