Talk:1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia High‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV[edit]

The neutrality of this article can be disputed — [Unsigned comment added by 161.139.212.70 (talk • contribs).]

State which section and let's work it out. __earth ^(Talk) 09:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not neutral[edit]

well first the article contains weasel words.. (eg. many believed...) WHO? YOU? ME? and gross generalization (eg. ... the end of judicial independence...). REALLLYY???

as for mahathir, is there any citation/proof that he is actually not fond of the judiciary (eg. mahathir says "i hate the judiciary")? just because certain cases was decided against him, doesn't make him un-fond of the judiciary. i think that the "not fond" adjective should not be used at all, let the facts in the article speak for itself.

as for the "constitutional amendments" section (...to initiate criminal proceedings... high court... w/o magistrates court..), there is a need to say why the parliament introduced that bill (according to the parliament) and why the supreme court rejected it (see case files).

this article generally lacks neutrality MAINLY because: it does not represent any ideas, opinions and justifications of mahathir, his cabinet, the parliament, at that time, about the things they did.. example, mahathir wasn't content that the judiciary kept interfering with executive power; which of course, is a valid argument. just as the judiciary needs to be independent from interfering hands, so does the legislative, and the executive. whether the counter argument is right or wrong, is not important. it is important to represent the other side of the story. wiki is apolitical.

one example of how the judiciary interfered with legislative body - some judges refuse to judge cases involving the death penalty. of course, some judges might have moral issues meting out the death penalty. however, it is part of the job, and if they refuse to judge it (or give other punishments not according to the law), it amounts to interference! MY POINT: judges don't make laws. they apply them. they only make laws (by precedence) if other written sources of the law is silent about the issue. if they contradict the written law, they make new laws, and thus, they interfere.

the other reason: this article lacks variety of citations. the most cited work was by gordon means. and some from malaysiakini. the pro government sources were used to support the case against mahathir. what about the articles from utusan/nst/the star etc which supported mahathir's moves? i'm very much sure that some people do actually agree with him. the wikipedian's job is to tell us why.. from both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. end of judicial independence in Malaysia is marked by the sacking of Tun Salleh Abbas by Tun Dr Mahathir. using executive powers to sack judges is completely against the constitution, and constitution is amended by mahathir to ensure the restriction judicial powers under the grant of parliament. ref to robert stephen milne 1999.

2. "unfond of judiciary" here means disagreeing with judiciary's judgments and decisions. it is more obvious than mahathir saying "i hate judiciary".

3. it would be better if you state any example of judiciary interfering with executive wing of parliament, but that is not a fact, just an opinion of mahathir because judiciary nullified unlawful detentions and revoking of permits. that is actually under the scope of judiciary because the cases are presented to them.

4. i dont see how judges refusing to handle death penalty is related to this article of 1988 judicial crisis.

5. youve said it; nst/star/utusan are media sponsored/advised by government. I support more citations and references from books and international sources. and malaysiakini is an independent news source, which I believe bears more credentials than government sponsored media. JoTp (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

I have removed the NPOV tag as the dispute has grown stagnant, and the section in question appears to be neutral. If the dispute arises again, contact me before re-adding the NPOV tag.D^rewS^mith 05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]