Datuk Seri Najib Razak has called rival Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal over a sodomy charge today an exoneration for the political conspiracy claims hurled at the Barisan Nasional government.
“Today’s verdict shows once again that, despite what many have claimed, the Malaysian judiciary is an independent institution where neither politics nor politicians have any influence over the dispensation of justice,” the prime minister was quoted as saying by Bernama Online today.
The prime minister added the ruling in favour of the opposition leader was testimony of his administration’s adherence to the tenet of separation of powers
“As head of the executive branch, I respect the decisions of the other branch of government, the judiciary,” Najib was further quoted in the report.
Trial judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah ruled today that the prosecution had not done enough to prove Anwar had committed sodomy against former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Anwar, 64, was similarly indicted of sodomy over a decade ago and found guilty. He spent six years in jail before being exonerated.
The former deputy prime minister has maintained that his prosecution for sodomy was politically-motivated and a plot to kill his political career.
Today’s verdict defied the expectations of political observers and even Anwar, who had alleged that a guilty verdict was predetermined.
All talk is now centred on the upcoming elections. Khairy Jamaluddin, head of the Youth Wing of the ruling Malay party UMNO, described the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial as a hurdle the government had to get through.
"We categorically deny charges that the case was politically motivated," he said.
"It was a private matter. We are glad to see the back of the court case. We did not want this to happen. It was a complaint from a private individual. Today we are very much focused on the general election."
A verdict that can be spun for the benefit of both the government and the opposition. The next general election is anyone's for the taking.
An unwritten rule? Who makes the rule? The Prime Minister?
What happens to the doctrine of civil service neutrality? The head of the national investigative agency is a civl servant and once appointed to office is bound to uphold the law. True. He may be answerable to the PM (who is a politican and head of the executive arm of the government); but he is accountable under the law and is under duty to investigate a public official for alleged corruption based on reports submitted to him and does not need permission to do so.
The AG is under duty under the constitution to prosecute once enough prima facie evidence is available to ensure a successful prosecution. He has no choice in the matter under the law. His discretion does not go so far as to excuse him from prosecuting such a case
The reason why Mahathir was angry at Shafee was because at the time of the raid, EPU was considering Mokhzani’s proposal for the hospital privatization project or if I am not mistaken, approval have been given to it. Abul Hassan wld have told mahathir, ‘look, they are not only investigating me but also your son’s proposals for the hospital privatisation…and anwar must have instigated them to raid EPU.” That got Mahathiir mad.
Shafee’s only failure then was not arresting or investigating Mahathir for interfering with the ACA investigation. But in malaysia it takes a lot of guts to do that considering the fact that Shafee was only a PTD officer being seconded as ACA head.
For Mahathir to write that Shafee was a “hostile witness“, that he “became angry, accusing me of interfering with his duties” and that “Shafee had his day in court and seemed to be happy to vilify me” is most unfair.
There is nothing hostile about a hostile witness.
When you call a witness to give evidence for your case and during the examination-in-chief, your own witness testimony falls short or proves the other party’s case rather than your own, then you will need the consent of the judge to treat your witness as a hostile witness so you could cross-examine your own witness.
Otherwise cross-examination is a tool for the other party. Cross-examination in the hands of an experienced advocate is a powerful tool.
Two horses for Mukhriz to ride; who will Mahathir choose?
One big disadvantage of teaming up with Muhyiddin rather than to strike a deal with Najib is because Muhyiddin too lacks grass roots support from his own Johor state as well as the rest of the country. So, while keeping all options open, Muhyiddin will be the last resort for Mahathir. Chances are higher he use Najib to catapult Mukhriz into power.
Mahathir can be expected to make full use of the mandate given by UMNO delegates to Najib to be the final decision-maker of who qualifies to be on the list winnable candidates contesting seats in the 13th general election. Of course, Mahathir’s people will make the list. Mahathir will inform all his men and women who make it to the list to make them happy, while Najib will also inform his supporters that it was necessary to give up certain seats to the Mahathir faction to avoid splitting UMNO and also assure them that they will be duly rewarded for the sacrifice.
On his part, Mahathir will throw his support behind Najib to make sure that he will still be the UMNO president and the prime minister after the GE-13 so as not to jeopardize the chances of UMNO being defeated due to infighting and factionalism. However, in the next UMNO general assembly where UMNO elections will also be held, party insiders say the presidency is very likely to be a three-cornered-fight between Najib, Muhyiddin and Mukhriz.
Muhyiddin will 'voluntarily' withdraw from the contest and the final duel will be between Najib and Mukhriz - so this particular theory goes. Muhyiddin is not worried because whoever wins, he will be promised the deputy prime minster's post once again. He has no hope of becoming the prime minister on his own standing anyway, so he would be happy with that. An interesting contrast is that of Anwar Ibrahim in the 90s. Then Anwar was mounting a challenge against Mahathir and UMNO members were gunning for an Anwar victory. This was possible because Anwar had huge grass roots support throughout the country and Malays can be expected to make their way to him now, with the Sodomy II trial over and he has been acquitted.
Can Mukhriz take on Najib? In this foray Taib Mahmud will also lend his support to Mukhriz in forming the BN government since Mahathir has been very supportive of Taib all along, while Najib foolishly tried to control Taib and Sarawak but failed from the start. The support from Taib will boost the confidence level of the Mahathir camp, whilst making Najib’s people doubt his strength in leading BN.
But is Mukhriz ready?
Yes according to Mahathir and why not? Mukhriz caught the public's eye when he continuously spoke up for his father during the 2003 to 2008 rift with Badawi and Khairy. In the 2008 GE-12, Mukhriz won the Jerlun Parliament Seat. Mukhriz has also been a member of the Cabinet for nearly 3 years now. Lastly, Mahathir also insists that Mukhriz is more intelligent than him! But others beg to disagree, pointing out that Mukhriz's only claim to intelligent life-form in his brain was his receding hairline.
Will Mahathir accomplish his mission?
Perhaps, the only strong trait that Mukhriz possesses is his shrewdness. Certainly, his rude comments and undiplomatic ways of dealing with people has not won him new fans. He has also insufficient experience, and should ideally head various Cabinet positions before becoming prime minister. No, Mukhriz is far from ready, if not incapable as well, of becoming PM on his own steam.
If Mukhriz is really more intelligent than his father, he should have been a more prominent politician by now. Mahathir is a shrewd politician but Mukhriz is not a politician – he is a shrewd person, which is bad for the country. Mahathir is not on any mission; he is just dreaming a doting father's dream.
So it was to save his own image, legacy and to secure a very important Cabinet post for Mukhriz, that Mahathir passed the baton to unthinking Badawi. Although Mahathir shed crocodile tears when he announced his quit decision at the UMNO assembly in 2003, he was actually ruthless, deliberate and sinister in his intent, which was to have Badawi blamed for the economic failures he himself started in 1998 as well as UMNO's loss of Malay support at the ballot boxes.
Still to ensure that his cronies stayed rich, he convinced Badawi to continue with whatever mega projects he had planned, without realizing that the de facto prime minister would be Khairy Jamaluddin - Badawi's son-in-law and the current Youth chief - who too thought that since he had graduated from Oxford, he should be smart enough to run the country.
Although Mahathir had some misgivings about Khairy, he was not able to correctly read the mind of the tenacious young man. Otherwise, he would never have let go the reins to Badawi. Khairy lost no time dismantling Mahathir's dream projects including the crooked bridge to Singapore, making him so angry that he had no choice but to plot and scheme Badawi's removal. In the end, Mahathir succeeded in ousting Badawi and installing an already heavily corruption-tainted Najib Razak, whom Mahathir thought would be obedient! But it was not to be - Najib had Rosmah by his side Indeed, First Lady Rosmah Mansor has been a thorn in Mahathir's flesh!
