A collective Malay shame and tragedy


November 5, 2018

A collective Malay shame and tragedy

by Dr.M Bakri Musa  |www.malaysiakini.com

 

COMMENT | Reading the US Department Of Justice’s (DOJ) criminal indictment of November 1, 2018, relating to 1MDB, as well as its earlier (July 2016) civil forfeiture lawsuit on assets allegedly linked to it, I am struck by three singular observations.

First is the appalling avarice of the alleged culprits; second, the utter impunity with which they conducted themselves; and third, the sheer stupidity of the man without whose authority those shenanigans would not have been possible – Malaysian Official 1, as referred to in both charges. The world now knows him as Najib Abdul Razak. While he is not facing any DOJ charges as yet, in Malaysia he faces several criminal ones that could put him in jail for the rest of his life.

This 1MDB heist is by far the most complex and largest in terms of monetary value. The sheer hubris of the perpetrators to think that they could get away with it. As for Najib, he is not terribly bright, just wily enough to know that his fellow ministers and UMNO leaders could be bought cheaply with the loot from 1MDB.

As for his rise in UMNO, that too is more the consequence of Malay culture. Malays are suckers for terhutang budi, an excessive sense of gratitude. With Najib, it was for his father Abdul Razak Hussein – Malaysia’s second Prime Minister who died unexpectedly while in office in 1976.

 

Had Najib not been a Bin Razak, he would be but a middling civil servant, at best. Think of it; had his Bin Razak status been ignored, or the powerful had not been terhutang budi, Malaysia would have been spared much grief today, and a whole lot less debt.

Image result for najib and mahathir

Najib Razak and his Master Yoda

The trail of financial liabilities of 1MDB, though massive and painful, is at least quantifiable. Not so the associated lost opportunities. Had the billions not been squandered on luxuries in London, Beverley Hills, and New York or funding soft porno movies, but on improving national schools and Felda settlements, we would be that much closer to the goals of Ketuanan Melayu and Vision 2020.

This being Malaysia, the dangerous race factor is never far from the surface. That is the most pernicious and consequential legacy of 1MDB. Already there are ugly rumours, and not just within UMNO but also other segments of the Malay community, blaming those smart, greedy Chinese once again taking advantage, if not outright cheating, of sweet, innocent Malay leaders.

Image result for jho low najib

Even Najib is now distancing himself from Jho Low  This potential explosive component is the most dangerous and incendiary, and one that cannot be unquantified.

 

Even uglier and more painful to express publicly is this: Malays are downright ashamed by the outrageous behaviour of their corrupt leaders. Not stated but obvious is that all those charged in Malaysia are Malays, not ordinary ones but top leaders.

Malaysians must thank Mahathir for appointing Tommy Thomas as the attorney-general. It is amazing what you can achieve when you put a premium on honesty, integrity, and competence. Yes, there were many Malays who complained of Thomas not being a Malay or Muslim, as well as on his less-than-polished Malay.

Regardless, he put to shame his predecessor, Mohamed Apandi Ali. He, together with Najib, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim and others, is but an unmitigated disaster and gross embarrassment to Malays and Muslims, bar none.Image result for UMNO Leaders charged

UMNO new Leadership devoid of Honour and Integrity

By normal reckoning, Apandi should have been impeached. Again in a perversion of values, Najib made him a Tan Sri, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong agreed. Like it or not, to many non-Malays as well as Malays, the likes of Najib and Apandi represent the best that our community could offer. That hurts!

Image result for azeez rahim

UMNO’s Bro Azeez Mamak Rahim

As for those other champions of Ketuanan Melayu, their goals would be achieved that much faster and more efficaciously if they would first get rid of these characters in their midst.

It is good to be reminded that with DOJ’s filings, a pivotal defendant in its criminal case has already pleaded guilty; with its civil (case), at least two have agreed to settle.

Much can be deduced from the local reactions, and even more so from the lack of same among some notable quarters. It is not surprising that simple kampung folks still believe Najib despite those charges as well as the boxes of gold and cash hauled from his residences. They still believe that the money was for them!

What stretches one’s credulity is that UMNO leaders too bought Najib’s snake oil, and they included many lawyers and accountants, as well as an Oxford graduate and even an Ivy League PhD! That is the greatest Malay shame and tragedy.


M BAKRI MUSA, a surgeon in California, is a frequent commentator on Malaysian affairs.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Can UMNO-BN defectors ever reform?


November 3, 2018

Can UMNO-BN defectors ever reform?

By Dean Johns

http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT | As Bersih, Amanah and many concerned individuals have said recently, any move on the part of Pakatan Harapan or any of its component parties to even think about accepting UMNO-BN no-hopers into their ranks, let alone seriously consider doing so, is an absolute outrage.

 

There has been no sign that these 40 thieves have turned over a new leaf; that these pathological liars have seen the light, or perceived the error of their ways.

All of them – without exception – have been either accomplices in or accessories to the massive crimes allegedly committed by their former UMNO-BN leaders, and none have shown the slightest sign of regret, remorse, repentance or intention to reform.

And until they have publicly done so, and surrendered their ill-gotten assets to the national treasury, they should remain criminal suspects, and at the very least be subjected to forensic audits of their financial affairs.

So for Pakatan Harapan to consider admitting UMNO-BN defectors without their confessing, and serving sentences or even periods of probation for their crimes and corruption, or repaying the rakyat, is like placing rotten apples into a fresh new barrel, or incorporating cancer cells into a young, healthy body.

 Image result for pakatan harapan

Or to put this another way, unless and until they sincerely reform, it should be assumed that their motive for aspiring to join Harapan is to insert themselves into a force, hell-bent on undermining and eventually destroying the new government from within.

And thus, far from entertaining their hopes of hopping sides, Harapan should tell off these “frogs and toads”, which happens to be rhyming slang for “road”, which they should be hitting.

Considering that they’ve betrayed the Malaysian people – especially the Malay-Muslim people whose interests as UMNO–BN members they falsely claimed to ‘protect’ – and have now shown their willingness to betray those who voted for them as well as UMNO-BN itself, they can hardly be seen as trustworthy converts to the Harapan cause.

And then there’s the thought that Harapan, and especially its Bersatu component, is already stuffed full enough with unregenerate UMNO-BN renegades and rejects.

Image result for pakatan harapan

Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is the most prominent example. While admittedly it seems unarguable that Harapan could not have won without him, many of us strongly suspect that he’s still the same old autocrat and even the same old mad hatter at heart.

And that it was his personal hatred for ex-premier Najib Abdul Razak in particular rather than for UMNO-BN in principle that impelled him to make a comeback as the head of Pakatan Harapan.

Little sign of regret

Certainly, despite his appearing to be a reformed character, he’s shown little sign of regret for the countless crimes, corruption and perversions of justice that characterised his 22 years as President of UMNO Baru and UMNO-BN Prime Minister.

Nor has there been any sign that any of his sons are about to be retrospectively investigated any time soon for past scandals and dubious business successes.

 Image result for muhyiddin yassin

Then there’s Najib’s onetime Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, whose highly likely involvement in or at least strong support of UMNO-BN malefactions back then, is somehow never mentioned, and whose ‘conversion’ to Harapan principles and values has gone largely, if not, totally unexamined.

 Image result for pakatan harapan

There are some, I know, who suspect that Mahathir and Muhyiddin, now that they have used Pakatan Harapan as a vehicle to wreak vengeance on Najib, will eventually reveal that, far from being agents of reform, are actually on a secret mission to re-form a revised or alternative version of UMNO-BN.

And some of the same conspiracy theorists are similarly suspicious of the intentions of Anwar Ibrahim, if and when he replaces Mahathir as Prime Minister. Despite his apparently impeccable credentials as the former leader of the Reformasi movement and such a bitter enemy of Mahathir and Najib that each of them jailed him for years, many still see him as being cursed with UMNO-BN DNA.

Image result for anwar ibrahim

But whatever the true motivations and intentions of these and other former leading members of UMNO-BN, the last thing the Pakatan Harapan coalition or the citizens of Malaysia need right now, is to risk accepting allegedly reformed deserters from this defeated and disgraced regime, lest they re-form and threaten the new government.

Exactly eight years ago, I suggested in a column entitled ‘From Putrajaya to Putrajail’, they should be hauled into court and, following a fair trial, of course, be sentenced to years in the UMNO-BN.

*DEAN JOHNS, after many years in Asia, currently lives with his Malaysian-born wife and daughter in Sydney, where he coaches and mentors writers and authors and practises as a writing therapist. Published compilations of his Malaysiakini columns include “Mad about Malaysia”, “Even Madder about Malaysia”, “Missing Malaysia”, “1Malaysia.con” and “Malaysia Mania”.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Mal


aysiakini.

88Share to WhatsAppShare to PrintShare to More

Malaysia’s Attorney-General Tommy Thomas Speaks to Malaysiakini and The Edge –Parts 1& 2


 

October 11, 2018

Malaysia’s  Attorney-General Tommy Thomas Speaks to Malaysiakini and The Edge –Parts 1& 2

Image result for tommy thomas attorney general's book

INTERVIEW | Newly appointed Attorney-General Tommy Thomas gave Malaysiakini and The Edge an exclusive interview last Thursday – the day senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was charged with money laundering.

In his first major interview since he was tapped as A-G, the 66-year-old barrister and author of two books spoke about his gargantuan duties three months into his appointment as the top legal officer in the country.

