The plot to topple Malaysia’s prime minister
The reliability and veracity of reports from sources such as the Sarawak Report and The Edge, and from many other whistleblowers, were never questioned—only the manner in which the information had been acquired. This was in stark contrast to information from UMNO, which was always dismissed as fraudulent.
Greg Lopez, The Asian Correspondent
ON 2 July 2015, the Wall Street Journal alleged that US$700 million from the state development fund 1 Malaysian Development Berhad (1MDB) had gone into a personal bank account of Malaysia’s prime minister Najib Razak.
Najib labelled these reports as political sabotage. His supporters allege this was an attempt to topple a democratically elected leader through dubious means. Najib then went to extreme lengths to silence his detractors, immediately threatening to sue the Wall Street Journal—although his lawyers have yet to take any concrete measures.
On 20 July, the government blocked the Sarawak Report, a blog that had been systematically publishing reports on corruption and abuse of power in Malaysia, and subsequently issued an arrest warrant for its founder and editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown.
On 24 July, the government suspended The Edge Financial Daily and The Edge Weekly, which had been reporting extensively on the 1MDB issue, although Malaysia’s High Court would later revoke the suspension.
On 28 July, Najib sacked his deputy and four other ministers. He then reshuffled his cabinet in an effort to strengthen his control of the government and his party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), and to undermine the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, which had been vigorously investigating the 1MDB affair.
Najib also sacked Malaysia’s attorney general who, as part of a high-level task force involving the attorney general’s chambers, the Malaysian Central Bank, the Malaysian anti-corruption commission (MACC) and the Royal Malaysian Police, was believed to have been preparing corruption charges against him. Several other senior officers involved in the investigation were then investigated by the police and transferred.
On 3 August, MACC announced that the US$700 million channelled into the Najib’s account came from a donor—not 1MDB.
So, are the prime minister and his supporters correct in stating that this was an attempt to topple a democratically elected prime minister? The story is a little complicated.
Ruling class split
Just as Najib Razak became deputy prime minister, there was already a clear sign—the Altantuya murder—that forces within the ruling elite were moving to topple him. The probability that the professional murderers (two members of Malaysia’s special forces unit)—of an unknown foreigner whose record of entry into Malaysia had been erased, linked to individuals in the highest echelons of power—could be identified signalled a split in Malaysia’s ruling class.
The systematic leaks against Najib, his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin, and close associates since then were simply a new development in UMNO in laying the groundwork for removing unpopular leaders. The advent of technology, such as electronic copying devices, blogs and social media, facilitated more in-depth and focused leaks, while splits at the highest levels of the government meant highly confidential information was now being leaked by those trusted with this information and made easily available to the public.
