Dear Thomas Fann, Chairperson of BERSIH,

We are no strangers to each other. Why didn’t you call directly to ask about my speech at the UMNO gathering last Saturday? After all, we have had a respectful professional working relationship for months on the Anti-Party Hopping Law and I gladly accepted Bersih’s invitation to co-chair the Caucus on Reform Agenda. I would have thought that our relationship transcended the political realm, and I would have appreciated a call from you as a colleague, or even as a friend.

Anyway, since you have made a public statement to express your disappointment in me, I thought that perhaps I should also make a public statement to clarify a few things, just in case you’ve deduced your conclusions based on headlines regarding my speech (like most people do).

I am the same Azalina that you’ve had countless discussions in public forums with. A former law practitioner since 1990, and a lawmaker since 2004, I would be the last to condone any intervention of the judiciary by the executive or legislature. In my speech and thoughts, I merely held dear to the maxim of “innocent until proven guilty” as a basic rule of natural justice. The legal burden of proof falls on the prosecution to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt, and I believe that denial of a change of legal representation is consequential, in delivering absolute justice. This applies in all cases, including at the appellate courts. Did I ask for Najib to be freed? The answer is a clear NO.

I was asked to speak at last Saturday’s gathering as the legal advisor to Barisan Nasional and as the MP for Pengerang. My short circa 10-minute speech highlighted only a few things. The crux of it was to raise the legal right of a citizen of Malaysia to appeal in the court of law. Every man and woman has the right to a defence and the right to adduce new evidence. Let’s not forget that the prosecution represents the Government of Malaysia, and therefore Najib’s appeal is technically objected to by the government. The AG is the counsel to the government and therefore is the only person who can support any application.

You accused me of changing my stance on the AG appointment since Ismail Sabri became PM9 and compared it to my statement during Muhyiddin’s tenure as PM8. When I said “orang dia” in my speech last Saturday, it had NOTHING to do with my dearly held stand on the separation of powers between the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature, as well as the separation of AG and Public Prosecutor.

My stand on the separation of the AG is 2-pronged:

i) A political/ministerial AG who sits in the Cabinet and attends to and is accountable to Parliament, thus answerable to all lawmakers on every decision that he makes and advice he gives to the government, and

ii) A professional public prosecutor like in the UK where he is a senior career prosecutor, and not a political appointee, from the rank and file of the prosecution authority.

Perhaps you missed the point that when I said “orang dia”, it meant putting the political/ministerial AG in Parliament as I have REPEATEDLY said in the past, especially during the imposition of Emergency during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Wouldn’t having a political/ministerial AG appointed by the Prime Minister mean increased transparency and accountability of the Executive? By the way, Article 145 as of now does not prohibit the AG to be a Law Minister or vice versa, who sits in the Cabinet. This is the scheme of arrangement, in countries spanning from Australia to the UK, and to Canada. I would also like to remind you and the readers here that our nation had two political/ministerial AGs in the past, in the form of Abdul Kadir Yusof and Hamzah Abu Samah, with Umno heritage no less. It didn’t cause any hysteria as it would today.

Wouldn’t having an accountable political/ministerial AG in Parliament expedite the reform agenda? Many laws could be amended ASAP, to address issues on human rights, citizenship and electoral law reform, including Constitutional amendments without being contingent on the AGC which at present is headed by an AG who is not a member of either House of Parliament.

Is Bersih jumping the gun, or does Bersih in demanding for the split in the role of AG and Public Prosecutor as part of the reform agenda not realise what it has demanded?

My question to you is if the Reform Caucus succeeds in bringing reform to separate the AG post, and then the PM decides to appoint a political/ministerial AG in parliament from the ruling party, would Bersih then object to this decision? Especially if the appointment carried Umno’s DNA? Sadly, everyone thinks that a new AG appointee will be manipulated to drop criminal charges against its members or pardon them of all charges. That is not my intention, nor is it the intention of the Special Meeting held last Saturday. Watch the speeches again for verification, please.

Stand on AG, a dissonance?

Okay, let’s address the biggest elephant in the room. In my speech, did I ask the AG to be removed to free Najib? Didn’t Anwar receive his pardon and get released within 7 days of PH securing victory in GE14? Or when Tommy Thomas was appointed as AG, wasn’t he “Orang PH”?

Did you just move the goalpost? Pakatan Harapan’s PM changed the AG and so did Perikatan Nasional’s PM, but a PM from Umno/Barisan Nasional cannot change or replace the AG? Double standards, I reckon.

On to my next point. Shouldn’t Bersih uphold the principle of “Every latitude must be given to an accused person to defend his case or himself”?

Lastly, the special meeting last Saturday was an Umno solidarity rally among Umno members, in Umno’s Dewan Merdeka. At the highest level, Umno does not have a mob mentality. We didn’t take to the streets and cause inconveniences to members of the public.

So Thomas, I really hope that this is a case of “both sides being so blinded by their fear and hate of each other that they couldn’t see they were fighting for the same thing.”

Yours sincerely,

Azalina Othman Said,

MP Pengerang.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.