Open Letter to Lim Kit Siang on ‘prodigal son’ Najib coming in from the cold . . .
The ‘returning’ PM can be persuaded to ‘exercise restraint’ on ‘political enemies’ but Conditions Apply!
COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .
Veteran DAP leader Lim Kit Siang appears “petrified”, for want of a better term, by the prospects of former Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak making a political comeback and regaining the coveted “throne” in Putrajaya.
The jury may still be out on whether Najib will go after his “political enemies”. If it comes in, I may be among the first to know. Lim fears retribution.
However, for what it’s worth, Najib may be persuaded to exercise “maximum restraint” whether or not errant parties plead for mercy.
However, conditions Apply.
It’s likely that a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the Trial by Media held on Najib before GE14 on Thursday 10 May 2018 will have to be convened. It will bring closure on the Najib Administration from 2009 to 2018.
The media took its cue from Mahathir Mohamad repeating mindlessly that “Najib curi duit”, “Najib curi duit kerajaan”.
(Najib stole money, Najib stole government money)
Najib, despite mistakenly maintaining an “elegant silence” before GE14, did retort a few times that “Mahathir also stole money, he stole more money than any of us, and he was the Guru (in stealing money)”. This is a story for another day. It must be told.
Sudden bout . . .
Lim Kit Siang, in a sudden bout of amnesia, dementia and alzheimer’s, never commented on this “Father and Mother of All Accusations”.
He will have plenty of time to respond during the RCI on Trial by Media.
Apparently, the Sarawak Report may have influenced the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Edge Malaysia. It appears that Mahathir and a former MACC Chief also reached out to the DoJ and the Sarawak Report.
The WSJ, NYT and WP lost interest in the Najib Administration after a couple of reports virtually plagiarised from the Sarawak Report.
DoJ settled out of court all allegedly 1MDB related cases. 1MDB wasn’t mentioned in the out of court settlements. I believe they never filed civil or criminal cases on 1MDB. I stand corrected.
The DoJ, with 7K lawyers, may have realised that the media coverage on 1MDB was wrong. This can be surmised from the way they handled the cases allegedly related to 1MDB.
It’s an open secret that the media, an unthinking animal, can be manipulated by those in the know. Mahathir is a creation of the media and a media creature.
The media exercises self-censorship, imposes censorship and denies the right of reply on content. It stagemanages news and doesn’t hesitate to degenerate into news manufacturing. It’s within this context that media coverage on Najib, before and after GE14, must be viewed.
Pink diamond . . .
Rosmah’s US$75m pink diamond, for example, turned out to be fairy tale by the media. The lady may have taken it in good humour.
I asked one of the Wall Street Journal reporters, in Twitter, whether he had access to intelligence files which may have been released to the Sarawak Report.
He never responded.
The media appears to have had access to intelligence files. Their claims that they did research for investigative journalism may not hold water.
Lim Kit Siang used the C word against Najib, implying that the latter wasn’t fit to be Prime Minister.
In India, a necessary digression, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that even convicted criminals still serving time behind bars cannot be barred from offering themselves in elections. This provides Advisory Opinion from the Commonwealth in Malaysia. There’s lacuna (gap) in local law.
The rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, presides.
In the absence of a Constitutional Court in Malaysia, the Federal Court plays that role.
It will have to make a determination on whether the rule of law was upheld in Najib’s cases. It can’t put on blinkers. The Federal Court would have to adopt a wide latitude in interpretation.
Rule of law . . .
If a sardine thief gets seven months jail in an open and shut case for two cans, for example, and Umno gets back RM100m from the court, it shows the rule of law being upheld. The AG alleged in court that the RM100m came from 1MDB but could not produce the evidence. The court isn’t about truth but law. It’s the work of the court to find the law and declare it.
The letter of the law, by itself, isn’t law at all. In the rule of law, there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of the law, read with the letter of the law.
Najib may have been convicted in one case, but the two-stage Appeal process and Federal Court Review have not been exhausted.
If push comes to shove, the Najib case throws up miscarriage of justice issues, based on the “tainted” Ruling in the High Court, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It saw “no reason to interfere in the lower court ruling, apparently there being no errors in facts and no errors in law”.
It can be argued in the Apex Court on the laws applicable, if any, on the issues arising from relevant facts.
The High Court judge noted that Najib didn’t return the RM42m which came from SRC International, put on blinkers and decided “without proof” that he derived “personal benefit” from the said sum, and proceeded to fine him RM210m i.e. in law the minimum five times the “personal benefits” amount.
Disproportionate punishment . . .
In law, punishment cannot be disproportionate. The punishment must fit the crime. If there’s no law, there’s no crime. The law wasn’t found on “personal benefits” since we don’t know whether there was any such thing. The court assumed, without proof, that RM42m was the “personal benefit” amount.
If the main charge, personal benefits, collapses and implodes, the related charges can’t stand. They cease to exist as if they never existed, and if they exist, no longer exist.
Again, in putting on blinkers, the court failed to probe how the RM42m got through the checks and balances in SRC International and entered Najib’s personal account/s. Checks and balances “legitimise” the transfer of the said sum, perhaps for corporate social responsibilities, as argued in court.
Internal affairs . . .
Lim Kit Siang should not drag the people into the internal affairs of political parties which have nothing to do with DAP.
Democracy only works if the people participate before and after elections but not in the internal affairs of political parties.
The people should form movements on issues and engage the gov’t in dialogue. If the gov’t closes the door to dialogue, and the court says “no locus standi”, they can take to the streets.
Democracy isn’t about voting once in four or five years and then going home to sleep.