What thy name?

Peaceful Assembly Bill mala fide, says ex-top cop

A former senior police investigating officer says the Peaceful Assembly Bill, which Parliament passed after its second reading last week, is mala fide or done with ill intentions.

Former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim said Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who tabled the Bill for its second reading on Nov 24, may not have the “clean hands” required to introduce new legislation that touches on “public justice”.

He accused the PM of making a statutory declaration resulting in giving a false affidavit in connection with Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II trial, and described it as a “public injustice”.

“I question Najib’s motive in tabling the Public Assembly Bill and having it passed speedily in the face of so many people objecting to it.

“Is it to stop protests and peaceful demonstrations over his own misconduct and abuse of power by him or senior officials of the government administration, past and present?” Mat Zain asked.

The former top cop said the fact that the government rushed with amendments to the Bill before having it quickly passed, proved that the Bill was mala fide from inception, and was intended to “whack” the people.

He said it was drafted under the watchful eyes of attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, whose character was “dubious” following recent revelations about him.

Without mincing his words, Mat Zain said with Gani overseeing the Bill, it was like putting the rights of the people in the hands of a criminal.

“What Najib has done in the Peaceful Assembly Bill is therefore not surprising,” he said.

‘Challenge Bill in court’

“I also welcome the efforts made by several MPs who filed a judicial review application last Friday to challenge the legality of the Bill, and who have named Najib and the government as respondents.

“In my view, this is a civilised, logical and credible move that can be taken to resolve the problem, as holding street demonstrations now will only worsen the situation.”

Now was the appropriate time to test Najib in court, Mat Zain said, as the prime minister was in a bind following his affidavits in support and in reply, dated Sept 21 and 23 respectively in connection with the Sodomy II trial, could be proven to be false.

He said he believed Najib and his wife were legally advised on the affidavits as well as the repercussions of possible action, either in a civil or criminal proceeding, before they signed them.

The affidavits truly challenge Najib’s credibility and he can be cross-examined on the matter, which cannot set aside, as in the case of the subpoenas issued that were set aside.

Who is the real Najib?

Najib, he said, would have a problem in making clear his real name when he made the affidavit in reply in the action regarding the Sodomy II case in court.

In Najib’s affidavit in this trial, his name is written as “Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak”, but when he took the oath of office as prime minister April 3, 2009, he gave his name as “Muhammad Najib”, Mat Zain said.

“Is the oath of office taken to be the PM, in the name of Allah and before the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, considered legal when he called himself Muhammad Najib? Or is the name not his,” asked Mat Zain.

This situation, he said, could put the PM’s post in question and if this was so, he asked, could Najib have the right to dissolve Parliament?

It is compulsory, Mat Zain said, for even the Agong and his deputy to give their true names when taking their oath of office, as stipulated in chapter three of the federal constitution.

He said the former finance minister, Daim Zainuddin, had used his real name in an affidavit in a court case in 2006. He gave his name as 'Che Abdul Daim', as is required by the law.

“This shows that giving one's true name when taking the oath or giving oath is compulsory, and not merely as an identity introduction. It is required by law and the constitution.”

The question is, why did Najib drop 'Mohd' or 'Muhammad' from his name when he signed the affidavits under oath?

Therefore, Mat Zain added, the affidavits Najib filed on Sept 21 and 23 in connection with the Sodomy II trial are illegal as they were not made according to the law requiring the true name of the deponent, as had also been stated in the Sharma Kumari Shukla case on the issue of name.

**************************************************

I don't know why our PMs are ashamed to use their real name. Were they born pariah or what?

During his period as PM, Mahathir had refused to acknowledge the use of his real name Mahathir s/o Iskandar Kutty instead went by the name Mahathir bin Mohammad. So were all the papers he signed actually legal?

Then now it has come out in the affidavits Najib had filed in connection with Sodomy II using Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak whereas his real name is Muhammad Najib.

So who is sitting in Putrajaya and acting as leader in UMNO?

Are our PMs clone to deceived Malaysians by Aliens?

The answer can only be found when Sodomy II returns. Meanwhile the Judge will be busy counting his good fortune to have the clone or the real Najib under his palm. Now how much do you think the good Judge will be asking to ensure both names are legal.

Me I think the Judge will be smart and ask for RM20 million. After all how often does one get to blackmail the Prime Minister of Malaysia.