Daim, the proud son of Malaysia

 

From Walter Sandosam

It is indeed interesting news that the late Daim Zainuddin has been discharged and acquitted on a charge of failure to disclose his assets. It follows on the heels of his untimely demise recently at 86 years of age.

It can be speculated that he would have been able to add on a few more years, if not for the melee surrounding the legal proceedings against him.

It doesn’t take much to rationalise that in his golden years, after having contributed much to Malaysia in two stints with the government amidst challenging economic situations which takes a shrewd intellectual capacity to fix, any insinuation, much less court action, on impropriety on any scale, would have led to an insurmountable load of stress on an ageing mind.

Unfortunately, he was not to be alive to see his name cleared (or not) even though lawyers were under instruction from the family to proceed despite his passing. The law unfortunately states that the power to withdraw or continue any proceedings lies with the Attorney-General; hence the deputy public prosecutor has an inalienable advantage.

Some comments that have been made appear to be both incongruous and irrational, such as “it is not practical to proceed with a case against a deceased person” and “who would pay the fine and serve the sentence (if found guilty)”.

For the latter point, it is clear, he will not be able to serve the sentence unless his body is exhumed and placed in prison (or house arrest, without a tracker tag). As to the fine, surely the estate can be held accountable and by all accounts the estate is sizeable. Surely this has been done before.

Does a person need to be in court, is the other point, as many trials have been held in absentia – for which surely death is the best reason.

Let’s not forget that the whole premise in this unsavoury episode is about money and presumably the mountains of it he had purportedly amassed. The highly controversial Pandora Papers leaks triggered a sequence of events which had taken a roller coaster ride resulting in Daim having to declare his assets.

A corollary is that there were other politicians named in the Pandora Papers who, so far, have not been required to disclose their assets. Perhaps the graft busters are bogged down with other corruption cases and will attend to it in due time.

Much has been published in the media highlighting Daim’s life journey – a prominent Malay businessman, schooled in law, who had his hands burnt in early investments but was able to pick up the pieces to enter other lucrative business ventures on which he built and amassed his fortune.

The phrase “money makes money” is not out of place here. Shrewd investments lead to wealth creation. Not everything is buttressed on corruption.

As a comparison, a contemporary in this era would possibly be the “Malaysian Sugar King’ who moved his business empire to other shores. Should Daim have?

Daim, by all accounts, was the epitome of building things from scratch. Many disparagingly refer to people of a certain ethnicity in our multicultural country of not being apt at, or not “cut out” for business. He had proved such detractors wrong.

Whether or not he had friendly or helpful acquaintances is irrelevant. A number of successful businessmen have benefitted either from dedicated government programmes pointed at certain target groups, or had the benefit of contacts in the right places. That itself is not corruption, unless it is abuse of power, by any stretch.

Daim carved a name for himself in the jungle out there, as many articles have highlighted, only to see his reputation sullied by events of his closing years.

The Pandora Papers are a menace. In Malaysia, there is no law against being wealthy.

During my tenure on the oversight panel of MACC between 2009-2016, it was made painfully clear that there has to be an offence predicate, which then can precipitate a notice on asset declaration, as there is a suspicion of ill-gotten gains.

Is being named in the Pandora Papers an offence predicate? It has not been answered!

Perhaps Daim in his understanding (or misinterpretation) of the law, notwithstanding being a trained lawyer, deputy public prosecutor and magistrate, had erred in subscribing to the above notion – hence he opined that, by law, he does not need to abide by the notice issued and that the charge is without merit.

On this point of law, we will now never have an answer as the acquittal does not provide the avenue for an answer. The closing words of the judge in this case is touching, nonetheless: “May the late Tun Daim be placed among the righteous.”

Perhaps the late Daim will be remembered by his lawyer’s last exhortation: “He wanted to clear his name against this baseless charge”. Unfortunately Daim did not have his day in court.

The withdrawal of a charge by the prosecution and the subsequent acquittal by the court (as it has no other option, as articulated by the Chief Justice) does not make a jubilant victory for a man of his stature, not to mention contributions to the country.

Rest well Tun Daim, a proud son of Malaysia. - FMT

Walter Sandosam is a past member of MACC’s independent operations review panel and an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.