Wednesday, August 05, 2015

Proof of Najib's Guilt?

"There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd—
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery.
Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon."

Hamlet (1603) Act 3, scene 4, 202–209
by William Shakespeare

I think this is as clear as day. Najib is guilty. My certainty of it is as strong as the Muslim's faith in the words of Muhammad and the Christian's faith in Jesus' divinity. Why?

Let's pretend for a moment you are Mr Najib Razak, premier of Malaysia. You are political royalty. Your wife has big hair. You once held on to RM2.6 billion of donation money in your own private bank account. What would you do?

You'd foresee that your political enemies may one day question this insanely huge amount of money to throw aspersion on your character, so you'd make damn sure you have proof to produce one day to show that you in fact received that amount of money in good faith.

You'd make sure that every last one your associates know about this money that was pumped into your political coalition. The deputy president of your party should definitely be informed about it so he would not appear in the media now saying that he had no inkling whatsoever previously regarding that RM2.6 billion. In a leaked video no less.

In fact, to be absolutely in the clear, you'd place the money in the hands of trustees, and not in your own private account in the first place - but forget it, that ship had sailed and sunk.
Now fast forward to 2015, The Wall Street Journal, The Edge, Sarawak Report, every newspaper you don't control and their dog are questioning you about this RM2.6b honest donation that sat in your private account. What would you do?

The first thing you'd do is just come clean, say it's a donation from day one. If you are innocent, the truth can only help you, right?

Najib Aliens

Now, what wouldn't you do?

For starters, you wouldn't interfere with the investigation AT ALL. You wouldn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. You want it to appear as legitimate as possible to prove your innocence.

You would not reshuffle your cabinet.

You wouldn't promote 4 members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) who were investigating your case to ministerial positions, one week before they start meeting a few of the former Chief Executive Officers of 1MDB to delay or obstruct their process in proving your innocence. In fact, never in the history of the PAC was so many of its members elevated to governmental positions at the same time. It's really bad timing to do something so unprecedented that calls attention to the act itself.

You wouldn't fire your Attorney-General (A-G) a couple of months before his retirement for "health reasons" so suddenly that even he was taken by surprise and expressed that surprise to the press.

If you are innocent, this series of moves at this juncture in time would make you look very, very guilty. If you are innocent, why are you sabotaging yourself so completely?

This is why I feel Najib effectively confessed that he is guilty. I really wrinkled my brain but I can't think of any sane, rational reason why Najib would do the things he did if he is really innocent. Ask yourself, what would you have done in his shoes if you are really innocent?

He is either corrupt or the stupidest man in Malaysia. Either way, he has no business running this country.

A creature of logic,

k0k s3n w4i

1 comment:

merdeka unchained said...

Unless Najib is arrested and brought to court, he is an innocent man.
Even on the stand, he is still an innocent man until convicted on evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
Supposing he was found guilty and sentence, he could still appeal within his rights.
Maybe on appeal, he could be acquitted due to 'faulty reasoning', 'biased evidence' etc by the lower court judge, so walk out a free man ... again innocent.
Of course, his appeal could be rejected, but he could still appeal for a royal pardon by the head sultan honco, which if granted, sets him free ... not innocent but forgiven.
So morally you have every reason to convict him but the law has to be satisfied. Maybe you can post something on morality and legality in the field of medicine/
Personally I want to be the judge and executioner and put him AND Dr M into the same cell in lifelong confinement no parole no remission for good behaviour.