Mahathir claims that Malaysia’s decision not to send Zakir back on suspicion that the latter is not going to be accorded a fair trial by the Indian judiciary is on a level with Australia’s decision not to send Sirul back to Malaysia on suspicion that he would be hanged.
That’s as good as the Prime Minister saying, “if Australia can do it, so can we,” even though Zakir is neither from Australia nor being sought by Australian authorities.
Mahathir’s conflicting position on Zakir and Praphan Pipithnamporn – the Thai citizen Malaysia agreed to extradite – is clear proof that Pakatan Harapan has no clear policy on extradition and has no control whatsoever over the Prime Minister.
Both TTF and Gerakan Bangsa Nasional (GBN) agree that Zakir has a right to an opinion and cannot be demonized for being a fundamentalist.
SHAH ALAM: DAP Deputy Secretary-General Ramasamy called him “Satan.”
Kulasegaran told the Dewan Rakyat on the 7thof November 2017 that the Indian government had red-flagged him and asked if the then Barisan Nasional government was working with India to extradite him.
Yet, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has defended him and likened his case to Sirul Azhar Umar, a former bodyguard sentenced to death for the murder of Mongolin model Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Yes, there is a storm brewing around Indian national Dr Zakir Naik, a preacher in the religion of Islam that the DAP, the DAP friendly media and currently even the mainstream media are labelling as ‘controversial’.
In the eye of that storm is DAP legal bureau chairman Ramkarpal Singh, who yesterday, crossed swords with Mahathir for the umpteenth time since Pakatan Harapan took over government in May 2018.
If his previous grouse was the appointment of Latheefa Koya as head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), this time, he’s not too happy with the way Mahathir compared Zakir’s case to Sirul.
“Australia is not questioning if Sirul received a fair trial in Malaysia prior to his conviction and we should, likewise, not question if Zakir will or will not receive a fair trial in India as countries ought to respect each other’s legal systems unless, perhaps, if it is that of a rogue nation such as North Korea, in which case, discretion may be exercised against repatriation,” he said.
That’s true.
Mahathir claims that Malaysia’s decision not to send Zakir back on suspicion that the latter is not going to be accorded a fair trial by the Indian judiciary is on a level with Australia’s decision not to send Sirul back to Malaysia on suspicion that he would be hanged.
That’s as good as the Prime Minister saying, “if Australia can do it, so can we,” even though Zakir is neither from Australia nor being sought by Australian authorities.
Even if a comparison were to be made – for some unknown reason – we should keep conditions as close to each other as possible, i.e., the trial Sirul received vs the trial Zakir is expected to receive.
As Ramkarpal put it, Australia never had any issue with the trial Sirul received in Malaysia.
The DAP parliamentarian then recalled an incident in May when Putrajaya agreed to repatriate Praphan Pipithnamporn to Thailand despite fears that Praphan would not receive a fair trial under Thailand’s strict lese-majeste laws which was condemned by various quarters, including Human Rights Watch.
The comparison was apt even though it concerned Thailand, not India.
This time, it served to highlight Malaysia’s policy on repatriation in cases where foreign nationals stand accused of committing crimes in their home countries and are asked by the governments of those countries to return.
Zakir has been accused by Indian prosecutors of laundering money, acquiring US28 million worth of criminal assets, preaching hatred and inciting terrorism.
Among nations that banned the Dubai based Peace TV he owns is Bangladesh, a Muslim-majority country that accused the channel of inspiring one of the gunmen behind a 2016 attack on a café in Dhaka that killed 22 people.
Mahathir’s conflicting position on Zakir and Praphan is proof that Pakatan Harapan has no clear policy on extradition and has no control whatsoever over the Prime Minister.
Both TTF and Gerakan Bangsa Nasional (GBN) agree that Zakir has a right to an opinion and cannot be demonised for being a fundamentalist.
The DAP, however, has gone from Zakir being “Satan” to the need for him to be sent back to face charges pursuant to requests made by the Government of India (GoI),
TTF has consistently refrained from commenting on the issue and will continue to do so as the issue is a government-to-government affair which TTF lacks details of.
However, one can’t help but notice the ludicrousness in Mahathir’s line of reasoning, and note, that the Prime Minister may be trying to tell the DAP once again that “you made me boss, so I can do anything I want.”
It’s precisely what he did in the case of Telekom Malaysia (CEO appointment), the MACC (Latheefa’s appointment) and Lynas (the decision to allow it to continue operations).
TTF may be completely against the DAP and its anti-Islamic bent.
However, one cannot deny the merits to Ramkarpal’s line of reasoning, as they derive from “common sense” and demonstrate clearly how Mahathir is swiftly moving from being a dictator to being a senile elder who’s probably better off in an old-folks home.
THE THIRD FORCE
