TUN ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD
Former Chief Justice of Malaysia
RESPONSE TO ALL MY CRITICS
RESPONSE TO ALL MY CRITICS
By
Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad
On 6 May 2017, I wrote “The constitutionality of the appointment of a Chief Justice beyond the age of 66 years and six months”. That was one year before GE 14, when BN and Najib were still in power.
About two months later, on 8 July 2017 i.e. ten months after he “plaudited” me (sorry, I don’t know the past tense of that word, I never used it before), Lim Kit Siang wrote in his blog (which I started visiting only when I am writing this article) under the title “An Illegal Chief Justice With Raus’ Extension?” in which he referred to my article with approval:
“Former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad has publicly stated that a further extension to the tenure of Raus after he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 66 years and six months would be unconstitutional.
Hamid wrote in his blog that he was not writing because he does not like Raus, but was merely highlighting his point of view on the constitutionality of prolonging Raus’ tenure by appointing him as an “additional judge” and extending his tenure as chief justice.
Hamid, who was chief justice from November 2007 to October 2008, stressed that an extension beyond the 66-year and six-month tenure for Raus may compromise the independence of the judiciary.
He suggested that Raus should decline the extension even if the government had offered him a renewed appointment as chief justice after Aug 3.”
Almost a year later on 9 June 2018, mstar.com.my reported:
“DAP Advisor. Lim Kit Siang (pic) urged the Chief Justice Tun Md Raus Sharif and President of the Court of Appeal, Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin to resign.” (My translation).
Remember that, as early as 6 May 2017, I had written:
“Unless it can be shown that Tan Sri Md Raus’ appointment has been validly made pursuant to another provision of the Constitution, the honourable way to solve the problem is for Tan Sri Md Raus to put aside his personal interest, rise to the occasion and say “I have reconsidered the constitutionality of the appointment and I am not comfortable to remain as Chief Justice and I am tendering my resignation”.
If he does that, I am sure that he will be remembered for a long time for his bravery, unselfishness, dignity and integrity. He will also be at ease with himself as long as he lives.”
So, as far as the DAP supremo is concerned, I think I can stop here. He only critised me once, perhaps influenced by what Gopal Sri Ram said about me, and began to backtrack two years later and continued to qoute or refer to my articles with approval.
Coming back to the first paragraph of my speech on 21 July 2014 reproduced above. When I was writing it, I thought I was merely stating historical facts based on my obsevation as I lived during that period. Before going any further, let me remind everybody that, in those opening paragraphs, I was speaking of “Semenanjung Tanah Melayu.”
I now refer to the objection raised by MCA. To save space I will not reproduce what they say. Indeed, I need not respond myself and for four years I did not respond to their attacks. Reason? A friend sent me an article written by Helen Ang (whom I do not know) “My Reply to MCA’a Criticism of Tun Hamid” dated 10 September 2014. That article rebutted point by MCA’s criticism of my speech.
Until I was writing this article, I did not visit her blog to look for this article. When I finally did, I was really surprised at the interest generated by that paragraph of my speech and her defence of it. Certainly, readers, including me, had learned something from her article. She deserves the many praises coming from the readers who appreciated it. She should not be bothered by the rude and insulting comments of the others. On my part, I am grateful to her and I thank her.
As the article is long, I will only pick the more important parts:
“According to Asst Prof. Heng Pek Koon, they had a cultural and political orientation that was “strongly China-centric”.
In her paper on Chinese response to Malay hegemony, Dr Heng wrote that although the Chinese wanted to be political equals of the Malays, they also wanted dual citizenship.
And despite that holding such a citizenship as they demanded would have obligated the Chinese to be loyal to both Malaya and China, the communist party – when Malayan Union proposal was being debated – still stuck to a decision that “ultimate allegiance should be owed to China in the event of conflict between the two countries”.
Researching the identity consciousness of Chinese in Malaya, Fujio Hara – in his paper for the Institute of Developing Economies, Tokyo – wrote:
“For the first ten years following the end of World War II, the Chinese-language newspapers published in Malaya referred to China as their “homeland” and gave events in China equal, if not more, importance than local Malayan affairs. This fact will be immediately apparent to anyone who opens up any such newspaper published at the time and peruses the headlines.”……..
