“Read together, all the above suggests that Khatri accused the Prime Minister of Malaysia and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of being complicit in a plot to have Mahathir declared a criminal by means of a fraudulently contrived RCI. The potential of such an accusation to trigger unrest of a scale detrimental to national security and harmony is tantamount to waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, particularly since it involves claims of malfeasance on the part of the ruler himself.”
THE THIRD FORCE
Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his lawyer are on the offensive against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The former premier threatened to file a judicial review application to prevent a report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the nineties forex scandal from being distributed to the Palace, Parliament and members of the public.
The threat was conveyed through his legal counsel, Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla (Khatri). Yesterday, Khatri accused the RCI of being unfair and dishonest following its secretariat’s alleged failure to compile a full report. According to him, the act of publishing and distributing such a report was deliberate and malicious as it implied non-responsiveness on Mahathir’s part to allegations hurled against him.
“The commissioners were dishonest to the king and the public. They did not submit at least half of what should have been submitted in the report, not even counting the submission by Anwar,” he reportedly told The Malaysian Insight (Insight).
“It is misleading because the public does not know the materials and the arguments rendered by Dr Mahathir’s counsel against the so-called evidence considered by the RCI in its report.”
Now, I’m going to cut to the chase and tell you precisely how Khatri misrepresented himself, the Malaysian Bar and the people of Malaysia. To kick things off, let us look at what Khatri did not tell Insight and how his actions (or inactions) may be fuelled by a desire to shape public opinion against government.
1. When Khatri accused the RCI of being unfair and dishonest, he did so by alleging that its Secretariat did not distribute complete copies of the commission’s findings.
2. However, he failed to explain or even allude to the method or means by which he arrived at that conclusion.
3. Khatri also failed to explicate the circumstances and/or context within which the said report or parts thereof were distributed to the parties he named as recipients, including the palace and the Malaysian Parliament.
4. His failure to do the aforementioned was irresponsible, considering that he made some claims that had the potential of disrupting public order.
5. The threat of disorder arose the minute Insight published his claims, which members of the public will now be led to assume were made in his capacity as member of the Malaysian Bar.
6. The threat of disorder stems from his claim that the RCI was carrying out a “crooked political agenda” which he further claimed was that of the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak.
7. These claims in and of themselves work against the broader interest of national security and may be construed an attempt to subvert government and the institution of premiership.
8. The element of subversion is further reflected in Khatri’s representation of a political figure (Mahathir) whose own son once told a court had undertaken in a plot to topple a democratically instituted Prime Minister.
9. The fact that Khatri is representing such a man (Mahathir) against a public inquiry commissioned by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong demonstrates a lack of regard for the eminence of His Majesty, particularly since the same man once misled the palace into thinking that there existed 1.2 million signatures demanding Najib’s unequivocal resignation from government
10. Read together, all the above points to clear and present danger that may be to the detriment of national security and harmony.
11. Not only is he (Khatri) attempting to undermine the institution which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong represents, his act of doing so is at the risk of misleading members of the public to a point that could trigger unrest and/or distrust against the administration of Najib Razak.
12. The possibility of a wilful attempt to trigger that distrust is reflected in the timing of his actions, which suggests an attempt to shape public opinion against Barisan Nasional ahead of the 14th general election.
13. The fact that his actions may have to do with the general election is further reflected in his representation of a man (Mahathir) who is seeking to replace UMNO with a party (PPBM) he (Mahathir) currently chairs.
The above having being said, let us take a look at the RCI itself and get to the part of how Khatri and Mahathir are waging war against the Agong.
1. The RCI is an ad hoc formal public inquiry called by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advise of government.
2. Its sole purpose is to conduct discoveries into matters of great importance, particularly those that have to do with controversies or scandals deemed detrimental to the broader interest of national security and harmony.
3. Considering that Mahathir spent close to three years hurling libel and slander against Najib and his administration, the government undertook to impress upon members of the public that allegations of misconduct against any office bearer must be substantiated with proof and not be fuelled by speculation or hearsay.
4. It is for this reason, above all, that an RCI was initiated into the nineties forex scandal.
5. The government was aware that an inquiry of such magnitude had the potential of exposing misconduct by the very man accusing Najib of criminal malfeasance.
6. By conducting a probe in a manner that was constitutional, credible and open to public scrutiny, the government was attempting to allay misconceptions over its integrity which Mahathir and his cohorts spent three years undermining.
7. The probe had also the potential of demonstrating how and why Mahathir, whose own administration was fraught with countless scandals involving billions of taxpayer-ringgit, lacked the moral compass, credibility and integrity to contest anything the Najib administration did or still does.
8. By accusing the RCI of being politically motivated, Khatri implied a possible conspiracy involving the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the RCI was commissioned by the latter on the advice of government.
9. The fact that the RCI was commissioned on the advice of government also implies complicity between the Prime Minister and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong himself, particularly since Khatri alleged that Najib was driven by a “crooked political agenda.”
10. Read together, all the above (including the initial 13 points) suggests that Khatri accused the Prime Minister of Malaysia and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of being complicit in a plot to have Mahathir declared a criminal by means of a fraudulently contrived RCI.
The potential of such an accusation to trigger unrest of a scale detrimental to national security and harmony is tantamount to waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, particularly since it involves claims of malfeasance on the part of the ruler himself.
I hereby urge all concerned parties to immediately lodge police reports against Khatri and Mahathir in the broader interest of national security, peace and harmony.
Note: this article was edited at 10.47 am on Saturday, the 2nd of December 2017, and again at 12.55 am on Sunday, the 3rd of December 2017, to correct a factual error and to improve clarity