The Kedah MB was appointed the same reason the Selangor MB was removed

By MT Webmaster Last updated Feb 14, 2016

Can you see how the mind of the ANC (Anti-Najib Campaign) and the Pakatuns work? The investigation is not aimed at finding out the truth. They do not really care what the investigation reveals in the end. The investigation is aimed at convincing you that a crime has been committed because if a crime has not been committed then why the need for an investigation?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When PKR first made its move on Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim, the reason given was that it was because while he may be very qualified and a good administrator, he, however, is a bad politician.

Rafizi Ramli said that Selangor might fall in the next general election if Khalid remains Menteri Besar. Tony Pua, in turn, said that Khalid is an honest and hard-working Menteri Besar who is free from any scandals.

So it appears like the only reason why Khalid needed to be sacked was because he was not a clever politician. And the prime objective is to appoint a Menteri Besar who would be able to hold on to the state. And if the Menteri Besar was not replaced then the state might fall to the other side.

So, political skills rather than qualifications and administrative skills are the criterion in the appointment of a Menteri Besar.

Of course, when ‘outsiders’ started to give their views, these ‘kaypoh’ people were told to shut up and to not get involved in the internal affairs of PKR. The choice of Menteri Besar is PKR’s and no one other than PKR has any say in the matter.

Even DAP said PKR has every right to decide on who they want as Menteri Besar. And when PAS did not agree they made their move on the party president and tried to oust him, resulting in the party getting split into two and which triggered the creation of a new PAS-splinter party called Amanah.

Can you see what interfering in the internal affairs of PKR can get you? It destroyed Pakatan Rakyat and almost destroyed PAS in the same process. The opposition is never going to be the same again just because outsiders tried to interfere in whom PKR wanted as the Selangor Menteri Besar.

Now fast-forward to Kedah. Umno decided that unless the Kedah Menteri Besar is replaced then there is a danger that the state might fall into the hands of the other side come the next general election. It is not enough that the Menteri Besar is a good administrator. He must be a good or better politician as well. And Mukhriz Mahathir is not a good politician, plus an absentee administrator.

Furthermore, just like in the case of Khalid of Selangor, Mukhriz of Kedah does not listen to the party president and opposes the president. And they cannot afford to have a Menteri Besar who defies or ignores the party president.

It is up to Umno who they want as the Kedah Menteri Besar. Even MCA, MIC, Gerakan, etc., cannot interfere in this because it is Umno’s right to decide on the matter. However, not only those outside Umno, but even those outside Barisan Nasional are getting involved.

In Selangor this would have never been tolerated. It was not tolerated even when a fellow coalition member like PAS interfered — let alone someone outside the coalition or someone from the other side.

Mukhriz was working with the other side and was openly seen in the company of leaders from the opposition when he campaigned all over the state to try to get retained as the Menteri Besar.

Khalid of Selangor did not do this and yet they accused him of being an Umno stooge, Trojan horse, etc., and of having sold out to Umno. Imagine what would have happened had Khalid been seen in the company of Umno people or if he had Umno people by his side as he campaigned all over Selangor to try to stay on as Menteri Besar.

Rafidah Aziz said that we must not show loyalty to the individual but must instead be loyal to the party. That is precisely what Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said when he opposed Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad but Rafidah chose to be loyal to the old man instead of to the party.

When Dr Mahathir announced his resignation in mid-2002 it was Rafidah who went running to the podium and wailed, breaking the heel of her shoe in the process. As far as Rafidah was concerned it was also about the individual and not about the party.

Mukhriz Mahathir, Muhyiddin Yassin, Rafizi Ramli, Tony Pua, etc., have all asked that a special panel, commission or committee be set up not only to investigate 1MDB and the RM2.6 billion but also to reopen investigations into the Scorpene submarines purchase and the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder.

These people really need to make up their minds what they want because they are beginning to sound very desperate and very inconsistent. They should tell us what they want and stick to it and not keep changing their minds three times a day.

I am beginning to wonder whether they know what they are doing and whether they know what they want. Or are they just making statements because they love the sound of their own voice?

In the beginning it was all about getting answers. You just wanted an explanation as to what happened, that was all. Even Dr Mahathir said the country needs answers.

But when these answers were given and you did not like the answers because it did not say that Najib stole the money you reject those answers and call them lies. You refuse to accept the explanation because the explanation does not implicate Najib in any crime.

Then, four years ago, you lodge a complaint with the French court regarding the Scorpene submarines purchase and the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder and because of that the French launched an investigation into this matter.

But before the investigation can be completed and before the French can announce the results of that investigation Rafizi wants yet another investigation to be launched in Malaysia.

Why is that? I thought you brought this matter to the attention of the French court because you do not trust Malaysia to do a proper investigation. So now the French are doing what you want but then you want Malaysia to duplicate what the French are doing by doing a simultaneous investigation in Malaysia.

Why even bring this matter to France in the first place? And if the French investigation differs from or contradicts the Malaysian investigation which investigation are you going to accept?

And if the French and Malaysian investigations both agree that no crime has been committed will you accept those findings or will you insist that a third and fourth and fifth investigation be done until finally, by the tenth investigation, you get the result you are looking for?

The same goes with PAC. You want 1MDB plus all matters related to it to be investigated by the PAC. But you are not going to accept the findings of the PAC unless the PAC can say that Najib stole money from 1MDB. Any finding other than Najib stole money is going to be rejected.

In other words, you are convinced that Najib stole money. And you do not want to hear anything other than Najib stole money. So why bother with the PAC hearing then? Is not the PAC hearing a waste of time?

I mean it is like you are convinced that Muhammad was a Prophet of God and Muhammad’s miracle is the Qur’an that came down from God. Then you ask that an investigation be conducted to determine whether Muhammad really was a Prophet of God and whether the Qur’an really did come down from God.

Actually, what you really want is for the investigation to say that Muhammad was a Prophet of God and that Muhammad’s miracle is the Qur’an that came down from God. If the investigation were to say that there is no evidence that Muhammad was a Prophet of God or that Muhammad’s miracle is the Qur’an that came down from God you are going to reject the findings.

In short, you have already made up your mind as to what the ‘truth’ is and what you want is just to hear an ‘official investigation’ say that what you regard as true is really true. And if that ‘official investigation’ contradicts what you believe to be true then you are going to reject it.

And to make matters worse, even before the investigation can be completed and the findings announced, you want yet another and yet another investigation launched simultaneously because you believe that if ten investigations are launched all over the world in many different countries then this will convince people that something is wrong. Something is wrong not because the investigation says so but because if there was nothing wrong then why the need for an investigation?

And the more investigations that are launched simultaneously the more convincing it would be that a crime has been committed because if a crime has not been committed then why the need for so many simultaneous investigations?

This is what is known as the war of perception. You create the perception that a crime has been committed by launching many investigations simultaneously.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK