It’s perception, not what you are, that shapes how the world views you

Posted on September 19, 2017

3


many-colours-one-dream923089_576322912401152_1069880995_nAnd what feeds that perception?

Information.

Both true and/or false.

For those who know you, and by that I mean really, really know the real you, information out there counts for nothing.

For the rest of the world, its the information out there that defines you.

Perception.

Take the sacking of Anwar in 1998.

Mahathir gave as reasons his view that Anwar was unfit to hold such high office given his sexual misconduct.

Mahathir’s stated perception.

What was this perception based upon?

As I recall, Mahathir claimed to have received reports and to have interviewed individuals concerned.

Information.

No damning photographic evidence, as I recall, else the same would have found its way into the courtroom.

By then, Mahathir had lost his grip on information that would reach the masses, at least in the urban areas, thanks to the alternative media available on the internet.

Malaysiakini, take a bow.

What was the worldview, then, on this allegation, the charge in court and the trial and conviction, generally?

I wont speak for the world at large, but this was how I perceived the whole affair.

Yes, my perception.

Trumped up charges, and a conviction facilitated by a pliant judiciary.

The basis for this perception?

It starts with the sacking of Tun Salleh, on trumped up charges hatched by Mahathir and then AG Abu Talib, and several other Supreme Court judges, that saw the beginning of the end of the independence of the judiciary.

In my view, it was not beyond Mahathir to do the same to Anwar a decade later.

The expose, round about 1996, of then Chief Judge Eusoff Chin and AG Mokhtar Abdullah holidaying in New Zealand at the expense of disgraced lawyer VK Lingam added further credence to my view that the judiciary had been compromised.

The trial itself, and the manner in which evidence was taken, and then expunged, left me with a sense that proceedings were being dictated by higher ups, and not the presiding judicial officer.

My perception.

What of Mahathir’s influence in the matter of the leadership of the nation after he had relinquished office and handed over the PMship to Pak Lah?

Recall how soon after Pak Lah took office, Mahathir was out to displace him?

It’s said that Mahathir losing control of Kubang Pasu Umno was down to efforts by KJ’s 4th Floor boys.

Truth or fiction?

Had he lost  it?

Its also said, though, that Mahathir’s earnest efforts, starting in 2006, to undermine Pak Lah, may have had a bearing on the outcome of the 2008 GE, forcing Pak Lah to step down later.

Truth or fiction?

So did Mahathir still have it in him to influence and determine the leadership of the nation after he had relinquished the PMship?

Well, Mahathir would have us believe so, as he makes much of how he paved the way for Najib to become PM in 2009, post-Pak Lah.

Here’s the thing, though.

In 2006, even as Mahathir moved to get rid of Pak Lah, the nation was confronted with the gruesome and ruthless murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

And as information surrounding this murder became available to the public, Najib was seemingly linked to the same.

What was the worldview, then, on this murder, and Najib’s implication, if at all, in the same?

I wont speak for the world at large, but these were the facts on which I formed my view.

  • Najib’s bodyguards were charged for her murder. Yet no motive could be deduced. Razak Baginda, Najib’s close associate, was charged as an accomplice.
  • The sms’s that went from, first, Najib to Razak Baginda, and then, from Najib to lawyer Shafee, were rather telling.
  • The disappearance of the immigration records of Altantuya’s and her friends entry into Malaysia, which emerged in the course of the trial pointed to efforts to destroy evidence by higher ups
  • The acquittal of Razak Baginda without his defence being called and the failure of the prosecution to appeal this decision again left me with a sense that the judiciary, and the prosecution, were serving political masters

Things got worse.

In 2008, P.I. Bala came out with his Statutory Declaration No.1, bearing damning allegations against Najib. The next day, he came out with Statutory Declaration No.2, retracting the matters stated in Statutory Declaration No.1. Then, he and his family disappeared.

My perception, based on all these facts?

As Mahathir perceived Anwar in 1998, so I perceived Najib.

I perceived Najib as unfit to hold high office.

Mahathir, too, today, holds Najib unfit to hold the high office of PM.

Here’s my question.

If, as Mahathir claims, he had a hand in making Najib PM in 2009, what did he perceive of the facts surrounding the Altantuya murder and Najib’s seeming connection to the same?

Did he then perceive Najib as fit to serve?

Serve who?

The nation?

The rakyat?

Or his own ends?

Until you and I hear from him, if ever, we will have to form our own perception.