Addendum Furore An Avoidable Crisis

---

 


Why have successive governments allowed an issue to develop into a full-blown crisis instead of being open and transparent?
In most cases, it has been one denial after another, and only after a persistent and prolonged war of words and public pressure did we learn the truth.
The details of the 1983 Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal only emerged two years later when the Finance Ministry released an audit by a three-person panel led by the then auditor-general Ahmad Noordin.
In the case of the Port Klang Free Zone scandal, Malaysians learnt the extent of the losses and the key players involved after PriceWaterhouseCoopers conducted a comprehensive audit.
ADSNow, we have the issue of a royal addendum which ordered former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest. This was in addition to the Pardons Board’s decision to commute his punishment from 12 years’ jail and an RM210 million fine to six years and RM50 million.
The first time we heard of such an order was from Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who affirmed in an affidavit in April last year that he had sighted the addendum order issued by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, for Najib’s sentence to be commuted to house arrest instead.
Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid HamidiZahid said in the affirmed document that on Jan 30 that year, Investment, Trade, and Industry Minister Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz went to the former’s Kajang house.
“I was informed by Zafrul of the addendum order.  Upon querying further, he showed me a copy of the addendum order from his phone, which showed a scan of the original copy,” Zahid said.
‘Addendum was never received’
After a three-member Court of Appeal bench on Monday ruled to allow Najib’s appeal against a High Court decision to deny him judicial review leave to compel the government to confirm the addendum’s existence and to enforce it, a slew of statements from government officials have been made.
Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the Prison Department never received the royal addendum granting Najib house arrest.
He said that on Feb 2 last year, after the Pardons Board meeting on Jan 29, a letter from the Legal Affairs Bureau was sent to the Home Ministry and the Prison Department.
Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution IsmailSaifuddin said the letter contained two matters - the minutes of the Pardons Board meeting and instructions to the Prison Department, signed by the then king Sultan Abdullah as chairperson of the Pardons Board and witnessed by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Dr Zaliha Mustafa.
The following day, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil denied claims that the addendum was hidden, saying he did not receive any information on the document, which he believed was because it involved the Pardons Board.
A day later, the principal political secretary to the prime minister, Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, urged all parties to stop politicising the issue.
He expressed concern that irresponsible parties are exploiting the issue with baseless accusations against the government, mainly targeting Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
ADSOn Friday, the Legal Affairs Division under the Prime Minister’s Department denied receiving the addendum.
The division, which is the secretariat to the Pardons Board, attributed this to the board’s proceedings falling under the Official Secrets Act 1972.
The Prime Minister’s Department“All relevant documents can only be accessed by members of the Pardons Board and individuals directly empowered by the said board.
“No other parties, regardless of rank or office, have access to these documents in line with the principles of secrecy and integrity,” said the Legal Affairs Division.
The division added that neither it nor the Prime Minister’s Department have any files or official records containing the addendum or additional documents.
It also did not receive any official instructions from Istana Negara: “The Legal Affairs Division and the Prime Minister’s Department assert that any statement on the position or role of the Pardons Board that can mislead the public is improper and could potentially invite appropriate action.”
Why the silence?
In the Court of Appeal, judge Mohd Firuz Jaffril remarked that the home minister, the government, and several other respondents did not challenge the royal addendum’s existence or authenticity.
He noted that no rebuttal was received despite the respondents seeking more time to respond to affidavits alleging the addendum’s existence.
During the hearing earlier, Firuz said he was disturbed by the government and other respondents never outrightly denying the addendum’s existence in their written submissions.
Judge Firuz JaffrilRight-thinking Malaysians must ask if our ministers do not communicate with each other.
Couldn’t the issue be sorted if Saifuddin had told Zahid that the government had not been served with the addendum?
Or could the minister in charge of legal affairs initially say or file an affidavit in reply that it received no such addendum or directive from Istana Negara?
Why the silence? Like the Malay saying, “nasi sudah jadi bubur” (the rice has become porridge), statements are made only then.
Nine months after Zahid affirmed his affidavit, and after a High Court ruling and the subsequent Court of Appeal decision on Monday, all those responsible maintained apathetic silences, allowing the issue to simmer until it became a full-blown crisis.
Shouldn’t all these statements come out earlier? Would they have prevented the accusations of hiding and the rallies? Can someone in government provide some answers to the inordinate delay?
Over the past two years, all the promises of transparency and focus seem to have been made on running water.
Silence has been preserved for nine months, and if ministers do not communicate on matters affecting the state and the government and resort to court remedies, then there’s a clear message that something is not right within our systems. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---