Within a very short span of time, the issue of the connection between the Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Razak, and the murder case of the Mongolian model, Altantuya Shaariibuu has shifted from the realm of rumour mongering into the realm of a public political discourse.
Even the public discourse has at the moment shed away its “cool and collected” nature – to be transformed to become a shrill and loud shouting match between supporters of rival candidates at the nomination day of a DUN by-election.
There is now all the possibility that the issue would be bandied around by workers of rival parties in the house-to-house campaign underway in what used to be a peaceful semi-rural corner of the state of Selangor.
At the Parliament, a member from the opposition DAP, Karpal Singh, had challenged the DPM to appear in the house to present a clear denial of his involvement in the murder case.
Due to the over-enthusiastic efforts of a cabinet minister and some members of the government whip, the issue quickly degenerated into a rowdy shouting match among members of the august house – causing the Speaker to intervene in order to ensure that it did not develop into a fully fledged physical confrontation.
Even prior to the Parliamentary incident, though, the Advisor to the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Anwar Ibrahim, has for weeks now been raising the issue in public rallies, emphasizing its damaging connections with the payments of commissions to some individuals and groups amounting to hundreds of millions of ringgits for the purchase of submarines and other defense equipments for the Ministry of Defense.
Anwar had demanded that a thorough investigation be conducted immediately, because both the issues could be linked directly to the same person, i.e. to the DPM himself. Not only was the corruption case linked to the administration of the Defense ministry which is directly under the charge of the DPM, but all those accused in the murder case were closely related to him – either as his private political think-tanker or his private security staffers.
Moreover, the alleged murderer(s) appear to have used a very sophisticated and state-of-the-art explosive material (the C4) which can only be obtained from certain high security sources and only with the approval of highly powerful people in authority.
As the links and connections of the two issues appear to be so highly visible, Anwar had demanded for a thorough investigation to be carried out by the government – at least as an effort to clear the name of the DPM, both locally and internationally.
Najib who had thus far maintained his silence on the issue (as long as his own involvement in it remained confined to the rumour mongering realm), could not remain so any longer with the revelations by Anwar Ibrahim in public rallies and Karpal Singh in Parliament.
A day before nomination day for the DUN Ijok by-election, Najib presented his explanation to the public. He had, however, decided to make his explanation highly political, peppering it with a counter political attack and innuendos of his own, accusing his accusers of making personal slander against him.
His counter attack appears to be specifically directed towards Anwar Ibrahim.
Najib claimed that he too can make slanderous revelations on Anwar Ibrahim that are personal in nature, but that it is not his style – he respected the fact that Anwar has a wife and children.
It is not clear if the “revelations” that he meant has anything to do with the sodomy charge that had been leveled at Anwar previously – but has since been cleared by the courts of law.
Perhaps with the aim of “balancing” Anwar’s tacit accusation of his multi-million ringgit corruption, Najib accused Anwar as being the person that is really responsible for wrecking the economy of the country by subscribing to the IMF formulae in dealing with the Asian financial crisis of 1997.
To my mind the “balancing” of these two phenomena is logically unacceptable, and therefore not very convincing. While a serious case of corruption is clearly a crime against the state, and should be suitably punished, subscribing to the IMF formulae is but a problem of error (or otherwise) of judgement in policy decision-making.
Making an error of judgement in such matters of policy is hardly a criminal offence –just as Dr Mahathir had openly admitted committing an error of judgement in choosing his successor(s).
Moreover, there have not been convincing empirical or economic history evidence to show that subscribing to the IMF formulae in dealing with the financial crisis was a bad decision in comparison to its alternatives. Nations that subscribed to the formulae – such as South Korea and Indonesia – have bounced back from the crisis with more ease and speed than some of the nations that did not, such as ourselves.
What was even more unfortunate for Najib was that his choice of time for making the “explanation” and the counter attack. It could not have been more wrong, because it was exactly the day before the nomination day for the Ijok by-election.
Naturally, such an aggressive mode of explanation and counter attack would invoke the displeasure of the opposition parties’ supporters at the nomination “fiesta” in Batang Berjuntai. Coincidentally, Najib was himself the most senior BN leader present to grace the occasion.
His arrival, together with his wife, Rosmah, was therefore greeted with loud and boisterous (and repeated) shouts of: “Altantuya … Mongolia … Rasuah Kapal Selam.”
To me the reaction and the shouting by the opposition supporters that morning clearly marked the shift in the nature of discourse on the DPM’s involvement in the Altantuya murder case from a stage of muted rumour mongering to the realm of open and loud public political discourse.
Whether Najib and other boisterous BN supporters such as Khairy Jamaluddin liked it or not, now the issue would certainly emerge to be one of the hottest topics of contention in the election campaign trails.
People are not going to discuss the issue with any detail, rationality or even with facts. The mere mention of the model’s name or even the name of her country of origin would be enough to invoke an emotive reaction from among the voters and the rakyat at large.
Najib had promised that he would continue to make his explanations within the “confines of the law.” In fact that promise in itself had already raised questions among certain quarters: Would his “willingness” to offer further explanation in the future be in any way impeded by the warning issued at about the same time by the Attorney-General, Ghani Patail, that the murder case before the courts must not be allowed to become the subject of public discourse, as it would affect the work of the courts and the judges.
The other relevant question is that: What further explanation can Najib possibly offer, considering no real specific accusation has been leveled at him. It was the government, and not Najib personally, that is being asked to carry out a thorough investigation on the matter of his possible involvement.
The question of whether the police, or even the Prime Minister, has any knowledge or even an opinion on the matter is not the issue here.
Najib did mention that taking legal action against certain quarters is being actively considered as one of his options. But who are among the people that he could drag to the courts over the matter – for no one has really accused him of any wrongdoing?
Surely Karpal Singh cannot be the object of his litigation initiative, because the challenge that he issued to Najib to declare that he was not in any way involved in the murder case was made in parliament as a duly elected member of the house –and therefore enjoyed certain legal immunities in issuing the challenge.
To my mind, it is indeed unfortunate for Najib, and possibly for his political career too, that his alleged involvement in a complex but serious case had entered the realm of public political discourse in such a manner.
Even if he is keen to offer further explanation on the matter, what other possible explanation is there to offer? To remain silent as he did in the past is not any more possible now, as a public discourse has been ignited. A silent Najib would be interpreted by those who suspected his involvement in the case as a sign of his inability to clear his name.
He is seeing his good name and reputation being dragged in the mud of a nasty world of an unforgiving partisan real politik. It is interesting to watch now how he is going to wriggle out of this unfortunate difficult situation.
Rustam A. Sani
Suara Rakyat
No comments:
Post a Comment