SOMETIMES CRIMES FOR THE GREATER GOOD IS ACCEPTABLE

And in that same spirit if MACC and PDRM can reduce crime in Malaysia by beating the shit out of suspects and even sometimes killing these people under custody that is a small price to pay. What are a few hundred dead people every year when the rest of the 30 million Malaysian can sleep soundly in their beds?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Today, one reader posted a comment in Malaysia Today saying that Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail may be using Hudud to try to seek justice for Anwar Ibrahim — as I had written — but that does not mean she supports Hudud. This reader was responding to my article Wan Azizah falls back on Hudud (READ HERE).

I suppose in a way that makes sense. Wan Azizah may have lodged a report in the Syariah court against lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah based on chapter 24 of the Qur’an — Surah An-Nūr (Chapter of the Light) — whereby any allegation of sexual misconduct against someone without the support of four witnesses is a crime punishable by 80 lashes. But in no way does that mean she supports the implementation of Qur’anic laws in Malaysia.

There are many other examples of people not supporting something but using that which they do not support for their own benefit. Supporting it and using it are two different things, this reader said in rebutting what I wrote about Wan Azizah falling back on Hudud.

For example, there are quite a number of Malays — mainly successful Malays, of course — who openly oppose the New Economic Policy (NEP) and agree with the argument that the NEP plus Article 153 in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia tantamount to racism. However, these same Malays see nothing wrong in benefiting from the NEP and they have, in fact, benefited from the NEP — which is why they are successful in the first place.

So, just because I benefit from something does not mean I also support it. That is the argument being promoted here.

A. Kadir Jasin, on the other hand, questioned why PetroSaudi International allegedly paid Xavier Andre Justo RM15 million. Kadir wants to know whether that is ‘hush money’, the term that is normally used when you pay someone to buy his or her silence.

Of course, not only is money involved. Sometimes it could even be in kind like sex, position, etc. Ultimately, however, you bribe that person either in cash or in kind to stop that person from talking. No doubt if you are paying that person off because that person has threatened to sing like a canary if you do not, then it could even be interpreted as blackmail, which is another crime altogether.

There are those who say it is not fair or just to arrest Justo even if he did blackmail PetroSaudi International — whether he tried to do so with genuine stolen documents or with doctored/fake documents.

Justo may have committed various crimes such as blackmail, data stealing, fraud, etc., (which are all yet to be proven, though), but in committing all those crimes Justo actually exposed another possible crime (this one involving RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money that had allegedly disappeared into thin air).

So we need to get our priorities right. It is probable that Justo committed various crimes. But if in doing so he exposed another crime then what Justo did is quite acceptable. Your criminal act made people aware of another criminal act so your criminal act is considered a good act and there is nothing wrong in that.

I have been trying to make people understand this but it has been so difficult to get them to accept the fact that sometimes we need to do criminal things to pin another criminal. I hope with this Justo case people can begin to understand what I have been saying and accept the concept that there is nothing wrong in fighting crime with crime.

We should not debate whether what Justo did is wrong — be it blackmail, data stealing or fraud. We should debate the fact that if Justo had not committed all these crimes would we have been any wiser regarding the facts surrounding 1MDB? So why are we condemning Justo and why have the Thai police arrested him when what he did was for the good of Malaysia (even though he had personal profit in mind and not the good of the country).

Malaysians must grow up and begin to accept the notion of the end justify the means. Bad things done with the objective of achieving good is good and not bad.

Take the many complaints of MACC and PDRM allegedly beating up suspects under interrogation and of the many cases of these people getting killed in custody. Maybe the number of deaths under custody can be considered quite high but if the objective is to eliminate or reduce crime then why all that fuss?

I mean Malaysians complain that the crime rate is too high. Malaysians complain about corruption, robbery, handbag snatching, housebreaking, etc. So if MACC and PDRM can reduce this problem by beating up suspects is that not in the spirit of the end justifying the means?

So let us focus on the real issue here. Is the real issue about Justo allegedly blackmailing, data stealing, forging documents, etc., or is the real issue that whatever crimes Justo may have allegedly committed at least Malaysians now have more information regarding 1MDB?

And in that same spirit if MACC and PDRM can reduce crime in Malaysia by beating the shit out of suspects and even sometimes killing these people under custody that is a small price to pay. What are a few hundred dead people every year when the rest of the 30 million Malaysian can sleep soundly in their beds?