©New
Sunday Times (Used by permission)
by Aniza Damis
In, out, then in again. Ezam Mohd Nor, former Keadilan Youth chief and trusted
aide to former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, is back in the
Umno fold again. He speaks to ANIZA DAMIS about Anwar, Umno, corruption, Trojan
horses and the six secret boxes. This online edition of Sunday Interview with
Ezam Mohd Nor, 13 July 2008 contains the full transcript of the interview.
Q: Who is Ezam?
A: I’m a very simple and straightforward man. I believe very strongly in the
principle of honesty. It’s the most treasured value in life for me. And I value
friendship very strongly. I’m very loyal to friends, my parents and family.
Q: What would you do for friendship’s sake?
A: I’d do anything for a friend. Especially for a friend who is in trouble or
hardship. I think nobody can deny that I’ve done the most that any human can do
to help Anwar and the family when they were in trouble many years ago. And that
is purely on the basis of friendship. There’s nothing political about it. Of
course there are a lot of cases of being true to a friend, but it is in Anwar’s
case where I think there is the most testimony of friendship.
Q: How good do you think that friendship was, or is?
A: I got to know him after we’d had a debate in IIU, when he was the
president of IIU and I was a student leader. In Tun Salleh Abas’ case, I was
very unhappy then and rebelled in IIU. He came in to IIU to explain, and I was
not satisfied, so he asked me to join him to do reforms. He asked me to join him
with the Institute for Policy Research (Institut Kajian Dasar) immediately after
I graduated from the International Islamic University. After a few years, he
asked me to join him as political secretary. I served him only for three years,
and things happened in 1998, and then I became close to the family. Before that,
it was purely professional. I was political secretary, assistant director for
IKD, I managed most of his international programmes, but I didn’t know him
personally. I had always put a barrier to maintain a professional relationship.
But still, I regarded him as my friend, and when he went into jail, I was the
first to come up and fight for him.
Q: But as friends, how close were you? Going to prison for someone is not
something that you do for a mere acquaintance. Are you still friends?
A: We are not friends any more now. But those days, we were not close, but it’s
more about having a relationship between a boss and a subordinate. And I regard
him as my boss, and I think it’s my responsibility to help the family when he’s
in hardship – whatever it takes.
Q: I wouldn’t go to prison for my boss… Was Anwar among your closest friends?
A: He wasn’t. I have other close friends. Our age difference is exactly 20
years, so that made it quite difficult for us to build up a relationship like
that. And, I always maintained to separate my professional life and my
professional life. The political secretary–ship was a profession, so the
relationship was not that of close friends. It’s more of a boss and subordinate.
People might have other ways of showing appreciation to their boss, but I would
regard my commitment as a subordinate. When he was expelled and put in jail, I
was his political secretary, still, at that time. So I still regarded myself as
being on duty. So, I did my best for him and for his family.
Q: Why did you leave PKR?
A: PKR has diverted from the basic ideals on which it was formed in 1999. I
regard it as a question of doing away with the basic fundamentals of the core
values of this country – eroding and erasing Malays as the core of the party.
When we formed PKN (as PKR was then), we agreed on it being a multi–racial
party; but we also firmly agreed that it has to be a Malay–based party. That’s
why you could see a lot of Malay towering figures in the Islamic movement there
– ABIM, JIM – and I think it’s because it’s a Malay–based multi–racial party.
After Anwar came out of prison, he diverted from that. There’s never a statement
from Anwar that PKR is a Malay–based multi–racial party. Suddenly he shifted to
make it a purely multi–racial party. When I asked him, he was very evasive about
it. He said, “This is a political reality. It’s very hard for us to get Malay
votes, so politically we have to bank on the Chinese and Indian votes, so we
have to show to them that we are multi–racial.” This, to my mind, is a betrayal
to the race and to the nation. This is the basis of this country. It’s a
recognition by Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Sambanthan, and on Tunku Abdul
Rahman’s leadership as a Malay. You can fight for reforms, you can fight against
corruption. If you say the National Economic Policy (NEP) is wrong, I agree with
that. In fact, I went to jail to expose corrupt practices of a few leaders. But,
criticizing the NEP on its flawed implementation and criticizing the very basis
and spirit of the NEP are two different things. What Anwar was hitting on was
the very basis and spirit of the NEP, which is not merely a policy; it is a
policy based on a very unique experience of the country, and also the spirit of
the constitution, which gives a very special privilege to the Malays. If there
is no clause in the Constitution on the situation and privilege of the Malays,
we cannot form the NEP. That’s how much the NEP is related to the spirit of the
Constitution. It goes to the very basis of the formation of this country. But
Anwar diverted from that. He wanted to make it really multi–racial, and
condemned the NEP, to the extent that even Malays see the NEP as the core of
corruption, which is unfair, because it is not the cause of corruption. If the
NEP is the cause of corruption, then, in Indonesia, there is no NEP, but there
is corruption. So, this political maneuovering, at the expense of eroding the
basis of this nation, which is multi–racial, but Malay–based, to me, is a
betrayal.
