Saturday, November 14, 2015


As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on November 13, 2015

1. There were a large number of reporters waiting to interview me about the questioning by the police that the IGP and the Minister of Home Affairs had promised.

2. I was not sure how to handle the reporters. I know the police is a professional institution. It works for the elected Government. Still I was not quite sure why the police i.e. the Government wanted to question me. Had I committed a crime or is it that they wanted some information from me for the prosecution of others.

3. I had been interviewed by the police and the AG’s chambers before. They wanted to make me a Government witness. I listened to them and concluded that there was no case for the accused person to answer. So I refused to be a prosecution witness.

4. This time it is not about making me a witness. They wanted answers to questions. My lawyers advised me not to answer most of those questions. So I did not.

5. Thinking it over afterwards I concluded that they were trying to make what I did or said in public before were some kind of wrong-doings, to even be some kind of criminal act. Although they did not say I would be charged, but there was just a hint that I might be charged.

6. I re-examined the questions posed by the police and I cannot see how what I did or said can be against any law.

7. I did attend a rally that had not been permitted by police. There were more than 50,000 people at that rally. If I did something wrong then 50,000 people at that rally also did something wrong.

8. To be just, the law must apply to everyone equally. To single me out for the offense of attending the illegal rally would be unjust. It would be a kind of victimisation. Unless the Government wishes to be unjust, it cannot take action against me alone.

9. Another question was about asking Najib to step down. I have urged people to overthrow Najib. I had asked the Tunku and Abdullah Badawi to step down.

10. I did not advocate violence. In a democracy the overthrow of a Prime Minister or a Government is a common thing. Recently the PM of Australia was overthrown by his own party. The PM of Romania resigned because a night-club caught fire and some people died. Najib himself overthrew Abdullah who was an elected PM.

11. Overthrowing a democratically elected Prime Minister through street demonstration is also normal.

12. So what is wrong with my attending a demonstration to demand that Najib be overthrown as PM. Even supporting a vote of no confidence in his leadership is not wrong except in a dictatorship.

13. What would be considered wrong would be resorting to violence, to a civil war or revolution. But Najib is trying to make out that asking him to resign is undemocratic and against the law. The questions by the police seem to imply this.

14. I often refer to the loss of money by 1MDB and the 2.6 billion Ringgit in Najib’s private account. I openly declared I don’t believe Najib’s 2.6 billion Ringgit is a donation from an Arab. I believe it is from 1MDB. Najib has not proven it is not 1MDB money. When you take something that does not belong to you, it is a kind of stealing.

15. When I was PM I was accused of corruption, of cronyism, of being autocratic etc. I took no action to make any accusation against me a crime. I believe it is normal for such allegations to be made. If the people really believe these things about me they could throw me out. But despite attempts to end my premiership, the people gave me strong support during five elections. They did not seem to want to be rid of me. Even when challenged by Tengku Razaleigh, I had more support than him. I revived UMNO and it won support and the next election.

16. If I were defeated I would have accepted it. That is the democratic way.

17. By saying that Najib had stolen Government money, it can only be defamation if he could prove he did not. So far he has not been able to convincingly prove that the 2.6 billion in his private account did not come from 1MDB and therefore not from the Government. He has stopped investigations on the 2.6 billion in his account. That practically proves that he feared the investigations might prove the allegations against him have substance. Appointing other people to replace the original officers is interference in the work of the investigators. The replacements do not create credibility.

18. Defamation is only defamation if you say something that is false about a person. Prove that what I said is false then sue me for defamation. That is the way to go.

19. It seems to me and I may be wrong of course, that the kind of questions posed was to stop me from going on to do or say all those things I did. If I stop then Najib would be free from exposure of the wrong things that he has done or will do. People might then forget.

20. The courts may decide that I had committed a crime for what I did or said. But until I am found guilty by the courts, I will continue to believe and say that I had done nothing wrong, nothing undemocratic.

21. So I will continue to ask Najib to resign, to disbelieve his explanation about how he got the 2.6 billion Ringgit, to criticise the loans taken by 1MDB and the losses incurred by it.

22. This is my right as a citizen. To deny me of these rights would really be undemocratic.