"Big Picture Compromises" By Dato Yeoh Yang Poh (former President Bar Council Malaysia)

 

• it implies that the withdrawal was based on some “big picture” assessment or evaluation
• rather than on the facts and the law
• It implies that there IS extra-judicial interference 
  
• It implies that the  _ G  is not independent

 

NOTE : The following was written by Dato Yeoh Yang Poh the former President of the Bar Council. The title 'Big picture compromises' is my choice of words. I would  prefer 'Selling your soul to the devil'  but 'soul' is a vague idea which has also made it highly saleable. Here is Dato Yeoh with my comments in blue. I have removed or altered names.

 
I do not think that most of those who find the recent DNAA episode to be abhorrent are naïve idealists, or that they do not appreciate that, in life as in politics, compromises need to be made at times.

 
I also do not think that this is about bringing anyone down, or about punishing someone. It is about the basic principle of accountability.
 

(OSTB : I would include morality versus immorality, knowing right from wrong, good versus bad, truth versus falsehood, do you belong to any faith or are you pagan - things like that.) 

“Big picture” (presumably something perceived for future good) can be a guide for anyone to do the right things, to overlook small transgressions, and to refrain from being idealistic or being a perfectionist. That is all understandable, and in some circumstances acceptable.
 

But “big picture” cannot be a justification for committing colossal wrongs or errors regarding fundamental principles and basic values.
 

For example, can “big picture” be cited as justification for a military coup, where the coup leaders in fact think that the current (or alternative) civil government is harmful to the country?

(OSTB : Excellent point Dato. So lets get to the tip of the point shall we. Pas is coming!  Pas is coming! Shall we organise a military coup just to prevent 'Pas is coming'? Where exactly is the boundary? Ok lets not talk about military coups. How about declaring a state of Emergency just to avoid Pas is coming?  Ok lets just forget about 'Pas is coming'. Shall we declare a state of Emergency simply because of 'Who else is there?' Maybe someone will indeed justify a military coup based on 'Who else is there?)
 

No one can foresee the future. If “big picture” is an “acceptable” reason or excuse for compromising on basic principles, then many insoluble problems will arise.

Who decides what the “big picture” is; and what it may require? What criteria are to be used? Is it to be subjectively decided by the one(s) who happen to be in power? Is anyone of them a clairvoyant? Or should we have a referendum of all voters to decide what “big picture” the majority wants?
 

If the recent DNAA can be justified, then we might as well not talk about fundamental principles such as “everyone is equal before the law”; “there must be accountability”, and so on.
 

(OSTB : Not forgetting that other tiny detail that the defence had been called. The prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the defence being called. The Judge added further:      precious judicial time had been wasted,  a great amount of tax payers money wasted,  77 days of trial had been held,  114 prosecution witnesses had already testified plus another 15 defence witnesses.  It was certainly NOT a kangaroo court up to that time.  It was a real court). 

The accused had not yet been convicted. If he had good defences, he would prevail in the courts. But a prima facie case had been found against him. To justify a DNAA because we must look at the “big picture” is a frightening thought. It implies may things that will be disastrous for our society in time to come. 

E.g. it implies that the withdrawal was based on some “big picture” assessment or evaluation, rather than on the facts and the law. 

It implies that there IS extra-judicial interference 

It implies that the  _ G  is not independent.
 

If the accused does not have to account for what he did (and again I stress that he would prevail if what he did was not wrong), then why should we seek the arrest of (e.g.) Jho Low, or Muhyiddin’s son-in-law, and make them accountable for what they did? Simply because, unlike the accused, they are outside the “big picture”? Why should Najib remain in jail? Because he is not in the “big picture”?
 

What if Najib (who still has so many supporters) in future becomes a crucial player in the “big picture”; should we drop everything against him as well?
 

(OSTB : “Big picture” may justify a poorly thought-out process of “enjoining the good and forbidding the bad”.  Which is what was recently done.)

CONCLUSION : Why are we wasting time? I think we all know that the truth is much simpler than all this postulating. The deal had been done long before - it was a simple quid pro quo. One person could not garner enough votes to occupy the throne while the other person was looking at a possibly long jail sentence. 

A simple solution of 'you scratch my back and I will scratch your back' was worked out. Plus both of them had scratched each others' backs for a very long time.  

The Roman had gone through a few wash cycles at the kedai dobi laundry. 

From  "it is not that I love Caesar any less but it is that I love Rome even more" to 

"it is not that I love Rome any less but it is that I love Caesar even more' to the present 

"it is not that I love Rome or Caesar any less but it is that I love myself even more'

The truth is always much simpler.

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