COMMENT An Australian journalist called and asked me why I had decided to go to Penang when the state’s Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng was charged on Thursday. I told her that I had felt sorry for Guan Eng’s family, especially his mother, so I had gone to show moral support.

I had to use the main gate to the court compound as all the other gates were closed. There were so many policemen and other security personnel in the court area, one would have thought the accused facing charges was an IS commander. Only lawyers and those who had court matters to attend to were given access. I belonged to neither group so I used my charm, and the policemen allowed me in.

The charge was first read out in the Sessions Court and the pleas were taken. Then the public prosecutor issued a certificate requesting for the case to be transferred to the High Court. When that was done, everyone moved to the next building where the High Court sits, and the process of reading the charge and recording Guan Eng’s not guilty plea was repeated.

The whole process took four hours. That’s how efficient our administration of justice is these days. Would it not have been simpler if the attorney-general (AG) had scanned/e-mailed the certificate of transfer to the Sessions Court and copied the same to the High Court, so that everything could have started there? The AG’s certificate cannot be disputed, so why did we need to start the process in the Sessions Court when it’s the High Court that will hear the case?

Anyway, the AG Mohamed Apandi Ali was in jovial mood and smiled to all and sundry, although some in the crowd booed him. He was followed into the courtroom by a coterie of deputy public prosecutors (DPPs), probably the best he could find. He was friendly with the press, and after the case was adjourned he was seen giving some lengthy statements to the hungry media.

Apandi is a different kind of AG. One of his predecessors for example, Abu Talib Othman, would walk in quietly with just another senior DPP, and he would not talk to the press except on rare occasions. Even when he was prosecuting high-profile cases such as former cabinet member Mohktar Hashim’s murder trial, Abu Talib kept it low-key at all times. I suppose different PMs expect different things from their AGs.

What was also apparent during the proceedings was how much the country is demarcated along racial lines. The accused persons are Chinese (of course), the attorney-general and his team of six high-powered DPPs are all Malays and the defence lawyers are all Indians. This is a microcosm of our country: there is a place for everyone, but the choices of where they can cari makan are determined by their ethnicity and religion.

Section 23 of the MACC Act

What I want to talk about is actually Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. Under this section, “any officer of the public body commits an offence when he uses his office or position for gratification when he makes any decision or takes any action whether for himself, his relative or associate in relation to any matter in which such officer or any relative or his associate, has interest whether directly or indirectly”.

This section has not been used against our finance minister, which means that Najib Abdul Razak has not at any time since 2009 used his position as finance minister to help any of his friends, relatives or associates. He must be an angel and a highly moral leader of exceptional integrity to be able to exercise such restraint.

My question is, since we never practise the open tender system or any transparent process for all our mega-deals, how come very wealthy individuals or corporations have secured big concessions and contracts? Who made the decisions to give these contracts to them? Why is that in Malaysia the PM always want to keep the finance portfolio?

Only a fool would say that the finance minister was not at all involved in those decisions, so how come the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has never invoked this section before?

What I find repugnant is this: if you have the law, by all means apply it and prosecute anyone who is guilty of the offence. What is sickening in this country is the ‘immunity’ that’s been granted to Barisan Nasional leaders (except retirees such as former Selangor menteri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, who had to be removed to allow for a new Umno general to be installed in the state).

I suspect the rationale is that this Malay government must be protected at all costs. Otherwise, DAP will come into power. These Malays would rather be complicit in these crimes than be ruled by DAP. How idiotic is that kind of thinking? Hidup Lim Guan Eng.

Selamat Hari Raya.

ZAID IBRAHIM is a former minister, in charge of law.