………….
Two days ago, the MCA issued a press statement titled ‘Ex-CJ must stop offending the joint sacrifices of multiracial Malayans in the struggle for Merdeka’.
Prior to 1952*, not many Chinese were citizens of this country. They were NOT anak watan yang tertakluk kepada Raja-Raja Melayu. Many of them were China-centric and oriented to the homeland. The Peranakan Chinese lived in the British crown colonies.
Straits Chinese living in Penang and Malacca considered themselves British subjects. In fact, there was a movement of Penangites, including resident whites, who objected to Penang’s 1957 entry into the Federation. They had wanted secession, preferring instead to give their loyalty to the Queen of England, like in Hong Kong.
Why does MCA assert that these Chinese, who were never rakyat Tanah Melayu, had struggled to free the land from the British?
………….
Party sec-gen Ong Ka Chuan stated on Sept 8:
“MCA is deeply aggrieved that retired Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid has uttered statements which hold zero basis by refusing to recognise historical facts that the struggle for Merdeka was a joint effort by all communities with a common vision of sovereignty and freedom from British colonial rule.”
Actually Tun Hamid gave a fair representation of the historical premise.
Ong complained that “Tun Hamid’s utterances are a complete insult against the contributions of MCA, in particular, our party’s founding father Tun Tan Cheng Lock”.
The MCA founding father Sir Tan Cheng Lock was a Malacca Baba who could not read hanzi (Chinese script). He was knighted by the British. Tan is totally unlike the majority of the Chinese in Malaysia today.
……………
MCA sec-gen Ong Ka Chuan claimed that “in the World War II, during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya, the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities sacrificed their lives to defend Malaya against the invading forces”.
Chin Peng’s Bintang Tiga fought the Japanese occupiers because motherland China was at war with Japan. And because the Japanese soldiers victimized the Chinese civilians here.
MCA’s Ong has conveniently neglected to mention that the Chinese communists would not have wanted to return Malaya to a rule by the Raja-Raja Melayu if they had succeeded in their insurgency.
After the defeated Japanese left Tanah Melayu in 1945, the communists still nonetheless refused to lay down their arms but continued to wage war against the Alliance government and our YDP Agong.
………….
Ong insists that Tun Hamid’s statements are nonsense. On the contrary, Tun Hamid’s statements have a historical basis.”
For the rest, follow this link. https://helenang.wordpress.com/tag/tun-abdul-hamid-mohamad/
I was really surprised at the amount interest generated by those few paragraphs had generated. Please read the comments in Helen Ang’s blog. Note the standard of exchanges and compare them to the comments in Malaysiakini.
On 8 September 2014, two days day before Helen Ang published her article, Malaysia Times reported ,”Ex-CJ under fire for claiming ‘only Malay fought truly for M’sia”. It quoted the Gerakan Vice President, Datuk A. Kohilan Pillay. Clearly, since MCA had openly criticized me, Gerakan cannot be seen to say nothing. I shall quote only quote the first three paragraphs of the report, as an example.
“KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 8: Gerakan Vice President, Datuk A. Kohilan Pillay today condemned former chief justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad’s remark who claimed that it was only the Malays who truly fought for the country’s independence.
He rebuked the former chief justice on his outlandish and troubling remarks as Kohilan firmly believed that it is hugely unfair to disregard the contributions of non-Malay communities in the nation’s struggle for independence with one’s own bias and faulty reasoning.
“It is a blatant offence to all Malaysians which only serves to promote ill-will within Malaysian society.”
Since the issue had been responded by Helen Ang, I will say no more. However, I am puzzled by what is supposed to be written by a young boy, Ahmad Ali Karim, in Helen Ang’s blog. Even if it was written by someone else, an adult, it is worth quoting for its maturity:
“Dear Aunty Helen,
Thank you for the great post; I learn a lot from it. Actually, my mother helped me to really understand Tun Hamid’s speech:
Why must Tun Hamid say sorry for telling the history of Malaysia? Tun does not say bad things about others but he wants the Malay to be united and understand their rights, protect Islam, respect the Sultans, the Federal Constitution, the history….. Gerakan’s Kohilan Pillay must understand that history cannot be changed.”
No comments:
Post a Comment