In particular, Thomas talked about the difficulties and challenges faced by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (A-GC) in the 1MDB case, the civil action taken by the new Malaysian government in Singapore, United States and Switzerland to recover the assets of the failed sovereign wealth fund, the criticisms in his appointment of outside lawyers to handle the 1MDB and SRC International prosecution and the retrieval of Jho Low’s jet in Singapore.

On the difficulties his Chambers faced, Thomas said, “I would say is that never in the history of the Chambers has there been so much demand for prosecution, which is because of the past misdeeds that have accumulated over the years, problems that I’ve inherited.”

On 1MDB, the A-G said the Chambers had formed a special team to handle one of the most complicated legal cases ever faced by the country.

He talked about launching legal actions in the United States, Singapore and Switzerland, where lawyers there have been appointed to begin the civil recoveries of the 1MDB assets, with the objective to put the proceeds in a specially set-up fund.

“We have opened an account, a special segregated new account, controlled by MOF (Ministry of Finance). It’s the MOF and the new directors of 1MDB who are controlling it. It is specially set up. After the GST RM19 billion hole, there has to be a specially protected, segregated trust account earning interest and controlled by honest signatories,” he said.

Although there have been calls for enforcement agencies such as the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to be given prosecutorial powers, Thomas is against the idea.

“I’m against those who say MACC must prosecute. They don’t know how much power that will give to MACC, if that happens. The existing system is perhaps the least worst. But the disadvantage of this is if the agencies do not give us the investigation papers (IPs) then the AGC cannot do much. We cannot do anything until the IPs are given. So until today, there is not a single IP on 1MDB given to us.”

The AG also talked about the criticisms in his appointment of senior lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah to lead the prosecution against former Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in the SRC International case and former Federal Court Judge Gopal Sri Ram on 1MDB.

“Domestically, the A-G’s Chambers has in the past appointed local lawyers. AG’s Chambers appointed Datuk KC Vohrah, Tan Sri Cecil Abraham and Dato’ Sunil Abraham and their firm, Zul Rafique, for many civil matters.

“In fact, the SRC (prosecution) team was happy (with Sulaiman) because most of them were tutored by Sulaiman at (the) university. They look to Sulaiman as their intellectual guru. One must look at it in terms of what Malaysia needs. The people of Malaysia want justice, they want speedy justice. The people of Malaysia deserve the best and the brightest to appear for them,” he said.

Thomas also explained how it would be difficult for him to lead the prosecution on SRC and 1MDB. He offered the example of a case he once handled.

“When the trial starts, you have to be full time with the trial, because at night you have to prepare cross-examination questions. When the trial is over, you have to do research and draft exhaustive written submissions. I was a hands-on barrister who took my court commitments seriously and professionally.

“Knowing that first hand, you cannot combine that with the demands of the A-G, where the PM wants to see you, the cabinet wants to consult you, Parliament is sitting, and so on. It’s just not possible, you cannot combine all these demanding tasks with the work of counsel in court.”

Thomas also spoke about how he has changed his opinion about Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, a man whom he criticised many years ago. According to him, Mahathir is a “reformed PM”. Upon taking office as AG, he said the world’s oldest prime minister told him, “Tell me if there’s something wrong, tell me if I can’t do it.”

“So I said, ‘Yes, Tun, I will’.”

Here is the first part of the interview. The second and final part will appear tomorrow.

Question: What’s your assessment of your first 100 days?

Thomas: The challenges have been much greater than I expected. What I said on the first day remains, which was (that) I have three priorities.

Firstly, everything to do with 1MDB, which is not just the criminal aspect, for there’s the civil recovery as well. Secondly, the lopsided contracts and thirdly, law reform.

Those have always been my focus, and remain my focus. But (it was only when) I came into the office and sat down and started doing work, that I realised the awesome responsibilities that are attached to the office.

And I think you will not know it unless you are sitting here. It’s difficult for anyone from the outside – certainly not a private practitioner, as I was. Even somebody from this Chambers – there are about 1,200 lawyers here – even they won’t understand the huge amount of responsibilities (of the AG). So that has surprised me.

How about the competency of your officers? There have been some criticisms that there’re not enough competent people dealing with the prosecution. Do you find that a problem?

I think that’s unfair. We have tremendous specialisation, but of course, lacking in some areas. For example, in things like AMLA (Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act), which is very critical in the next few years, and Mutual Legal Assistance – again very critical because we’ve got to deal with different countries – we got top-class specialists.

And for the contracts review, we also have excellent people as I’m personally dealing with them. In so far as prosecution is concerned, what I would say is that never in the history of the AGC has there been so much demand for prosecution, which is because of the past misdeeds that have accumulated over the years – problems that I’ve inherited.

Whether it’s 1MDB or not, there is a long line of cases waiting once the IPs are delivered to me. Even if you got 1,000 world-class prosecutors, it’s just not enough. That tells you – it’s a commentary on the alleged crimes that have been built up over the years. So the pressure is awesome. That’s why we’re setting up the 1MDB unit, we’re setting up different units to cope with the cases because we’ve never done this before. If AGC had done this from 201… if prosecutions took place from 2011 or 2012, then it would not have built up.

And just to get it in relative terms, please look at the US. Their DOJ (Department of Justice), which is obviously world class because they’ve got so many talented people, forensic accountants, lawyers and unmatched resources… look at how the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team, are doing. It took more than a year before they charged anybody. Then they went very fast, they’ve charged, I think, about 20 people in the last three months and they have got a few convictions.

But it took them one year. And I tell you the 1MDB scandal is much, much more complex than what (US President Donald) Trump has allegedly done. 1MDB is the world’s greatest kleptocracy!

You mentioned there are a criminal aspect and the asset recovery aspect with regard to 1MDB. Maybe you can share with us the approach your office is taking in regard to these two aspects?

On criminal, we can’t do anything until the IPs (investigation papers) come. Just to remind you that in our system – many countries also have it in order to prevent too much concentration of power – the idea is to distribute power. Checks and balances – so the four or five investigative agencies in Malaysia, like the police, MACC, Bank Negara, Securities Commission, Customs – there are about five or six bodies which investigate, they cannot charge. Because otherwise, they would be too powerful.

The A-GC prosecutes. We have the sole monopoly on prosecution and we should not carry out investigations because we’re already so powerful, so can you imagine how much more powerful we will be if we investigate (as well). So I’m against those who say MACC must prosecute. They don’t know how much power that will give to MACC, if that happens. The existing system is perhaps the least worst.

But the disadvantage of this is that if the agencies do not give us the IPs, then AGC cannot do much. We cannot do anything until the IPs are given. So until today, there is not a single 1MDB IP given to us. When it came to Jho Low (who was charged in absentia for money laundering), AGC asked the police to share their investigations, and then we charged him. 1MDB, not yet, but, hopefully, it will happen soon.

Do you know how many IPs have been opened as far as 1MDB is concerned?

No, I don’t know. And of course, you know MACC’s public position – I think they reiterated that about two weeks ago – is 60 percent (completed). They’ve been saying that to me from the time I took office. So what they’ve told me is what they’ve told the public: 60 percent of the first IP of the 1MDB is done.

And of course, ‘1MDB’ is a shorthand description of a massive fraud done over five, six years across the world, in numerous transactions. So you really have to look at it the way the fraudsters planned it. The fraudsters designed transaction after transaction, deal by deal. So there could be a 2011 fraud, a 2012 fraud, a 2013 transaction, a 2014 deal and so on.

Your immediate predecessor, Tan Sri (Mohamed) Apandi Ali, has been accused of conspiring to cover up the 1MDB scandal. Can we expect charges to be brought against him as well?

I don’t know anything about that. We have not gone in that direction. What I can tell you is – and all of you know it – is that there was no prosecution on 1MDB during his three-year tenure. That’s a fact. You have to ask him why there were no prosecutions, and none during the previous A-G’s time, too.

Because, as you know, the origin of 1MDB was the TIA (Terengganu Investment Authority) which was happening in 2009 and 2010. Anyone living in KL (Kuala Lumpur) would be aware that there were things horribly wrong. I was aware of things that were questionable in 2009 and 2010 just by mixing with the business community, journalists and politicians. Those in KL with an informed opinion knew that something was wrong in 2009 and 2010. So why didn’t my predecessors do anything about it? You have to ask them.

Do you have any authority to ask them (investigators) to update you or to speed up?

Yes, they do the update and all that. But that’s of no use, I rather not be updated. I want the complete IP. It’s better to have the complete package because, otherwise, you’re reading it twice. If you ask my team to read it when it’s at 60 percent and then hen the 100 percent comes, you have to reread. So it’s of no help, of no practical assistance, unless they give us the complete package.

Now I must answer the civil part. The civil part is the one that’s absolutely neglected. Everybody forgets that because the criminal dimension is the one that is ‘sexy’ and ‘newsworthy’.

Civil recovery is the one that’s underrated and not understood at all. It is essentially to recover as much of the stolen stuff as possible, and most of it is abroad. So we start with the US. The DOJ, as you know, they have been successful. They began in 2016, with the Loretta Lynch press conference with the filing of complaints where they have frozen assets – which we say, and the US government does not deny, belongs to us in trust.

Because taxpayers’ money were used, indeed stolen, to buy these assets, so they are assets that belong in trust to Malaysia but were held by other people who misused it. So we have to stake a claim. Again, we lost three years of it.

