\"\"

Last week, Abdul Gani Patail, our former attorney-general (AG), attended his first public meeting since his official retirement at a Bar Council event on the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma). I forwarded a question to be tabled to AG or Abdul Gani, but the Bar Council thought it not appropriate. I therefore ask the same in my column by addressing him by acronyms for his name.

Symptoms define problems

In life, most issues start as smaller expressions of deep concern by some individuals in the know of the particular subject matter; against the many, or usually the majority who do not know the core issue or concern in as much detail. Technical truths about matters need both technical know-how and insider knowledge of the context of issues.

Therefore, when there is theft or fraud within any voluntary society, or public agencies, or government-linked companies (GLCs), or any private corporation, and when no one, or especially the auditors, gives a clear and fair warning about recognising concerns regarding financial and accounting transactions or other failed systems; the symptoms often define the problem.

\"\"

Obviously in the case of the Terengganu Investment Authority, the forerunner to the 1MDB, even golden share owners, who actually represent the public interest, and are usually Finance Ministry as appointed board members did not raise any alarm. Therefore, it is plausible they all colluded with their auditors to close one eye on the same matter. This too was a symptom defining the problem.

Finally, when the 1MDB Investigation Task Force was set up, it was an admission of a problem. Therefore all relevant responsible public servants were appointed to constitute the Investigative Board. But, when one important member was dismissed by the so-called governors, the reasons and motives remain opaque. That action demonstrates that the symptom defines the problem.

Clean and clear problem definition

My last two columns in Malaysiakini addressed the core issue of why we swear by the Quran or the Bible, “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” in any court of law. Please review them here and here .

But can we state the same about every auditor’s report? Why cannot auditors also highlight the whole truth about any matter? For that matter, is it not the same request when there are legal requirements for an environmental impact assessment for development projects? Yet others require a social impact analysis. They require the whole truths about development matters.

Moreover, is it not now equally necessary to review all physical development projects also based on ‘their history and ageing factors?’ This is especially so when structural assumptions are made about specific needs when the original constructions were made? The time frame for such reviews is usually 30 years or inter-generational.

What would such ageing factors be or what do they tell us? Most physical construction projects usually make certain assumptions about construction material, their types, quantity of usage and the specific needs of all beneficiaries. Such an analysis also makes assumptions about worldviews and other related issues; which are always never as visible but usually below the surface of submission.

I call these worldview assumptions which reflect the real size from the less than fully visible iceberg.

Worldview assumptions for physical projects

One clear example will help me make my point. The standards used by federal, state, or local roads in Malaysia are probably based on British standards. They were based on British cars, lorries, and probably also their horse carts.

\"\"

Today, all these roads and standards are not up to the mark especially with new vehicles from all over the world, especially those from the US, which are premised upon US standards of life, and designed or crafted, for the US markets and road standards.

Therefore and consequently today, one cannot have two cars passing each other in most localities because there are usually other cars parked on one side or the other. The original standard assumptions could not appreciate that every home would now be having more than one car, and therefore the need to park the second one outside the home, or in some other publicly planned and provided space.

Therefore, our actions today, which ignore the original assumptions about life and mode of living, are actually time-bombs waiting to explode when any of these critical assumptions gives way under the weight of newer realities.

Truth-seeking and truth knowing

Most of our physical and non-physical structures today are premised upon similar assumptions made by standards of yesterday. Is it not therefore a responsible and right attitude today to review and understand all relevant concerns expressed today; especially from experts with technical knowledge and maturity in their industries of knowledge and applications?

Is that not also why we bring expert witnesses into the courts to give technical views today?

Therefore, would it not be extremely strange that in the particular Malaysian case, the chief public prosecutor of the Investigation Task Force was summarily removed without a credible reason and without a due process.

Therefore, for me personally, the appearance of the former attorney-general at the Bar Council event on Sosma was a brilliant opportunity for ordinary Malaysians to review the fact that the new law promulgated to replace the much hated Internal Security Act (ISA) have been suddenly deployed as ‘security threats to this nation’. Much like the ISA, it is now being applied towards political detentions and prosecutions of ordinary citizens,

My question to Abdul Gani

Sir, you were the senior federal counsel for Sabah when Article 121 (1A) was framed and approved in 1988. This was done after the illegitimate removal of the Salleh Abas and other judges and for which the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) administration, and namely law minister and lawyer Zaid Ibrahim made a publicly apology and a special payment to all these judges after the fact. That was an honest admission of misjudgment.

Therefore my question to you Sir is: were you not party, and did you not collude with the government of the day, to introduce and contribute to back-door Islamisation in this country, when you very well know that we are a well established secular nation-state? And, moreover, you swore to uphold the federal constitution; but, did you then not lie under same oath?

Do you not now regret the same cultural reality, that you, as a non-Melayu bumiputera have become a victim to the same definition that makes you guilty as other peninsular Melayu for not being loyal and kissing the hand of those who pretended to feed you all these years?

This was my rhetorical question tabled to the Bar Council through friends on the committee. I requested them for the former attorney-general who has now been badly abused by a system that has zero care or concern for the dignity of all such appointments. The core issue now is ‘wrongful dismissal of the former AG, without a due process’.

It fundamentally redefines the dignity rights of formal appointments under the same federal constitution of Malaysia which he too has sworn to protect and preserve. May God Bless Malaysia and our future.