THE THIRD FORCE
The case of Mahathir’s signature on Lim Guan Eng’s letter
Without prejudice (tanpa prejudis), in the spirit of truth and justice.
In a recent expose, the following was adduced as evidence that former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad influenced Tan Sri Tommy Thomas’ decision with regards to the unfreezing of tycoon Tan Sri Lim Soon Ping’s account.
1. 26.10.2018: Peguam Tan Sri Lim Soon Ping (TSL) menulis kepada KP SPRM (pada waktu itu Dato’ Sri Shukri Abdull) untuk lepaskan pembekuan semua akaun peribadi dan syarikat TSL.
Note: Here, we are clear that the letter is from TSL to the MACC.
2. Salinan surat diberi kepada Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (TDM).
3. 05.12.2018: TDM minitkan surat dari Lim Guan Eng (LGE), dan berpendapat TSL “tidak boleh dipersalahkan” pembekuan akaun peribadi dan syarikat TSL tidak boleh dikekalkan” (minit TDM dalam lampiran).
Note: Here, we are clear that the letter is from LGE. However, the picture presented as evidence does not show who the letter is addressed to, i.e. the MACC, Mahathir or Tommy Thomas.
Nonetheless, the letter written to Tommy Thomas is in English, whereas the one presented in the picture is in Malay. So it is likely that the letter by LGE was addressed to Mahathir. Still, we’re not sure.
4. 19.02.2019: Surat Peguam TSL diterima oleh LGE dan beliau minitkan Peguam Negara Tommy Thomas (AG TT) arah pelepasan akaun-akaun itu dengan merujuk kepada minit TDM.
5. 31.05.2019: LGE tulis surat rasmi kepada AG TT mengarahkan akaun TSL dilepaskan daripada pembekuan;
6. 14.06.2019: AG TT menulis kepada LGE memaklumkan status kes dan arahan beliau kepada SPRM melepaskan pembekuan akaun2 TSL (salinan dilampirkan).
Note: This has been reported before.
The long and short of it is this – with the release of these documents, Mahathir is alleged to have interfered in a decision by Tommy Thomas to unfreeze a tycoon’s account by putting a note on a letter by Lim Guan Eng, saying the tycoon “Should not be blamed.”
However, what was not made clear is who the letter by Guan Eng was addressed to. As noted above, it was likely addressed to Mahathir and is most certainly not the letter Guan Eng wrote to Tommy Thomas.
That having been said, the signature and message (or recommendation) by Mahathir, assuming genuine, is non-binding and a matter of opinion.
This is similar to the case of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, where during the SRC trial, Najib was accused of supporting SRC International Sdn Bhd’s request for a RM3.95 billion loan from Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (Diperbadankan) (KWAP) to be used for general investments “without limitations”
This so-called support was contained In the letter dated the 3rd of June 2011, sent by Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil, SRC director at the time, and addressed to Najib.
First and foremost, the defence urged the High Court not to convict the former prime minister based on the “court of public opinion”.
Lawyer Farhan from Najib’s defence team acknowledged the gravity of the charges against Najib, who is accused of pocketing RM42 million from public funds.
“We don’t blame the public for being angry. But the court today should not be influenced by opinion. It should decide based on law and facts,” he said.
Farhan then told the court that Najib had had no intention of instructing then-Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP) CEO Azian Mohd Noh to approve a loan for SRC International, which Nik Faisal’s letter to Najib had something to do with.
“Azian was an ex-officio member of KWAP’s investment panel and she has no power to decide whether to grant loans to SRC International or otherwise.
“The decision lay with panel members,” he added.
This sets a precedent of sorts.
Although the details of the two cases differ with regards to the official positions of Nik Faisal and Lim Guan Eng, as well as one or two other details, there are some parallels.
1. When Najib ‘supported’ Nik Faisal’s letter, he must have known – subject, of course, to the court’s final verdict – that Nik Faisal was going to include the letter in SRC’s loan application to KWAP.
2. Otherwise, why would Najib have penned his ‘support’?
3. So – and again, subject upon the court’s final verdict – it does not matter if Azian was an ex-officio member of KWAP’s investment panel or otherwise, as the application was supposed to be processed and decided upon by KWAP’s panel, not Azian.
4. Farhan’s focus should have been that, and he was right – the decision lay with the KWAP panel.
5. In other words, Najib’s support should not have had any bearing on KWAP’s decision with regards to SRC’s loan application despite him being (at the time) the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
6. Similarly, when Mahathir wrote on Lim Guan Eng’s letter – assuming he did – that Lim Soon Ping “should not be blamed,” he must have known what Guan Eng intended to do with the letter.
7. However, we do not have details on this, i.e., to whom this letter was shown – Tommy Thomas, or the MACC, or both. So let’s not speculate.
8. But one thing is for sure – the final decision lay with Tommy Thomas.
9. In other words, Mahathir’s alleged support – if you wish to call it that – should not have had any bearing on Thomas’s decision with regards to the unfreezing of the tycoon’s account despite Mahathir being (at the time) the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
10. And this is assuming that the letter by Guan Eng, which carried Mahathir’s so-called ‘note’, was sown to Thomas in the first place. We do not know this for sure.
The whole expose is haphazard, there are too many missing details.
Notwithstanding, it is left to be seen how the court adjudges this particular aspect of Najib’s case (not the entire case) on the 28th of July 2020.
NOTA: SAYA MEMBUAT PENGUMUMAN-PENGUMUMAN PENTING DARI MASA KE SEMASA EKSKLUSIF MENERUSI SALURAN TELEGRAM BERIKUT:
