NAJIB savior of UMNO,Malay and Islam The end of the Mahathir era?

dark days for UMNO are over NAJIB savior of UMNO,Malay and Islam The end of the Mahathir era?

.

UMNO IS OUR  OUR DESTINY

 HARRIS IBRAHIM Hindraf and ABU Pergi Mampus  vs Umno

 

Mahathir idea of development is largely at odds with many of us here. What you did to the tropical forests and water-bodies of Malaysia (that is raze vast acres of them into oblivion making way for big bucks palm oil plantations and piggeries and so on) would cause huge outrage amongst many of us who are looking for sustainable development.

We are yet to be unanimously convinced that making cemented roads – however broad, lining them with buildings – even if glass covered and glossy, putting cars on them – however fast they are– is a substitute for our valued bio-diversity. Many of us are very convinced that displacing huge populations of native people for useless things like racing tracks is a blot on the word ‘development’.

There are many of us who find it a shameful and cruel hypocrisy that in your country can have abundant openly advertised sex tourism and still whip women for being licentious! Thanks to the culture of reading here, many of us know of your penchant for cruelty in your personal career. A career during which you enacted despotic and violent acts at times in the name of (your contorted version of Islam) and at  times in the name of security and national interest.

Malaysia’s Internal Security Act, 1960

We could recount how you rose to power annihilating huge numbers of your opponents and stayed there for over two decades continuing your devious rule using tactics and schemes which are far beyond Machiavelli. Many of us know about your vile Internal Security Act 1960, which you used to crush political opposition jailing and killing them with impunity and putting in place a frail and near sham democracy placing the entire nation under a one man rule of the UNMO for over two decades.

You will note that in the essay above I have used words like “most of us” “many of us” and have tried to stay away form absolute claims. Besides the age old Indian practice of accommodating different opinions, it is meant to recognise that there are people in this country too who think like you and will have applauded you for saying what you did.

They too think that roads are all that are important and not the humans which walk on them or the ones that sleep beside them. They have misconstrued the word development as development of personal wealth and that this ‘development’ is a holy cow and everything including the rights and lives of fellow humans is a lesser priority. Their money power helps them buy a lot of print space and electronic bandwidth so they may appear like the majority, but thankfully the truth is they aren’t.

Development through Increasing Democracy

The majority of us recognise and are willing to admit – and even discuss at length – that there are problems in our nation – including bad roads. But they’ll quickly add that we intend to solve those not by lessening democracy but by increasing i

Dr Mahathir Mohamad has responded to the speculation that he is once again working backstage to bring the curtain down on another political career – that of his protege Najib Tun Razak.

The former premier complained about a FMT report which portrayed him as being the force behind the alleged move to replace Najib with current number two Muhyiddin Yassin.

Mahathir also congratulated those who had expertly used psychological tactics to “destroy” Umno and sow suspicion among party leaders and members.

The former Umno president said that efforts were underway to weaken the ruling party ahead of the next general election.

Last week, FMT reported that Penawar, an organisation comprising former Umno MPs, had voiced dissatisfaction over Najib’s leadership and wanted him to step down.

The next day, Penawar’s head, Aziz Shamsuddin, a former political secretary to Mahathir, had denied the report, despite refusing to comment the day before.

‘Najib may be suspicious of Muyiddin and me’

Mahathir, credited with playing a key role in ousting former premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and prior to that, ending the careers of three deputy prime ministers during his 22 year reign, said the FMT report would lead Najib to doubt Muhyiddin and him.

He warned that if Najib suspected Muhyiddin, Umno would crack, with some backing the president and others throwing their weight behind Muhyiddin.

“The strategy was to claim that Penawar held its meeting to undermine Najib and that Muhyiddin and myself were the hidden hands. Of course, Najib would become suspicious of us and Penawar.

“The report also spooked Penawar and other NGOs that Najib would be suspicious of their meetings and expose them to the accusation that they were Mahathir’s people,” he added in a blog posting.

Mahathir said such reports would make the Malays afraid of politicking and the opposition would achieve its aim of seeing the race becoming disunited and not being able to defend its rights.

‘Malay or Malaysian first’

The former premier also noted that a reporter had recently asked Najib if he was a Malay or Malaysian first, landing the latter in a spot.

Mahathir alleged that the question was deliberately posed to put Najib in a dilemma.

“If he had answered that he was more Malay, then he would be called a racist just like how Muhyiddin and myself were accused. And if he had said ‘Malaysian’, then he would be seen as not sharing the view of his deputy,” he said.

“Najib replied that he did not want to be seen as not being on the same page with his deputy, and this indirectly meant that he was more Malaysian unlike Muhyiddin. Surely, this would strain ties between the two Umno leaders,” he added.

