Always consistently inconsistent

 

But why is no one talking about this? Is it true that the MAS multi-billion scandal is linked to the RM30 billion Forex losses? And why say that the RM30 billion Forex losses is an old issue? Yes, it is 20 years old. I agree. But are not the Sabah and Tanjung Kupang air crashes and the Jalil Ibrahim murder even older than that? Yet you want me to talk about those issues, which are even older than the RM30 billion Forex losses episode. And the MAS issue is still current. It is not an old issue.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are some readers who have demanded to know why I have not written about this issue or that issue. They have even mentioned some of the issues I should be writing about such as the Sabah air crash, the Tanjung Kupang air crash, the Jalil Ibrahim murder in Hong Kong, and so on.

Why do they want me to write about issues of days gone by? And why pick on these issues in particular?

The answer is simple. These issues would be extremely unfavourable to those who walk in the corridors of power. Hence, anything that is unfavourable to those who walk in the corridors of power would be favourable to those in the opposition who aspire to be the ones to walk in the corridors of power.

If I were to write about those issues, would this see justice for the victims of the air crashes or for the family of Jalil Ibrahim? Is there anything new I can write about, which you do not yet know, or will I merely be rehashing the same old story, which everyone already knows about anyway?

In short, what do you hope to achieve by me writing about this ‘old story’ other than to embarrass certain people who may have been involved in those incidences, assuming some of these people are still alive?

There is a question of motive here. You are the very same people who always question motive. When Deepak Jaikishan makes his revelation you question his motive. Why now? What is his motive? When ex-IGP Musa Hassan makes his revelation you question his motive. Why now? What is his motive?

Motive appears to be at the top of your list of ten questions. Should that not also be what we ask you? Why now? What is your motive in asking me to write about this, that or the other?

When I do write about something that happened in the past and by coincidence it involved someone who was then in the government but now in the opposition, you lament that that is an old story. You do not want to read about an old story. You want to read about something new.

So, when do you want to read about an old story and when do you not wish to read about an old story? You demand that I write about an old story. And when I do write about an old story this angers you and you pose questions like ‘why now?’ and ‘what is your motive?’ and so on.

You may not have noticed this, because it takes an intelligent mind to be able to notice it, but I normally write about something that no one talks about. And when every man and his dog start talking or writing about that issue, I lay off the issue. I do not jump onto the bandwagon and scream the same thing that others are screaming.

How many of you had even heard the name Deepak Jaikishan until Malaysia Today revealed that name and identified who he is in relation to the ‘First Family’. Now he is a ‘household’ name so I do not need to talk about him any longer. Today, people the length and breadth of Malaysia, are talking about him.

How many of you had heard about Birkin handbags until Malaysia Today revealed that the First Lady has a collection of those bags in all the different colours? Many people did not even know about the existence of Birkin and I bet many of you till today have not even seen one ‘in the flesh’ other than the photographs that Malaysia Today published.

Today, you know about ex-IGP Musa Hassan’s links with BK Tan and ‘Tengku’ Goh, the underworld bosses. Had you ever heard of BK Tan and ‘Tengku’ Goh before this? And Malaysia Today did not just make a wild allegation of these links, we published eight Statutory Declarations, two by underworld figures, one by the IGP’s ADC, and five more by serving (not retired) police officers confirming what Malaysia Today alleged.

So, yes, today, everyone is discussing these issues. But you are able to discuss these issues only becauseMalaysia Today exposed these issues. If not you would never have known about these issues.

And that was the reason why Malaysia Today revealed these issues. We wanted you to know about these stories. We wanted you to talk about the matter. And now that you know, and now that you are talking about them, our job is done. We can then sit back and allow you to talk about the matter and then come to your own conclusion as to what you should be doing about it.

Most of the issues being discussed today came from Malaysia Today. I admit that the NFC issue is not ours. That was one expose that we missed so we do sometimes miss one or two. But missing one or two out of 20 or 30 is not too bad a track record, though.

But what about the many other issues that we raised which no one seems to be talking about? For example, we revealed that the MAS multi-billion fiasco is linked to the RM30 billion foreign exchange losses of 20 years ago. And we published Tajudin Ramli’s Affidavit that he filed in court as evidence to support our allegation.

Tajudin Ramli filed an Affidavit in court. If he lied in that Affidavit he can be sent to jail. Hence, until and unless the court can prove that he lied (which they did not) then we have to assume that what he said in that Affidavit is the truth.