COMMENT In Chapter 53, ‘Anwar’s Challenge’, on page 695 of the book, ‘A Doctor in the 
House, The Memoirs of Tun DrMahathir‘, Mahathir wrote, “Though some witnesses were hostile towards me, nobody came forward to say that I had forced him to tell lies to support me.
House, The Memoirs of Tun DrMahathir‘, Mahathir wrote, “Though some witnesses were hostile towards me, nobody came forward to say that I had forced him to tell lies to support me.“One of these hostile witnesses was the former director-generalof the Anti-Corruption Agency, Datuk Shafee Yahaya (right), who had earlier accused me of interfering with an ACA investigation into then DG of the EPU, Tan Sri Ali Abul Hassan.
“In 1998, I had received a complaint that the ACA had been offensive during his investigation and so, knowing how government officers could sometimes be overzealous in their duties, I asked Shafee to explain the situation. Our meeting did not go well and Shafee became angry, accusing me of interfering with his duties.
“Actually the affair with the ACA had nothing to do with Anwar’s case. But Shafee had his day in court and seemed to be happy to vilify me.”
After reading the above, I had two choices to make – just shrug it off and keep quiet or present our side of the story. Guided by what Allah SWT had said in Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 42, “And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth while you know the truth,” I have decided to respond to Mahathir’s allegations for the sake of my children, grandchildren and future generations to come.
The incident referred to by Mahathir happened in June 1998, three months before the expiry of Shafee’s contract as director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency. An aggrieved party had made a complaint against the then director-general, Economic Planning Unit in mid-May 1998 over a privatisation project.
Mahathir ‘kept quiet’
After taking the complainant’s statement and studying the case, the ACA needed to take the relevant files pertaining to this project from the EPU office. As it involved a very senior officer, following past practices, Shafee informed the prime minister of the case at the end of May 1998, but the latter “kept quiet”.Although it seemed safe enough for Shafee to interpret Mahathir’s silence to mean “no objection”, Shafee decided to inform Anwar Ibrahim, then deputy prime minister and finance minister, of the ACA’s intention to raid the EPU office.
Anwar asked him whether he had cleared it with the prime minister. Shafee mentioned that he had and that the prime minister had kept quiet. Anwar left it for Shafee to decide. Shafee also informed the then chief secretary to the government (Abdul Halim Ali).
The ACA subsequently raided the EPU office on June 16, 1998 to find the files concerning the privatisation project. In the course of searching for evidence, one of the ACA officers found a large sum of money in a drawer belonging to the then DG.
In his letter to me dated Oct 8, 2010, Mat Zain Ibrahim, former Kuala LumpurCriminal Investigation Department chief, disclosed that the amount found was RM100,000. The EPU DG gave an explanation but the ACA wanted more evidence and verification.
The public was not aware of the raid on EPU at that time, as it was not reported in the newspapers. There had been rumours and whispers, but no confirmation that there had been an investigation of the former EPU DG. The public only knew what really happened in June 2000 after the court case.
Shafee had been subpoenaed to appear in court as a witness in Anwar’s sodomy trial on June
12, 2000. Shafee had to take an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. He was also guided by Surah Al Baqarah 2:283, in which Allah says, “…And conceal not the evidence for he, who hides it, surely his heart is sinful. And Allah is All-Knower of what you do.”
12, 2000. Shafee had to take an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. He was also guided by Surah Al Baqarah 2:283, in which Allah says, “…And conceal not the evidence for he, who hides it, surely his heart is sinful. And Allah is All-Knower of what you do.”What took place between Shafee and Mahathir in June 1998 was revealed in court during Anwar’s sodomy trial, and the court transcripts dated June 12, 2000 is in Appendix 1 of my book on Shafee’s biography.
Based on Shafee’s sworn testimony in court, Shafee said that after the raid of the EPU’s office, Mahathir called Shafee to his office. Shafee said he was told off by the premier.
“How dare you raid my senior’s officer’s office?”
