SHAH ALAM (Oct 29): The judicial commissioner presiding over Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s defamation suit against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday (Oct 29) asked the sitting prime minister’s lawyers for the relevance of their line of questioning to the centenarian’s defamation suit when they brought up the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas, the round-table on the Malay proclamation in 2022 and Anwar’s call for multiculturalism.
Anwar’s lawyers, led by Ranjit Singh and Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, had been attacking Mahathir’s stature as a statesman as well as his reputation when bringing up issues with regard to Mahathir’s past, like Salleh’s sacking, Umno being deregistered and the Malay proclamation — as if Malays were under threat — and Anwar’s call of multiculturalism, which Mahathir has described as undermining the Malays.
On the second day of the cross-examination of the 100-year-old former prime minister, Mahathir was asked about his past deeds, including what had led to Umno being deregistered in 1988 and when the High Court had deregistered the party. In his autobiography “Doctor in the House”, Mahathir had written that he had feared the court’s decision would lead to another party election and more money being spent.
Besides this, Razlan also touched upon what Mahathir had written and his participation in the 2022 Malay congress, addressing the allegation that Malays are losing power under Anwar’s administration of government.
Mahathir agreed that he had written to that effect in his blog, expressing his concerns with regard to Malays losing power and that they would be losing everything by Anwar promoting multiculturalism.
However, the veteran politician agreed that Anwar had not changed the Federal Constitution or structure of the country to that effect but Mahathir nevertheless maintained that Anwar may have the intention.
“He is the PM and what he says is looked up by the rakyat. Without changing the Constitution, Malaysia has lost to multiculturalism, whereas this country is constitutionally known as Tanah Melayu (Malay land),” the former Umno president said.
Mahathir’s counsel Nizam Bashir objected to the line of questioning by the defence and sought the relevance of the questioning, as what was claimed by Anwar was that Mahathir took the country’s riches, had enriched his children and did not pay taxes. Presiding judge Judicial Commissioner Datuk Donald Jospeh Franklin agreed with this.
In reply, Razlan explained that Anwar’s defence was that Mahathir had made all the allegations that Malays were weak, that their client was responding to Mahathir’s complaint of defamation and, hence, they are entitled to their defence of qualified privilege.
In responding to Razlan’s cross-examination, Mahathir had agreed that there was no attempt by Anwar to replace Islam as the religion of the Federation as ensured by Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in what the Pakatan Harapan leader had emphasised in promoting multiculturalism but Mahathir said there are some implications (that Anwar might do this).
“This is politics; they would say something (multiculturalism) and then take action,” he added.
Mahathir: Not true I tried to weaken Anwar
Razlan then asked about the Malay proclamation, in which Mahathir was part of a group of Malay leaders from Malay political parties and Malay non-governmental organisations, and suggested that the gathering and proclamation were to undermine Anwar. The former PM disagreed.
Razlan: The racial issues raised are out to weaken Anwar?
Mahathir: I disagree.
Razlan: The racial issue (weaknesses of the Malays) is out to weaken the Federal Government led by Anwar?
Mahathir: The various amendments including, not being allowed to raise the 3R (race, religion and royalty) issue.
Razlan: I put it to you that you raised the racial issue to attack the Malaysian government and Anwar.
Mahathir: I have stated many times and in many answers.
Razlan: People use racial issue to get to power in disguise of patriotism.
Mahathir: Not all would use racial issues.
Razlan: Is it fair and equal for Anwar to say that the people in Malaysia use racial sentiments to disguise themselves as patriots?
Mahathir: I disagree.
The 100-year-old politician repeated by asking what these questions had to do with his defamation suit, where Anwar had made the allegation that he (Mahathir) had amassed wealth, stolen the country’s assets, and had enriched his children.
JC may make a ruling on the relevance of such questions
During proceedings in the afternoon, Ranjit had raised the issue of Umno Team A and Umno Team B, the sacking of Salleh, and the tribunal that removed two Superior Court judges. While this was happening, JC Franklin continued asking for the relevance of such questions, considering that the events being referred to happened close to 40 years ago.
“Where are we going with this, and how long will it take?” the JC said, wondering also when the defence would come to the crux of the issue.
This came about when Ranjit referenced findings on the tribunals which had led to the elevation of Tun Hamid Omar and later Tun Eusoffe Chin, and thereafter the sacking of Salleh and two Supreme Court judges.
“What is the relevance of these questions relating to the sacking of Salleh and two other Supreme Court judges?” the JC said, asking further of the propriety of bringing up the tribunals that led to those judges’ removal.
While Ranjit tried to explain the reason for this line of questioning — that Mahathir’s claim of being regarded as a statesman was in question and that is something the court would have to determine should it decide against Anwar — the JC asked where the defence was heading and what connection the tribunals had to the case.
Mahathir’s other counsel, Rafique Rashid Ali, asked Franklin to make a ruling on the issue of relevance to the questions, since Mahathir on the first day had already complained of the defence’s line of questioning, claiming that he would be dead before this case is over.
Franklin said he would think on ruling on the relevancy of the questions, which parties would have to abide by. Ranjit sought an adjournment of Wednesday’s proceedings to arrange his questions and also to catch a flight.
Following that, the JC fixed Nov 12 as case management to fix further trial dates in this matter.
Mahathir had filed the RM150 million suit against Anwar over what the PKR president had said at a party congress. Anwar, as the PM, has maintained that what he alleges of Mahathir’s purported riches is the truth.