AZALINA’S AND SURENDRAN’S DEBATE: DID A CONSPIRACY TO OUST NAJIB EXIST?

The Third Force

For the past year or so, a good number of politicians from both sides of the political divide have been labouring under the misconception that they could wrestle the job of Prime Minister from Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak.

The intended beneficiary, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, conspired with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to lead a group of saboteurs on a mission to topple the Prime Minister by cunning and forced cause. The plot was contrived with the sole purpose of effecting a regime change – within the prospective framework of a coalition government – by waging a war of perception against Najib on as many fronts as possible.

The mission was put together late in 2014 following a roundtable that was chaired by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad and Tun Daim Zainuddin in London. The meeting, attended by some of the biggest deals in corporate Malaysia, settled on a ballpark figure of RM2 billion, RM600 million of which was later shelled out in worldwide media coverage against the ringgit and the economy. 

“Mahathir and Daim organized a meeting late in 2014, attended by some of the foremost political capitalists known to both the rulling coalition and the opposition”

Part of the fund was also used to grease the palms of some Members of Parliament (MPs), local media portals, bloggers and several other persons well connected and closely linked with both Mahathir and Daim. It didn’t matter to the Tuns one bit if UMNO was destroyed in the process, the imperative being that Najib had to be dislodged from power at all cost.

But not according to Surendran.

Just two days back, lawyer N. Surendran turned his attention to Azalina Othman on the platform of opening his mouth and talking rubbish. Thrusting her into spotlight, the PKR Member of Parliament (MP) took her to task for suggesting that Muhyiddin was involved in a coup plot against the Prime Minister.

But her corollary – that a high-level conspiracy to topple Najib did exist – was simply drawn as a logical consequence to a claim Muhyiddin himself had made almost immediately after being suspended as UMNO Deputy President.

According to the embattled politician, he had been let in on information that implicated the Prime Minister of wrongdoing. But more serious than the alleged wrongdoing was the fact that the former Attorney General (AG), Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, had resorted to sharing the information which, according to Muhyiddin, was shown to him by Gani himself.

Surendran, however, failed to see an element of conspiracy in the whole affair and rubbished Azalina’s claim. What he said amounted to this – plotting a coup against the Prime Minister was never the impetus to discussions or deliberations that may have gone on between Gani and Muhyiddin.

The PKR MP drove home the point that Gani was simply doing his job by briefing Muhyiddin, then Najib’s deputy, on the contents of a charge sheet that was said to detail how the Prime Minister had transgressed beyond the bounds of law.

On this basis, Surendran declared that Azalina’s use of the word ‘coup’ was “a clear abuse of the term.”

Was Surendren attempting to take the rakyat down the garden path?

On the 28th of February 2016, Azalina had this to say:

“The fact that a sitting attorney-general was privately briefing and sharing classified legal information with Tan Sri Muhyiddin, a member of the Cabinet and UMNO member who clearly had vested interests, is not only unethical but also a breach of the Official Secrets Act.”

To this, Surendran replied:

“There is no such thing.”

“Azalina implied that the former AG lacked the authority to brief Muhyiddin on the content of a charge sheet that had been drawn up against the Prime Minister”

According to Surendran, Official Secrets, as defined by the Act, included papers of Cabinet, State Executive Councils and all documents pertaining to national security, defence and international relations. “Carrying out duties provided under the Constitution can never amount to an illegal seizure of power or coup,” the MP added.

So on one hand, we have a claim by Surendran that the former AG was obliged to inform the Deputy Prime Minister of any wrongdoing by the Prime Minister, the implication being that it didn’t matter if classified information was shared in the process.

On the other hand, we have Azalina, who went on record to reveal that the former AG may have breached the terms of provisions under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972.

In light of these developments, let us take a step back and clear the air on some of the misconceptions that have arisen as a result of Surendran’s outburst: 

1. The Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972, a statute that prohibits the dissemination of information classified as an official secret, was legislated based on a like Act in the United kingdom and defines an official secret to mean the following:

“…any document specified in the Schedule (not included herein) and any information and material relating thereto and includes any other official document, information and material as may be classified as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Restricted, as the case may be, by a Minister, the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister or of a State or such public officer appointed under section 2B.”

Section 2B of the OSA provides:

“Minister, the Menteri Besar or the Chief Minister of a State may appoint any public officer by a certificate under his hand to classify any official document, information or material as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Restricted, as the case may be.”

2. According to Surendran, documents that are classified as secrets include papers of the Cabinet, State Executive Councils and all documents pertaining to national security, defence and international relations. While this is true, Surendran seemed to conveniently skip a provision that allowed other official documents, information and material to be classified as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Restricted.

3. The fact that investigators (from the Special Task Force, the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Royal Malaysian Police, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) had concerned themselves with probes that involved the head of the Malaysian government itselfconstituted a matter of National Security. The fact that information pertaining to investigations had been leaked to foreign nationals only helped press home the need for extreme caution when handling such information and conducting investigations.

4. It is an undisputable fact that Muhyiddin was never, at any point, accorded the right to view or be in possession of information pertaining to investigations against the Prime Minister and 1MDB or the outcome thereof.

