by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Monday, September 12, 1994:
Nazri will not get elected as UMNO Youth Leader on his own right if he continues to make wild and baseless allegations which cannot stand up to challenge.
I must advise Senator Datuk Nazri Aziz that he would not get elected as UMNO Youth Leader on his own right if he continues to make wild and baseless allegations which cannot stand up to challenge – which means he would merely be Acting UMNO Youth Leader and never an elected UMNO Youth-leader.
The whole country still remember Nazri’s first statement when it was first reported on August 24 that Malacca Chief Minister Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Cik would have to step down as UMNO Youth Leader because of ‘personal problems’ that could affect UMNO.
Nazri not only expressed “full support” for Rahim as UMNO Youth Leader, but even accused the Malacca DAP of “spreading the speculation to undermine Rahim as Malacca Chief Minister as part of the Malacca DAP’s move to win in the next general elec¬tions”.
If Nazri was right that the expose of the Rahim scandals was orchestrated by the DAP, then did the DAP also orches¬trate the moves that led to Nazri becoming Acting UMNO Youth leader?
I am glad that Nazri has learnt a lesson here and has not repeated his wild and baseless allegation that the DAP is behind Rahim Tamby Cik stepping down as UMNO Youth Leader.
This must be why he told Utusan Malaysia in a frontpage report today that “tidak timbul soal adanya ‘dalang’ dalam isu yang membabitkan Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Tamby Cik yang dikatakan mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan seorang gadis di bawah umur”.
Nazri said: “Sebenarnya dalam rnana-mana perkara dan keadaan sekalipun, memang ada dalang tetapi buat masa ini, tidak timbul soal dalang yang cuba menikam dari belakang untuk menjatuhkannya”.
However, Nazri has committed another major blunder when he made further wild and baseless allegations against the DAP in today’s press.
Berita Harian today reported Nazri as warning the DAP not to interfere in the al-Arqam issue.
Nazri was reported as saying: “Pemuda UMNO memberi amaran kepada DAP supaya jangan membangkitkan perkara berkaitan al-Arqam yang tidak ada kena mengenai dengan parti itu.
“Masalah al-Arqam adalah masalah orang Islam dan boleh meletup kerana ia isu emosi. Pemuda tidak suka orang bukan Islam campur tangan. DAP tidak tahu apa erti penyelewengan agama”.
This Berita Harian report said:
“Nazri juga membidas Lim yang meminta kerajaan membenarkan Asaari memilih sama ada untuk kembali ke negara ini atau pergi ke negera ketiga.
“Jika Kerajaan sudah membatalkan passport Asaari bermakna beliau tidak mempunyai pilihan kecuali, kembali ke Malaysia kerana beliau tidak boleh ke negara lain berikutan ketiadaan passport”, kata-nya.
In the first place, let me remind Nazri the first elementary rule before making political speeches and statements attacking others – check the facts first, as to whether I had said or done the things for which he wanted to criticise or attack me on.
If Nazri had checked his facts first before opening his mouth, he would have found that I had repeatedly declared that, as a non-Muslim, I do not wish to comment on whether al-Arqam is a ‘deviationist’ Islamic sect, as it is a matter to be decided by the ummah Islam.
So the question of the DAP ‘campur tangan’ on Islamic issues had never arisen.
Is Nazri suggesting that Muslims do not have human rights or that non-Muslims should be indifferent if human rights of Muslims are violated?
The DAP had criticised the government for using the Internal Security Act to detain Asaari, his wife and other fol¬lowers not to interfere on Islamic faith but solely on human-rights considerations – as it is undemocratic to detain a person without giving him an opportunity of an open trial to defend himself.
Is Nazri suggesting that Muslims do not have human rights or that non-Muslims should be indifferent if human rights of Muslims are violated?
Let Nazri go and ask the Deputy Prime Minister and former ABIM leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim; whether Muslims also have human rights which if violated, should be defended by everyone concerned about human rights, whether Muslims or non-Muslims!
DAP is not prepared to subscribe to such a narrow concept of human rights as espoused by Nazri.
I will even defend the human rights of Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Cik if he is detained under the Internal Security Act for his corruption and moral scandals – not to defend his scandals but to defend his right to an open trial before any conviction and sentence.
Secondly, Nazri has committed the unforgivable blunder of accusing me of saying things I had never said.
I challenge Nazri to produce evidence that I had “meminta kerajaan membenarkan Asaari memilih sama ada untuk kembali ke negara ini atau pergi ke negera ketiga”.
However, I did criticise the government for the manner Asaari Muhamad was brought back to Malaysia by the most unprece¬dented measure of revoking Assari’s passport when he was in Thailand.
Is Nazri suggesting that the Government should make it into a practice to revoke the passports of
Malaysians who criticise the government when overseas, forcing them to be deported back to Malaysia?
Can Nazri state how many times the Ministry of Home Affairs had revoked the passports of Malaysian’s overseas to force them to be deported back to Malaysia, without going through the normal process of extradition proceedings?
In the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal and the Central Co-operative Bank scandal, those responsible for the country and people losing vast sums of funds escaped justice by going or staying on overseas. Why didn’t the Govern¬ment revoke their passports so that they would be deported back to Malaysia to stand trial for their crimes against the people and country?
Further, the rules of natural justice demand that before the passport of any Malaysian is revoked, he has the right to be heard in his own defence especially when he is overseas.
Or is Nazri suggesting that the Government should now make it a practice to revoke the passport of any 7 Malaysian who criticize the Malaysian government when overseas, forcing him to be deported back to
Malaysia?
Why was Rahim Tamby Cik allowed to have a new passport after a girl robbed his passport while he was
asleep during his trip to Argentina a few years ago.
The September 7 issue of Asiaweek, which was released on the newstands after being held back for ten days, had a write-up on the Rahim Tamby Cik scandals under the heading “The Rahim Investigations – A Sex Allegation Threatens A Troubled Political Star”.
In this article, the Asiaweek states:
“Rahim reportedly got into trouble with a girl in Argentina while on a visit there with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad a few years ago. The story leaked because the girl apparently robbed him while he was asleep. The incidents have led to the perception that Rahim is a womanizer”.
The question I want to raise is why Rahim was allowed to have a new passport after a girl robbed his passport while he was asleep during his Argentina trip when the Immigration Department punishes ordinary Malaysians for losing their passports in innocuous circumstances by refusing to issue new passports!
The government, should not apply double standards where Malaysian would be denied a new passport if he loses it overseas after being robbed by a girl while asleep but where Rahim can get the special privilege not having to undergo such ‘punishment’ by the Immigration Department.