The story of Salleh Abas opens up one of the blackest and bleakest chapters in Malaysian history. His controversial dismissal as the highest judge of the land in 1988 for alleged judicial misconduct arrested the nation and set in motion more shocks in the Malaysian judiciary.

Until the appointment of the new Chief Justice in 2000, the judiciary was in shambles and public confidence for our judges and the court of law was at its lowest.

The late Justice Suffian Hashim foresaw the consequences. "What happened to Tun Salleh and our Supreme Court judges has shown that what took generations to build up can be destroyed in one day and will take many years to build," he said while speaking in honour of the late Justice Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh in 2000.

More than two decades on, the former Lord President is still serving the nation as Jertih state assembly representative and chairperson of the hisbah and special tasks committee for the Terengganu state government. Though wary of the media ever since they twisted his statements during the crisis, he consented to speak to malaysiakini at his office in Wisma Darul Iman, Kuala Terengganu, recently, revealing little regret of the path he had to take by not going down quietly.

Malaysiakini: Can you tell us about yourself?

Salleh:

I came from a small town, Besut, which is in Terengganu. In those days people got married very early. I married very early.

In 1949 I left for UK for my law degree and in 1957 I returned and joined the legal service. I was in Terengganu for a couple of months. Then I worked in Kota Bharu in Kelantan for a while as a magistrate.

Then after that just a few months after the independence of Merdeka, I was transferred to Kuala Lumpur as a deputy public prosecutor for some years. One of my colleagues was Datuk Harun Idris who just came back from UK where he graduated. It was a very small chamber in those days, mostly European and very few Malays. So I was one of the very few.

Harun was there in charge of prosecuting in the Selangor rural while I was in charge of the Kuala Lumpur urban. So we worked together and after that he left to join politics and subsequently became the Selangor menteri besar.

I was then sent to UK to do my master's in international law and constitution and I came back in 1962 after doing my master's in London University. I was given the posts of state legal advisers to Negeri Sembilan and Melaka and also the deputy public prosecutors for Negeri Sembilan and Melaka. So I had four jobs to handle at one go.

After a year, I came back to Kuala Lumpur and stayed on until 1979 during which I practically 'grew up' in the Attorney-General's Chambers. For 13 years I was a DPP, parliamentary draftsman, legal adviser, and my last post there was as the solicitor-general. Many of the judges now were serving under me. Even Abu Talib (Othman, controversial head of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) was serving under me.

When I reached my 50th birthday, I wanted to leave the government. I wanted to take optional retirement but the late Tun Suffian (Hashim) intervened and persuaded me not to leave the service. Suffian was trying to build up the judiciary. So my plan to retire did not work and he took me in as the Federal Court judge.

After two years or so, I felt restless because the job was so different. At the AG's Chambers I was always busy meeting with officers who came seeking my opinion. The work was full and interesting.

During the 1969 emergency, I did not even go home. I stayed in the office for a week. There were police officers to come and give me food. I was working day and night to draft the law and the regulations.

That is why I felt very bitter when I was dismissed. If I had given the service to the country in a sambil lewa (lackadaisical) manner, I would not felt so bad. But I had given a whole lot whole-heartedly. Sometimes even at the expense of my own family and children! That is why I feel very, very bitter about the dismissal.

Anyway, back to my story... so I was ready to retire, as there was a good offer from a big organisation, I won't say the name. But Tun Suffian was very upset about my plan to retire. I did not want to disappoint him so I told him I would not retire just yet. So I stayed on when Suffian retired, Raja Azlan Shah became the Lord President and I was made the Chief Judge of Malaya.

As fate ran its course, two years later the Sultan of Perak passed away and at that time Azlan Shah was also the Regent of Perak. Then at the cemetery during the burial of the late Sultan (Idris Shah), Raja Azlan told me: Now I'm going to be the state ruler, you are going to take over me as the Lord President.

At that time there was already concern on the status of the judiciary. The Federal Court was not the highest court in the land as Federal Court decisions were appealable to the Privy Council in London. There was a movement to cut off the link from the colonial masters. So the link was cut and the Federal Court became the highest court in the land.

After that, there was a case involving the Asian Wall Street journalist who had his visa withdrawn because he had written an article critical of Daim (Zainuddin), at the time the finance minister. When his visa was withdrawn he challenged the legality of the withdrawal. The matter went to the High Court before Harun Hashim who quashed the decision of the government to withdraw the visa.

It made (Prime Minister Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad) very angry... but not at the order per se but the comments by Harun which seemed to bite deep into Mahathir's feelings. Harun made a criticism about the government. So it (the deterioration) began with that particular case.

There were a few other cases of that nature and that time the Prime Minister went all over the place making criticisms against the judiciary and some judges even replied; in particular, Harun Hashim said certain things. I sometimes made certain statements which were reported in the papers as there were allegations that the judiciary was [interfering] with the executive.

This continues until the case of "Umno 11" (referring to the 11 Umno delegates who filed an appeal to have the 1987 party elections declared null and void as there were allegations that several delegates who had voted were drawn from branches not properly registered). I set that the appeal to be heard before nine Federal Court judges. And then I fixed also the case of Karpal Singh (who was under ISA detention) for five judges. But before I could hear the appeals, I was removed.

How was your rapport with the Bar Council while you were in the judiciary?

I had no problems with the Bar Council. I maintained the relationship [as before] with the best and the highest standard. At that time I was also the external examiner for the law degree in University of Malaya and National University of Singapore.

And the relationship between the bench and the bar both in Malaysia and Singapore went very well. Every year we have the Bar-Bench games and we played games like golf. We maintained the best relationship. But after I was dismissed, the Bar Council did not organise it anymore. After Tun Hamid [Omar] took over, I think, for a long time there were no Bar-Bench games organised.

After your forced removal, did you foresee that Hamid Omar was going to have problems with the Bar?

Yes I saw that coming when the Bar protested against my removal. The Bar did not support Tun Hamid taking over as the Lord President. Until today there is still that resolution by the Bar not to cooperate with the judiciary. It's still there. They tried to remove it but they failed. It was made unanimously.

Are you happy that now there is some sort of reconciliation between the Bar and the bench after the appointment of Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah as the Chief Justice on Dec 20, 2000?

Reconciliation is always a good thing. We shouldn't really be apart because the bench and the Bar must work together. But the result of this reconciliation remains to be seen. I have been asked about this many times before. I hold very little prospects of the future. It's a question of wait and see.

If you were not removed as the Lord President, would you have recommended Hamid Omar and Eusoff Chin as heads of the judiciary?

I will not say that. Because if I were to say that it would be coloured. If I was not removed, maybe I might say something. But because I was removed, I cannot say anything about it.

Did you find it strange that Dzaiddin's appointment was announced by the Conference of Rulers and not the Prime Minister's Department?

I don't think so. Everybody was very happy with the appointment. There is a great expectation that the appointment would be good for the judiciary. Whether it is realised or not, I think members of the public themselves can find that out.

Did you have the same expectation when Dzaiddin was appointed?

Yes I felt the same way. I had a high expectation especially after a few statements made by him. Those statements seemed to be very encouraging.

The appeals of Zainur Zakaria (against a contempt of court conviction) and MGG Pilai (against a libel conviction) were accepted well by the public and the legal fraternity alike. Based on this, how do you think Dzaiddin has fared so far?

I think the decisions were properly made.

Do you think the future of judiciary is now brighter than at the time you were removed?

The future of the judiciary depends on three things. Number one is courage of judges. Number two is the ability and willingness of those judges to write judgments. If there is no judgment to be written then the law will not develop. If the law is not developed, there will be no more guidance for lawyers to argue on in the future.

Number three is the judges' willingness to write judgment and at the same time expound and analyse principles and to see how far that principle can go. When we write judgments every word and sentence has to be assessed because we don't want to cause misunderstanding. If we think that it is not clear enough, we try to give examples by repeating it in another way.

We want the law to be developed. It's not enough for judges to merely quote from judgments from the courts in England, Australia or India but we also want our decisions to be quoted by those courts. That is the essence of the law. We cannot always be the receiving end. We must be on the giving end as well. That is how it has to be. But if we don't write and we don't read, then we cannot develop the law.

Are you saying that the judges now are lacking in this aspect?

Not all judges. There are judges whom I noted give good judgments like. I am happy to mention that KC Vohrah and Abdul Malek Ahmad write very well, Abdul Kadir Sulaiman seems to be OK. Among the younger judges are Malek Ishak and Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus. All judges must try to write good judgments, even when the case is not controversial. But you can try to bring up new ideas and principles that can develop the law.

