Malaysia’s kangaroo courts and laws of the jungle
If a crime, or crimes, have really been committed, then more than a dozen people should be on trial alongside Zahid – the UKSB directors and manager, the auditors, the money changer, plus the five other people who UKSB is alleged to have bribed.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Malaysia’s Bar Council is pretending that Malaysia’s judiciary and legal system was destroyed during the time when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003, and that now Malaysia’s judiciary and legal system is the best in the world.
I remember a joke we used to relate back when Mahathir was prime minister. And the joke went as follows:
Mahathir visited Saudi Arabia back in the 1990s and he was introduced to the kingdom’s Minister of Railway.
“How come Saudi Arabia has a Minister of Railway when you do not have any railway?” asked Mahathir.
“Well, Malaysia has a Minister of Justice when you do not have any justice,” came the reply.
Have things really changed since Mahathir’s time?
If you were to follow Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s and Najib Tun Razak’s trials (and now Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman’s trial as well) you can see nothing has changed much over the 40 years since Mahathir became prime minister.
In any other country, the judge in Najib’s trial would have been disqualified for conflict of interest and for the RM1 million unexplained cash that was banked into his personal bank account.
If a judge, say, in Lim Guan Eng’s trial was accused of conflict of interest and was proven to have received RM1 million unexplained cash in his or her bank account, Malaysia’s Bar Council would be in a frenzy. The fact that an Umno man and not a DAP man is involved means Malaysia’s Bar Council takes the side of the judge and not of the accused.
What happened to the adage that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done? Is justice seen to be done in Najib’s case?
In Zahid’s case it is even worse. It seems six people have been accused of receiving bribes from Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd (UKSB). But only Zahid has been charged and not the other five.
All six have denied receiving bribes from UKSB. And there is no evidence that any of the six received bribes from UKSB. It is all based on hearsay and unsubstantiated testimony.
So, are the three UKSB directors and manager lying? If they are lying, then how come they are not being charged for perjury? And if they are telling the truth about Zahid, will that not mean they are also telling the truth about the other five — Muhyiddin Yassin, Khairy Jamaluddin, Shafie Apdal, Anifah Aman, and Reezal Merican Naina Merican? So why are the other five not also facing trial alongside Zahid?
More importantly, the UKSB directors and manager told the court they brought in millions from Hong Kong via a money changer. That means UKSB is involved in money-laundering.
Then the payments which UKSB made to the six people (Zahid, Muhyiddin, Khairy, Shafie, Anifah, and Reezal) are shown in the accounts under fake names or code names.
This means the auditors would have seen these entries, and we are talking about millions. Did the auditors not query these entries? Did the auditors sign the audited accounts? Did the auditors know that a crime of money-laundering and bribery-and-corruption had been committed by UKSB, and they closed their eyes to these crimes?
And was the money changer investigated and details or documentation of the illegal transfers of money from Hong Kong obtained from the money changer?
If a crime, or crimes, have really been committed, then more than a dozen people should be on trial alongside Zahid – the UKSB directors and manager, the auditors, the money changer, plus the five other people who UKSB is alleged to have bribed.
So, is this about justice or about fixing up Zahid for political reasons? The Malaysian Bar Council members should spend less time at the Long Bar in the Selangor Club. It is beginning to sound like the bottle talking.
