Pakatan Harapan is upset because Riza Aziz is Najib’s stepson
Cukuplah! Cari issue lain. The Riza Aziz matter is a done deal. So give it a rest and move on. Pakatan Harapan has been so badly damaged by all sorts of internal squabbles and drama. So they are trying to divert the public’s attention by raising this so-called Riza Aziz “scandal”. Pakatan Harapan ni dah bankrupt idea. That is the real issue.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
On 21st May 2020, Focus Malaysia published an opinion piece written by the MP for Selayang, William Leong Jee Keen, titled “Riza’s deal raises question of what kind of PM we have” (READ HERE).
Basically, the two main points that William Leong raised are (1) the Attorney-General does not have discretionary powers and (2) Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin was behind the decision to go soft on Najib Tun Razak’s stepson, Riza Aziz.
The AG used his discretionary powers to not proceed with Guan Eng’s corruption case involving the Penang undersea tunnel
William Leong’s conclusion was: “Without an explanation on how public interest is served by the discharge of Riza, Malaysians are left to draw their own conclusions as to what kind of AG we have and what kind of PM we have.”
The MP for Beaufort, Azizah Mohd Dun, replied to William Leong’s opinion piece, which you can read below.
Unless you are a lawyer, you may find the legal jargon in the William Leong-Azizah Dun debate pretty boring and confusing. But then that is what lawyers do for a living: they pusing sini pusing sana.
To cut a long story short, William Leong is accusing the AG and the PM of abuse of power while Azizah Dun is denying it. The rest of those many words are merely icing on the cake — because the more you say the more you can make it look like you have a strong case (and the more lawyers can charge their client).
The AG dropped (or did not proceed) with dozens of cases involving Pakatan Harapan people
Let us cut to the chase. For the 22 months that Pakatan Harapan was in power, AG Tommy Thomas has been using his discretionary powers to drop dozens of cases involving Pakatan Harapan people. The mother of all cases is the Lim Guan Eng corruption case involving the Penang undersea tunnel.
Has this ever been an issue before? Why only now is it an issue? Is it because Riza Aziz is Najib’s stepson so they need to raise this issue to smear Najib’s name? Or is it they are angry with Muhyiddin Yassin for allegedly “stealing” the government so they want to smear his name?
Yes, this so-called “public interest” that William Leong talks about is not about public interest at all but about the interests of Pakatan Harapan. They are looking for modal to attack Najib and/or Muhyiddin. There is absolutely no sincerity in raising this issue.
Pakatan Harapan likes to mempolitikkan everything. They even blame the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic on the Perikatan Nasional government, whereas the WHO warning was issued as early as 30th January 2020 and the Pakatan Harapan government did nothing until Perikatan Nasional took over on 1st March 2020.
Cukuplah! Cari issue lain. The Riza Aziz matter is a done deal. So give it a rest and move on. Pakatan Harapan has been so badly damaged by all sorts of internal squabbles and drama. So they are trying to divert the public’s attention by raising this so-called Riza Aziz “scandal”. Pakatan Harapan ni dah bankrupt idea. That is the real issue.
**************************************************************************
BEUFORT’S REPLY TO SELAYANG
I am responding to YB William Leong’s response to my statement published in the article in Focus Malaysia dated 18/5/2020.
It is noteworthy that YB Wiliam Leong’s latest statement published on 21/5/2020 has departed from the initial questions raised in his previous statement published on 17/5/2020. It seems clear after reading my response, his questions posed to the Prime Minister have now changed from whether the PM approves the plea bargain involving Riza Abdul Aziz to questioning the prosecutorial discretion and decision of the Attorney General.
Since YB William Leong has taken the effort to produce a lengthy response, in the spirit of Aidilfitri discourse, I will reciprocate so that his efforts are not seen as wasted.
