The Attorney-General’s announcement that the Rahim case is closed reminds Malaysians of the 1992 announcement of the closing of the Samy Vellu case

by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjung, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Friday, October 21, 1994:

The Attorney-General’s announcement that the Rahim case is closed reminds Malaysians of the 1992 announcement of the closing of the Samy Vellu case

The announcement by the Attorney-General, Datuk Mohtar Abdullah today that he had directed the police to close investigations into the former Malacca Chief Minister and former UMNO Youth Leader, Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Cik, in connection with allegation that he had an affair with a 15-year-old schoolgirl and that no criminal proceedings would be instituted against him has not come as a surprise to Malaysians.

The real surprise be if the Attorney-General had announced that he has decided to institute criminal proceedings against Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Cik.

Malaysians are reminded of a similar announcement by the authorities in 1992 where the Anti-Corruption Agency announced that there was no case against the MIC President and Minister for Energy, Telecommunications and Posts, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu in connection with MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal.

in fact, the Attorney-General’s announcement could wave been anticipated after the ‘outburst’ by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, on his return from Turkmenistan on 7th October that Rahim had been ‘unfairly treated’ and ‘con¬demned before being proven guilty’.

The Attornev-General said that police investigations had ‘cast strong suspicion’ on Rahim but there was no prima facie case to charge Rahim, as all the police had after covering ‘all angles’ were ‘all circumstancial evidence’ which were riot enough to prosecute Rahim.

The Rahim case raises the question whether the Attor¬
ney-General has double standards when it comes to prosecuting Barisan Nasional political leaders and opposition personalities.

The Dr. Jeffrey Pairin Kitingan case is the best example. When Dr. Jeffrey was regarded as a ‘thorn in the flesh’ of the Barisan Nasional for being a leading PBS decision-maker, he was charged with numerous counts of corruption; but once, he defected the PBS ‘sinking boat’ and joined the Barisan Nasional, the corruption charges were withdrawn for inadequate evidence!

With such a histoty and background of double-standards, the Government and the Attorney-General’s Chambers have a great credibility problem with regard to ‘their decisions as to whether Barisan Nasional leaders should be prosecuted for corruption or other criminal offences.

The people have a right to ask when it comes to the question whether Barisan Nasional leaders should be prosecuted for corruption, the Attorney-General’s Chambers imposed impossi¬ble standards while in the case as to whether to prosecute Oppo¬sition personalities for criminal offences, very low standards of proof are sufficient.

The Attorney-General’s explanation that no decision had yet been taken on the ten corruption reports lodged against Rahim Tamby Cik is also a matter of public concern.

Datuk Mohtar said that he had directed the ACA to continue further investigations and that the ACA had not resubmitted its investigation papers to his chambers.

The Attorney-General should declare his stand whether he regards a Minister, Chief Minister and Mentri Besar who had accummulated unusual and extraordinary wealth completely disproportionate to his known sources of income as having committed a prima facie offence of corruption.

If so, why is the Attorney-General not taking firm action to wipe out corruption in high political places – by making an example of Rahim’s case, as well as giving approval to the ACA’s earlier proposal for tongher and more powerful anti-corruption laws in the country?