Q: But as people have argued, the NEP was actually established to help any
poor Malaysian – to bring up the entire Malaysian community. Is there anything
wrong in that?
A: Of course not. I’m not saying we can’t come up with any new plan. In
fact, the NEP has long been replaced by other policies. But my point is, you
cannot condemn or undermine the basic policies which are important to the
society. All the great nations of this world have high regard for their
forefathers, although they may not agree with them. Kemal Ataturk is the
forefather of modern Turkey. He’s very secular, and a lot of people disagree
with that now, including (Turkish Prime Minister Reccep Tayyip) Erdogan. He
comes from an Islamic party, which contradicts Ataturk’s secularism, but you
never see Erdogan criticizing Ataturk. What is happening now, Anwar is not
fighting for the Indians and Chinese out of a real concern for the Indians and
Chinese. It’s merely his political maneouvering to get the maximum votes out of
the situation, at the expense of criticizing the basic principle of the founding
fathers. And this is a betrayal, and a threat to the country, in terms of
eroding the basic institutions and ideals. When Anwar was the Finance Minister,
he was the one who introduced a specific scheme for Bumiputera contractors –
skim kontraktor berwibawa – with the specific instruction to the contract
division, to give each Malay company at least RM1 billion worth of projects
without tender. Around 15 companies – almost RM15 billion without tender. I’m
not complaining about the policies. I am complaining about the consistency of
Anwar. When he was in Umno, he was the main proponent of affirmative action for
the Malays. And now he is talking about equality, open–tender system. I want to
remind Chinese and Indians, you have to be careful with this man. Likewise, I
also want to remind the Malays – you can see the shift in his political
directions. We formed Parti Keadilan on the emotions of the people, and we came
up with a Malay–based multi–racial party, because there was also anger among the
Chinese and Indians, and they also wanted to fight for him. Then, after he came
out from prison, he sees the economy is having problems, but since the Malays
are quite contented with Pak Lah, we cannot get the Malay votes. So, he shifted
it to a multi–racial party. Now, after a few weeks after elections, he can sense
that the Malays are against him. He can sense the policies of Pakatan are
undermining the Malays. So, for the past few weeks, he’s getting all the big
guns – the big names in Abim and a few other Malay organizations – into the
supreme council of Keadilan. He wants to show that he is back to the Malay
(struggle). So, how can we trust a person or a party that has had several
political directions in the past few years? Some people might say, because
Keadilan is new, it will keep on changing because it is new. But, when DAP was
new before, they were consistent with a Malaysian–Malaysia till today. And Pas
is consistent with the Islamic State and pursuing Islamic ideals from those days
until today. And so has Umno – fighting for the Malays from Day One until now.
But why has Keadilan been fighting and focusing differently from the first year
until the ninth year? To my mind, the pursuit is not because of the idealism and
objective of the party. The pursuit is because of the objectives of one
individual to become Prime Minister. We cannot be serving the interest of one
individual to become prime minister.
Q: Anwar has said he has changed. Perhaps that’s the reason for the
inconsistency?