Shafee replied that “it was based on an official complaint by an aggrieved party”.
“I did what was officially required under the law.”
‘Called to see Mahathir twice’
Mahathir also accused Shafee of trying “to fix the EPU DG” and questioned whether Anwar Ibrahim had asked him to raid the EPU office. In the court testimony, Shafee replied, “That is totally wrong because it is wrong in law to fix anybody. As a Muslim, it is a big sin to fix anybody.”
Shafee also said that Anwar did not ask him to raid the office. Shafee was called to see Mahathir twice after the first “scolding” over the EPU DG’s case. This was not revealed in court because justice Arifin Jaka disallowed further testimony on the matter.
For Mahathir to write that Shafee was a “hostile witness“, that he “became angry, accusing me of interfering with his duties” and that “Shafee had his day in court and seemed to be happy to vilify me” is most unfair.
One has to bear in mind that Shafee was subpoenaed to appear in court and he took an oath in court to tell the truth before answering the questions. If you were caught lying, you could be charged with perjury. We believe that if you start with one lie, you may end up telling more lies to cover that lie you started with.
Mahathir had every opportunity to refute Shafee’s statement in court as it was reported in the media the next day. Mahathir had been subpoenaed to attend the court hearing but he fought tooth and nail to resist appearing in court.
In the July 6, 2000 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review, it was written that “when asked about Shafee’s claims, Mahathir told reporters, in apparent reference to Anwar: “I don’t know. What I do know is that there was one person who tried to prevent a case being tried in court, but as far as I tried to interfere… I don’t know.”
After denying it in June 2000, several years later, in 2008, he could remember the incident based on his version. Mahathir had also forgotten that he had vilified Shafee openly in his letter that was published in The Sun dated April 8, 2008.
The next question to ask is why should Shafee lie? What could he gain by lying? I am sure he would gain a lot if he had chosen to just keep quiet. In fact, by being firm and maintaining the facts of the case as required under the law, he had incurred the wrath of the prime minister.
What has he personally to gain?
Under the circumstances, a person needs a great deal of courage to defend his or her conviction. It would have been easier to succumb, to not rock the boat, or displease the prime minister. As ACA DG, Shafee was legally bound to investigate any infringement of the laws on corruption, irrespective of the position of the person.
When the prime minister, who was responsible for his appointment as ACA DG by the Yang di Pertuan Agong, summoned Shafee to his office and be confronted with words, “How dare you investigate my senior officer!”, would that not indicate a scolding by a superior of a subordinate?
And what did the words imply? Based on Shafee’s testimony in court, the investigation on the EPU DG arose out of a formal complaint/report lodged by an aggrieved party, and not because Shafee wanted to fix the EPU DG. This can easily be verified from official records and the complainant identified.
One should also ask the question why would a civil servant whose contract was about to expire, would want to do anything that could offend the prime minister, unless he believed in the lawfulness of his actions and that the prime minister too would let the law take its course.
What had Shafee personally to gain from his actions? He was merely doing his job, upholding the law based on truth.
In Surah An-Nisa 4:135, Allah SWT says, “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you avoid justice; and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.”
Mahathir had a dossier on Khairy built from the young man's personal background, skills, experience, activities, his network of friends and business connections, the political leaning and views, his connection with Singapore journalists, business associates and especially Khairy’s international connections especially in the USA via his Singapore contacts. Khairy had attended attended college in Singapore and later was involved in the Avenue Capital-ECM Libra money-making scheme with Kalimullah Hassan who was the media chief of Badawi-linked ECM Libra.
Unfortunately, Mahathir failed to succeed in forcing the police to arrest Khairy on charges of being some 'foreign agent'. Why? It was because Mahathir - under the impression he was omnipotent- had made the tactical error of having resigned first before pressing the government machinery to do his bidding!
Yes, Mahathir has regretted resigning too early, leaving several critical things undone, objectives not accomplished and the plan to put his son as PM unfinished, while dreaming at the same time of the post of Secretary-General for the United Nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment