What’s wrong with Najib’s defence?
Actually, Najib has been quite a gentleman. He took the stand to testify and did not try to brush the whole thing away as a political conspiracy — like how many others have. What he says on the stand is his right under the law. So, we cannot whack Najib just because he is not saying what we would have preferred to hear him say.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
I have noticed that some people are upset with Najib Tun Razak’s testimony in his SRC International trial. Some call it “buat bodoh” and some call it “finger-pointing”, etc.
What these people fail to understand is, under the law, Najib is entitled to any line of defence he so chooses. He can say God spoke to him and inspired him or that aliens abducted him and performed brain surgery on him or whatever. Whether the judge believes Najib’s story or not is another matter but it is within his right to tell the court his version of events.
Can Najib prove what he is saying? He does not need to prove what he is saying. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Najib only needs to raise a doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to him. That is the law.
So never mind what Najib testifies. Whatever it is he is saying it is within his right to say it. That is how it works. So why whack him for testifying? Or why whack him for what he says in his testimony? Do you want him to say only what you want to hear? You do not like him to say the opposite of what you want to hear?
Susahlah macam ini! It is like since you believe that Jesus is the son of God you want me to say that Jesus is the son of God even though the Qur’an disputes this notion. Cannot lah like that! I have to say what I believe and not say what you believe. (Itu bagi contoh saja).
Najib is one of those rare people who actually took the stand to testify and did not try to use “political conspiracy” as his line of defence
Anyway, since 2015 many people have been whacking Najib for what they allege is his silence. For four years they have been demanding that Najib speak up and explain himself. Well, now Najib is doing that but when he does they whack him for speaking up.
So, what is it that they want? Do they want Najib to keep quiet? Or do they want Najib to speak up? Or do they Najib to just say what they want to hear regardless of whether it is true or not?
Not easy to please Malaysians, right?
Najib actually has three options. He can choose not to testify. He can issue his statement from the dock, in which case he cannot be cross-examined. Or he can take the stand and testify, which means he can be cross-examined (which is riskier if you are guilty).
Tommy Thomas needs to prove Najib’s guilt beyond any shadow of doubt
The fact that Najib chose to testify is actually very good. Many other people who faced trial have refused to testify. Some have even issued statements from the dock and escaped being cross-examined. And, more importantly, Najib has not used the common line of defence that others have used: which is that he is a victim of an evil and foul political conspiracy.
Actually, Najib has been quite a gentleman. He took the stand to testify and did not try to brush the whole thing away as a political conspiracy — like how many others have. What he says on the stand is his right under the law. So, we cannot whack Najib just because he is not saying what we would have preferred to hear him say.
