If it’s nonsense then explain

By saying that what I wrote about the Sarbaini death is nonsense does not explain his death. What I wrote might be nonsense but Shafee Abdullah does not explain how Sarbaini died. And if he did not commit suicide and neither was he murdered, then how did he end up dead on the ground floor?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) lawyer has dismissed as nonsense the claims of Raja Petra Kamarudin regarding the death of Customs officer Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed.

Datuk Seri Shafee Abdullah told The Malaysian Insider that most of the witnesses and forensic experts in the ongoing coroner’s inquest into how the Selangor Customs assistant director fell to his death at the Kuala Lumpur MACC office on April 6 have so far ruled out both suicide and homicide.

“Raja Petra is talking nonsense. I believe this allegation will not affect the inquest. He is history,” Shafee said of the Malaysia Today news portal editor.

*************************************

In April 1982, the State Assemblyman for Tampin, Negeri Sembilan, Datuk Mohd Taha Talib, was found shot dead. The then Culture, Youth and Sports Minister, Datuk Mokhtar Hashim, was arrested and later convicted in connection with the murder.

The bullet that killed Taha Talib came from Mokhtar Hashim’s gun. And Mokhtar Hashim could not explain how come his gun was used to commit the murder and if it was not him then who pulled the trigger?

There was of course a witness, one of the people involved in the murder. And since he fingered Mokhtar Hashim and Mokhtar Hashim could not rebut that allegation then he must surely have been the one who pulled the trigger. After all, it was his gun.

In 1999, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was convicted of corruption (and later sodomy) because, according to the judge, he failed to convince the court of his innocence. So, since he could not prove his innocence, it must be assumed he is guilty.

Yes, according to the law, one is innocent until proven guilty. However, in high profile cases, it appears like one is guilty unless one can prove one’s innocence. Was that not what I too was subjected to?

I was twice detained under the Internal Security Act, in 2001 and 2008, because there was a suspicion I may be guilty of a crime. While in the Kamunting Detention Center I was brought before the Review Board so that I can argue my case and convince the Board that my detention was not justified. If I failed to do that then I would be detained without trial indefinitely.

In other words, the government says you are guilty. Convince us, the Review Board, you are not.

I was further charged for various crimes and was made to face trial. In the four charges that I faced, the truth of the matter is not material to the charge. The court only needs to establish whether I did what I was alleged to have done. Whether what I did was based on the truth or lies is not important. Even if it were the truth I would still be guilty and would be sent to jail.

This is how the game has been played all along. You are not innocent until proven guilty. You are guilty if you can’t prove your innocence. You are not guilty only if you lied. You are guilty even if you tell the truth.

This was what Mokhtar Hashim, Anwar Ibrahim, I, as well as many other people, have been subjected to. Have they changed the rules of the game since then? I did not make the rules. I am just playing by their rules.

It is so convenient for Shafee Abdullah to brush of what I said as nonsense. Was Mokhtar Hashim able to brush off the murder allegation as nonsense by saying, “Just because it is my gun does not mean I shot Taha Talib.”?

Was Anwar Ibrahim able to brush of the allegation of corruption and sodomy as nonsense by saying, “You don’t have evidence of any crime being committed other than the testimony of one witness who admitted under oath that he had been coached by the police as to what to say and who confessed under oath that he was never sodomised.”?

Was I able to brush off the many allegations against me as nonsense when they detained me without trial and denied me the right to defend myself in a trial in an open court?

By saying that what I wrote about the Sarbaini death is nonsense does not explain his death. What I wrote might be nonsense but Shafee Abdullah does not explain how Sarbaini died. And if he did not commit suicide and neither was he murdered, then how did he end up dead on the ground floor?

That needs explaining. So, if what I wrote is nonsense, then how did Sarbaini die? Explain that.

And while we are at it maybe Shafee Abdullah can explain all these other ‘nonsense’ as well.

What happened to about 22 hours of CCTV recordings at the MACC Jalan Cochrane office that have suddenly disappeared? And why by coincidence these 22 hours of erased recordings happens to have been the time that Sarbaini visited the MACC KL office?

How did Altantuya Shaariibuu’s immigration records disappear?

Who were the two army officers (Pegawai ATM) who entered Najib’s house midnight the night Altantuya was murdered and left again at dawn? Why are the full details (names and IC numbers) of those who enter and leave Najib’s house recorded but the details of these two army officers have been left vague?

What was the motive that Sirul and Azilah had in killing Altantuya when they both did not know her?

Sirul and Azilah said they were paid RM100,000 to kill Altantuya. In that case, since they admitted to being paid to kill her, have they revealed who paid them? And if the police were able to extract the motive from them (meaning they were motivated by money) how come the police can’t go all the way and also extract the name of the person who paid them?

The Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said that the exchanges of text messages between himself and Shafee Abdullah are ‘personal’. However, these exchanges of text messages implicate both Najib and Shafee Abdullah in a conspiracy to assist Razak Baginda in the Altantuya murder trial. And Razak did escape. So maybe Shafee Abdullah can also explain this ‘nonsense’.

Aiyah, cukuplah. I can go on and on and list hundreds of ‘nonsense’ that have gone unexplained. All these may be nonsense. Then again, they may not be. But as long as they remain unexplained then we shall have to do what the court said in convicting Mokhtar Hashim and Anwar Ibrahim: since you have failed to convince us of your innocence then we shall have to assume you are guilty.