Najib has a point here

Actually, we have already decided how Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan, Ahmad Sarbaini, and many more died. Sure we want a RCI to be held. But we want the RCI to come out with a verdict that dovetails with what we have already decided had happened. And if the RCI contradicts what we believe, then we are going to raise hell.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Inquiry results not to be questioned: Malaysian PM

KANGAR - Conclusions made by the Malaysian Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into opposition aide Teoh Beng Hock's death should not be questioned as this will only defeat its purpose, said Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

He said the RCI was an independent body, which had been set up with the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong's consent and made up of individuals with high credibility to investigate the matter openly.
“What is the purpose of setting up the RCI if its findings are questioned? There are groups which questioned it because they are unhappy with the findings.”

“They have made their own conclusion and they wanted the RCI's report to reflect their thinking and demands. That is unfair.”

“The truth remains the truth whether it is bitter or easy for us to accept. We can't deny the truth,” he said after meeting the Perlis Barisan Nasional leaders yesterday.

The Commission had concluded that Teoh was driven to commit suicide due to intensive interrogation by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers. -- THE STAR/ANN

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

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has a point here. The problem is when he said “…should not be questioned…”.

Anything can be questioned. To say “…should not be questioned…” is just like England of 500 years ago. When you questioned the church or the King you would be arrested, tied to a stake, and burned alive. Surely we have come a long way since then from the days when everything “…should not be questioned…”?

Nevertheless, what Najib said was true on the other part of his statement. If the RCI had come out with a verdict that we like we would have applauded its findings. We would have praised the RCI to kingdom come.

When the Shah Alam High Court allowed my habeas corpus and ordered my release from detention in November 2008, the judge was one fantastic guy. If he had rejected my application and ruled that I should remain in Kamunting, then the judge is an arsehole who is corrupted and is in Umno’s pocket.
That is how we think.

Okay, we demand a RCI on the Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed death. Say the government does hold the RCI as what we want. And say the RCI comes out with a verdict that he died while trying to escape through the third floor window. Would we be satisfied or would we be up in arms? Say, instead, the RCI comes out with a verdict that he was killed while under interrogation. Would that satisfy us and would we praise the RCI to high heavens?

Actually, we have already decided how Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan, Ahmad Sarbaini, and many more died. Sure we want a RCI to be held. But we want the RCI to come out with a verdict that dovetails with what we have already decided had happened. And if the RCI contradicts what we believe, then we are going to raise hell.

This makes it very difficult, of course. What we want is not a RCI to determine the truth, whatever that may be. What we want is a RCI to confirm what we believe.

If we already believe what happened then why not we just go on and believe this? Why bother to ask for a RCI to be held when we know the RCI is going to rule against what we believe?

The chances of the RCI coming out with a verdict the same as what we believe is very slim. The chances of the RCI coming out with a verdict that we don’t believe is very likely.

So why bother?

Many believe Anwar is innocent of the allegations of sodomy and the porn tape and what have you. If that is what we believe then let it be. Let’s not bother with an inquiry or investigation or whatever because the chances would be the findings or verdict will not be what we want.

Let me put it this way: if you already believe that there is a God in Heaven and that when we die we would go to either Heaven or Hell and Muhammad or Jesus or whoever is our Prophet and there is no changing our mind on this matter, does it serve any purpose talking about this matter?

If I tell you I believe what you believe, you will be extremely happy. And if I tell you that you are talking crap and what you believe is a myth, you will be terribly unhappy. 

In short, you do not wish to discuss or debate this issue. You want me to agree with you and not contradict you. Better we just avoid the issue and not talk about it then.

You get my drift?