MP SPEAKS The strange case of Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi writing a letter to the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) vouching for the integrity of an alleged gambling kingpin has become “curiouser and  curiouser”.

In the first place, it is curious - and it must be the first case - for a home minister of any country to write a letter to the FBI to vouch for the integrity of a person detained by the FBI, and allegedly for being a gambling kingpin.

Second, it is curious that the home minister is writing to correct a mistake in the report by the Malaysian police to the FBI about Paul Phua. If there was such a “mistake”, why didn’t the police themselves write to the FBI to correct the mistake?

The third and fourth curious aspects are whether the police agreed that they had made a mistake in their report to FBI about Paul Phua, and whether the police knew and agreed to the home minister writing to the FBI on the matter.

The fifth and sixth curious aspects are the nature of the “national security matters” which Phua had assisted the Malaysian government with in the past, and whether the police were privy to this information.

The seventh curious aspect is whether the home minister had acted unilaterally and arbitrarily, without the knowledge and consent - or against the advice - of the police in writing the letter to vouch for Phua’s integrity, as appears to be the case from the subtle statement of Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar ( above , left ), who has veered from making any comment on the veracity of the home minister’s letter.

Who objected to the use of the letter?

The eighth curious aspect is the latest development in the Nevada District Court in Las Vegas, where the home minister’s letter to the FBI was withdrawn after Putrajaya objected to it being used for the defence of the alleged gambling kingpin.

The home minister’s letter to the FBI - dated Dec 18, 2014 - was clearly in defence of Phua and yet, the latest twist of the Las Vegas gambling trial is that the home minister’s letter should not be used in an open court proceeding in such a way.

Who objected? Was it Zahid, the police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers or the Foreign Ministry?

The ninth curious aspect is whether the police - to use Zahid’s words in his letter to the FBI - were “eager” for Phua to return to Malaysia to help the government on “projects affecting our national security”?

It is clear that the reputations and credibility of both the police and the home minister have been gravely undermined and besmirched, in the case involving the alleged gambling kingpin.

The home minister cannot stay silent any longer on this issue, as Malaysians are entitled to a true and unvarnished version of these curious sets of events that bring no good whatsoever to Malaysia’s international standing and repute.

LIM KIT SIANG is DAP parliamentary leader and Gelang Patah MP.

Related stories

Gov't objects to Zahid's letter for Phua's defence

Silence not due to fear of Zahid, says IGP

PKR lauds IGP's 'subtle repudiation' of Shafee

'Zahid, why take advice from Shafee, not AG?'

So who’s wrong, PDRM or home minister?

What national security 'projects' is Phua helping?

IGP's dilemma - defend his men or his boss