When he declared the dissolution of Parliament, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak made a slip by pronouncing the date as "April 3, 2012". Up to this point in time Najib himself has not made any attempt to correct it.
Neither did he consider it expedient to instruct the PMO to issue a statement to mend the mistake. Najib just took it for granted that the citizens will accept the slip as an honest mistake and didn't care two hoots if they didn't.
In comparison, when he affirmed his affidavit on Sept 21, 2011, to strike off a subpoena served on him in the Sodomy II trial, he stated that Saiful Bukhari Azlan was allegedly sodomised on "June 26, 2011".
However, realising that he misquoted the year, which is supposed to be 2008 instead of 2011, Najib immediately instructed his lawyers to file another affidavit, which he affirmed on Sept 23, 2011, to correct the date of the alleged incident as "June 26, 2008".
What makes him think that it is vital for him to correct the error in the year Saiful was alleged to have been sodomised, but consider it a non-issue to warrant a correction to the slip he made in announcing the year of the dissolution of Parliament? Isn't the mistake about the same thing?
Najib should declare his priorities now. Does he place more importance to Saiful being sodomised or the future of the nation and her citizens? By his own account and actions, I would say that Najib believes his political survival depends very much on the Saiful's fantasies.
Najib should realise that the date he made the announcement of the dissolution does not matter. More important is the date the Parliament is dissolved. For that matter the prime minister can announce the date of the dissolution of Parliament well in advance.
In our case, since the prime minister has officially announced the dissolution of the Parliament was to take effect on April 3, 2012 and there is no official announcement to say otherwise, then who are we to take it for granted that it was a slip of Najib's tongue?
If indeed it was a mistake, Najib would have corrected it himself, with the same vigour as he did in the Saiful Bukhari matter.
Or is Najib prepared to tell the citizens not to believe in what he announced, but to rely on the notice given by the Speaker of Parliament to the Election Commission? If so, he should state his position.
For now, we leave it to Najib and his advisers to decide on their next course of action. As far as we are concerned, Najib is willing to take the trouble to affirm a fresh affidavit to save Saiful Bukhari.
We want to see whether he is also prepared to admit his mistakes for the sake of the nation, or whether he is only willing to sacrifice for the dropout.
A hand full of contradictions
During the swearing-in ceremony as the country' sixth prime minister before the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on April 3, 2009, Najib swore in the name of Allah that his name is Muhammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak.
But when he affirmed his affidavits before a Commissioner of Oaths on Sept 21 and 23, 2011, in the Sodomy II case, he stated his name as Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, renouncing the nameMuhammad.
The PM's wife, Rosmah Mansor herself stated her husband's name asNajib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak as affirmed in her affidavit, for the same case, on Sept 21, 2011.
It must be noted that the law requires a deponent to give his full name, as it appears on his or her MyKad, when affirming an affidavit or a statutory declaration. Otherwise the affidavit can be considered false, as in the famous case of PP vs Sharma Kumari Shukla in 2000.
Until today the full name of the prime minister of Malaysia remains mysterious. Neither Najib, nor the cabinet, nor the chief secretary to the government nor the attorney-general, dare to declare our PM's full name.
Najib knows that he will be caught either way.
Seriously, I'm convinced that if any one of the young aspirants were to challenge Najib's nomination for the Pekan constituency, and should the EC play strictly by the rules, less the habitual manipulations and deceptions, Najib's nomination to contest in this coming GE will have to be rejected.
Contradicting the oaths
When administering both the Oath of Office and Allegiance and the Oath of Secrecy, Najib was discovered to have made material contradictions in both the oaths as compared to that defined in the Sixth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
The question is whether Najib is empowered to reword the oath of office and secrecy to his own preference, from the wordings already recorded in the Constitution?. If he says he can, then it is as good as he is empowered to amend the Constitution arbitrarily.
As it stands now, Najib can be considered to have failed in taking his oath of office, allegiance and secrecy in accordance with the Sixth Schedule of the federal constitution. Najib took the test, but flopped miserably.
If such a simple, straightforward and unambiguous provision in the federal constitution cannot be followed or subscribed to by Najib, how then can the citizens expect him to abide by the other laws?
In simple words, Najib has, since taking office, no legitimate authority to exercise the functions of a prime minister, as stipulated by Article 43 of the federal constitution.
When silence is not golden
Under the present circumstances, Najib has no option except to address the issues head-on, like a gentleman. He cannot expect the matters to evaporate into thin air by themselves and be forgotten.
In the event he is permitted to contest in the coming GE and wins, Najib will be required to take the oath of office, allegiance and secrecy before the Yang di-Pertuan Agong yet again.
Say Najib gives his name and takes the prescribed oaths exactly in the same manner as he did on April 3, 2009, then the same questions put forward now will be asked again and this time, more vigorously.
Should this time around he choose the name he affirmed in his affidavits, and administer all the oaths using the words exactly as recorded in the Sixth Schedule of the constitution, then he will be asked why didn't he do it on the first occasion.