I must remind you that the previous government distanced itself. Its public position was these weren’t Malaysian assets when actually they are Malaysian assets. Until GE14, Malaysia’s official position was they were not Malaysia’s assets. Seldom would a beneficiary tell the world “these are not my assets”, and that’s what Malaysia was doing. We only started telling the truth after GE-14.

So that’s the US, we have to intervene. We have appointed lawyers and they’re going to intervene in court proceedings because it’s quite technical and related to sovereign immunity and jurisdictional questions. We are receiving advice, and hope to make a decision shortly.

Then Singapore, it’s also started. Again, it’s the same process. We have appointed lawyers and they are appearing in court. We’ve got some low-hanging fruits. But where there are opposition and contest, it’ll take five to six months. This first group of defendants did not object at all. They relinquished all claims. They surrendered, so it’s no problem.

And Singapore wants the identities of the defendants to be anonymous. One can understand because Singapore wants to encourage more claimants to give up their claims, and in return, Singapore would keep confidential their names. That makes sense. We just want the assets.

It (the identities of the defendants) will forever be anonymous?

That I don’t know, it is a matter for Singapore to decide. But for us, we want the monies returned to Kuala Lumpur.

Does your office have an indication as to how much money (is involved in Singapore)? The US DOJ has mentioned US$4.5 billion in its suit.

Singapore has not really mentioned it because they’re not really sure themselves as there are some contests. But what will happen in the next six months or so is that we will get court orders and monies will be returned. And as you know, we’ve opened an account, a special segregated new account, controlled by MOF (Ministry of Finance). It’s the MOF and the new directors of 1MDB who are controlling it.

So it’s an MOF-1MDB recovery account?

Yes, specially set up. After the GST RM19 billion hole, there has to be a specially protected, segregated trust account earning interest and controlled by honest signatories.

This is for recovered assets from everywhere, not just Singapore?

Yes, it starts with Singapore. And then we’ve got Switzerland, again they’re cooperating with us.

The biggest one is in the US?

Yes.

It will take several years, you think?

No, I don’t think so. I think… well, the US… well, maybe. It goes asset by asset. They are ‘in rem’ actions.

So it’s not a collective (action)?

No. The US claims – let’s say they have got 10 separate complaints, then it’ll be because these are 10 different assets. So they may have one for the yacht, one for the artwork, one for this land, one for that land and so on. Just like our admiralty claim for the yacht: it is also ‘in rem’. What ‘in rem’ means is a claim against an identified property, as opposed to an individual, which would be an ‘in personam’ action.

Have there been any challenges in the US? Jho Low?

Yes, court challenges.

To be clear, in Singapore, what exactly are the assets that are involved. Is the (private) jet one of them or not?

Most are bank accounts. Cash in bank. But I think there may be one or two properties: apartments.

What about the private jet?

The private jet, we are in no hurry to receive it. Because as things stand, Singapore has done it skilfully. Singapore has taken steps to ensure that the plane cannot fly off without air traffic control, which they will not give. The plane cannot leave Singapore airspace, to the best of my knowledge.

But the maintenance of the plane remains Jho Low’s. So, from Jho Low’s perspective, he’s got the worst of both worlds. He’s got to maintain the plane, which is parked on the runway but cannot fly it out.

From our perspective, there’s no hurry to get it – it’s safe there – let us sell the yacht, then we can turn our attention to the plane. Unfortunately, the plane doesn’t come within our admiralty jurisdiction, so it’s more complicated. We have to be concerned about giving a clean title to the buyer.

There have not been complaints about the A-G’s office using private lawyers overseas to help in asset recovery. And yet when the AG’s office uses the private lawyers here to help in the case of the yacht, or even bringing in Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah and Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, there has been criticism. Would you like to respond to that?

First of all, in foreign jurisdictions, we have no choice, absolutely no options. So we have to use local lawyers there, for instance, Swiss lawyers in Switzerland. In so far as Malaysian lawyers, I think what has surprised me is the outcry, as if this was the first time that AGC has used external lawyers. I asked the AG’s Chambers to do some research on previous appointments.

In the last 20 years, beginning with our first dispute with Singapore in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Pulau Batu Puteh dispute – the first one, which was about 20 years ago, we appointed a large group of foreign lawyers, I can’t understand why we did not appoint Malaysian lawyers. The foreigners charged large sums of fees, and Malaysia lost anyway.

Domestically, AGC has in the past appointed local lawyers. AGC appointed Datuk KC Vohrah, Tan Sri Cecil Abraham and Dato’ Sunil Abraham and their firm, Zul Rafique, for many civil matters.

In our dispute with Singapore on Temasek: our joint venture in the Singapore land – whether we ought to pay the development fees. That went to arbitration. Again, I don’t see why Malaysian lawyers could not have been used. It was a straightforward case of interpretation of a contract. Quite straightforward. And I think we had three or foreign lawyers charging hefty fees!

This was in Singapore?

No, in London. A dispute between Malaysia and Singapore heard in London. But it is arbitration and so any lawyer can appear. Malaysian lawyers can appear. It was followed by a trademark registration case at the EU General Court. Again, AGC appointed foreign lawyers. There were other disputes of an international nature which were all kept secret, and not made known to the public. Not even the Malaysian legal profession knew about them, but taxpayers were paying for such litigation.

Finally, with the second Pulau Batu Puteh dispute, where Malaysia wanted to revisit the dispute.  Prime Minister Tun Mahathir decided to discontinue it. We had four foreign lawyers and two Malaysian lawyers – Datuk Abu Bakar bin Mohamed Sidek from Penang and Datuk Firoz Hussein bin Ahmad Jamaluddin from Kuala Lumpur. One of the foreign lawyers informed the prime minister that the case was doomed to fail. That’s why the PM decided to discontinue.

Coming back to domestic disputes, we’ve had Tan Hock Chuan acting for the Malaysian government in the Teoh Beng Hock inquest. We had Tan Sri (Muhammad) Shafee Abdullah acting for the public prosecutor against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. Actual criminal prosecution – so that’s the closest analogy to Tuan Haji Sulaiman and Sri Ram.

In civil suits, A-GC appointed Cecil Abraham and Zul Rafique for defendants such as Tan Sri (Abdul) Gani Patail, MACC and the Government of Malaysia.

Of the five lawyers I have appointed, three of them are acting “pro bono” – Sulaiman, Sri Ram and Sitpah Selvaratnam. The other two, Jeremy Joseph and Ong Chee Kwan are entitled to be paid because they are advising us in a really specialist area – shipping and admiralty – where the AGC does not have expertise, and it’s a commercial deal.

Whatever proceeds we get, hopefully in the hundreds of millions, the two lawyers should be paid. But I’m closely monitoring it – it’s an hourly rate – and of course, the MOF is also monitoring.

Could it (the outcry) be because people were taken by surprise because you mentioned 1MDB as one of your top three priorities? And now, you’re being seen as passing over the lead prosecution, so perhaps people are taken aback by that.

Possibly. But you see, you can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, the criticism is that I don’t have criminal law experience and yet when I appoint two senior lawyers who have substantial criminal law experience, the criticism continues. So one has to accept: anything one does is wrong!

But the truth is that it is just not possible to do a long trial and combine the work of A-G. I know that because when I was in practice I used to do long trials – heavy corporate commercial disputes. In fact, about a year before I left the Bar, I did a 40-day trial. It is a reported bonds case.

For four weeks before the trial, I did nothing but preparations for the trial. When the trial starts, you have to be full time with the trial, because at night you have to prepare cross-examination questions. When the trial is over, you have to do research, and draft exhaustive written submissions. I was a hands-on barrister who took my court commitments seriously and professionally.

Knowing that first hand, you cannot combine that with the demands of the A-G, where the PM wants to see you, the cabinet wants to consult you, Parliament is sitting, and so on. It’s just not possible, you cannot combine all these demanding tasks with the work of a counsel in court.

But you have not completely stepped away from it…

No, I’m still absolutely in charge. Like, for example… the Shafee prosecution. The MACC team interviewed the witnesses. Sri Ram was involved in the final stages of investigations. I was involved in the preparation of the charges with the team. The final decision to prosecute is mine, and mine alone. Malaysia must use all the resources available to pursue such matters.

What about your officers within the Chambers itself, isn’t that a vote of no confidence?

Not really. Because as I’ve said, there’s just so much work, and there are many cases in the horizon as we are planning and we can see where it is going. They are part of the team and they are working together. So it’s not a vote of no confidence.

In fact, the SRC (prosecution) team was happy because most of them were tutored by Sulaiman at (the) university. They look to Sulaiman as their intellectual guru. One must look at it in terms of what Malaysia needs. The people of Malaysia want justice, they want speedy justice. The people of Malaysia deserve the best and the brightest to appear for them.

What about political pressure? Has there been any on the office since you started here, any political pressure or messages sent to you saying, ‘we want this done’, or ‘that done’?

Absolutely not. All concerned have been very good. They have all acted properly and correctly: the PM, the cabinet, the ministers. Of course, many ministers are known to me as I’ve worked with them in the past. They have left matters of law to me and the AGC. There is neither pressure nor interference.

Are you surprised that there has been no political interference, especially coming from a PM who is accused of keeping the Jdiciary on a tight leash?

No, I’m not surprised. Tun Mahathir is a reformed PM.

You truly believe he has reformed?

Absolutely. In my dealings, Tun has been right and proper. In fact, on the first day, he informed me, “Tell me if there’s something wrong, tell me if I can’t do it.” So I said, “Yes, Tun, I will.”