According to Mahathir, the same question must be posed to all Malaysians as well as politicians and NGO leaders.

Commenting on him being labelled as an ultra Malay, the former premier asked if only the Malays had benefitted from all the development and reaped the riches during his tenure.

 Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal and discharge could not have earned the judiciary any brownie points. Neither did the trial judge, Justice Datuk Zabidin Mohd Diah, come across as someone capable of blazing a new trail in proactive justice.

In fact, the court proceedings only disappointed Malaysians the way the judge denied the defence the many crucial notes they were entitled to, dismissed their right to question the prime minister and his wife by granting their application not to appear as witnesses, and refused to recuse himself as the presiding judge by dismissing Anwar’s application that he was biased in the proceedings.

He even strengthened this belief by concluding at the end of the prosecution case that Saiful was a “truthful and credible witness” without even hearing the defence side of the case. The bias was so blatant and so obvious.

Who can forget the doctor who testified under oath at the trial? He wilfully refused to refer to his notes in a deliberate attempt to deny the defence his notes.

In spite of Karpal Singh coaxing him to refer to the notes while testifying, he stubbornly refused to look at his notes. The question arises, why would he want to deny the defence access to his notes? Was he coached not to refer to his notes? What was in those notes that would have been helpful in Anwar’s defence that they desperately wanted to hide?

Again, the way Anwar’s DNA was obtained was questionable and unethical. In spite of Anwar having assured the police that he would turn up at the police station to give his statement, he was waylaid, arrested and taken to the police station as if he was a common criminal. And they unnecessarily kept him overnight to obtain his DNA surreptitiously. Indeed that was how they obtained his DNA.

Anwar’s objection to the admission of his DNA was initially allowed because it was obtained by trickery. But later the judge allowed the DNA as an exhibit following the prosecution’s appeal.

So when the judge acquitted Anwar at the end of the trial, his decision was a clear contradiction to the way the case had progressed and proceeded. Going strictly by the court proceedings, Anwar should have been convicted. There were no two ways about it. The court decision took everyone by surprise.

The entire proceedings went against Anwar thus allowing an injustice to prevail. It created the unmistakable impression that the court was colluding with the executive to put away Anwar for good.

Widespread anger

So why was Anwar freed?

While the prosecution went all out to obtain a conviction, the powers-that-be could not ignore the sentiment on the ground. There was wide-spread anger and frustration among a wide-ranging spectrum of the population.

I was on my way to keep an appointment at the General Hospital in Penang on January 9, when I was informed of the outcome, moments after the judge had delivered his verdict to acquit and discharge Anwar. I met so many people at the hospital, the majority of whom were Malays and who were total strangers. When I told them that Anwar was freed, all of them without an exception praised God and were openly very happy.

I called my friend in Kuala Lumpur and related my experience with these people. I was told that this euphoria was not confined to Penang only but was felt everywhere in KL and elsewhere in the country.

With this kind of sympathy and support for Anwar, a guilty verdict and a prison sentence would have outraged all these people. The backlash arising out of this injustice would have punished the Barisan Nasional mercilessly in the 13th General Election.

Political motive?

According to many observers, it was a political decision to go after Anwar with this trumped up charge as he was seen as a threat to the BN’s continued domination of Malaysian politics. Now it was also a political decision to free him in order to mollify the public anger against the BN.

But if this was their strategy for the time being, will they allow Anwar the freedom to roam around the country, galvanising the people and spreading the wings of Pakatan all over Malaysia?

It is very likely that they would want to appeal this verdict and knowing the trend of the judiciary — you win round one and lose round two — the appeal would be allowed. In this way they can keep Anwar tied down with the court cases and continue to harass him giving him little rope to campaign effectively.

But this raises a serious issue. Who will decide if the prosecution should appeal? Following the norm, that decision is with the Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. But would that be fair to Anwar?

In the first sodomy trial, Manjit Singh who was representing Nallakaruppan revealed that Gani Patail had asked Nallakaruppan to incriminate Anwar offering a plea bargain. This incident should disqualify Gani Patail from deciding on the question of appeal. Apparently there would be a case of conflict of interest.

But the best decision is for the executive and the judiciary to accept the decision of the High Court and bring a closure to this unhappy event. There would be no justification for wasting countless hours of the court and unnecessarily incurring huge further costs in pursuing this case.

If the A-G proceeds with the appeal, the inevitable conclusion would be that it is a case of political vendetta against Anwar, plain and simple. It would debunk the claim made by some that the verdict showed the judiciary is independent. It would only establish the fact that nothing has changed in the judiciary. The rot has permeated beyond repair and redemption