Tale of two governments and a sex case

Two countries - one festering diplomatic bungle and two different responses.

Within two days of the controversy surrounding a Malaysian diplomatic attache accused of burglary and sexual assault in New Zealand breaking out, the contrast between two different Commonwealth governments handling the same issue cannot be more stark.
          
It appears, at this point, that there have been errors from both the Malaysian and New Zealand governments in handling the matter, which did not blow up in the media until more than a month after the diplomat returned to Malaysia - but that is as far as the similarities go.

The reaction of the two governments on the issue has illustrated what is already reflected in the frustrations of many Malaysians for years - that the Malaysian government is slow to get on its feet when faced with an immediate crisis.

Just months after receiving widespread international media criticism for its handling of the MH370 crisis, Malaysia made international news again for reportedly bringing back the said diplomat even after New Zealand made a formal request for diplomatic immunity to be waived in order for Muhammad Rizalman Ismail to be charged and tried in New Zealand.

During the height of the MH370 crisis, the government constantly fended off criticism, claiming that the disappearance of the plane was an "unprecedented" event in aviation history and thus did not merit pointing fingers at the government, for a lack of another example.
  
But in this diplomatic bungle, the example is laid out bare for all Malaysians to see.

Kiwis quicker and transparent

The Kiwi government has been quicker in responding, faster in revealing information, and effective in communicating their stand to the media.

For years now, Malaysians have wished for a similar response attitude from the Malaysian government, which has often gone on the defensive whenever criticism is levelled at it.

Today, the Kiwi parliament is having an urgent debate to discuss the diplomatic bungle, where the government will field questions and criticisms in an effort to answer them and also arrest the fallout due to the controversy.

On the contrary, the Malaysian government adamantly refused to have any urgent debate on the MH370 crisis despite consistent calls from the opposition here.

Till today, the Parliament has not hosted any special session for MH370, except for a note of sympathy that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak extended at the Parliament House.

For several months now, the federal government has maintained that there is no need for any special discussion on the MH370 crisis until the black box is retrieved and the Search and Rescue Operation (SAR) is completed.

Calls for a Parliamentary Select Committee to look into where Malaysia might have gone wrong on the matter has also fallen on deaf ears.

Two different versions

Yesterday, Foreign Affairs Minister Anifah Aman gave a version of events that appeared contradictory to the one claimed by New Zealand authorities.

Within hours, the New Zealand government had released official communication documents to illustrate that Malaysia did refuse to waive diplomatic immunity, contrary to Anifah's (left) claim.

The documents were released under the Official Information Act, while most official communication in Malaysia is still sealed under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

Even then, the Malaysian government was not quick to respond to the questions that were surfacing locally.

It was in fact the New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully who told the media there that the Malaysian government had acted in "good faith".

The Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry in New Zealand had also issued an apology to its own government, admitting errors in its handling of the diplomat's immunity before he was allowed to leave for Malaysia.

To date, the Malaysian government has refused to apologise over the MH370 crisis. In fact, apologies are a rare act of accountability in Malaysia.

Rizalman remains a mystery

While New Zealand police also issued a statement today that they would protect the 21-year-old victim of the alleged sexual assault, the Malaysian government is yet to give a clear account on the whereabouts of Rizalman.

Anifah yesterday could not give clear answers as to where Rizalman (right) is, or when would psychiatric tests conducted on him be completed. All we know as of now is that he would be facing the military court here if there is basis to the allegations.

This is despite Rizalman having returned to Malaysia more than a month ago, on May 22 to be precise.

The Defence Ministry, which is investigating Rizalman, has yet to issue any formal statements.

Defence Minister Hishamuddin Hussein too has not revealed any further details about the process and investigations taking place against Rizalman.

Hishamuddin (left) asked for a "few days" to discuss with Wisma Putra before determining the 38-year-old military man’s fate.

The issue of diplomatic immunity being used to escape charges in a foreign country is not a regular occurrence, but it is not "unprecedented" either.

Diplomatic immunity has been an issue in many countries before, and there have been various examples of immunity being waived even after the diplomat returns to his or her home country in order to face trial in the country where the crime had been committed.

Malaysia has maintained that it holds a good relationship with New Zealand and trusts its judicial system. In that case, dragging their feet longer would only raise more uncomfortable questions about the Malaysian government.

It is time for the government to ramp up its response to issue a clear stand on the matter in order to resolve the current impasse.

And they don't have to scourge far for an example this time - lessons can be learned from the conduct of the Kiwi government in handling the matter.