Have you changed your opinion of Mahathir? You were quite critical of him before.

(Laughs) There’s no doubt in my mind that the PM and the members of the cabinet whom I have dealt with genuinely believe in reform. So I can confirm that I am trying to be a reforming AG in a reforming government!


PART 2 of The Interview

  Par

Thomas talks about law reforms, the prosecution of Shafee, the dropping of charges against Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng and lopsided government contracts, among others.

AG wants ministries, stakeholders to help speed up law reforms

by Malaysiakini and The Edge team  | 

INTERVIEW | In his first major interview since his appointment as attorney-general three months ago, Tommy Thomas spoke on the mammoth task ahead to amend or repeal a litany of oppressive laws as pledged by Pakatan Harapan.

“A-G’s Chambers has prepared a list of the promises that the PH [Pakatan Harapan] made in the manifesto. The list for law reforms runs to nine pages – so many Acts are mentioned. It is just an unbelievably tall order,” Thomas told Malaysiakini and The Edge in a 90-minute joint interview held at his Putrajaya office last Thursday.

“And it’s understandable because they are trying to clean up after 60 years of one coalition’s repressive laws. Looking at this law reform list in the manifesto, the process may take as long as a decade!” the 66-year-old AG said.

Therefore, he wanted the various ministries and stakeholders to be actively involved in law reforms to hasten the process.

“The ministries must help out. Ministers must push their respective ministries. Let’s take the Universities and University Colleges Act, that’s under Education [Ministry]…

“What we would really want to speed up the process is for the education minister to push his ministry and his legal advisors to prepare amendments and pass them to us. Our parliamentary draftsman will have the final say.

“The reason I say this is because as the stakeholders, the ministry will presumably know more about Universities and University Colleges [Act] than anybody else,” he said.

However, he urged patience as the process may take time.

“As a practising lawyer, I can say that when there’s hurried legislation, it’s not good. The longer it takes, say two to three years, to consult as many groups as possible, the better the finished product is. You would never get the perfect law. [But] everyone should participate in law reform. No one has a monopoly of knowledge or experience.”

Thomas also spoke in detail over the purported lopsided contracts signed by the previous government, and paid tribute to the unsung heroes in the A-G’s Chambers who objected to them, but were overruled by BN ministers.

“Internally, there are hundreds of such contracts. But what we didn’t realise is the number involved. We have highway contracts, services contracts, private finance [initiative] which are build-lease-maintain-and-transfer (46 of them), ports, etc. Many categories – there are over 350 contracts of that nature.

“Also, procurement contracts – we just drew a line – and that’s over 300 contracts of them,” he said about the lopsided agreements.

“Some of these A-G’s Chambers members were very unhappy because when they objected to these lopsided contracts prior to their execution, they were overruled by their former political masters, that is, ministers. They are unsung heroes. They are civil servants, and the previous PM and the MOF [Ministry of Finance] just brushed them aside.

“They are therefore familiar with these contracts. But the trouble is that these contracts have clauses that are very favourable to the counter parties, and unfavourable to the government.

“We are trying to be creative and imaginative. At least two or three times a week, I spend hours with the contracts review lawyers. My corporate commercial litigation experience is combined with the draftsmen and technical advisers in [the] Chambers,” said Thomas.

He also spoke about the absurdity of the previous government in going with such questionable contracts where taxpayers are made to pay more. He gave an example of an actual case of a private finance initiative (PFI) project.

“The cost is RM350 million, over a three-year period. Just like you are building a house, so payment will be against the architect’s certificate – progressively. So after three years, XYZ goes away and receives payment of RM350 million, and we receive the project built for us on our land.

“But under this build-lease-maintain-and-transfer PFI, you have the construction, but you also have a 22-year contract where the government must continue paying for maintenance and other kinds of charges, which are just absolutely ludicrous which does not make any commercial sense.

“The effect of it is that the government (taxpayers) have to pay literally three times more. So in the RM350 million example, taxpayers pay RM1.1 billion over 22 years, as opposed to RM350 million over three years. As the PM has said many times, ‘Whoever did these stupid contracts?’”

Thomas also responded to criticisms he and the A-G’s Chambers faced in dropping the charges on Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng and other Pakatan Harapan-linked politicians such as Deputy Rural Development Minister Sivarasa Rasiah and former PKR parliamentarian N Surendran.

“I think what must not be forgotten is that [the] Chambers did not hide behind the constitutional and legal position in Malaysia from Merdeka that the A-G, as public prosecutor, does not have to explain, or give reasons for a decision to prosecute or to withdraw charges.

“Therefore, although there is no legal or constitutional obligation for public prosecutor to explain why it did not wish to continue with the prosecution against Lim, we nevertheless offered it.

“Instead of being credited for his openness, [Mohd] Hanafiah [Zakaria] was criticised for his lengthy explanation. This is probably the first time since Merdeka that a prosecutor has explained his decision,” he said adding the other cases were dropped because they were politically motivated.

“The right question that should be asked is – and it applies to Lim Guan Eng also – why were these people charged in the first place?

“I inherited a massive problem. In the past three months, my office – and about 90 percent of these are addressed to me personally – received about 300-400 written representations from lawyers and members of public,” he said of the many appeals he received to review the charges.

Thomas also spoke of the brickbats he received on the charging of former premier Najib Abdul Razak’s lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (photo) last week for money laundering and tax evasion.

“The answer to that is an accused lawyer cannot say, ‘Please do not charge me, I enjoy legal immunity that nobody else in Malaysia does’. All of us from the PM, are under the law, we don’t enjoy immunity.

“An accused lawyer cannot say, ‘Please do not charge me because if you charge me, some of my clients will not have a lawyer of their choice, or they will have problems finding a replacement lawyer’. That is absolutely irrelevant and unacceptable. The law must take its course, regardless of consequences.”

He stressed that Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad did not know that Shafee was to be charged. “It was absolutely my decision,” he said.

Najib had claimed that Shafee was charged to deny him a chance to get a fair trial.

Here is the second and final part of the exclusive interview. The first part appeared yesterday.

Question: Are you making progress with reforms? All the headlines have been on 1MDB and little have been about reforms.

Tommy Thomas: Yes, as to law reform, AGC [Attorney-General’s Chambers] has prepared a list of the promises that the PH made in the manifesto. The list for law reforms runs to nine pages – so many Acts are mentioned. It is just an unbelievably tall order. And it’s understandable because they are trying to clean up after 60 years of one coalition’s repressive laws. Looking at this law reform list in the manifesto, the process may take as long as a decade!

What would be your priority?

Let me explain. First of all, you need parliamentary time. Parliament must sit longer and give more time for law-making. Parliament has many functions – debates, questioning and so on, but also law-making.

I have told some stakeholders: please prepare your own bills. So if a women’s organisation has complaints, it should prepare its own bill. If the lawyers, the engineers, or whatever, the business community likewise: it’s easier because they know their problems. They can give us their draft laws: whether we accept them is something else.

But if they give it to us, it’s faster, it speeds up the process of law reform. For example, the repeal of the Anti-Fake [News Act] (which is in the news again) [because it was blocked by the Senate], it was done by Gobind [Singh Deo]’s ministry very quickly, and then sent to us. The GST, which is made up of five or six laws, was also done incredibly quickly, coming out of MOF to our parliamentary draftsman.

On the Anti-Fake News Act, a BN senator explained that the repeal was blocked on grounds the law was relevant and should be improved [and not abolished]. Will it be given a second chance to be passed?

Under our Federal Constitution, you can’t do anything for one year.

Yes. Let’s say an IP (investigation paper) comes to you, say the police want to take action against somebody based on this, are you going to take action?

I don’t want to foreclose my discretion if that occurs in the future. But I would be reluctant. I don’t think anyone in A-GC supports it. But it puts us in a difficult position because unfortunately, it is still a law on the statute books. So it still forms part of the laws of Malaysia, and one has to respect our law. Hence, an unsatisfactory position!

[And what happens] after one year?

After that, it has to be re-presented to the Dewan Rakyat, and the Dewan Rakyat has to pass it again. Then it goes back to Dewan Negara, and then they don’t have a say. If they don’t pass it, it will be passed directly to His Majesty, the Agong. But there’s a one-year cooling-off period.

What’s the status in terms of repeal/amendment or whatever of OSA (Official Secrets Act), Sedition Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Universities and University Colleges Act…

The ministries must help out. Ministers must push their respective ministries. Let’s take the Universities and University Colleges Act, that’s under Education [Ministry] I assume. What we would really want to speed up the process is for the education minister to push his ministry and his legal advisors to prepare amendments and pass them to us. Our parliamentary draftsman will have the final say.

The reason I say this is because as the stakeholders, that ministry will presumably know more about [the] Universities and [University] Colleges [Act] than anybody else. The lawyers in our office are just specialists at drafting, but the subject matter or the content of an Act is something that different people would know more of. If there are any health/hospitals-related bills, then it’s better for the Health Ministry, and so on.

The ministries should drive the changes?

Yes, that’s right. Take ownership. Because no one person can do it on his own. My task would be to encourage it and to facilitate it. Because historically, [the] Chambers has had a reputation, rightly or wrongly, as acting as a brake against law reform. We are now going to say, look, we support law reform, we will facilitate it.

But to expect us to draft all this, that is not possible. Because we don’t know all the problems. Like for example, the press, why can’t the press (if you have a press association), why don’t you come and see the right ministry, and say look: ‘This is our version of the new press act’, or whatever. They may or may not agree, but they will say thank you very much. It speeds things up.

