Today, I intend to go through some questions that relate to an article I posted last Monday (link below). Some of these questions were posed to me in person, while others were put up by me to fill the gaps of coherence that arose as I was piecing this article together.
The whole purpose of this exercise is to help you guys put some of the stuff I spoke about last Monday into proper perspective. In the process, we’re going to attempt to distinguish right from wrong, truth from fiction. Everything here relates to a Citizen’s Declaration that Dr. Mahathir Mohammad claims is the culmination of dissent by a people against the present administration.
So without further ado, let us begin:
Does Mahathir have a million signatures with him as we speak?
Dr. Mahathir Mohammad brought himself disrepute when he tried to con a sitting Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The former premier knowingly perpetrated the contempt by claiming to have in his possession over one million signatures supporting the removal of Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak.
But the truth is, he doesn’t even have a hundred signatures. The so called 1.2 – 1.4 million signatures he claims to have in his possession no longer exist. I hereby dare Mahathir to prove me wrong by publishing at least half of those signatures in major dailies by tomorrow, the 17th of October 2016. If he does, I will sign a statutory declaration to declare that I had lied. If he fails, we can safely regard him to be a liar.
Still, the question remains, were any of those signatures Mahathir destroyed, or rather, got his men to destroy, legit?
When did Mahathir destroy the signatures, and why?
Mahathir got his men to destroy the signatures and all traces of their existence early last August. Still, I cannot be certain if the authorities managed to get hold of any of those signatures before they were destroyed. However, I am certain that the signatures were destroyed by his men.
Mahathir knew from day one that the so-called signatures were in fact forgeries, put together by his men in a span of just three weeks. The former premier even knew who had perpetrated the misdeed. Yet, he tried very hard to pass these forgeries off for real last May, telling everyone that the people were fed up with the Prime Minister and wanted him deported to Mars.
Mahathir insisted then and still insists to this day that the King is obliged to act on the will of the people by virtue of the 1.4 million signatures against the Prime Minister that he says exist. Is Mahathir telling us the truth?
Still, can the King sack a sitting Prime Minister?
Even if there were ten million signatures, he can’t.
The Federal Constitution neither expresses nor implies in any way that a King may dismiss or suspend a sitting Prime Minister. While Mahathir did admit this to be the case, he got his henchmen to say just the opposite. Abdul Aziz Bari, suspected to be among them, implied that Najib had subverted the Federal Constitution, adding that under the circumstances, the King had the moral obligation to sack the Prime Minister. Did Aziz tell us the truth?
If so, did Aziz effectively subvert the Federal Constitution?
Yes, he did.
Now, Aziz portrays himself to be a constitutional expert. That being the case, I dare him to come out latest by tomorrow to state publically that I am lying, that the King is empowered to sack a sitting Prime Minister. Assuming that he does take up my challenge, I assure you, I will meet him in court.
That said, any attempt by any constitutional expert or someone parading as one to misrepresent the Federal Constitution can be construed as a deliberate act of subversion, the very act Aziz implied Najib had committed. Further to the point, Aziz was prejudiced in his claims against Najib and may have intended to use his status as a so-called constitutional expert to confuse the people, possibly to trigger unrest.
That is my claim. If Aziz so wishes, he may challenge that claim.
But Aziz didn’t stop there. He went on to say that the King could call on the speaker of Dewan Rakyat to allow a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister. Days after inking the Citizen’s Declaration, he implied that the King was duty bound to invoke some ‘reserve powers’ to protect the constitution from tamper. Was any of what Aziz was saying true?
Who else subverted the Federal Constitution?
Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla.
Haniff insisted that Section 29 of 11th Schedule of the Federal Constitution granted a priori jurisdiction to the King to sack a sitting Prime Minister. Days after Mahathir was granted an audience with the King, the lawyer boldly declared that the King had as much power to dismiss or suspend a Prime Minister as he did to appoint one. Was Haniff correct?
No. And I invite Haniff to prove me wrong.
Did Mahathir really want to meet the King?
Mahathir wanted to convince everyone that the King was empowered to sack Najib. But he didn’t want to be caught saying it outright. So he got his henchmen to do the dirty work. The only thing Mahathir wanted to be seen doing was ‘fighting for the people’. He wanted us to think of him as a ‘saviour’, one who shouldered the responsibility of channelling out our ‘grouses’ to the ‘highest authority’, i.e. the King.
While these deceptions were being perpetrated, the former premier made absolutely sure the media channels he funded closely covered his ‘journey to the Palace’. Mahathir made very public his desire to meet the King, thus evoking a sense of urgency to deliver some 1.4 million signatures that didn’t exist.
When he did eventually meet the King, he deliberately handed in the less than hundred signatures he had in his possession. Technically, and I hate to say it, he went with the intent of making a total fool of the King. Mahathir was hoping that the King would get upset by the act of deception. But the King was well composed and engaged in chit-chat with Mahathir instead.
Why did Mahathir evoke a sense of urgency in seeking for an audience with the King?
That’s because he wanted us to believe that 1.4 million Malaysians had sent a clear signal that they were sick and tired of Najib and the way the country was run. Mahathir wanted us to think that the three-month response time was unprecedented and an indication that the people couldn’t wait any longer and wanted Najib shuttled to Mars right away.
If that is so, then why did Mahathir claim that the King had been placed under house arrest?
He wanted to convince us that the King did in fact have jurisdiction to sack a Prime Minister. Mahathir wanted us to believe that the King was being prevented from receiving the 1.4 million signatures. The former premier also wanted us to think that Najib was a tyrant even the King dared not oppose.
So when the King did eventually grant Mahathir an audience, many opined that the former premier was caught off-guard, that his plan to con the people had failed. True?
But I thought you said he did not want to meet the King?
But it really didn’t matter to him one way or the other. The plan was all along for the King to either dismiss the Citizen’s Declaration or to refuse the former premier an audience. And since an audience had been granted, Mahathir resorted to handing in less than a hundred signatures to His Majesty on purpose. Like I said, the former premier knew that the document he handed would not suffice. And neither did the King take the document seriously.
And because the King had not taken the document seriously, Mahathir began hinting of the need for early polls to vote Najib and Barisan Nasional out of power. As a matter of fact, upon leaving the Palace, Mahathir quipped to Dato’ Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan that things had gone as planned.
So was the plan all along to trigger a snap election by March of next year?