I have a simple question. If Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Guan Eng were still singing Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s praises today, do you think people would have doubts about the menteri besar’s integrity?
This question makes me think about whether we come to our opinions independently, or whether we form our opinions with a view to justifying the positions of our bosses, heroes or people we just happen to like.
No doubt some will feel I fall into the latter category, and that is eminently their right (https://www.facebook.com/notes/nathaniel-tan/the-selangor-debate-being-the-change/10152682286140879).
My feeling is, however, that Pakatan Rakyat is feeling some serious damage from the Selangor crisis, and instead of accurately admitting the source of the problems, it takes the easier route of deflecting blame towards the man who became the target of a massive mudslinging campaign -- in no small part because he is not the kind of man to hit back.
Serdang MP Ong Kian Ming is an old acquaintance and a good man of obvious intelligence. On Monday, he published an article in The Star asking Khalid: Was it worth it?
I think it was definitely worth it for Khalid to stick to his principles. We shall explore why in the rest of this article.
Ong
The third paragraph of Ong’s article asks a series of angry questions, basically implying that Khalid was at the root of this entire crisis. These questions really boil down to the first of them: Was it really worth almost breaking up Pakatan?
I found this mildly amusing given the fact that I essentially asked the same question of Anwar. In my humble judgement, it is Anwar who was willing to sacrifice Pakatan in order to make his wife menteri besar of Selangor.
Whether or not Anwar was right to pursue this path I suppose pivots on whether you think Khalid is corrupt or not.
As I have written before at length, there are two possibilities. Either Anwar created the campaign to remove Khalid because of controversies surrounding Khalid, or Anwar created controversies surrounding Khalid because he wanted to remove Khalid, and replace him with a pliant menteri besar.
Ong points to two cases in particular: the water agreement, and the Bank Islam case. I have written about each of these and more, and try my best not to repeat myself too often, but in deference to his article, I shall summarise a few points.
Khalid believes that there is a fair price for the takeover of water concessionaires in Selangor. Anwar and Rafizi Ramli seem to sympathise with their long time backer Wan Azmi Wan Hamzah and his view that his water concessionaire, SPLASH, is worth 10 times more what Khalid believes it is worth.
I have said that if Anwar can promise that the new MB of Selangor will not pay one sen above RM250 million to buy over SPLASH, that will go a long way to prove that their motivations for wanting to replace Khalid are sanguine.
Of course, neither Anwar nor any of his supporters have been able to make this promise, or answer any questions surrounding this issue. Everyone conveniently ignores it.
I believe Khalid feels a duty to the people of Selangor. That duty includes preventing cronies from plundering state funds. To lock down a fair buyover price for water concessionaires, Khalid went ahead and signed deals with the federal government.
If anyone can prove conclusively that Khalid somehow accrued unethical personal benefits from this deal, I will be the first to turn my back on Khalid.
The strategy of those accusing Khalid of corruption is akin to someone accusing me by saying: “You have cheated on your girlfriend! Now prove that you haven’t!”
How can I prove that I did not cheat on my girlfriend? Is the burden not on the accuser to prove the allegation? Would I have to provide details on every single movement of every single day in my life in order to prove the allegation untrue?
The same principle applies in the Bank Islam case. Khalid’s detractors ignore the need for solid proof, and rely on the notion that if you throw enough mud, some people will believe that some of it sticks.
Ong writes that he feels this and the water agreements are “cause enough for questioning TSKI’s loyalties”.
Well, certainly we are all free to question one another’s loyalties. Observe, however, the difference between questioning loyalties and condoning PKR’s dismissal of principles of natural justice in favour of playing judge, jury and executioner.
The reasons to remove Khalid kept changing, and often times did not make chronological sense. It does not help Ong’s case or increase confidence in his reading through of the legal documents, that the Bank Islam settlement was only finalised in July 2014, not February 2014.
We all know, however, that the Kajang Move was launched in January 2014, well before the finalisation of the water deal or the settlement of the Bank Islam case.
So again, did Anwar create the campaign to remove Khalid because of controversies surrounding Khalid, or did Anwar and gang create controversies surrounding Khalid because he wanted to remove Khalid?
This saga is hopefully coming to an end, and Khalid is increasingly a non-factor in what comes next. I had naively hoped that Pakatan would thus focus on their roads ahead and their own internal problems, but it seems that it is easier to just make Khalid a scapegoat and whipping boy for all of their crises.
Time will tell who was right. After his tenure as MB ends, we will have plenty of time to make a full accounting of Khalid’s work, both the good and the bad.
In the meantime, until the allegations against him amount to more than weak attempts at guilt by association and manipulation of circumstantial evidence, the Kajang Move is likely to have little to do with Khalid, and everything to do with making Selangor’s funds flow more freely.
Was it worth it for Khalid to take the stand he did? I can only answer for myself, and my answer is yes. It was worth it because one day, Malaysians will be able to point to at least one man and say: there is a statesman who chose what was right, instead of what was easy.
NATHANIEL TAN is delighted that the end is in sight. He tweets @NatAsasi.
Haden Hoo congratulates Nathaniel Tan for telling it like it is. Well, done, Nat!
No comments:
Post a Comment