That way also, the more the stakeholders there are who are involved.

You said the list itself is a tall order. Are there any going to be prioritised? For instance, the Sedition Act is still being used.

The Sedition Act is more complicated. It requires a constitutional amendment because one of the sections in the Act prohibits criticisms against the rulers: what is regarded as the privileges of the Conference of Rulers. They have to approve. But the others like Prevention of Crime, NSC [National Security Council], Sosma [Security Offences (Special Measures) Act], Printing Presses [and Publications Act], Peaceful Assembly [Act] are easier to handle. Also, the Institutional Reform Committee has done a remarkable job and presented their views to the PM. That is also a source.

What about the Political Financing Bill?

That’s on the way, but I don’t know which ministry is doing the first draft. AGC had advised that is a matter of law, there is no legal prohibition to such a new law. It’s a question of being creative about it.

All the political parties must be governed by the same rules. The objective would be to regularise financing and donation, and to have open disclosure. I don’t know if they want to have a limit on donations. It is basically to recognise that elections can only be held through contributions to political parties and candidates, and it is healthy to accept that this happens. It is the same in other countries.

The PM has said over and over again about lopsided contracts. You are quite an expert in commercial litigation and contracts. Maybe you can share some aspects or some examples, and whether these lopsided contracts can be renegotiated to reduce the financial damage to Malaysia or it’s something that’s totally out of our hands, and we have to deal and pay the compensation.

There are different types of such contracts. Again, the problem is much worse than I thought. As somebody outside following public affairs, one was aware of one-sided contracts, starting with road concessionaires, power plants and the like. But once I’ve come in now, I have seen literally hundreds of such contracts. Let’s divide them into external and internal contracts.

External, you have got Singapore and the HSR [High-Speed Rail]. Whether it’s fair or not, may be a matter of discussion, but I won’t say it’s a lopsided contract. We did well and Singapore was generous by agreeing to the suspension even though the contract did not provide for it. Hence, it constituted a variation of the original contract, which Singapore agreed to. That speaks well for good Causeway relations. That’s the HSR.

Then there’s China. The PM was outstanding. Not many foreign leaders have gone to China and persuaded China to vary its contracts. The PM convinced the president and PM of China. The problem is we have now to look at the consequences of the termination, even if it is a mutual termination by China and Malaysia of these contracts. We have to start hard bargaining on the effects and consequences of mutual termination. That’s a tough proposition. We’re forming teams to prepare for them.

How long will that take?

Hopefully not too long. A lot of money is at stake, and loans are involved. We have already told China we are ready to negotiate.

Internally, there are hundreds of such contracts. But what we didn’t realise is the number involved. We have highway contracts, services contracts, private finance [initiatives] which are build-lease-maintain-and-transfer (46 of them), ports, etc. Many categories – there are over 350 contracts of that nature. Also, procurement contracts – we just drew a line in the review on the value – and that’s over 300 contracts of them. The number is just mind-boggling. All the ministries were doing it. Again, we have a very strong contracts review team and they are reviewing these contracts.

Just within the A-GC? No external help?

Yes, with[in the] Chambers: we don’t need external help. Some of these AGC members were very unhappy because when they objected to these lopsided contracts prior to their execution, they were overruled by their former political masters, that is, ministers. They are unsung heroes. They are civil servants, and the previous PM and the MOF just brushed them aside. They are therefore familiar with these contracts.

But the trouble is that these contracts have clauses that are very favourable to the counter parties, and unfavourable to the government. We are trying to be creative and imaginative. At least two or three times a week, I spend hours with the contracts review lawyers. My corporate commercial litigation experience is combined with the draftsmen and technical advisers in [the] Chambers.

If you are able to achieve some success, it’s a lot of financial savings. right? Ultimately, it’s about dollars and cents.

Absolutely. Like China, we’ll have big savings. Singapore is not so much savings as [the project is] being deferred. That’s the objective of the exercise, the objective is to reduce overpayments.

Let me give you an example of a typical PFI [private finance initiative]. The orthodox way of doing such business would be for the government, as an employer, to ask the private sector, hopefully through tender, but there were no tenders, to build, say, a university.

The government, as an employer, uses the land belonging to it and asks, let’s say, XYZ Sdn Bhd to build the university in, say, three years. The cost is RM350 million, over a three-year period.

Just like you are building a house, so payment will be against the architect’s certificate – progressively. So after three years, XYZ goes away and receives payment of RM350 million, and we receive the university built for us on our land. Then the university opens its doors, and students come in. That’s how it ought to be.

But under this build-lease-maintain-and-transfer PFI, you have the construction of the university, but you also have a 22-year contract where the government must continue paying for maintenance and other kinds of charges, which are just absolutely ludicrous which does not make any commercial sense.

The effect of it is that the government (taxpayers) have to pay literally three times more. So in the RM350 million example, taxpayers pay RM1.1 billion over 22 years, as opposed to RM350 million over three years. As the PM has said many times, “Whoever did these stupid contracts?” That gives an innocent interpretation. There are more sinister interpretations, which you can draw!

To clarify on the Chinese deals that have been terminated. What is the total figure now we have to bargain down from?

I think the press statements suggest RM100 billion or so.

That RM100 billion will be the total cost of the project if it goes on, which includes interest payment on the loan and all that. The actual value is about RM55-RM60 billion for just the ECRL [East Coast Rail Line], but if you put in the interest that has to be paid over the years, it adds up to RM100 billion plus.

It is misleading to say it’s RM55 billion for the ECRL because the people who signed those contracts were the same people who signed the loan agreements with China because we do not have the money to build. Hence, we borrow from China.

So you have to look at the loan agreements, and the loan payments, and the true cost of the project is RM100 billion. It is dishonest to say it is RM55 billion, when it will cost the taxpayers RM100 billion after the loans are repaid. That represents the true cost of the rail project.

I think what the taxpayers would be interested to know now is what’s the cost of compensation? The ECRL, it was reported the compensation could be about RM22 billion.

It’s too early, we have not gone into negotiation. From our point of view, we do not want to pay anything. We should start negotiating from that point.

Do you want to respond to comments from MACC that they were not satisfied when the A-G’s Chambers dropped the case against Lim Guan Eng.

I think what must not be forgotten is that A-GC did not hide behind the constitutional and legal position in Malaysia from Merdeka that the A-G, as public prosecutor, does not have to explain, or give reasons for a decision to prosecute or to withdraw charges. And there’s a long line of cases for 50 years stating just that. They have always said they do not have to give an explanation.

But that is one of the reasons why in the past A-GC was much criticised, especially in the run-up towards the election to GE-14 – I was conscious of that past. Therefore, although there is no legal or constitutional obligation for [the] public prosecutor to explain why it did not wish to continue with the prosecution against Lim Guan Eng, we nevertheless offered it.

Instead of being credited for his openness, Hanafiah [the deputy public prosecutor in charge] (photo) was criticized for his lengthy explanation. This is probably the first time since Merdeka that a prosecutor has explained his decision.

In so far as my personal involvement is concerned, I cannot understand why some do not seem to understand conflict of interest and recusal. Probably the world’s most influential or well-known A-G is Jeff Sessions of the US. Within a week of his appointment, he recused himself from the Russian investigation. You cannot turn on the CNN for the past one and a half years without listening to [US] President [Donald] Trump complaining about Session’s recusal. In his case, it was also because of conflict of interest.

So what I was doing was just following a well-established principle of common law of about 300-400 years history that you must not act when you are conflicted. If you are a private practitioner, you may have many friends and persons you acted for.

Thus, from the time I entered office, any decision concerning Lim Guan Eng is not taken by me personally, just like Jeff Sessions does not act personally.

But it doesn’t render the DOJ [US Department of Justice] or the A-GC helpless and powerless. We have got 545 DPPs, and they make decisions daily. And Hanafiah is a very senior DPP. Hanafiah’s decision, in this case, represents the decision of the public prosecutor.

And you support that [decision]?

My position does not matter. If one recuses oneself, one just has no say in the matter. You remain recused, from the beginning until the end of the decision-making process.

There have been criticisms that MACC should be consulted – that the DPP who’s charging or handling the case should be consulted, like Masri Mohd Daud. At the time, I understand that they were not consulted at all, until about 7.15am.

That is the prerogative of Hanafiah’s decision as the relevant decision-maker. It is up to him. He doesn’t have to consult anybody or keep anyone informed. I believed he explained, in his statement, that he was concerned it would be leaked.

The death penalty, what’s the status of that? There’s some pressure to do away with it.

It is in the Harapan manifesto. It’s going to happen. The good news is that senior officers from the Prison Department informed me that they are against carrying out death sentences on prisoners on the death row. [The] Chambers is also against it. Therefore, no one should be hanged until the new law is enacted.

What about the issue of separating prosecution powers and the fact that you are a legal officer of the government?

We all support that. A constitutional amendment is however required. The Institutional Reform Committee also supports the separation. So no one is against it. It is thus a matter of political calculation: can the government secure the necessary two-thirds majority in Parliament to do it?

How about the criticisms that you’re dropping charges against Surendran, Zunar… etc? It was done quickly and some people are questioning the motives behind these charges being dropped so suddenly. Do you want to respond to these criticisms?

They were all politically-motivated charges. The right question that should be asked is, and it applies to Lim Guan Eng also – why were these people charged in the first place. I inherited a massive problem.