A: Yes, he is changed from after prison. But, he keeps on changing. To my mind,
it is not because of prison experience; it’s a mere political expediency, which
is basically serving a self–centred interest. What I cannot tolerate most is
foregoing the basic ingredients of statesmanship. The strength of the founding
fathers was not their political maneouvering, nor oratory skills. None of them
can come close to Anwar in terms of oratory skills. But their strength is in
their statesmanship – putting the interests of the nation before any other
interest. This is the strength of the country – it’s very crucial for this
multi–racial country. Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Sambanthan tolerated each
other, because they wanted to hold the nation together. But what I see from
Anwar, he lost all elements of statesmanship. He put his interests very clearly
above all other interests. And after the elections, he kept on playing the issue
of hopping (coalitions) and creating a new government – which is against the
interest of the nation, because you give the wrong signal to the investors.
Q: Perhaps he keeps giving these hints because he believes that Pakatan can
take over, and that Pakatan would be a better solution than Barisan?
A: If you want to make a better solution, why don’t you do it quietly? Why do
you have to make noise? If you do it quietly, you don’t detriment the country.
If you have enough MPs, you go to Parliament, go through the necessary process
and become the prime minister. But why are you making noise, especially as the
noise you are making goes against the interests of the country? You are making
noise because the objective is not to form the government. The objective is to
bind Pakatan Rakyat, which is falling. That’s why he has to come up with a
strong imagination among Pakatan that he is going to be prime minister. Because,
he can see from the very first day of governing in the four new Opposition
states that there’s a lot of trouble there – especially in Perak and Selangor.
And it shows all the testimony of a falling coalition. Anwar is a smart
politician, and he knows that, so he has to come up with some imagination. So,
he has to make it known, by making noise, that he is going to form a government
– even at the expense of the country – because the target is not forming the
government, but binding Pakatan Rakyat, which is falling.
Q: Why do you say that it’s falling? After all, it’s only now that the
country actually has a formal Opposition structure. Except for Kelantan, and for
a brief period, Terengganu, the Opposition has never been in government before,
so surely it’s expected that it would have teething problems? Does this
necessarily translate into ‘falling apart’?
A: Teething problems we can understand. But what happened is fundamental
problems. Just a few days ago, the Pas president said in Harakah that there’s no
chief in Pakatan Rakyat. That is a fundamental question for a coalition. How is
it a coalition can’t even agree on one leader? This is fundamental – it’s not a
teething problem. And then, of course, there is also the point he raised about
Pas being undermined – this is official in Harakah. And it comes from the Pas
president – he brought up all the fundamental issues, which, to my mind,
undermines a coalition. With the DAP, there are a lot of executive meetings
boycotted by the DAP – this is a known fact. In the first 100 days, you can
disagree; but boycotting meetings – coalition meetings – to my mind, is a
fundamental flaw. And until today, there is no one policy which is uniform among
the five Pakatan states. There are some very clear policy differences between
Kelantan and Penang – even on dresscode it differs. And nothing is being done
about it. So, what this shows is a falling coalition – it’s not a strengthening
coalition. We agree there are teething problems, but it must be moving towards
strenghthening, not moving towards weakening. And Anwar, being a seasoned
politician, knows this very well. That’s why he has to push hard on this
imagination of going to Putrajaya by 16 September.
Q: Does this mean Anwar has changed as a person or politician? Or is it that
this was not something that you realized?
A: I think this is Anwar. He keeps on changing, he’s only loyal to himself, he
doesn’t have loyalty to any organization or ideals. He’s purely someone with a
pure and sole ambition of becoming a prime minister. I didn’t realize that then
in Umno, because he was right on that path and only needed to follow through. Of
course, people ask, “Why did it take so long (for you to realize this)?” He was
in prison for seven years, so I cannot evaluate him then, because he is in
prison. It was always my principle that I would make my decision only after he
comes out from jail. Because I don’t want to be seen leaving a boss when he’s in
hardship. That’s why I made my decision one or two years after he was released,
because in that two years, I could see the real him – no statesmanship, no
loyalty to the struggle and ideals, and basically, no long–term plan; it’s all
short–term. You should be talking about the long–term Pakatan Rakyat coalition.
You should be talking about a long–term building up of Keadilan, which is very
weak in structure. Even in Selangor, which Keadilan is controlling now, the
fundamental structure is very weak – for a ruling party. And Anwar doesn’t come
up with a long–term strategy to strengthen, because he always looks at the
short–term. That’s why he says now 16th September. If he passes 16 September, he
will come up with something else for the next three to four months. This is
Anwar. And I don’t think I can serve a leader with that sort of modus operandi –
self–centred and short–termed. In a way, I can accept the betrayal, but you are
playing politics to the extent of eroding the basic structure of the country,
which is multi–racial, but Malay–based, to me, it’s a great betrayal of the
country, and I don’t want to be part of that.