“Muhyiddin’s role as Deputy Prime Minister was to assist the Prime Minister in carrying out his executive duties and to serve, whenever required, as the acting Prime Minister in the event that the Prime Minister was temporarily absent or incapable of exercising his power. His role was most certainly not to assist the Attorney General in any way other than that required by law and particularly when it concerned his official role or office”

5.  The a priori hypothesis is that the information which Gani had allegedly shared with Muhyiddin by the latter’s own confession may also have been classified as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential orRestricted by the Prime Minister or any other who may have been authorised to classify the information as such in accordance to Section 2B of the OSA.

6.  It is also possible that Gani himself may have classified the information as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Restricted based on authority vested in him in accordance to Section 2B of the OSA.

7.  The a priori hypothesis is also that Azalina, who serves as a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, may have been privy to the confidentiality of information that had allegedly been transacted between Gani and Muhyiddin, and as such, knew better than Surendran what she was saying.

8. In concluding, Surendran’s line of reasoning pertaining to the confidentiality of the information said above herein was speculative. In light of this, Surendran may have acted in mala fide to incite hatred against the Government of Malaysia and perhaps, to wilfully protect a saboteur or a group of saboteurs.

9. Surendran is therefore obligated to fulfil his responsibility as a people’s representative and as a citizen of Malaysia to come forth and issue a statement to either debunk or concede the conclusions above herein, including those that charge him of having acted in mala fide.

Azalina’s clarification was a brilliant one-man show.

Contrary to Surendran’s claim, Azalina’s use of the term coup was brilliant, in that it had drawn attention to a contrivance that has now become as plain as the nose on his face. But having looked into the mirror without his glasses on, Surendran failed to spot the nose and thereafter turned himself into a one-man circus.

Azalina’s contention – that Muhyiddin was complicit in a coup attempt against the Prime Minister – was postured on the premise that information allegedly transacted between Gani and the former deputy president bordered on prejudice, conspiracy and malfeasance.

“A charge sheet was said to be drawn up in May 2015 – before the so called Special Task Force was formed (by the former AG himself), before the investigation was started in June 2015, and certainly before the Prime Minister was interviewed in December 2015 by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. This proves that there was a conspiracy.”

Surendran’s arguments failed in its central thrust to shoot down the coup plot. More than that, it is yet unclear why he found it necessary to defend the AG’s constitutional right to carry out his duties when debunking Azalina’s corollary against Muhyiddin – she never did claim otherwise.

“Surendran seemed desperate to debunk the idea that a plot to topple Najib existed. The only problem is, the PKR MP didn’t seem to digest the core message that Azalina had articulated. At no point did she deny that the former AG had the constitutional right to carry out his duties.”

What Azalina did claim though, knowingly or unknowingly, was that a coup d’etat had been attempted alongside a coup de main – by a group of saboteurs who, since late 2014, had conspired one way or another with Mahathir to subvert government.

Chief among the saboteurs include (but are not limited to) the following persons:

1. Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad (Mastermind)
2. Tun Daim Zainuddin (Advisor)
3. Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (Accessory)
4. Matthias Chang (Effected the 2008 and 2013 Chinese Tsunamis)
5. Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (Accessory)
6. Jessica Gurmeet Kaur (Accessory)
7. Tan Sri Rashpal Singh (Accessory)
8. Dato Seri Khairuddin Abu Bakar (Spokesperson)
9. Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim (Accessory)
10. Tan Tony Pua (Accessory)
11. Senior Management of the Edge Media Group (Accessory)
12. Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin (Spokesperson)
13. Dato’ Bahri Mohamad Zain (Accessory)
14. Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed (Accessory)
15. Tun Ling Liong Sik (Assisted Mahathir and Matthias to effect the Chinese Tsunami)

Several key players who are yet suspect include (but are not limited to) the following persons:

1. Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz (Accessory)
2. Nurul Izzah (Accessory)
3. Chua Tian Chang a.k.a. Tian Chua (Accessory)

Was Surendran exacting political revenge against Najib?

That really depends on how you see it.

But assuming he was, his resentment may have been nurtured by humiliation following sedition charges that were brought against him in the month of August 2014.

The charges were clear – not only did he declare that a written judgment by the Court of Appeal was flawed, he had accused the Prime Minister of subverting due process to incarcerate Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who was at the time appealing a sodomy conviction that had been pronounced against him.

The accusations triggered a bitter and frenzied controversy as party members, consumed with rage, demanded that Surendran be tried for sedition and held in contempt of judiciary. The number of reports that were lodged against him led oppositionists to insinuate that Najib was himself behind a contrivance to put a spoke in Surendran’s wheel.

And that may have been reason enough for Surendran to decide that it was worth defending Muhyyiddin. It is no secret that the likes of Lim Kit Siang and Rafizi Ramli have been fervent with well wishes and expressions of shock on how UMNO could have discarded a person they’re now calling ‘a political martyr who stood his ground’.

But the print between the lines told a different story – it spoke of a secret agenda to depict Najib as a man on a political witch-hunt to silence his detractors. As it is, the Prime Minister’s apologists have been described as being nothing more than puppets hanging on the strings of Najib’s ugly pride.

Whatever said and done, it seems likely that Surendran may have been attempting to hoodwink the public into believing that a high-level conspiracy against the Prime Minister never did exist. But rest assured – it did.