In the past three months, my office – and about 90 percent of these are addressed to me personally – received about 300-400 written representations from lawyers and members of the public.

All those representations relate to decisions made by my predecessors. So the relevant question should be, why did they make those decisions, which require me to look at it. So whatever decisions we make in a particular case – in a sense, it’s like the Court of Appeal – I will be criticized. But coming back to these examples, they were politically-motivated prosecutions. But one thing you can be assured of, I will never charge anyone for political reasons. That I assure you.

When you took up this job, did you expect the kind of criticisms you get, the kind of brickbats you have received?

Yes, and no. I’m surprised by some of the criticisms. The previous A-Gs were criticized, perhaps more by the Bar at their general meetings. I myself have spoken at such meetings of the Bar, where to the best of my memory, all the AGs in the past 50 years have been criticized by the Bar. They haven’t done that so far to me, but that cannot be ruled out.

In my case, it seems to be relentless and unremitting from members of the public. I guess if you compare, I may have received more criticisms in three months than my predecessor did in three years [laughs]! But that’s part of the job, and I can smile about it.

When vested interests are threatened by reform-minded measures, it is inevitable that a backlash would result.

Not being of the expected ethnic or religious group, does it make your job harder in any way?

Not really. The law is intended to be race-free and religion-free. Everyone in Chambers seems to behave that way. They don’t bring race and religion into their decision-making process, so that’s not a problem, really. And I certainly do not. Those who wish to criticize me for ethnic reasons will continue to do so.

Since [Muhammad] Shafee [Abdullah] has been charged, do you want to respond to questions which may be raised: now that Najib’s lawyer has been charged, this is to prevent Najib from getting true justice…?

The answer to that is an accused’s lawyer cannot say, ‘Please do not charge me, I enjoy legal immunity that nobody else in Malaysia does’. All of us from the PM, are under the law, we don’t enjoy immunity. An accused lawyer cannot say, ‘Please do not charge me because if you charge me, some of my clients will not have a lawyer of their choice, or they will have problems finding a replacement lawyer’.

That is absolutely irrelevant and unacceptable. The law must take its course, regardless of consequences.

I think the criticism is coming from the point of view that the charging came immediately or days after he made the revelation that Tun [Mahathir] was the one who pushed for his appointment [as prosecutor in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case]. I think people are connecting the dots, that probably the instruction came from somewhere else.

The PM did not know of the charges against Shafee because I did not brief Tun about them. It was absolutely my decision.

About the public caning in Terengganu. It’s unconstitutional as it is not being held in prison and caning women and all that. In this kind of situation, you as a legal advisor to the government, do you have a duty to inform the government that it’s unconstitutional?

It’s not so easy because syariah is a state matter and the Sultan of Terengganu is the head of religion in that state. It’s not so clear. It’s one of those areas where there is tension between the federal jurisdiction on criminal law and syariah law, which is state law.

Furthermore, these are sensitive, delicate matters that must be approached prudently. But I think the caning has started a debate, which is encouraging.

It needs a political solution.

Yes, but again not so easy.

Your position as A-G, should it be an elected position? Should you be answerable to Parliament? What are your thoughts on that?

Actually, we thought about it before. We looked at what happened in the UK which has changed its policy. The least worst option is to have a career lawyer who is sympathetic to the government because he or she has to carry out the government’s mandate, but who is well recognized in some branches of the law, you can’t be in all branches of the law, who enjoy a reputation in the Bar and the Bench.

Thus, a full-time legal advisor is better than a politician A-G.

As to being answerable to Parliament, one cannot give reasons even if one is a member of Parliament on many of these matters. You cannot give reasons if somebody asks you, ‘why did you prosecute Mr A?’

And the next day, ‘why you did not prosecute Mr X, or why did you choose to charge under this Act A as opposed to Act B?’

You cannot answer those questions because some of them are highly confidential. I would say what Hanipah disclosed in his six-page statement is as good as you can get from any AG in the world. So it does not matter whether an AG is an MP for accountability and transparency to occur.

The statement you issued when you appointed Sulaiman [Abdullah] and [Gopal] Sri Ram [as prosecutors in the 1MDB case] was unexpectedly candid. But to your detractors, they’d happily see it as proof that you can’t really cope with the demands of your job. What do you say to that?

I rather be frank and truthful.

And the job has evolved.

The legal world has changed remarkably and the problems are much graver today. If we look at common law jurisdictions – there are very few, if any, where the A-G goes to court anymore. It is just not possible. I think that’s reality.

You said you have not received any IPs on 1MDB, but given the scale and the many transactions, wouldn’t it be fair to say that there will be quite a number of prosecutions in the end?

Yes, definitely. Absolutely.

Are you aware of any state witness? Anyone?

No, because they’re still investigating, we won’t know. Whether MACC or police is talking to Mr X or Mr Y and asking them to turn state evidence or Queen’s evidence against any target, I don’t know. It may come later.

So Sri Ram and Sulaiman will have their hands full?

Sulaiman has only one trial – the SRC – and he has five months to prepare and work with my team. That’s just one case. Sri Ram (photo) is to push 1MDB and perhaps argue in court for two of those cases. Sri Ram will handle the prosecution of Shafee, and probably the first of the 1MDB cases. They’re heavy trials, so we’ll have to find somebody else for other cases. That’s why the task is awesome.

You can expect about five to six different 1MDB prosecutions, against like the [1MDB] board, the Good Star phase, the Tanore phase, the IPIC [International Petroleum Investment Company] phase, all of which you are familiar with. We would have to find a team for each different case.

Sri Ram would be asking for December trial dates in the Shafee case, and Sulaiman has a February trial date [for the SRC case against Najib].

You gave yourself two years when you took up this job. Just two years, that’s it?

[Laughs] I’d be burnt out by then, it’s long hours. I’m fit and fresh now because I know there’s a finishing line. So I’m happy to work hard for one year and nine months more!

Is there more pressure on you when Dr Mahathir said there’d be more charges on Najib?

People have asked me that over and over again. My answer always has been that when it comes to 1MDB, all the 30 million Malaysians should be concerned and talk about it because it affects their pockets for the next 20-30 years. It actually affects their pockets. I think people across the world should also talk about it because it tells you how dishonest politicians and businessmen can cheat a nation.

So I’m all for a full public discussion. But this debate does not influence my decision-making.

Are you getting the pressure from the public?

Most are nice and supportive. They understand. Whenever they see me, they tell me that I represent reforms, which they support. They say I am the face of reform.

I’ve said I don’t want people to be afraid in Malaysia. The fear element must disappear. Much of the fear element emanated from the office of the A-GC. The A-GC must no longer be associated with fear. We are, at the end of the day, 1,200 lawyers and the support staff, who must all believe and practise the rule of law.

That doctrine encompasses a large number of concepts, including free speech, due process and so on. The A-GC must believe them.

You said people are perceiving you as the face of reform. Does that burden you?

I won’t say burden. It’s just very high expectations. I just want to fulfil it. I hope I can live up to them. I won’t see it as additional pressure. I really do not want to disappoint them.

The US Supreme Court tumbles into political dysfunction


October 11, 2018

The  US Supreme Court tumbles into political dysfunction

by Dr. Fareed Zakaria

https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2018/10/5/the-supreme-court-tumbles-into-political-dysfunction

“When I wrote a book about “illiberal democracy” 15 years ago, I noted that the United States was not immune to the dangers of populism that could erode liberal democracy.”–Dr. Fareed Zakaria

Image result for Christine Blasey Ford vr Brett M. Kavanaugh

 

The most consequential casualty of the Supreme Court confirmation battle is not Christine Blasey Ford or Brett M. Kavanaugh. It is the Supreme Court and, thus, American democracy. The court was one of the last bastions in Washington that towered above the political fray. It is now part of the dysfunction that has overwhelmed almost the entire American system.

When I wrote a book about “illiberal democracy” 15 years ago, I noted that the United States was not immune to the dangers of populism that could erode liberal democracy. What had saved the country were the many checks and balances on pure majority rule, including the Bill of Rights, the Senate and the judicial system. At some level, the public seemed to understand and appreciate the role of these stabilizing elements that were governed by an internal code, not always responsive to what majorities demanded. I was struck that, in surveys, the three governmental institutions that commanded the most respect were all fundamentally non-democratic: the armed forces, the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court. Of these, the Supreme Court was perhaps the most important because it is, in many ways, the ultimate arbiter of American democracy — the final decision-maker.

Image result for fareed zakaria illiberal democracy

The reason a democratic public admires these non-democratic institutions is not so mysterious. Aristotle believed that the best political system was a mixed regime, one that had aspects of democracy but also gained stability from some bodies that, rather than pandering to public sentiment, took a longer view and obeyed a higher set of values (such as the preservation of liberty). These kinds of institutions — rooted in history, law, technical expertise — were explicitly shielded from the short-term winds of public opinion and served as pillars for a functional democracy.

Over the years, such institutions in the United States have faced ferocious challenges. Two long wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, have tested the reputation of the military. The speculative bubbles that led to the global financial crisis made many question the vaunted wisdom of the Fed. But both institutions have weathered those storms, perhaps because they were viewed to be genuinely trying their best and functioning as intended. Whatever mistakes they made were honest errors, often corrected. Neither institution is infallible, but both were seen as trying to fulfill the roles expected of them by society.