Q: If he didn’t betray the basic policy of a Malay–based country, but he was
‘playing politics’, it would be okay?
A: Once you go beyond the line – to me, you cannot go beyond the basic principle
of religion, race and country. That is beyond repair.
Q: You’ve now rejoined Umno. But you’ve spent the last 10 years cristicising
and slamming Umno. What makes you now have faith in the party?
A: I joined Umno in 1991 after meeting Anwar, on the basis of making change.
Making an effect on change, reform. That is the principles of the prophets, the
genuine freedom fighters – they always fight for change, for the betterment of
society. That has always been my principle. That’s why I joined Umno through
Anwar. Then, I was expelled. I didn’t choose to be out of Umno. My only sin was
to criticize the president of Umno then (former Prime Minister then Datuk Seri
Dr Mahathir Mohamed). I have been punished enough. In fact, even after being
re–admitted into Umno, I am still being punished by not being allowed to
contest. I have no complaint about that. I want to make it clear that my
rejoining of Umno is also on the same basis of reform. I always believe –
especially after what happened to me in the last 10 years – that corruption is
the core issue in the society – especially the Malays. We can see the change
from the post–petroleum days – in the 80s, when Petronas was formed, you can see
all the big fights in Umno – through the 90s, and 2000a, which involved the big
figures – president, deputy president, former president and present president –
I’m not pointing fingers at anybody, but I am saying that there was something
wrong there. I remember a hadith which says, “Every generation has its
challenges.” For my generation, the core problem is the management of wealth,
and of course, this involves the corruption of power. So I keep that very
strongly in my heart, and set up an NGO to fight corruption. Of course, after
2004, Pak Lah had announced certain measures against corruption, but it’s not
really serious in terms of implementation at that time. But after the recent
elections, he came up with a blueprint for setting up the independence of the
Anti–Corruption Agency, which, to my mind, is the most significant step for
reforms in this country. Because, the problem among Malay society, and Malay
leaders at large, is because of corruption and the management of wealth. We’ve
never had a prime minister making that kind of commitment before. Even Anwar,
when he was the deputy prime minister then, or now, never said anything that was
even close to what Pak Lah said. People might question Pak Lah’s motives, but
I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the future, and now we have a
prime minister who has that sort of commitment. People will say, “Why don’t you
fight this in the NGO?” My answer is, “Now I have a choice.” Before, I didn’t
have a choice, that’s why I was in the opposition. But now I have a choice to
help the powers that be, who are fighting corruption. That is my basic reason of
joining Umno.
Q: But you’ve moved from an anti–corruption watchdog, into a system which you
say is riddled with corruption.
A: I believe the civil society, the NGO, Gerak, is still there. But now I have
the opportunity to be inside, with better elements and resolve. That day when I
was joining Umno, (Anwar’s wife and Leader of Opposition Datin Seri) Wan Azizah
said she was shocked that I was joining Umno. But she shouldn’t be shocked,
because I did exactly what her husband did before – he criticized the
government, then joined Umno in 1982. I am entering a better Umno than the Umno
Anwar joined in 1982. I am entering Umno now, with a resolve from the prime
minister to do reform. He not changing the ACA on just one or two issues – he is
changing the basic structure of the ACA’s independence. Hong Kong changed
because of this element of independence. It’s not easy, but I believe in it. But
from my experience going round the country, there is some resistance when I keep
pushing for reform on corruption. But there is also tremendous reception from
the grassroot Umno leaders, who basically encourage me to go on. So, I believe
there is enough space for us to make an effective change within the Umno
structure today.
Q: What kind of reforms do you think Umno needs?
