FEBRUARY 4 — While the career of Mahathir Mohamad’s second term attorney-general stretches beyond 45 years, the two under the ex-PM which draws attention to him.
It seems Tommy Thomas — to the establishment used to secrecy to buffer the powerful from the masses — has gone rogue.
The first print of his memoir My Story: Justice in the Wilderness sold out double quick.
Attention includes condemnation.
The police reports, lawsuits and public incriminations have piled up. Mahathir and Najib Razak are both aghast at him. The ex-solicitor general and Judicial and Legal Service Officers’ Association are offended, and police investigate their allegations.
From nowhere to infamy
Curiously, until 2018, Thomas was a legal mind well regarded in practitioners’ circles, but otherwise, unknown.
Copies of his previous books; Corporate Governance and Debt in the Malaysian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 (2002), Anything But the Law: Essays on Politics and Economics (2016) and Abuse of Power: Selected Works on the Law and Constitution (2016) are the opposite of best-sellers.
His participation in the Malayan Communist Party leader Chin Peng’s right of return trial and the Kelantan-Terengganu lawsuits over oil revenue royalties were important but in those famous cases, the clients were the stars.
When appointed on June 4, 2018, Thomas was thrust into the national limelight.
Why are the two years, or 21 months really, so precious when told by an ex-insider?
Regardless of what the future holds for all parties concerned, the first Pakatan Harapan government was a watershed moment in Malaysian history. So many events yet to unfold likely trace their genealogy to the shambolic administration.
As the nation’s public prosecutor and principal legal adviser to the government he had a front seat to proceedings, or better initiate and manage them.
Primarily, the legal manoeuvres to resolve perceived corruptions during Barisan Nasional rule; and Constitutional interactions at the conclusion of the Pakatan government and dawn of Perikatan Nasional.
They reverberate still; the Najib, Rosmah Mansor, Zahid Hamidi, Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim’s trials; the recovery of 1MDB assets and the search for Jho Low; the Seafield Temple riot and the dead fireman Adib Kassim’s inquest; and the reversals of Pakatan legal headaches for Rafizi Ramly, Tian Chua and other Pakatan leaders; and even the conclusion of the Kim Jong-Nam murder scandal.
Why does he divulge these alleged secrets? Is it because he was an outsider — a private sector player — brought inside government to helm a critical department, therefore unaccustomed to traditions and principles of senior civil servants? Or was he squeezed from inside by stubborn civil servants and outside by bigoted politicians, so much so he had to tell his side of things? Or just old-fashioned spite?
To the motives later, but are the revelations valuable?
These are Thomas’ account of events. Do not discount his own vested interest or the human proclivity to overstate, exaggerate or just plain lie.
As a juxtaposition, many US politicians, military men and diplomats involved with the Vietnam War held wildly differing narratives, and 45 years later opinions remain divided on the actual causes for the escalation and ultimate failure.
They are all taken in context and argued about still. For events are dynamic and democracies are about constant discussions.
Thomas’ book is one man’s perspective and experience, worthy of discussion.
Mahathir
It appears the ex-PM yesterday shed light on his relationship with Thomas and the lack of warmth.
He put it on his website “I decided to appoint Tommy Thomas. I knew Malays would not like it. But the Malay AGs had not been true to their profession.”
A profound study on Mahathir is still forthcoming, but his out of time and touch ways were on display.
Inside the statement resides an admission the appointment was expected to be opposed from the get go. Did Mahathir shield his attorney general from race-based vitriol? Or did he feel it was up to Thomas to sink or swim?
And Mahathir did not respond to Thomas’ claim that he was asked to resign a day after his appointment. If true, what kind of man puts an outsider in a position desperate to be credible in order to restore faith in our judiciary and then abandons that outsider immediately because it was just too hard?
Was Umno ever going to be pleased with a candidate who would want to do the job well? No, because if according to election pledges, the attorney general would mount case after corruption case against the previous government, which is Umno.
That’s the opposite of what Umno wants. An internal candidate would be a long-serving civil servant, or put better, been working with Umno ministers for decades. They would have been easier to affect or encourage to take their time with prosecutions. Especially if they calculate their actions today in terms of repercussions if Umno returns to power.
That’s the very reason Mahathir went with an outsider. Except he had no stomach to defend his hire.
Throughout Mahathir’s second term, all parties including Umno and PAS, submitted to the old man’s dominance and sought consistent audiences with him. He could have asked Zahid or Hadi Awang to tell their people to stop accusing Thomas of being a Malay-hater.
Corruption was the focus of Mahathir’s election speeches, and if he was sincere he would have backed his emissary to the bitter end. Far more than using his powers to fend off Anwar Ibrahim from the top.
The facts remain. Mahathir continued to rue the loss of Malay support but not his lack of spine to support his own key promise.
Berkhidmat Untuk Negara
Malaysians are not surprised with the usual envelope inscription on government mail.
The letter is from those who serve the nation.
But do we — those in the civil service and those served by it — think deeply about it.
To serve the nation tops any interest to serve the government of the day. Nations are conceptual and if a discussion about duty, obligations and patriotism refuses to consider philosophy, then it’s done in bad faith.
These are true.
Senior government meetings cannot proceed if all seated in the room are gleefully collecting material for their memoirs. Mistrust breaks down communication and the ability to decide objectively.
How can a prime minister present his misgivings or fears or even thinking to those assigned to give counsel if he feels those assigned to advise have other motives?
However, we have a chequered history.
The powerful have abused the need to secrecy to cover everything which lets the people have meaningful information to form informed choices. Ultimately, the discretion is to improve decisions which improve the fate of the people. The converse prevails.
Is the country ruined by disclosures which promote greater public discourse and invite new scrutiny?
The answer is self-evident.
What ex-civil servants say should be measured by the facts of the case rather than a blanket right to hide all.
Tommy, can you hear me?
Thomas is a lawyer with lawyer friends, and clearly they have already perused the content prior to publication for liabilities like defamation and breach of national secrets. I suspect they are good at this task.
So far, the admonishments have been about how poorly Thomas thought about actors on the political stage. We can have poor opinions of each other. The police reports and lawsuits reek of distractions and public relations stunts.
Let them run their course.
At the end, the book remains and after the brouhaha it's left to readers to determine.
Though, be warned.
The 573-page memoir unfortunately suggests reform in this country would be a hard-fought victory, because at every corner there are cowards who turn it into a race issue.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
