Wikileaks and the PKR Response

 

 

The Wikileaks exposé on what Singapore officialdom thinks of its Malaysian counterparts and politicians, both government and opposition, have been unflattering to the latter. To most Malaysians, that’s not surprising. We too have dim views of our politicians.

The Singaporeans are of the view, amongst others, that our country lacks competent leadership, that Najib Razak continues to be haunted by a murder scandal and that nobody likes Khairy Jamaluddin because he got where he is through family ties. So what else is new? That sounds blasé but it does not mean we don’t expect those in government to address one or two of the above issues. We do and they should – Wikileaks or no Wikileaks.

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) however appears to be particularly stung by the revelation that Lee Kuan Yew and his intelligence services have told the Australian Office of National Assessments that Anwar Ibrahim, the party’s de facto leader, ‘did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted’. Apart from the ongoing sodomy trial, a leader who is ‘God’s gift’ to the people should never ever be pictured to be engaged in homosexual sex. Hence, the indignant responses that followed from the party.

The whole thing, however, is in the nature of ‘overheard conversations’ and this complicates matters quite a bit. Had the Singaporeans or Aussies or Americans trumpeted out loud that ‘Anwar did it’, it would have been a bit easier to deal with.

As it was, we weren’t supposed to know but we knew anyway, thanks to Wikileaks and the thing is, people tend to be more honest and frank in private conversations than in public. Consequently, the party’s responses, apart from being indignant, have also been silly.

As expected, there is the almost obligatory ‘we-are-the target-of-a-conspiracy’ response, such a conspiracy this time is between the Malaysian and Singaporean secret police.

And as usual, no evidence was provided to support this claim. Suffice it seems that it is well-known there had been police co-operation in the past between the two countries. The implication is also that the Singaporean side would just swallow everything that the Malaysian Special Branch fed them about Anwar. I leave that to the reader to decide on its plausibility.

Moreover, we only knew what the Singaporeans think of Anwar through Wikileaks. Does this then mean that Julian Assange is part of the conspiracy against PKR and Anwar? Well, that’s bound to give a few moments of mirth to Assange in the gloom of his British lock-up.

And what about the two Australian newspapers which published the revelations on Anwar? They too must be co-conspirators, going by PKR’s logic.

Asking that the precise nature of the ‘technical intelligence’ to be explained to the public may sound good but it is actually very silly. Those involved in gathering the said information are not paid to justify their findings to the public but only to their political masters which, in this case, is the Singapore government who will see even less reason to engage with the Malaysian public in a discussion over operational intelligence matters.

Finally, yes, much of what is exposed is in the realm of personal opinions. But there are personal opinions and there are personal opinions. A finding or conclusion reached on the straightforward question of ‘did he or didn’t he’ has to be based on facts and a conclusion conveyed in private and confidential communication carries with it the presumption of being frank and honest, unless otherwise proven.

And it’s these two characteristics of the disclosure I believe that is causing so much angst within PKR right now.