A: Umno needs to be seen as credible. The basic ingredient of credibility now is
integrity. I think this is what is perceived to be lacking for the past few
years. In fact, the very strength of BN and Umno before is on integrity. All the
early leaders of Umno, MCA and MIC are known to be very moderate leaders, not
wealthy, sacrificed their wealth for the party and the nation. There might have
been other flaws, they had their personal problems, but when it comes to
integrity, they were very strong in that. And this is what is very much lacking
in the BN today. Or in the perception of BN today. So, what they need is for
leaders to come out and strongly build up their credibility, and have very
strong ideas on integrity. Making ACA independent is the most important, and a
major step towards promoting integrity in an effective way. You can talk about
integrity, but it won’t be effective in this world of wealth and opportunities
when the ACA is not empowered to punish corrupt leaders. Now it is empowered, I
can sense that the process of strengthening integrity among the leadership will
be more effective, and that integral value will be the back bone for great
credibility in Umno, and BN leadership.
Q: When you say you face some resistance, where is this resistance? From
above or below?
A: It’s basically from above. From interested parties. I’m not saying that all
of them or most of them resisted – I can tell you I have got very strong support
from the very top leadership – the prime minister and deputy prime minister, who
basically gave me their full support, to be in Umno and to do whatever I can to
effect reform. Of course, other people are still coming up with all sorts of
theories, which to me is fair, considering that I’ve been long outside and I’ve
been very critical. But, if the theories keep on being pushed after one month of
being in Umno and being very critical of Anwar and the opposition, they might
have different motives. This is no longer the motive of safeguarding the party,
but of safeguarding their own positions and interests.
Q: How do you think you’ve been received by Umno members this last month?
A: Very well. I’ve been very touched. Considering what I’ve done for the past 10
years, being in an opposition party, and being on the frontline, battling them,
the warm reception that I’ve received everywhere is very touching. And it’s
really encouraged me to move forwards, and given me the confidence that there is
a future for reforms in Umno.
Q: Even so, some people suspect that you are a Trojan horse; that you’ve been
planted into Umno to pave the way for Anwar to come back and to become prime
minister. Are you?
A: No. This is a non–issue at all, as far as I’m concerned. When this question
was put to me the first day I came back into Umno, what I asked was just to
watch me, and to evaluate my record for what I’m going to do. And after 30 days
or so, you can see that I’m the most critical person in Umno now, going against
Anwar. I cannot be a Trojan horse then. Whatever it is, I don’t want to be
bogged down by perceptions. I’m not really bothered about that. What is
important is I have the trust of the leadership, and I just do whatever I can.
Time will judge me – whether I’m being fair to the trust.
Q: You say how can you be a Trojan horse if you are criticizing Anwar. But
isn’t that part and parcel of pretending to be something that you’re not, in
order to eventually come out to be what you are? Maybe you’re pretending to
criticize Anwar?
A: The issues are very contentious and very fundamental. I am criticizing Anwar
not on his tactical move, but on his fundamentals. I’m telling the whole nation
he has betrayed the whole nation. This is very fundamental – you cannot be
pretending in making such accusations. It’s very difficult for us to make peace,
or to reconcile when it comes to this battle on the fundamentals. Secondly, the
record shows from the very first day I was in politics is that I’m not a big
pretender. I’m not like Anwar. I don’t have these flip–flops – I’ve been very
straightforward. I don’t really have the capacity to pretend; I just speak my
mind. I think it’s very difficult for me to play that role of a pretender in
whatever way.
Q: Even so, people will still be suspicious. Do you think you will ever be
able to advance in Umno, given that there will always be some sections of the
party itself that will always be suspicious about you?
A: I’m not that ambitious, so I don’t aspire for a post. In fact, even if there
were no conditions for me not to contest, I would not be contesting. People
know, when I took up the post of Keadilan Youth Chief, I was most reluctant.
Anwar had to persuade me from prison, and Azizah had to come to Jakarta to
persuade me. I’m basically not ambitious. I just want to serve an honest leader.
That’s why it doesn’t bother me how big the segment is that is suspicious of me.
I don’t move based on votes; I move based on my conscience and satisfaction of
what I can do. I believe, eventually, if you are honest and sincere, this will
prevail. And if comes to that stage where there are still people who don’t
appreciate, then that’s not my problem, it’s their problem.
Q: You’ve said with Anwar, that because he wants to survive politically he’s
willing to say things. Might not the same thing be said of you, that because you
want to survive politically, you’d be willing to sell out on a friend?