Since then, MAS has settled its case with Tajudin Ramli ‘out of court’. This gives an impression that Tajudin Ramli’s case is strong and that MAS realises it may not win. Or maybe MAS is worried that if it proceeds with this case then the truth about what Tajudin Ramli said in his Affidavit might surface. Hence better they ‘kill’ this case and allow it to go no further.

But why is no one talking about this? Is it true that the MAS multi-billion scandal is linked to the RM30 billion Forex losses? And why say that the RM30 billion Forex losses is an old issue? Yes, it is 20 years old. I agree. But are not the Sabah and Tanjung Kupang air crashes and the Jalil Ibrahim murder even older than that? Yet you want me to talk about those issues, which are even older than the RM30 billion Forex losses episode. And the MAS issue is still current. It is not an old issue.

I have not written anything in this column for the last ten days or so. I thought I would sit back and monitor your comments below the news items and articles written by others, which I published in Malaysia Today. And one thing that is very clear is: you regard anything that is not right with this country as Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s fault. He is to be blamed and he must be accountable for all the ills facing the country.

In other words, the buck stops at the top man’s table.

I can buy that. After all, someone has to take responsibility when something goes wrong. And the person who should take that responsibility must be the top man.

But then who should take responsibility when something goes wrong on the other side? The Selangor, Penang, Kelantan and Kedah State Governments have come out with certain policies and have done certain things that have upset the people. Who must take responsibility for this?

When something goes wrong under the Barisan Nasional administration, whether at federal or state level, the Prime Minister must take the blame. But when something goes wrong under the Pakatan Rakyat administration, the Opposition Leader cum Prime Minister-in-Waiting is not to be blamed.

When the Local Council demolishes Hindu temples, Dr Xavier screams sabotage. It is not Pakatan Rakyat’s fault. It is not the Advisor to the Selangor State Government cum Opposition Leader’s fault. It is sabotage.

What about the confiscation of beer at the 7-Eleven? Is this also sabotage? What about the ruling regarding the segregation of males and females in the cinema? Is this also sabotage?

If all this happened in a Barisan Nasional run state then Najib must take the blame and Najib must resign because of it. But when it happens in the Pakatan Rakyat run states who should take the blame and who should resign?

Today, Selena Tay wrote an article in Free Malaysia Today called Political blockbuster: Dragon vs Dinosaur. In that article, she compared Malaysia’s economic growth during the time when Anwar Ibrahim was the Finance Minister from 1992 to 1997 to the time when Najib is Prime Minister from 2009 to 2011.

Basically, what Selena says is that Malaysia performed better when Anwar was the Finance Minister compared to when Najib is Prime Minister. Note, and I repeat, the analysis that Selena did compares Anwar as Finance Minister to Najib as Prime Minister.

Now, when Anwar was Finance Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the Prime Minister. So, should not Dr Mahathir be credited for the good performance instead of Anwar Ibrahim?

Okay, let us assume that Dr Mahathir had no hand in this. Let us assume that it was the Finance Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, who should be credited for this good performance. However, during that same period, 1992 to 1994, Malaysia also lost RM30 billion ‘playing’ the Forex market.

So, who is to be blamed for this? Since the good economic performance of the country during the period when Anwar was the Finance Minister must be credited to Anwar, should not Anwar, therefore, also take the blame for whatever bad that happened?

In this case, no! The RM30 billion Forex losses are Dr Mahathir’s fault. Dr Mahathir was the Prime Minister so he must take all the blame -- just like Najib, the present Prime Minister, must take all the blame for whatever happens to Malaysia today.

Who, therefore, is at fault here? Najib is both Finance Minister and Prime Minister. When something bad happens to Malaysia we blame Najib. But do we blame him because he is the Prime Minister or because he is the Finance Minister?

If we blame Najib because he is the Prime Minister and hence the Prime Minister must take all the blame -- and hence take all the credit as well -- should not Selena credit Dr Mahathir rather than Anwar for Malaysia’s good economic performance from 1992 to 1997?

Assuming Selena feels that the Finance Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, and not the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, should be credited for Malaysia’s good economic performance from 1992 to 1997, then why is Dr Mahathir and not Anwar being blamed for the RM30 billion Forex losses during that same period?

We need to be clear as to who we put the blame on -- or give credit to -- for what happens in Malaysia. On the one hand we say that the blame must go all the way to the top. On the other hand we say that the buck stops at the bottom and the top is not to be blamed. Why do we change the rules as and when it suits us?