I would like to debate Dr Mahathir

By MT Webmaster Last updated Nov 20, 2015

Dr Mahathir personally told the police to arrest these people. In fact, Dr Mahathir was present at the top floor of the police headquarters in Bukit Aman while the demonstration was going on (he was watching the demonstration from there). But they arrested just a handful of people and not all the 100,000 people. And they were arrested under the ISA for attempting to bring down the government through street demonstrations.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Yesterday, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad posted an article in his Blog, which you can READ HERE. I would like to debate Dr Mahathir on the points he has raised just as he attended the ‘Nothing-2-Hide’ function in June 2015 with intent to debate Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Dr Mahathir’s comments are in italics and my responses are below that.

I had been interviewed by the police and the AG’s chambers before. They wanted to make me a Government witness. I listened to them and concluded that there was no case for the accused person to answer. So I refused to be a prosecution witness.

By Dr Mahathir’s own confession he admits that in the past he had interfered in a police investigation. He did not say when that happened but we can assume it was during the time when he was Prime Minister. Who is Dr Mahathir to decide whether there is a case or not? The job of the police is to gather evidence while the Attorney General decides whether there is a case or not.

Dr Mahathir admits that he played the role of police and Attorney General even though he is a doctor and not a lawyer. And which case was this (or these if more than one)? Was it a case (or cases) where he had an interest in and therefore his interference in deciding whether there is a case or not would be a conflict of interest?

For example, the police were investigating Tajudin Ramli regarding alleged wrongdoings in Malaysia’s national airlines, MAS. However, in the end nothing happened and the CCID Director later re-opened the case on grounds that there was a case. But that was after Dr Mahathir retired.

So was that case closed because Dr Mahathir decided there was no case? Tajudin later signed an Affidavit saying that Dr Mahathir asked him to take over MAS to create a ‘paper profit’ to hide the RM30 billion Forex losses. That would mean Dr Mahathir is an interested party. So should he be the one to decide whether there was a case or not?

I did attend a rally that had not been permitted by police. There were more than 50,000 people at that rally. If I did something wrong then 50,000 people at that rally also did something wrong. To be just, the law must apply to everyone equally. To single me out for the offense of attending the illegal rally would be unjust. It would be a kind of victimisation. Unless the Government wishes to be unjust, it cannot take action against me alone.

Overthrowing a democratically elected Prime Minister through street demonstration is also normal. So what is wrong with my attending a demonstration to demand that Najib be overthrown as PM? Even supporting a vote of no confidence in his leadership is not wrong except in a dictatorship.

On 20th September 1998, a massive anti-government rally was held at Dataran Merdeka. An estimated 100,000 people attended that rally, which called upon Dr Mahathir to resign. That same night a number of people, Anwar Ibrahim included, were arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Dr Mahathir then said if you want to change the government then do it through the ballot box. You must not do it through street demonstrations because such action will not only threaten the security of the country but also will affect the country’s economy because chaos will frighten off foreign investors.

Choose pilihan raya and not pililhan jalan raya, we were told. And if we take to the streets then we must suffer the consequences.

We then organised a second massive anti-government rally along the Kesas Highway and, yet again, ten of us were arrested under the ISA. Six of us were sent to the Kamunting Detention Centre for two years.

That was during the time when Dr Mahathir was Prime Minister and he demonstrated zero tolerance for street demonstrations. Now he says it is normal and acceptable to change governments through street demonstrations.

I often refer to the loss of money by 1MDB and the 2.6 billion Ringgit in Najib’s private account. I openly declared I don’t believe Najib’s 2.6 billion Ringgit is a donation from an Arab. I believe it is from 1MDB. Najib has not proven it is not 1MDB money. When you take something that does not belong to you, it is a kind of stealing.

By saying that Najib had stolen Government money, it can only be defamation if he could prove he did not. So far he has not been able to convincingly prove that the 2.6 billion in his private account did not come from 1MDB and therefore not from the Government.

When I was PM I was accused of corruption, of cronyism, of being autocratic etc. I took no action to make any accusation against me a crime. I believe it is normal for such allegations to be made. If the people really believe these things about me they could throw me out. But despite attempts to end my premiership, the people gave me strong support during five elections. They did not seem to want to be rid of me. Even when challenged by Tengku Razaleigh, I had more support than him. I revived UMNO and it won support and the next election.

The courts may decide that I had committed a crime for what I did or said. But until I am found guilty by the courts, I will continue to believe and say that I had done nothing wrong, nothing undemocratic.

So I will continue to ask Najib to resign, to disbelieve his explanation about how he got the 2.6 billion Ringgit, to criticise the loans taken by 1MDB and the losses incurred by it. This is my right as a citizen. To deny me of these rights would really be undemocratic.

Dr Mahathir raises a few points here. First of all he believes that Najib had stolen 1MDB’s money and he wants Najib to prove that he did not. Then Dr Mahathir says he, too, was accused of stealing money when he was Prime Minister but they never proved it in court. So, since it was not proven that he stole money, then he has done nothing wrong and is innocent.

When it comes to Najib, the Prime Minister is guilty because he has not proven his innocence. They do not need to prove that Najib is guilty. When it comes to Dr Mahathir, however, they need to prove he is guilty and since they have not then he is innocent.

Dr Mahathir then talks about the great support he received in five elections when he was Prime Minister. Actually Dr Mahathir’s support eroded in the 1999 general election and he would have lost that general election, or at least lost his two-thirds majority in Parliament, had he not pulled off a trick.

And the trick that he pulled off was: he went before national television to announce that the people must vote for Barisan Nasional and give them a two-thirds majority in Parliament. If Barisan Nasional does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament then the government would be weak. And a weak government will not be able to guarantee the safety and security of the people.

In other words, if Barisan Nasional does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament then the peoples’ lives would be at risk. Then the army trucks were sent to patrol the Chinese areas. This put fear into the hearts of the Chinese and they reluctantly voted for the government out of fear that a race riot will erupt if they vote opposition.

After the election many Chinese told me that they support the opposition but they voted for Barisan Nasional because they were scared of another ‘May 13’. The warning by Dr Mahathir and the army trucks driving up and down their neighbourhood frightened them.

In 2003, Dr Mahathir handed power to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi because he felt if he stayed on as Prime Minister then Barisan Nasional was going to do badly in the 2004 general election. No doubt Barisan Nasional did well in that 2004 general election but in the two general elections after that the tide turned.

Dr Mahathir also talks about the challenge he faced from Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and how he revived Umno. The truth is Dr Mahathir closed Umno down and set up a new party, that he also called Umno (Baru). He then did not allow Tengku Razaleigh and his supports to join the new party so they were forced to set up their own party, which they called Semangat 46. So Dr Mahathir did not revive Umno. He killed Umno. Then he set up a new party and refused to allow his enemies to join that new party.

No one is denying Dr Mahathir his right to speak. In fact, there is more freedom of speech now than during the time when he was Prime Minister. Today, you can call the Prime Minister a thief and not get detained without trial and get sent to Kamunting for two years or more. During Dr Mahathir’s time they would arrest you and beat you up, even if you were once the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia like Anwar Ibrahim was.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK