While MO1 can have his say, we’ve right to disagree

In the late 70s, the erstwhile member of parliament for Bukit Bintang was the reporter’s saviour. “No story? Call Lee Lam Thye lah” was often heard in the newsroom. Sure enough, if you called him, he would give you some quotes which would make a story for The Malay Mail, which was then a regional newspaper.

It came in such regularity that the then news editor, the late A Sri K Nayagam had to order: “Enough of pictures of Lam Thye pointing to potholes and drains. He is not a longkang MP.”

Lee still writes letters to the newspapers and comments on everything and anything under the sun. While we initially thought this was unique to him and a handful of other regular “letter writers”, this practice seems to have spread.

The former prime minister, Najib Abdul Razak, now prides himself with statements and rebuttals almost daily and some of us have termed him as, among others, “a statement-a-day loser.” A bit too harsh in my book, but when media people gather after work, all and sundry are discussed, including affairs of ministers – present and past.

Any former prime minister or deputy still makes news even if they choose to remain silent. Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s absence in the public arena started tongues wagging in the social media. (However, he made a late cameo appearance at the Balakong by-election campaign last night.)

I steadfastly hold the view that everyone should be able to express his or her views, and everyone has the right to disagree with such views. But those exercising such rights must be able to take as much as they give.

As I said in a column on Sept 1, Najib should be the last person to talk about morals, and argued my stand with several assertions and questions. I have been a great advocate of the right of reply which Malaysiakini accords, but it appears that Najib is selective in the application of this right.

Under Najib’s watch, everyone who could write or speak could attack the then opposition. However, DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang and company had no recourse when nonsensical and unsubstantiated charges were made against them. When Dr Mahathir Mohamad was demonised and DAP was vilified as wanting to establish a Christian government, their responses were muted by Najib’s command. It was a time when the Lim Sian Sees, the Eric See-Tos and the Huangs had a field day, but their words and deeds did little to influence Malaysians.

For Najib, there is now a platform to have his say. No one calls up editors to order “black him out.” Unlike the previous regime, the government has in no way impeded independent journalism. (But certain media practitioners do think they have to curry favour with the current regime.) The Home Ministry and related agencies have not decreed (as in the past) that the opposition should be shut out.

Najib’s silence and his refusal to address the issues can be interpreted that he accepts those assertions as the truth. He could also be afraid of providing implausible and improbable replies, which would then make him the butt of jokes.

I beg to differ. He is aware of the facts and does not have the expertise of Paul Stadlen or other spin doctors to articulate, spin and put into them into writing in a way his supposed innocence is projected. No one can fault Najib on that. For ages, it had been his horde of officers doing the job on his behalf.

Neither has he the confidantes who struck fear into editors. With no media advisers, it will not be surprising to see a posse of “experts” lining up to offer their services - gratis.

RM9.5 mil for a lawyer?

Najib has tried (vainly) to dispute all charges, allegations and contentions which accused him of impropriety made. However, he has chosen not the address the points I had raised.

Maybe, to him, the voice of a retired journalist is lost in the wilderness; or charges made in Malaysiakini should not be addressed. But Malaysians who had campaigned and succeeded in getting some form of justice and fair play; those who had been victims of manipulation; and the many journalists whom Najib and company used (through the editors) to silence, are not likely to neither forgive nor forget.

Flashback to November 2017: Najib was conspicuously silent when copies of his cheques totalling RM9.5 million surfaced. PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim filed a suit against the government over allegations the money was paid to senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to prosecute his Sodomy 2 case.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court struck out the case. Justice Azizah Nawawi threw it out on the grounds that Anwar’s claims were “bare allegations”.

“He has not given any evidence to support his allegations,” she said in her judgment. In an immediate response, Shafee who was present when the decision was made, said the allegations about him taking RM9.5 million were “total nonsense”.

“I was never paid RM9.5 million to prosecute Anwar’s case,” he told the media.

Following last night’s developments, the cat appears to be out of the bag. After his accounts were frozen by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), events began to unravel. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) submitted “new information” to the Court of Appeal which showed Najib paid RM9.5 million to Shafee.

Malaysians are wondering where Najib had that kind of money to pay such a huge amount of money.

According to official records, the prime minister earns a monthly salary of RM20,444 and an MP salary of RM16,000, making it a grand total of RM438,538 per annum. Najib had been the PM for over nine years and for ease of calculation, let us put it 10 years. This means he earned RM4.38 million as PM. Throw in a couple of millions as allowances and let’s be generous and round it up to RM7 million. Where did the shortfall of RM2.5 million come from?

Will Najib respond like the ‘anak jantan’ (rooster) as he had boasted in a pre-election video or will he go into the cocoon and use subjudice as a cover to avoid answering? And there’s always the Arab prince to fall back on. But wasn’t that “donation” meant to help in the elections – not to pay legal fees or to use it for personal expenses?

We wait for him with bated breath.

---

R NADESWARAN hopes former ministers will not resort to their old tricks of “no comment” or “elegant silence” when confronted with contentious issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com. - Mkini