I am surprised by the ‘turn of events’ where Tun Hamid discussed the DAPSY petition with Guan Eng and four other DAPSY leaders for 45 minutes and expressed appreciation for the meeting but later


by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang,
in Petaling Jaya on Saturday, September 3, 1994:

I am surprised by the ‘turn of events’ where Tun Hamid discussed the DAPSY petition with Guan Eng and four other DAPSY leaders for 45 minutes and expressed appreciation for the meeting but later claimed that the DAPSY petition was ‘defamatory’.

I am surprised by the ‘turn of events’ where the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Tun Hamid Omar, discussed the DAPSY petition with DAPSY National Chairman, Lim Guan Eng and four other DAPSY leaders for 45 minutes on Thursday in his chambers and expressed appreciation for the meeting but later claimed that the DAPSY petition was ‘defamatory’ and threatened ‘criminal defamatory’ proceedings.

If the DAPSY petition asking Tun Hamid to resign was ‘defamatory’, when then did Tun Hamid discuss the petition with Guan Eng and the DAPSY delegation after reading its contents.

Surely, if the DAPSY was ‘defamatory’, Tun Hamid should have terminated the meeting and not accepted the petition and gave a detailed explanation of his version with regard to the various allegations made against him for 45 minutes.

Immediately after the meeting between the DAPSY delegation and Tun Hamid on Wednesday, Guan Eng and the other four DAPSY leaders gave me a report of the meeting.

They reported that the meeting was held and ended in a very frank and cordial atmosphere. In fact, after the initial shaking of hands, Tun Hamid commented that all the five DAPSY leaders were “young and handsome”.

I believe that the Chief Justice of Malaya Tan Sri Eusuffe Chin and the Senior Assistant Registrar Aziz bin Ali could testify that throughout the 45-minute meeting, the atmos¬phere was frank and cordial throughout.

Why then did Hamid claim after the meeting that he had been misled to grant a meeting to the DAPSY delegation led by Guan Eng, and that the petition was ‘defamatory’?

I am particularly surprised by the ‘turn of events’ because, after the meeting, Guan Eng and the other DAPSY leaders were quite impressed by the frankness, fortbrightness and humili¬ty of Tun Hamid in being prepared to discuss the allegations of improprieties made against him.

Tun Hamid should realise that such ‘turn of events’ does not reflect well on him, as it meant that, he did not know what, he was doing and talking for 45 minutes when he met the DAPSY delegation led by Guan Eng on Wednesday.

It also meant that when at the end of the meeting, he expressed his appreciation to the DAPSY leaders for seeing him and wished that they, had done so earlier so that he could explain his side of the story, he was not being sincere or truthful.

The Attorney-General’s threat to prosecute Guan Eng for criminal defamation is also very ‘surprising’.

I also find the threat by the Attorney-General, Datuk Mohtar Abdullah, to prosecute Guan Eng for criminal defamation in handing the petition to Tun Hamid most surprising.

How could the petition be ‘criminal defamation’ when Hamid, in the presence of the Chief Justice of Malaya, Tan Sri Eusuffe Chin and the Senior Assistant Registrar, Aziz bin Ali, thanked Guan Eng and the DAPSY leaders for meeting him to give him an opportunity to explain his version of the allegations made against him after Hamid had read and understood the petition?

Before the Attorney-General proceeds further on this matter, he should ask the Police to interview Tun Hamid to ascer¬tain the following:

* Did Tun Hamid read and understand the DAPSY petition after Guan Eng handed it to him in the presence of Tan Sri Eusuffe Chin and Aziz bin Ali;

* Did Tun Hamid proceed to explain his side of the story in response to the DAPSY petition;

* Was it true that the meeting would have lasted longer than 45 minutes if Guan Eng had not thanked Tun Hamid for the explanations and suggested an end of the meeting?

* Wasn’t it true that Tun Hamid asked Guan Eng what DAPSY expected him to do with the petition
and when Guan Eng said he hoped that there could be a reply, Tun Hamid said he had replied to all the allegations already;

* Wasn’t it true that the atmosphere throughout the 45 minute discussion was cordial and frank?

* Didn’t Tun Hamid, at the meeting, express his appreciation that Guan Eng and the DAPSY leaders had seen him and wished that they had done so earlier so that he could have explained to them?

* Why then did Tun Hamid claim after the event that he had been misled into granting the meeting and that Guan Eng had committed ‘criminal defamation’ which he wanted the Attorney-General and the Police to prosecute? Should Tun Hamid had told Guan Eng right from the beginning after he had read the petition, that Guan Eng had committed ‘criminal defamation’ and that he was going to lodge a police report against him?

In threatening ‘criminal defamation’ proceedings against Guan Eng and the other DAPSY leaders under the above circumstances, are Datuk Mochtar and Tun Hamid confessing to the nation and the world that Malaysia has a Chief Justice of the Federal Court who is incapable of safeguarding the honour, reputation and credibility of the highest judicial office in the country!