Call on Attorney-General to study the 2003 Budget speech to cite Mahathir for contempt of court for his  clear rebuke and  thinly-veiled threat to  the judiciary over the recent  Federal Court decision on the mala fide detention of the Reformasi four under the ISA

(Penang, Saturday): Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s 2003 Budget has created many firsts, for being the longest budget address in the nation’s history (two hours and 45 minutes), coining the new Bahasa Malaysia term “bajet” for “budget”, a budget for two years, with the most number of MPs leaving the House for one reason or another during the long delivery and being the most “political” budget ever delivered in Parliament.  

When Mahathir started his long 2003 budget address  by defending the indefensible – the mega-projects which squandered scarce public resources, and in particular  Putrajaya and the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA)  which  burdened the present generation with his megalomaniac vision of Malaysia in the next century – he gave the inescapable impression of preparing the  defence for his 22-year legacy as the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia even before stepping down  from office next October. 

But what was  most deplorable about Mahathir’s 2003 Budget speech was  its clear  rebuke and thinly-veiled threat to the judiciary over the recent Federal Court decision on the mala fide detention under the  Internal Security Act (ISA) of the reformasi four, Mohd Ezam, Tian Chua,  Saari Sungib and Hishamuddin Rais – making many  wonder what would have been Mahathir’s reaction and response if the Federal Court had acted as it should have done in quashing the Ministerial detention order for the four and ordered  their actual release  and not just holding that their police detention under the ISA was mala fide and unlawful, but avoiding a decision on the legality of the Ministerial order for their  detention under the  ISA.  

Mahathir claimed that the Internal Security Act had “saved” the nation from violence, anarchy and “utter chaos”.  I have myself been twice detained under the ISA and I had never at any time advocated violence, anarchy or “utter chaos”.  What the ISA had saved was  Mahathir and the Barisan Nasional government from the need for greater democratic responsibility and accountability.  Mahathir said:  

“We have spared the nation from this turmoil with the rule of law practised by the Government. The Internal Security Act (ISA) has indeed saved the nation. Today, the liberal West, has conceded that preventive laws are necessary in safeguarding internal security. 

”The rule of law is paramount. Its adherence should not be confined only to the Government but also to other branches in the Administration. The civil service, judiciary, police and armed forces must be professional and abide by the laws passed by Parliament. Should anyone disregard the rule of law and disrespect the separation of power, democracy will collapse and anarchy will prevail. Under anarchy, the nation will not progress. We will become like some Islamic and non-Islamic nations, always weak, oppressed and manipulated by foreign powers.”

These  two paragraphs in the 2003 Budget Speech should be studied not only by  the judiciary and the legal community, but by NGOs and the civil society concerned about a just rule of law and a truly independent judiciary.  

Mahathir’s  notion and  definition of the “rule of law” had been eloquently debunked by none other than his Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim in his classic study, "Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia", where Rais pointed out that what exists in Malaysia is not the “rule of law” but “rule by law” which is no different from what prevailed in Hilter’s Nazi Germany.  

But what is most irresponsible and reprehensible was the  ominous-sounding warning of the “collapse of democracy” if “anyone”  – whether the civil service, judiciary, police and armed forces -  should “disregard the rule of law and disrespect the separation of power”.  

In the light of the recent Federal Court decision over the mala fide detention of the Reformasi Four under Section 73 of the ISA, though not applied logically to the subsequent Section 8 detention by the Minister, the thinly-veiled threat to the judiciary contained in these two paragraphs of the 2003 Budget speech tantamounts to contempt of court. 

The Attorney-General, Datuk Abdul Gani Patail should study the 2003 Budget speech to cite Mahathir for contempt of court for his  clear rebuke and  thinly-veiled threat to  the judiciary over the recent  Federal Court decision on the mala fide detention of the Reformasi Four under the ISA as he has the constitutional responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary and uphold the doctrine of separation of powers  - where no  one branch of government should be allowed to threaten or subvert  another branch in the  full discharge of its constitutional role, powers and responsibilities.  

(21/9/2002)