A: It’s fair for people to say that. But I think my record shows that I’m very
serious about reforms. I don’t see myself as a pure politician. And I’ve proven
that it’s not easy to find a politician to miss the opportunity of contesting in
the elections. I chose to miss two elections. I only contested once in 1999,
which I almost won in Shah Alam. But I missed 2004 because of my commitment to
fight against corruption by exposing documents (for which I was convicted for
breaching the Official Secrets Act). I was advised against it by lawyers,
because they said I would miss the opportunity to contest. But I said my focus
was not to contest, because I don’t see myself as a politician; I want to do
something good for the country. And in the last election (2008) I was offered
safe seats by many parties to constest. But I still refused because at that
particular moment, I think that my contributions towards society is much more
meaningful through strengthening the civil society. So, that proves that my
focus is not for myself. I only joined Umno much later, after I left Keadilan,
and after all the hardship of building up an NGO, and only after a significant
move by the prime minister on reforms. And until today, I’ve not been given any
post, because that’s not the deal. The deal is for me to be here and to do what
I can. So, the whole process about me in politics is not about myself and my
position. This is completely opposite to Anwar, because his whole purpose is
about his position and about himself in politics. I think that’s the difference.
Q: What were the conditions for your re–entry into Umno?
A: Basically, there were no conditions. Pak Lah is a simple man. When I met him,
I expressed my gratitude and appreciation for what he has done, especially on
the ACA issue, and I asked him what role I can play, and basically he said, “You
do whatever is good for Umno and the country. I’ll be with you.” It’s as simple
as that.
Q: What were your conditions for yourself?
A: The bottomline is my commitment to God, Islam, and the ummah, and to race and
to my country. As long as there is no element of betrayal to this, I’ll
continue. Secondly, reforms. If there is no space for reforms in Umno, I might…
I want to be meaningful. As long as there is space for change, I will continue.
When there is no space for that, if it’s all just empty reforms, which is
against not only my conditions, but also against the conditions put by the
prophets and the principles of Islam…
Q: Would you leave?
A: Of course.
Q: You have said that Anwar has six secret boxes. What are in those boxes?
A: I don’t really know what’s in the boxes. People have been asking about these
six boxes and saying I’ve been running away (from telling). I don’t keep the
boxes. It is in my knowledge that Anwar has the boxes. That’s why, when I made
the statement and the police took my statement, I told the police that they’re
in Anwar’s keeping. I don’t know where (they are). So, the matter of the boxes
is between the police and Anwar. I don’t have the boxes. But it is in my
knowledge. I’ve seen one – I didn’t go through all, because I wasn’t allowed to
go through all. But the first few boxes are about Perwaja – audit report and so
forth – documents on Perwaja. That’s basically my knowledge about it.
Q: And the others?
A: I’m not sure – because I don’t know. I haven’t seen the contents. But he
(Anwar) told me it’s all about corruption and malpractices.
Q: During your time as political secretary, you never saw any corruption?
A: I received complaints from many quarters – mostly from politicians about
other politicians. We don’t know the motive, which may be self–serving. What I
did was I pursued it through the ACA to make investigations. That’s basically my
capacity at that moment – that’s all I could do.
Q: So these six boxes exist?
A: Yes. As far as I am concerned, I saw them.
Q: Why is it Anwar kept the six boxes and never revealed them?
A: I don’t know. The few days between the time when he was expelled and jailed,
14–18 days, things are in havoc – there was no proper planning and strategy
then, so what we have is that Anwar just showed them – I don’t know his purpose
in showing them; maybe to convince me or to strengthen my resolve to fight. I
really don’t know the motives and I really don’t know how he got it.
Q: Why didn’t he reveal them when he was in power?
A: That you have to ask him.
Q: Hishamuddin Rais said you said you have some boxes full of photos of
(murdered Mongolian) Altantuya (Shaariibuu). Do you?
A: No. It is totally false. I’ve never even talked about Altantuya with Isham.
Q: Had you met her?
A: No, of course not. I don’t even know her. It’s very unfortunate. I have a
high respect for Isham – he’s my good friend, I have a high regard for him, he’s
my friend from Kamunting – he’s an avid reader and I really admire his
commitment in reading. But, it’s very unfortunate for him to make such a
baseless accusation. It never existed at all, even in conversation. Not just the
photo, but even the name Altantuya has never been in our conversations. It’s a
totally false statement.
