The Malaysiakini readers are arguing that one is innocent until proven guilty and that the accuser must prove guilt and not the accused prove innocence. And just because you may have certain information (whether verbal or written) to support your allegation, that is still not indisputable evidence until the maker of that evidence (whether verbal or written) testifies that he or she is indeed the maker.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
I was watching an episode of ‘The Blacklist’ last night where Raymond Reddington was debating someone and he said, ‘truth is relative’. That struck me because I, too, have said that so many times in the past. Truth is certainly relative and not absolute. And what becomes truth depends on who you are and what your beliefs may be.
Musa Hassan has lodged a police report against me and is consulting his lawyer(s) about whether to sue me for not telling the truth about him. The thing that we need to establish is what constitutes truth and whether that so-called truth can be proven.
Today is Christmas Eve and tomorrow Christians all over the world are going to celebrate the birthday of Jesus. I would argue that December 25th is an old Roman pagan holiday, the day they celebrated the sacrifice of the bull. For convenience purposes the Romans just adopted that day as the birthday of Jesus.
Hundreds of millions of Christians would disagree with me and would accuse me of lying. For 2,000 years Christians have agreed that December 25th is the birthday of Jesus and no one has thus far proven this a lie. True, no one has yet proven that Jesus was not born on 25th December because there are no documents to prove that Jesus was born on another date.
The concept here is that the absence of evidence to contradict the belief makes the belief true. In other words, if you cannot prove it wrong then it becomes true. This is the same argument that they use to support the belief in the existence of God. If you cannot prove that God does not exist that means God does exist.
Musa: many allegations made against him, some even supported with SDs, which he has not replied to yet
Musa Hassan said I slandered him. That means I told an untruth about him. And after initially giving me 14 days to apologise and retract what I said, he decided to immediately make his police report after my latest article. But then which part of what I said in that article is untrue? And can he prove that what I said is untrue?
The very ‘wise’ and ‘intelligent’ readers of Malaysiakini whacked me because they felt I am a moron for asking Musa to prove his innocence when the burden of proof has to be on the accuser and not on the accused. I am glad that Malaysiakini has many very ‘wise’ and ‘intelligent’ readers who immediately detected the flaw in my argument. This proves all is not lost on Malaysians even if many of those commenting are products of a Chinese school education — like most DAP Red Bean Army cyber-troopers are.
These are the same people who support Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and agree with what the old man says: which is Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has to prove that the accusations against him are false. Yes, certain allegations have been made against Najib and it is his job to prove these allegations false, say his critics. If Najib fails to do that then we have to assume that these allegations are true and that Najib is guilty of what he has been accused of doing.
Basically, the doctrine that has been adopted against Najib is guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof rests on the accused and not on the accuser. So that is the same doctrine I have applied to Musa Hassan. But then many very ‘wise’ and ‘intelligent’ readers of Malaysiakini disagree with me and think that it is silly that I have placed the burden of proof on Musa when I, the accuser, should instead have to prove the allegation.
They accuse Najib of selling Malaysia to China and that becomes the truth just because they say so
Can you see how the truth is interpreted differently by different people? Those who are against Najib apply a certain doctrine while they refuse to apply the same doctrine to Musa.
Christians will insist that tomorrow is the birthday of Jesus and if we dispute that and even dispute the existence of Jesus they will ‘prove’ the truth by quoting the Bible. But should they not first prove that the Bible is authentic before using it as evidence to support a belief? It is like I am charged in court for a certain crime and I produce a letter as my defence that I am innocent.
This letter can proof I am innocent. But then this letter can only be accepted as evidence if I can first of all prove that the letter is authentic and not a fake. And to do that the maker of the letter will need to go to court to testify that he or she is really the maker of the letter.
In the early 1980s, someone was charged for fraud and he produced a letter signed by Mahathir, the then Prime Minister, to prove that he had not conned the bank. The letter would support his plea of innocence, if the letter was indeed authentic, but the court refused to accept that letter as evidence unless the maker went to court to testify as to the authenticity of the letter.
So Mahathir had to go to court and he was shown the letter, which bore his signature, and was asked whether he did indeed sign that letter. Mahathir looked at the letter, as is required, and denied ever signing that letter. The accused was hence found guilty and was sent to jail. The maker of those documents needs to testify and those document can be accepted as true only after the maker confirms the documents are authentic and are not false.
So, just because you can produce a document and swear that the document is authentic, that is still not yet the truth that can support what you say and prove you are telling the truth. You did not author that document, someone else did, so the author needs to testify that the document is true. But then if we cannot even confirm the author of the document how do we establish that the document is true?
In short, based on the very basic rules of law, no religion can be proven true and no holy book that supports the truthfulness of these religions can be proven true as well. The fact that there are so many religions and all claim to be the true religion makes it even more dicey. There can be only one truth. There cannot be many truths at the same time. And since all cannot prove that they are the truth while all others are false, we have to assume that none are true until such a time one of them produces evidence that it is the truth.
So that brings us back to Musa Hassan claiming that I slandered him. Can he prove that? He will need to prove that I lied by showing us the evidence.
Ramli: the man who would have been the IGP had he not been brought down with false allegations
Did the newspaper headlines not ‘scream’ that Ramli Yusuff is the RM27 million cop? Where did the newspapers get that story from? Did they conjure this story or did they receive this information from inside sources, as they claim they did? So who are these inside sources from MACC?
Those are facts and are well-documented. So where is the part that is a lie? Can Musa Hassan point out the lie in that story?
Ramli was eventually charged not for corruption but for failing to declare this assets. That is a fact and is well-documented. So where is the lie in that story?
Ramli got suspended and Musa and not Ramli eventually went on to become the IGP. That is a fact and is well-documented. So where is the lie in that story?
Ramli got discharged on grounds that he did, in fact, declare his assets, contrary to the allegation against him. That is a fact and is well-documented. So where is the lie in that story?
Rosli Dahlan acted as Ramli’s lawyer and, on the eve of Hari Raya, MACC arrested him and assaulted him in the process. That is a fact and is well-documented. So where is the lie in that story?
Rosli was charged with abetting Ramli. When the court discharged Ramli they refused to also discharge Rosli whereas it is impossible for Rosli to be an accessory to a crime that Ramli never committed. That is a fact and is well-documented. So where is the lie in that story?
The argument against Najib is that he is the number one so anything that happens in 1MDB is ultimately Najib’s responsibility. Well, Musa was also number one during the Ramli-Rosli case so anything that happened then is ultimately Musa’s responsibility as well. If Musa can say he knows nothing and was not involved in the Ramli-Rosli case (or Sodomy 2), even although he may have been number one, then Najib can also argue that he knows nothing and was not involved in the 1MDB case, although he may be number one.
Musa, can you now see how I laid a trap for you and you unwittingly walked right into it with your eyes closed? All I need for you to now say is that the accuser and not the accused needs to prove the allegation and unless and until that is done then the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused who is presumed innocent until proven guilty? Can you please just say that?