I disagree that the recent decision by the attorney-general (AG) not to prosecute on the RM2.6 billion ‘donation’ issues sets a precedent as raised here .

In Malaysia long before you are actually charged in court, the absolute power to charge you or not rest in the hands of the AG, and case laws have many times affirmed that this discretion cannot be challenged. One has to prove bad faith to do so and even that is a insurmountable obstacle.

If one cares to pause and ponder for a moment, many of us probably are committing ‘criminal’ acts daily, just that we have not been ‘arrested’ and then charged in court.

Everyday activities, such as parking indiscriminately, road hogging, not changing our MyKad address when we move within specified time, throwing rubbish into the neighbourhood field and many others can result in us being charged in court. The main reason this does not happen is that the police just ignore all these and more importantly, the AG can’t be bothered to charge us over this sort of menial transgression although the law provides for it.

Coming back to the AG’s decision in this case, others in future cannot use this as a precedent as the precedent was not set in a court of law but by the ‘administrative’ power of the AG. Only once the AG decides to proceed and a decision is passed by a court of law, then a precedent is set.

Neither can one question why the AG has charged someone with an offence and not another for the same reason. One guy insults another he gets hauled up and fined, another guy insults another, and this is branded as just and fair comment. One midtown rally is branded as illegal and another patriotic.

This has been happening since time memorial and were regular occurrence during the administrations of the previous prime ministers. Former cabinet members who choose to be vocal now must not lose perspective or their memory of the many discriminatory acts during the past when they were running the country.

AGs are always appointed by the government of the day, even in US the AG is appointed by the president subject to congress approval.

Why are we choosing this particular case to point out that the AG is following instruction from the government? Let’s get real please.