Ad Hominem Attack
YB William Leong says he will not dignify my article with a response because I made an ad hominem attack against him. With respect, I did not attack his personal character. YB William Leong is a highly respected and experienced parliamentarian. But, was it wrong for me to point out that his argument is rooted in error and hypocrisy? Why the verbosity using terms that my comments were ad hominem whereas it is fair criticism? As a representative of the people, speak in plain language YB, don’t create diversions to confuse the masses. Surely that cannot be your intention right YB?
Attorney General’s Prosecutorial Discretion
It appears that YB William Leong upon reading my response has come to realise and taken the position that the discretion to discontinue a criminal proceeding against an individual vests with the Attorney General, not with the Prime Minister. That is why he has now shifted his question from “Why did the Prime Minister approve the discharge of Riza Abdul Aziz” to “Whether the discretion by the Attorney General is absolute”. This is his acknowledgement that the discretion to discontinue a criminal proceedings rests with the Attorney General and not the Prime Minister. Don’t change the goal post YB.
YB William Leong seeks to dazzle the public with references to legal authority and quotations about the nature of power and its abuse. And it is dazzling stuff when one quotes His Majesty, the late great Raja Azlan Shah. It is equally dazzling to cite numerous foreign decisions in support of his contention that the Attorney General’s discretion is not absolute.
And yet, perhaps this is not a debate that requires all that much razzle dazzle. As it happens there is an oft repeated and applied passage which directly answers the issue at hand.
Another former Lord President, Abdul Hamid Omar LP, speaking for our then Supreme Court, said this:
“For our immediate purpose we wish to refer to art. 145(3) of the Constitution which states that the Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before Syariah Court etc. The discretion vested in the Attorney General is unfettered and cannot be challenged and substituted by that of the Court’s. The reasoning and logic behind such contention is well illustrated in the cases of PP v. Lee Tin Bau, supra, Long bin Samat v. PP [1974] 2 MLJ 152, PP v. Datuk Harun bin Haji Idris & Ors. [1976] 2 MLJ 116, Poh Cho Ching v. PP [1981] CLJ (Rep) 229. In the circumstances it is superfluous to reiterate the same points.”
(as quoted in Karpal Singh & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 CLJ Rep 183)
Lest someone criticize me of citing old authority, I think its worth noting that our Federal Court recently reminded themselves of this position in Ahmad Zubair Hj Murshid v PP [2014] 9 CLJ 2890. If one wants to see this principle repeated time and time again, one need only refer to these cases: Long bin Samat & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1974] 2 MLJ 152 (Federal Court); Tan Hoo Heng v PP [2019] 1 LNS 893 (Court of Appeal); and Ling Hang Tysr v PP [2019] 1 LNS 1573 (Court of Appeal).
It is with regret that I must then conclude that while YB William Leong is entitled to argue and demand what he feels should be the law of the land, those foreign cases and decisions cited by YB William Leong lend no legal support and credibility to his argument. It’s all fluff.
Public Interest
It remains baffling that YB William Leong insisted that the Prime Minister needs to explain the merit of a decision made by the Attorney General when in actual fact the Prime Minister has emphasized that he had played no role in whatever decision made by the Attorney General.
Further, the call for an explanation for discontinuing cases would interfere with the investigative powers of the MACC and other enforcement agencies. That is also the basis why investigation papers are secret and are never typically disclosed to any third parties.
As the investigation papers are, by necessity and law, secret in nature, the only persons who are privy to the full facts of the case would be the Attorney General and any officers who have been tasked to investigate the matter. Given that we do not have full knowledge and understanding of the facts of the case, it is therefore inappropriate and counter-productive for anyone of us to cast unfounded aspersion and try to second-guess the reasons behind this decision. As previously suggested, there are various factors and considerations that will be taken into account by the Attorney General in exercising his discretion under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.
I think that YB William Leong’s insinuation and personal attack against the Prime Minister was unwarranted and an apology is in order. I hope YB William Leong is honourable enough to do that.
Azizah Mohd Dun
Member of Parliament
Beaufort, Sabah
