Reflections on 1988: Reunion of the Advocates (Team Tun Salleh Abas)
In an essay written during the Blitz, George Orwell described what he called an all-important English trait: respect for constitutionalism and legality, the belief in ‘the law’ as something above the State and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid but nevertheless incorruptible.
These words struck a chord. We inherited the English legal system, and with it, that selfsame belief in the law. We take for granted that the law will be respected. We trust that it will protect us – that it will be impartially administered: only wrongdoers will be punished, and only in accordance with the law.
🎬 Flashback
The 1988 constitutional crisis is, to those of us who came after, an event obscured by time. A dark period in Malaysian history, never fully understood and much faded from public consciousness. The then Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, was called a dictator who silenced those who opposed him or stood in his way. Yet in more recent times, Dr Mahathir has been viewed as a cheery, avuncular figure who united a fractured nation against a greedy and corrupt incumbent when he became Prime Minister once more in 2018. Could it have been really so bad in 1988?
It was the intent of the organisers of 1988: Reunion of the Advocates to shine a light on these events by bringing together those advocates who acted for the six judges who were the target of the Prime Minister’s ire. The assembled advocates need no introduction beyond mention of their names, and their interviews should not be missed. (As the recording of the live interviews has been published by Advocates the Podcast, I will make no attempt at a summary.)
The interviews gave us listeners a sense of the fear and urgency that accompanied these events in 1988. We began with the suspension of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and the convening of a Tribunal (headed by his second in command!) to investigate him for misconduct. His legal team filed an application for judicial review in the High Court and sought an interim order to stop the Tribunal from proceeding until its jurisdiction was established. A low thrill ran through the hall when the first panel (Tun Salleh’s lawyers) told of how they, when stonewalled at the High Court by Justice Dato Ajaib Singh, applied to Justice Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman at the Supreme Court who immediately convened a coram of five judges. The five judges granted the order on a Saturday. By Wednesday, all five Supreme Court judges had been suspended.
👀 What Happened Next
What came after had almost the quality of a second-rate farce, but the effects were very real. Tun Salleh Abas, Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah were removed from office, while Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh were reinstated. Tun Abdul Hamid Omar became Lord President, and the judiciary thereafter could be said to be rather less well-regarded. In her speech given at the opening of the legal year 2025, the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat, called it the “blemish” in our history which tarnished the independence of the judiciary.
The 1988 judicial crisis as it unfolded and its aftermath have been discussed extensively by writers of all stripes. One wonders if there is anything more that can be usefully said about it. Perhaps the use in writing, once more, about events 37 years ago is so that we do not forget. As her Ladyship Tun Tengku Maimun said, in that same speech, the 1988 crisis paved the way for further incursions into the judicial institution, including the events known as the VK Lingam Tapes, where it was revealed that the appointment of judges could be, and had been, brokered and used as bargaining chips.
💬 Why It Still Matters
Malaysia has been on the road to recovery. The perception of judicial independence has improved a great deal under the leadership of Tun Tengku Maimun. In a peaceful age, we might never be called upon to choose a side. Night follows day, and so on. But times of peace do not always last. The question, then, is this: Should such events occur again, will they turn the scale for us? Will we know where we stand, and will we act? If we have in our mind’s eye how the lawyers for Tun Salleh Abas and the five judges stood up for the course of justice without any thought of personal loss, the answer must be yes.
*This article was contributed by Michelle Chew of the Endeavour Advocacy Project, who attended the “1988: Reunion of the Advocates” event. Her reflections bring clarity to a chapter often discussed but rarely understood.