The members of the tribunal which handled your removal

Which I never recognised.

Yes. There were judges in it who were your subordinates. Have you ever had any problems with them prior to that?

If I had, I do not want to tell you. There were, of course. But I wouldn't say who and why.

What made you strong enough to face those difficult moments and survive them?

My strength is Allah. I believe that my rezeki (blessings) is in the hand of Allah. If Allah does not allow me to hold the job, then fair enough, I will not hold the job. And now looking back over the years, I think it is better that I was not with the bench. Look at what had happened to the judiciary. I think I was saved from embarrassment. I was saved from doing the things which I do not like to do.

I am free to do anything and can concentrate in religion. I read a lot of the Quran now. Being associated with PAS, every day I hear the verses of Quran being quoted and now I am reading Prof Hamka who I think writes the best book ever written on the Quran.

I also see my removal as a mere change of work. Because I cannot be grieving all the time. I can do other things and look at other alternatives. I take it as God's will. If my rezeki is not here then I can find it elsewhere. That's all. I have to move on with what I have.

For the independence of the judiciary I did not give way. If I had given way, I'd be useless. People will just spit on my face and ask why the hell did you I had been offered a good job to give way.

Who made the offer?

It was offered to me by somebody in the government, I wouldn't say the name. But it was a very lucrative job.

So someone from the executive actually made the offer?

Yes. It was a very lucrative job. With entertainment allowance, unlimited travel to be posted in Jeddah. But I said no! I told them that my roots are in Malaysia.

When did the offer actually come?

It came while I was suspended.

So they wanted you to stop fighting and leave quietly to avoid any controversy?

Yes! They wanted me to just leave quietly. But I refused, as there would be a cloud surrounding my departure. People will ask all sorts of question. Why did I do this? They would say I was corrupt. Isn't it so? Or they would say I was a coward. But more likely they would say that I was corrupt.

So I said to myself, I can't go on like this. Every day I have to look at myself in the mirror and my reflection in the mirror will start cursing me (laughs). I definitely do not want to lead such a life. So I decided to let it be. I would rather lose everything except my principle.

But the situation could have been strengthened if the other judges were with me. If they were united with me, the judiciary today would not be as it is. Unfortunately the judiciary lost to the split among the judges. There was a split as there were judges who were more interested in taking over my job than fighting for the independence of the judiciary. If they had given me a solid backing, I don't think the government could have done anything.

So greed took over these judges?

Yes. That is why I think these lucrative offers to judges are a form of corruption and bribery. I feel there should be a regulation which bars judges from holding jobs in the private companies which they had come across while working as a judge. They should be barred at least for the first five years. Many countries have these regulations, not only involving judges but also other posts; like in the US, their high defence officials cannot hold any job with companies that they had dealings with.

It is widely believed that there were instructions for you to be dismissed at all costs.

Yes. I had a friend who was the Chief Justice of Mauritius who said that he was offered to be one of the tribunal's members but he refused. He said he regretted not taking the offer. I told him that there was no need to regret because whatever happened, my dismissal was certain because that was the intention. The tribunal was only a smokescreen.

After that I went to London where I met a judge at the House of Lords. He told me that my biggest mistake was severing the link between Malaysia and the Privy Council. If the Privy Council were the highest court in the land, he said I would have been saved. I think he is right!

After the lecturing in Australia and the UK, you started practising right?

Yes I did. But more to pass the time.

Was it difficult for you to appear before your former subordinates?

No. It was not difficult.

Have you ever been treated unfairly or unreasonably by any of your subordinates?

Not that I remember. But there were one or two instances where a junior judge said that he knows better than I do. But that's up to him. He has the power to do what he likes. There nothing I can do about that.

Not many people doubt that your removal was politically motivated.

Yes.

Was there ever any directions from the executive to either you or your subordinates on court decisions?

No. If there was, I was never told about it. But as far as I am concerned I receive no directive from anyone. They wouldn't dare to give me direction! And neither do I give any directive to my subordinates on decision-making.

How you been approached by judges who sought advice on the troubles they were facing after you left?

No. I never ask them about that.

Tomorrow: Salleh Abas speaks on Anwar's 'sham' trial and Malaysia as an 'Islamic state'.