Over the years, such institutions in the United States have faced ferocious challenges. Two long wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, have tested the reputation of the military. The speculative bubbles that led to the global financial crisis made many question the vaunted wisdom of the Fed. But both institutions have weathered those storms, perhaps because they were viewed to be genuinely trying their best and functioning as intended. Whatever mistakes they made were honest errors, often corrected. Neither institution is infallible, but both were seen as trying to fulfill the roles expected of them by society.

The same cannot be said of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it began in 2000 with the highly political case of Bush v. Gore, in which conservatives on the court suddenly abandoned their long-standing principle of deference to states’ rights and voted in a nakedly partisan fashion. Some would date it further back to 1987, when the left mounted a fierce campaign against Robert H. Bork and derailed his Supreme Court nomination. Whatever the best starting date, the court has lost its reputation of impartiality and trustworthiness, so much that FiveThirtyEight says that “it’s in a weaker position now than at nearly any point in modern history.” Over the past several decades, Americans’ confidence in the court has gone from a peak of 56 percent in the 1980s to 37 percent today. It is likely to go even lower after the whole Kavanaugh mess.

Both parties are to blame for this descent, but as in most of the discussion of the rise of partisanship and polarization, studies confirm what is apparent to any rational observer: The Republican Party, especially after the “Republican revolution” of 1994, is by far the prime mover. It shifted further to the right, initiated the tactics of treating political opponents as traitors and actively encouraged the incendiary language that now dominates our discourse. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) refusal in 2016 to fulfill his constitutional obligation to give Judge Merrick Garland consideration for the Supreme Court was simply the most egregious example of a strategy that had been pursued for years. The Democrats have responded by mirroring these Republican tactics. Politicians don’t practice unilateral disarmament.

The American democratic system is designed to require compromise. No one controls multiple levers of government, as in a parliamentary system. The British Prime Minister simultaneously leads the executive branch and commands a majority in the legislative branch. But in the United States, the system is meant to have many different sources of power and legitimacy, all sharing in the functions of government.

For American democracy to work, all of the elements — the three branches of government, the political parties, the states and the center — must find a way to work together. And part of what makes this kind of cooperation possible is the sense that there are some institutions, rules and norms that cannot be thrown into the maelstrom of party politics. Some facets of the system must stay focused on the country as a whole, on its long-term viability, on its core values as a constitutional republic. And chief among those institutions is the Supreme Court. Or was.

(c) 2018, Washington Post Writers Group

Michael Lewis Makes a Story About Government Infrastructure Exciting


If someone had asked you a few weeks ago whether former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would ever be depicted as a beleaguered hero in a Michael Lewis book, it would have been reasonable to say the chances were low — lower, even, than Christie’s abysmal approval ratings when he left office earlier this year. Christie, after all, hasn’t done much to endear himself to the American public; early in 2016, his surprise endorsement of Donald J. Trump (who once called Christie a “little boy”) looked like the desperate move of a politician whose office was still smoldering from a payback scandal.

But it’s 2018 in America, where anything can happen and everything is relative, and the opening pages of Lewis’s new book, “The Fifth Risk,” have Christie acting like an upright statesman during the run-up to the 2016 election, hoping to convince a chaotic Trump campaign to devise an orderly transition plan in case of victory. Lewis says this was like trying to persaude Trump that he needed to study for a test he might never take. Christie was soon dismissed from Trump’s team, and the transition proceeded accordingly — which is to say, shambolically. Two years later, out of more than 700 key government positions requiring Senate confirmation, only 361 have been confirmed, and a full 152 have no nominee at all.

“Many of the problems our government grapples with aren’t particularly ideological,” Lewis writes, by way of moseying into what his book is about. He identifies these problems as the “enduring technical” variety, like stopping a virus or taking a census. Lewis is a supple and seductive storyteller, so you’ll be turning the pages as he recounts the (often surprising) experiences of amiable civil servants and enumerating risks one through four (an attack by North Korea, war with Iran, etc.) before you learn that the scary-sounding “fifth risk” of the title is — brace yourself — “project management.”

Image
CreditPatricia Wall/The New York Times

Lewis has a reputation for taking fairly arcane subjects — high finance, sovereign debt, baseball statistics, behavioral economics — and making them not just accessible but entertaining. He does the same here with government bureaucracy, though “The Fifth Risk” feels a little underdone compared to some of his previous books. Two of its three parts appeared as articles in Vanity Fair; the other as an audiobook original. Those pieces might have been written under deadline, but even with extra time to smooth things out, Lewis has elected to preserve some clunkers: Silence is still “deafening,” poverty still comes “in many flavors” and Lewis still decides “to kill two birds with one stone.”

 

For the most part, though, he keeps the narrative moving, rendering even the most abstruse details of government risk assessment in the clearest (and therefore most terrifying) terms. He asks a handful of former public servants, now living as private civilians, what they fear might happen if Trump continues his haphazard approach to staffing the federal government. Their answers include an accidental nuclear catastrophe and the privatization of public goods, like government loans and drinking water.

One danger to the proper functi


oning of federal agencies is a combination of incompetence and neglect. Lewis reports how the Trump team filled jobs at the Department of Agriculture with a number of decidedly nonagricultural nonexperts, including a country-club cabana attendant and the owner of a scented-candle company.

But this kind of bumbling patronage, according to Lewis, is only one part of the Trump method. The other involves bringing in what looks suspiciously like a wrecking crew. Trump has repeatedly placed essential agencies under the leadership of individuals who have previously called for the elimination of the same agency, or else a radical limit to its authority.

Take, for example, Barry Myers, Trump’s nominee for the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Myers also happens to be chief executive of AccuWeather, his family’s company. As a private citizen, Myers lobbied to prevent NOAA’s National Weather Service from having direct contact with the public, saying that “the government should get out of the forecasting business” — despite the fact that AccuWeather repackaged free government weather data and sold it for a profit.

 

With Myers in charge, Lewis says “the dystopic endgame is not difficult to predict: the day you get only the weather forecast you pay for.”

Image
Michael LewisCreditTabitha Soren

Lewis leavens all the doomsaying with some (darkly) funny bits. A woman astronaut recalls that male NASA technicians were so flummoxed by the prospect of menstruation in space that they offered her a kit of a hundred tampons for a short journey. The wrappers had been removed and the tampons sealed in little red cases, strung together in an “endless unfurling” that she likened to a “bad stage act.”

What Lewis doesn’t do is delve too deeply into politics, preferring instead to focus our attention on technical functions of government that everyone takes for granted. This tack will undoubtedly make the book more appealing to some of the government skeptics (i.e. conservatives) who are traditionally part of his enormous audience, but it also leaves the book with an analytical weakness. As Lewis’s narrow depiction of Christie inadvertently shows, technical know-how isn’t nearly enough. You can have a detailed understanding of the technocratic workings of government and still be, politically speaking, extremely unhelpful to the public you’re supposed to serve.

Lewis undoubtedly knows this, and as a storyteller he had to put limits somewhere. Besides, when the polar ice caps melt and the world is in flames, Democrat, Republican — none of that will matter anymore. Lewis himself seems to swing from civic optimism to abject nihilism, sometimes within the same perfect sentence. As he says about the imposing, brutalist building that houses the Department of Energy: “It will make an excellent ruin.”

Follow Jennifer Szalai on Twitter: @jenszalai.

The Fifth Risk
By Michael Lewis
221 pages. W.W. Norton & Company. $26.95.

Follow New York Times Books on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, sign up for our newsletter or our literary calendar. And listen to us on the Book Review podcast.

 

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Dangers Nestled in Arcana. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper |

Malaysia’s Prime Minister at UNGA, 2018


September 29, 2018

Malaysia’s Prime Minister at UNGA, 2018

Friday, September 28, 2018: Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad speaks to 73rd United Nations General Assembly in New York (9/28/18) on September 28, 2018. PM Mahathir Mohamad speaks about Rohingya issue, United Nations Development goal at the UNGA 2018.

President of Malaysia Mahathir bin Mohamad gave his speech at The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday at 11:45 am, (28-9-18) on September 28, 2018 — and it could be one of his most important speeches yet.

Live streaming of Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad Speech to the UN General Assembly 9/28/2018.

#MahathirMohamad #Speech #UnitedNations

The following is Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s speech at the general debate of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York

Madam President,

1. I would like to join others in congratulating you on your election as the President of the Seventy-Third (73rd) Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

2. I am confident with your wisdom and vast experience; this session will achieve the objectives of the theme for this session. I assure you of Malaysia’s fullest support and cooperation towards achieving these noble goals.

3. Allow me to also pay tribute to your predecessor, His Excellency Miroslav Lajcak, for his dedication and stewardship in successfully completing the work of the 72nd Session of the General Assembly.

4. I commend the Secretary-General and the United Nations staff for their tireless efforts in steering and managing UN activities globally.

Image result for Kofi

5. In particular, I pay tribute to the late Kofi Annan, the seventh Secretary-General of the UN from 1997 – 2006, who sadly passed away in August this year. Malaysia had a positively strong and active engagement with the UN during his tenure.

Madam President,

6. The theme of this 73rd Session of General Assembly, “Making the United Nations Relevant to All People: Global Leadership and Shared Responsibilities for Peaceful, Equitable and Sustainable Societies” remains true to the aspiration of our founding fathers. The theme is most relevant and timely. It is especially pertinent in the context of the new Malaysia. The new Government of Malaysia, recently empowered with a strong mandate from its people, is committed to ensure that every Malaysian has an equitable share in the prosperity and wealth of the nation.

