Dear Mr Former Prime Minister,
For a man who went to public school in the United Kingdom, the proverb “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones” must not be alien to you. We would urge you to educate your party stalwarts before we are accused of “throwing stones” at you.
We say this because some of your party leaders (including lawyers) don’t seem to understand terms like “arrest of ship” and “conflict of interests”. Such ignorance can sometimes lead to rent-a-mobs taking to the streets, yet again because they lack an understanding of the English language.
We don’t know how to address you. Some call you “Pekan”, others refer to you as “MO1” or simply plain “Najib”. We will opt for “YB” to preserve the sanctity of your office as an elected member of parliament.
On Aug 30, you argued that Putrajaya’s move to appoint Petron as one of three fuel providers for government vehicles creates a moral conflict.
“That is something that is weighing on the minds of Malaysians today. Surely the question of who owns Petron can create a conflict in terms of decisions and morals,” Malaysiakini quoted you as saying.
YB, let us correct you on what is weighing on the minds of Malaysians. They are trying to imagine the size of the wealth which was stolen by many of your party cronies under your watch. We are also wondering how to drive some sense into the heads of some of your colleagues who continue to (wrongly) chant that the religion, race, and royalty are under siege.
When you talk about moral conflict, what immediately comes to mind are images of your wife boarding a government-owned jet with no less than 17 suitcases. My question is: Wasn’t it a conflict when you approved the jet for her use when she was not travelling on government business? What was so valuable in the bags that they could not be put in the hold?
YB, where was your morality when you appointed people with tainted hands to high positions which resulted in the loss of millions to the government? Didn’t you discard your so-called morality when you put foxes in charge of hen houses?
We don’t even want to touch on 1MDB or SRC lest your lawyers attempt to cite us for contempt but look at some of the other decisions or actions:
Despite assuring us and Parliament that the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), would only be used to fight terrorism, you used it against Matthias Chang and Khairuddin Abu Hassan. Was reporting your alleged illegal activities terrorism per se? How did you manage to go to bed with a clear conscience?
As you admitted, you received RM2.6 billion from an Arab prince for election funds. This was an afterthought having previously claimed it was to be used against terrorists and its related organisations. Didn’t it occur to you that it is morally wrong to accept money from foreign sources for elections? Weren’t you the same guy who ordered investigations into NGOs who received foreign funds for their activities?
Don’t you think it was morally wrong for failing to stop your wife from receiving gifts such as expensive jewellery while you were the head of the government? Weren’t you worried that your integrity had been compromised by such gifts from people who had business dealings with the government?
Where was your morality and conscience when you failed to pull up many of your cabinet colleagues who were breaking almost all norms, rules and regulations when it came to the use of public funds? The examples are far too many, but using government helicopters, cars and the government machinery in the lead-up to the elections is certainly not moral, legal or ethical.
Where was your morality when it was reported that RM3 million (in cash) was deposited into your wife’s bank account? Didn’t you ask yourself: Why are people giving money to my (unemployed) wife?”
Having talked so much of religious tenets and values, did it occur to ask your stepson how much he lost at the tables in Las Vegas? What was he doing there in the first place?
So, what about nepotism and conflict of interest when a company belonging to the son of a prime minister is selected as one of three to supply goods and services to the government?
Under your watch, tenders running into billions ended up with cronies. Smaller contracts were given to party stalwarts to buy their loyalty. Where was the morality then?
You destroyed the basic fibres of freedom of expression with your almost-authoritarian rule with your minders running wild with directives and diktats that made no sense.
You should thank your lucky stars that you are still getting space in newspapers and airtime on the electronic media. Under your watch, people like Dr Mahathir Mohamed and Anwar Ibrahim were demonised; names like 1MDB, Tony Pua and Lim Guan Eng could not be even mentioned in passing. Minders appointed by you were giving instructions on how the media was to operate. So, what morality are you talking about?
YB, you have lost the privilege or right to talk about morals and even legality. The day you signed those documents committing us, citizens, for the billions of dollars in bonds and loans, (and hid it from taxpayers), such a licence to address such matters came to an end.
We have not even touched the charges you are facing and will likely to face in the future. Weren’t you the one who advised a senior leader to retire and play with his grandchildren? It’s time to practise what you preach until your trials come up.
R NADESWARAN says Najib should be last person to talk about morals, ethics and governance. He threw them all out of the window under his watch. Comments: email@example.com
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.