Q: Do you have any boxes of your own?
A: No. What I have, I have already exposed.
Q: Do you have other knowledge about Umno or any members in Umno?
A: When I was chairman of Gerak, I received quite a few, and most of them I have
already tendered to the ACA or the prime minister himself. When I left Gerak,
all the files that I kept which have basis, I left to my successor in Gerak to
work on it. As far as I’m concerned now, being a normal Umno member, I have no
more evidence – unless, when it comes forward to me I will still work on it – in
my different capacity.
Q: So, you wouldn’t be afraid to do that from inside? Wouldn’t you feel that
your loyalty is to Umno first?
A: Yes, my loyalty is to Umno; but not to any Umno corrupt leaders. They are two
different things. To me, if they are corrupt, they are disloyal to Umno. I won’t
compromise with those people. And in fact, I have never retracted any of my
police reports or ACA reports against any Umno leaders or individuals since I
re–joined Umno. It all remains, as far as corruption is concerned. To me, the
act of corruption is beyond politics.
Q: How do you feel about the fact that everytime you are interviewed, it’s
always about Anwar and your relationship with Anwar? Do you think you exist in
your own right?
A: I think it’s fair. I take it quite naturally; people ask a lot of questions
about Anwar now, because they are thinking quite seriously about him, because he
claims to become a prime minister soon. I don’t feel uncomfortable with it. And
it is also my obligation to tell people who is the real Anwar. Because for the
past 10 years, I’ve been doing a lot of convincing jobs to convince people that
Anwar is someone whom we can hope for. And I think it’s my responsibility to
un–do that. On whether I have my own identity, when the time comes, it will
prevail. It is for me to prove myself. As far as I am loyal to the idea of
reform and to my race and religion – people will judge me fairly. It has always
been an Umno process that the delegates and members will rise to the occasion,
in making the right choice in putting the right leaders (in the right
positions). My focus now is to move forward to save this country from the false
imagination of someone who is really crazy for power, and to do whatever I can
to effect reform in Umno and BN, so that we can go back to the days when we are
very stable.
Q: You’re already 41–years–old. How long do you think it’s going to take to
shake off that Anwar attachment? The reason Umno was very happy to have you back
was because you were known to be close to Anwar, and therefore you were seen as
a trophy. How long will it be before you completely wean yourself off talking
about Anwar and start talking about your own things?
A: It depends on many factors. Most of them are beyond my control. It depends
not only on what my moves are, but also on what other people’s moves are, and it
also depends on what Anwar’s moves are. Whether Anwar is still aspiring to be
PM, or not aspiring anymore. And it also depends on the leadership of Umno – how
they see me. How much trust they can give me, and the role they think I can
play. All this will determine the amount of time it takes for me to come out in
this political arena.
Q: What do you think about the PM’s announcement about the transition in 2010?
A: That shows a strong resolve and testimony of statesmanship on the part of Pak
Lah. This is very important, especially when the country is now dominated mostly
by politicians who mostly have no statesmanship. Now, suddenly, we have a Malay
leader who shows that he puts the interests of the party above all. This is very
important. It’s not a turning–point only for Umno, but by this act of great
statesmanship by Pak Lah will be a turning–point for the country. I have the
greatest respect for his leadership. Secondly, the way the transition has been
sealed is the worst nightmare for Anwar. From the beginning, Anwar was always
against Najib. He knows Najib is very brilliant and capable as a leader. I was
asked by Anwar to go against Najib in the 2004 elections, but I could not,
because the Election Commission rules disallowed me from contesting because of
my conviction. I was the closest challenge then, because I was Keadilan Youth
chief. This shows how much Anwar fears Najib. Not because of the allegations
about Altantuya, but purely because he thinks Najib was a threat to him. By
putting Najib next in line to be prime minister, and the fact that the
transition plan is well received, to me, this is the worst nightmare for Anwar.
I believe Bala’s statutory declaration on the Altantuya case is his last attempt
to destroy this transition plan by Umno because he really wants to stop Najib
from becoming prime minister.