A-G should now defend 1MDB saga according to tenets of Islam? – Ravinder Singh

Now that Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali has used religion to challenge Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, could he also rise to the occasion and defend all the colourful stories told by various persons about the RM2.6 billion “donation” from some invisible source sitting somewhere in the Middle East, by the same tenets of Islam.

One of the stories was that the “donation” was given in appreciation of Malaysia’s fight against Islamic extremism (directly or indirectly related to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Isis).

Another story was that it was given to help the incumbent government win the election so that it could continue fighting racists and religious extremists (at home or abroad?).

On another occasion it was said to be a donation without any strings attached.

The finale was that the unused sum of US$620 million of the purported donation was returned by the prime minister to the alleged donor in August 2013.

Wow! Was there such a request from the donor? Anyway, how would the donor know whether there was an unused balance as books (if any) could easily be made to show that all had been used up?

By the tenets of Islam, is the giving of money by an undeclared donor in one country to the prime minister of another country to help the latter win an election and remain in power, allowed, even if the PM is a Muslim?

Then we saw some dramas unfolding with the removal of the previous A-G supposedly on “health reasons” but again without any evidence of his disability or inability to continue serving as A-G.

There were other transfers of senior officers working on the investigation of the mystery of the appearance of RM2.6 billion in somebody’s bank accounts, and then the disappearance of some of it.

Why was the treasure hunt by officers of the law derailed, and “restarted” by appointing new “treasure hunters” who would be under obligation to the hunted who appointed them?

Are only the utterances such as by Dr Mahathir that must be in accordance with the teachings of Islam, while actions on the other side do not have to be?

If actions too are subject to the same test of the teachings of Islam, then were all the actions and story-telling about the RM2.6 billion “donation” in accordance with the teachings of Islam? If so, kindly substantiate with evidence.

Truth does not have so many shapes and colours. But the stories told were more colourful than the rainbow.

I don’t know whether we should be happy or sad that truth in Malaysia can be so shapely and colourful, that it can be moulded like clay to give the perception of fine earthenware products.

We await the A-G’s clarification.

* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insider.