7. A new Malaysia emerged after the 14th General Election in May this year. Malaysians decided to change their government, which had been in power for 61 years, i.e., since independence. We did this because the immediate past Government indulged in the politics of hatred, of racial and religious bigotry, as well as widespread corruption. The process of change was achieved democratically, without violence or loss of lives.

8. Malaysians want a new Malaysia that upholds the principles of fairness, good governance, integrity and the rule of law. They want a Malaysia that is a friend to all and enemy of none. A Malaysia that remains neutral and non-aligned. A Malaysia that detests and abhors wars and violence. They also want a Malaysia that will speak its mind on what is right and wrong, without fear or favour. A new Malaysia that believes in co-operation based on mutual respect, for mutual gain. The new Malaysia that offers a partnership based on our philosophy of ‘prosper-thy-neighbour’. We believe in the goodness of cooperation, that a prosperous and stable neighbour would contribute to our own prosperity and stability.

9. The new Malaysia will firmly espouse the principles promoted by the UN in our international engagements. These include the principles of truth, human rights, the rule of law, justice, fairness, responsibility and accountability, as well as sustainability. It is within this context that the new government of Malaysia has pledged to ratify all remaining core UN instruments related to the protection of human rights. It will not be easy for us because Malaysia is multi-ethnic, multireligious, multicultural and multilingual. We will accord space and time for all to deliberate and to decide freely based on democracy.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad speak during the General Debate of the 73rd session of the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York. NSTP/Video Grab UNWeb TV

 

Madam President,

10. When I last spoke here in 2003, I lamented how the world had lost its way. I bemoaned the fact that small countries continued to be at the mercy of the powerful. I argued the need for the developing world to push for reform, to enhance capacity building and diversify the economy. We need to maintain control of our destiny.

 

11. But today, 15 years later the world has not changed much. If at all the world is far worse than 15 years ago. Today the world is in a state of turmoil economically, socially and politically.

12. There is a trade war going on between the two most powerful economies. And the rest of the world feel the pain.

13. Socially new values undermine the stability of nations and their people. Freedom has led to the negation of the concept of marriage and families, of moral codes, of respect etc.

14. But the worse turmoil is in the political arena. We are seeing acts of terror everywhere. People are tying bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in crowded places. Trucks are driven into holiday crowds. Wars are fought and people beheaded with short knives. Acts of brutality are broadcast to the world live. Masses of people risk their lives to migrate only to be denied asylum, sleeping in the open and freezing to death. Thousands starve and tens of thousands die in epidemics of cholera.

15. No one, no country is safe. Security checks inconvenience travelers. No liquids on planes. The slightest suspicion leads to detention and unpleasant questioning.

16. To fight the “terrorists” all kinds of security measures, all kinds of gadgets and equipment are deployed. Big brother is watching. But the acts of terror continues.

17. Malaysia fought the bandits and terrorists at independence and defeated them. We did use the military. But alongside and more importantly we campaigned to win the hearts of minds of these people.

18. This present war against the terrorist will not end until the root causes are found and removed and hearts and minds are won.

19. What are the root causes? In 1948, Palestinian land was seized to form the state of Israel. The Palestinians were massacred and forced to leave their land. Their houses and farms were seized.

20. They tried to fight a conventional war with help from sympathetic neighbours. The friends of Israel ensured this attempt failed. More Palestinian land was seized. And Israeli settlements were built on more and more Palestinian land and the Palestinians are denied access to these settlements built on their land.

21. The Palestinians initially tried to fight with catapults and stones. They were shot with live bullets and arrested. Thousands are incarcerated.

22. Frustrated and angry, unable to fight a conventional war, the Palestinians resort to what we call terrorism.

23. The world does not care even when Israel breaks international laws, seizing ships carrying medicine, food and building materials in international waters. The Palestinians fired ineffective rockets which hurt no one. Massive retaliations were mounted by Israel, rocketing and bombing hospitals, schools and other buildings, killing innocent civilians including school children and hospital patients. And more.

24. The world rewards Israel, deliberately provoking Palestine by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

25. It is the anger and frustration of the Palestinians and their sympathisers that cause them to resort to what we call terrorism. But it is important to acknowledge that any act which terrify people also constitute terrorism. And states dropping bombs or launching rockets which maim and kill innocent people also terrify people. These are also acts of terrorism.

26. Malaysia hates terrorism. We will fight them. But we believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to remove the cause. Let the Palestinians return to reclaim their land. Let there be a state of Palestine. Let there be justice and the rule of law. Warring against them will not stop terrorism. Nor will out-terrorising them succeed.

27. We need to remind ourselves that the United Nations Organisation, like the League of Nations before, was conceived for the noble purpose of ending wars between nations.

28. Wars are about killing people. Modern wars are about mass killings and total destruction countrywide. Civilised nations claim they abhor killing for any reason. When a man kills, he commits the crime of murder. And the punishment for murder may be death.

29. But wars, we all know encourage and legitimise killing. Indeed the killings are regarded as noble, and the killers are hailed as heroes. They get medals stuck to their chest and statues erected in their honour, have their names mentioned in history books.

30. There is something wrong with our way of thinking, with our value system. Kill one man, it is murder, kill a million and you become a hero. And so we still believe that conflict between nations can be resolved with war.

31. And because we still do, we must prepare for war. The old adage says “to have peace, prepare for war”. And we are forever preparing for war, inventing more and more destructive weapons. We now have nuclear bombs, capable of destroying whole cities. But now we know that the radiation emanating from the explosion will affect even the country using the bomb. A nuclear war would destroy the world.

32. This fear has caused the countries of Europe and North America to maintain peace for over 70 years. But that is not for other countries. Wars in these other countries can help live test the new weapons being invented.

33. And so they sell them to warring countries. We see their arms in wars fought between smaller countries. These are not world wars but they are no less destructive. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, whole countries devastated and nations bankrupted because of these fantastic new weapons.

34. But these wars give handsome dividends to the arms manufacturers and traders. The arms business is now the biggest business in the world. They profit shamelessly from the deaths and destruction they cause. Indeed, so-called peace-loving countries often promote this shameful business.

35. Today’s weapons cost millions. Fighter jets cost about 100 million dollars. And maintaining them cost tens of millions. But the poor countries are persuaded to buy them even if they cannot afford. They are told their neighbours or their enemies have them. It is imperative that they too have them.

36. So, while their people starve and suffer from all kinds of deprivations, a huge percentage of their budget is allocated to the purchase of arms. That their buyers may never have to use them bothers the purveyors not at all.

Madam President,

Image result for rohingya crisis

37. In Myanmar, Muslims in Rakhine state are being murdered, their homes torched and a million refugees had been forced to flee, to drown in the high seas, to live in makeshift huts, without water or food, without the most primitive sanitation. Yet the authorities of Myanmar including a Nobel Peace Laureate deny that this is happening. I believe in non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. But does the world watch massacres being carried out and do nothing? Nations are independent. But does this mean they have a right to massacre their own people, because they are independent?

Madam President,

38. On the other hand, in terms of trade, nations are no longer independent. Free trade means no protection by small countries of their infant industries. They must abandon tariff restrictions and open their countries to invasion by products of the rich and the powerful. Yet the simple products of the poor are subjected to clever barriers so that they cannot penetrate the market of the rich. Malaysian palm oil is labelled as dangerous to health and the estates are destroying the habitat of animals. Food products of the rich declare that they are palm oil free. Now palm diesel are condemned because they are decimating virgin jungles. These caring people forget that their boycott is depriving hundreds of thousands of people from jobs and a decent life.

39. We in Malaysia care for the environment. Some 48% of our country remains virgin jungle. Can our detractors claim the same for their own countries?

Madam President,

40. Malaysia is committed to sustainable development. We have taken steps, for example in improving production methods to ensure that our palm oil production is sustainable. By December 2019, the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standard will become mandatory. This will ensure that every drop of palm oil produced in Malaysia will be certified sustainable by 2020.

Madam President,

41. All around the world, we observe a dangerous trend to inward-looking nationalism, of governments pandering to populism, retreating from international collaborations and shutting their borders to free movements of people, goods and services even as they talk of a borderless world, of free trade. While globalisation has indeed brought us some benefits, the impacts have proven to be threatening to the independence of small nations. We cannot even talk or move around without having our voices and movement recorded and often used against us. Data on everyone is captured and traded by powerful nations and their corporations.

42. Malaysia lauds the UN in its endeavours to end poverty, protect our planet and try to ensure everyone enjoys peace and prosperity. But I would like to refer to the need for reform in the organisation. Five countries on the basis of their victories 70 over years ago cannot claim to have a right to hold the world to ransom forever. They cannot take the moral high ground, preaching democracy and regime change in the countries of the world when they deny democracy in this organisation.

43. I had suggested that the veto should not be by just one permanent member but by at least two powers backed by three non-permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly should then back the decision with a simple majority. I will not say more.

44. I must admit that the world without the UN would be disastrous. We need the UN, we need to sustain it with sufficient funds. No one should threaten it with financial deprivation.

Madam President,

45. After 15 years and at 93, I return to this podium with the heavy task of bringing the voice and hope of the new Malaysia to the world stage. The people of Malaysia, proud of their recent democratic achievement, have high hopes that around the world – we will see peace, progress and prosperity. In this we look toward the UN to hear our pleas.

I thank you, Madam President.

 

Israel’s Prime Minister at  UNGA,  2018

 

Iran’s President Addresses UNGA, 2018