Either way he will be caught with his pants down. Najib, better believe that handling the second one is tougher than the first.
Neither did he consider it expedient to instruct the PMO to issue a statement to mend the mistake. Najib just took it for granted that the citizens will accept the slip as an honest mistake and didn't care two hoots if they didn't.
In comparison, when he affirmed his affidavit on Sept 21, 2011, to strike off a subpoena served on him in the Sodomy II trial, he stated that Saiful Bukhari Azlan was allegedly sodomised on "June 26, 2011". However, realising that he misquoted the year, which is supposed to be 2008 instead of 2011, Najib immediately instructed his lawyers to file another affidavit, which he affirmed on Sept 23, 2011, to correct the date of the alleged incident as "June 26, 2008".
What makes him think that it is vital for him to correct the error in the year Saiful was alleged to have been sodomised, but consider it a non-issue to warrant a correction to the slip he made in announcing the year of the dissolution of Parliament? Isn't the mistake about the same thing?
Najib should declare his priorities now. Does he place more importance to Saiful being sodomised or the future of the nation and her citizens? By his own account and actions, I would say that Najib believes his political survival depends very much on the Saiful's fantasies.
Najib should realise that the date he made the announcement of the dissolution does not matter. More important is the date the Parliament is dissolved. For that matter the prime minister can announce the date of the dissolution of Parliament well in advance.
In our case, since the prime minister has officially announced the dissolution of the Parliament was to take effect on April 3, 2012 and there is no official announcement to say otherwise, then who are we to take it for granted that it was a slip of Najib's tongue?
If indeed it was a mistake, Najib would have corrected it himself, with the same vigour as he did in the Saiful Bukhari matter.Or is Najib prepared to tell the citizens not to believe in what he announced, but to rely on the notice given by the Speaker of Parliament to the Election Commission? If so, he should state his position.
For now, we leave it to Najib and his advisers to decide on their next course of action. As far as we are concerned, Najib is willing to take the trouble to affirm a fresh affidavit to save Saiful Bukhari.
We want to see whether he is also prepared to admit his mistakes for the sake of the nation, or whether he is only willing to sacrifice for the dropout.
A hand full of contradictions
During the swearing-in ceremony as the country' sixth prime minister before the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on April 3, 2009, Najib swore in the name of Allah that his name is Muhammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak.
But when he affirmed his affidavits before a Commissioner of Oaths on Sept 21 and 23, 2011, in the Sodomy II case, he stated his name as Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, renouncing the nameMuhammad.
The PM's wife, Rosmah Mansor herself stated her husband's name asNajib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak as affirmed in her affidavit, for the same case, on Sept 21, 2011.
It must be noted that the law requires a deponent to give his full name, as it appears on his or her MyKad, when affirming an affidavit or a statutory declaration. Otherwise the affidavit can be considered false, as in the famous case of PP vs Sharma Kumari Shukla in 2000.
Until today the full name of the prime minister of Malaysia remains mysterious. Neither Najib, nor the cabinet, nor the chief secretary to the government nor the attorney-general, dare to declare our PM's full name.Najib knows that he will be caught either way.
Seriously, I'm convinced that if any one of the young aspirants were to challenge Najib's nomination for the Pekan constituency, and should the EC play strictly by the rules, less the habitual manipulations and deceptions, Najib's nomination to contest in this coming GE will have to be rejected.
Contradicting the oaths
When administering both the Oath of Office and Allegiance and the Oath of Secrecy, Najib was discovered to have made material contradictions in both the oaths as compared to that defined in the Sixth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
The question is whether Najib is empowered to reword the oath of office and secrecy to his own preference, from the wordings already recorded in the Constitution?. If he says he can, then it is as good as he is empowered to amend the Constitution arbitrarily.
As it stands now, Najib can be considered to have failed in taking his oath of office, allegiance and secrecy in accordance with the Sixth Schedule of the federal constitution. Najib took the test, but flopped miserably.
If such a simple, straightforward and unambiguous provision in the federal constitution cannot be followed or subscribed to by Najib, how then can the citizens expect him to abide by the other laws?
In simple words, Najib has, since taking office, no legitimate authority to exercise the functions of a prime minister, as stipulated by Article 43 of the federal constitution.
When silence is not golden
Under the present circumstances, Najib has no option except to address the issues head-on, like a gentleman. He cannot expect the matters to evaporate into thin air by themselves and be forgotten.
In the event he is permitted to contest in the coming GE and wins, Najib will be required to take the oath of office, allegiance and secrecy before the Yang di-Pertuan Agong yet again.
Say Najib gives his name and takes the prescribed oaths exactly in the same manner as he did on April 3, 2009, then the same questions put forward now will be asked again and this time, more vigorously.
Should this time around he choose the name he affirmed in his affidavits, and administer all the oaths using the words exactly as recorded in the Sixth Schedule of the constitution, then he will be asked why didn't he do it on the first occasion.
Either way he will be caught with his pants down. Najib, better believe that handling the second one is tougher than the first.
MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is a former head of the Criminal Investigation Department, Kuala Lumpur.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.