I was surprised to read Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's blog posting entitled "AG to AG" dated 3 February 2016 as it is very clear to everyone with some basic knowledge of Malaysian laws that it contains words seditious in nature.
Having known him for quite a long time, I don't really know what his real intention in writing such a posting as it could be that he, being a shrewd political strategist that he is, was merely trying to garner sympathy from the public and to mobilise support for his cause to get the PM removed by inciting the authority to act against him, hence garnering sympathy for him as a former Prime Minister and a former UMNO President.
After all, having been a Prime Minister for a very long time, Tun Dr Mahathir must have known that those words are seditious in nature, what more when the Federal Government under his steward used to very frequently charge people for the same offence.
But it could also be that Tun Dr Mahathir thinks that him being a former Prime Minister and a former UMNO President may make him immune from the power of law, hence his boldness in going against the law in his attempt to try to get the PM removed.
However, whatever the case is, no one cannot deny that Clause 8 (1) of the Federal Constitution clearly stipulates that "all persons are equal before the law", hence the authority will still have to act against Tun Dr Mahathir if there are police reports lodged against him by the people lest it can be perceived as being selective if it fails to act.
But it is all there in Tun Dr Mahathir's assertions about "the improper dismissal of the previous Malaysian AG just before he was expected to bring a charge against the PM" and that "the current AG was appointed by the PM through false representation made to the King".
It is also there in his assertions that "clearly the AG does not want the Swiss AG to know whether the money in the PM's personal accounts comes from 1MDB or not", that "the new AG is not likely to prefer a charge against the PM" and that "he is therefore unlikely to provide the Swiss AG with any evidence which may incriminate his employer".
All these assertions of Tun Dr Mahathir point out to just one thing, to "bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia", which is definitely an offence under Clause 3 (1) (c) of the Sedition Act 1948.
Moreover, Tun Dr Mahathir's claim that "the current AG was appointed by the PM through false representation made to the King" is also seditious, falling under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is "to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government".
This claim is indeed an insult to the King, making it appears as if the King is a foolhardy who can be easily deceived by the people. 06/02/2016, 11:23:08 AM: Tan Sri Annuar Musa: The claims about the improper dismissal of the previous AG and the improper appointment of the current AG are laughable at best, coming from someone who has been put on record, among others in Tan Sri Dr Rais Yatim's PhD thesis entitled "The Rule of Law and Executive Power in Malaysia: A Study of Executive Supremacy" (University of London, 1994), as having improperly sacked the then Chief Justice, Tun Salleh Abas, and his fellow Federal Court Justices, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah, from their posts in 1988 in order to save his posts.
And for his ruining of the Malaysian judicial and legal system during his time, Tun Dr Mahathir now has no moral standing whatsoever to preach or complain about it. If there's any fault with the current system, he shall blame himself for it as it was him who made and perpetuated it.
Tun Dr Mahathir improperly dismissing people from their posts, or he instructing people to act in certain ways, doesn't necessarily mean that other people also do the same bad things as he did.
For one thing, while Tun Dr Mahathir dismissing the former top judges was acknowledged as really improper, documented for the world to see among others in the most famous book of Tun Salleh Abas entitled "May Day For Justice: The Lord President's Version" (Magnus Books, 1989), even the usually pro-opposition law experts like Professor Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar of the Law Faculty, University of Malaya, and the fiercely independent law experts like Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi of the Law Faculty, MARA Institute of Technology, opined that the dismissal of the previous AG was constitutional.
And unlike the dismissal of the top judges during Tun Dr Mahathir's time which was challenged by those involved and which resulted in the new Chief Justice not being recognised by the Bar Council, the previous AG never challenged his dismissal while the Bar Council also fully recognised the new AG.
It naturally goes that if the previous AG's dismissal is constitutional then the current AG's appointment is also constitutional, as simple as that.