Is Anwar vindicative?

This is an interesting observation I have made about Anwar Ibrahim. 

If you go back to 1998, you will remember the infamous Tan Sri Rahim Noor the Inspector-General of Police once Malaysian had, who hit him in one of his eyes, leaving a bruise that became the hallmark of the Reformasi movement that lasted for over two decades. 

It is interesting that, after he became the Prime Minister, Anwar did not go after Rahim. Rahim, on the other hand, remained silent and preferred to live in his own cave, not to emerge or to fight against Anwar. 

The takeaway from this observation is that Anwar is not seeking personal vendetta after he became the country’s top leader. This can only happen when someone’s mindset is oriented towards the future. So the saying goes, “Let the bygone by bygone. Move forward.”

I have said that for the remaining of his years, after nearly two decades of living in great misery under the old regimes, Anwar’s is only seeking to live his legacy - to fix whatever he can, with his remaining years. A

Likewise, Dr Mahathir Mohamad was left alone until the former prime minister decided to throw a defamation lawsuit against Anwar. Only then, we heard the slogan, “Lawan tetap Lawan.” Only then, Anwar exposed in court the wealth belonging to Mahathir and his family. 

In fact his man in focus was always to recoup the money gained illicitly from the nation’s coffers, not to put people in prison. Imagine Mahathir being placed in a prison cell today. He will die before he even finishes his first year of the sentence. Instead, we see that Anwar has suggested that Mahathir his family should return the billions that were siphoned off during Mahathir’s 22 years as prime minister. They money would go to help the country rebuild itself after so many decades of being run by some of the country’s reputed most scandalous leaders. 

Some pundits like to argue that the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should be kept independent. I beg to differ. Instead, I think those who are not corrupt should not be afraid that the prime minister can use the MACC as. A tool against them. It is only wrong if the prime minister interfered with the investigation by the MACC on any of his own political aides. We have seen the Anwar did not even interfere with Shamsul Mohd Akin’s case. I believe even Shamsul felt that he would be able to defend himself in court. We will wait and see because it is already a known fact that Shamsul’s letter was not one recommended a particular company; his letter merely provided a list of companies that the state government of Sabah could vet through and approve. 

There is nothing to suggest that the cash received, or the furniture delivered to his home, were all part of a bribery scheme. This is where I find it hard to understand why Albert Tei was not able to understand what the MACC Act 2009 calls a bribe. A bribe is a gift or a form of gratification in exchange for some licenses, in this case, or Shamsul using his position to influence the state of Sarawak to take on certain companies based on his recommendation. 

Trust me, when Shamsul is given the discharge amounting to acquittal or even discharge not amounting to acquittal, hell is going to break lose again saying that Anwar had interfered in the court process. 

Based on the current trends, you can almost predict what will happen. 

 There is another pattern tht I observed: even though Rafizi Ramli had openly criticised Anwar openly, not once did Anwar fight back. But if the MACC is going after him, Rafizi can and will always use this as a means to cast doubts on Anwar’s Reformasi mindset. 

I doubt if Anwar or anyone in Pakatan Harapan is trying to use the MACC or the police as their tool to intimidate Rafizi or his political aide James Chai. 

James was in fact making a lot of fuss over the manner in which the MACC had carried out to force Chai to appear before the MACC to give a full explanation. In the eyes of the MACC, Chai is not even a suspect. He is only a man of interest, meaning, he would be able to provide some background information into the case. On the other hand, if Rafizi had followed the procedures when he fast tracked the approval of a project worth RM2 billion, Rafizi should not fear. He only has cause to fear if he had abused his power to fastrack the project’s approval. It is up to the court to decide, not Anwar, whether Rafizi is guilty of power abuse, but if found guilty, the narrative you will once again her on social media is that Anwar is vindication and using the MACC to silence his critics. In the first place, I think Anwar has a softspot for the Pandan lawmaker but he would not interfere with the MACC investigation or the court decision. If Rafizi is found guilty of power abuse, Anwar will not interfere. After all, he himself had gone to jail in his first term for power abuse. 

If I may say, Rafizi may be high in IQ, but not necessarily high in his emotional quotient (EQ). People who know him will find him to be anything but relational. Sometimes, when he shakes my hand, I think he is in a world of his own. This observation stems from the way he looks at you— he does not look you in the eyes. 

In 2020, former Batu MP, Tian Chua, one of the earliest Chinese who became Anwar’s loyalist joined force with Azmin Ali in the Sheraton Move to topple the Pakatan Harapan government, but I see that Tian is mostly silent. He rather focused his time on consulting work with teh government of Papua New Guinea, which I understand to be Anwar’s initiative to help a fellow comrade. As one party member told me, “Anwar still has a softspot for Tian. That is why Anwar provided Tian the opportunity to serve the Papuan New Guinea state government.”