Why not? After all, accusing Khairy J of the various things he’s alleged to have done remain innuendos unless proven with solid, irrefutable evidence, right (1)? Perhaps I should take my own advice sometimes; incidental links between this event and that personage does not a verifiable chain of events make.
Suspicion, of course, is easily dispelled by the quality of the answers, and the quality of the facts put forth. I suppose that was what PM Badawi proposed to do with his ‘live’ interview. Then again, there are answers, and then there are outright refutations by demonstration. And if anything, PM Badawi’s demonstrated that he can answer questions without really answering any of them.
Take the question of building the bridge, for instance. According to Syed Hamid, the bridge project was pulled because, as a matter of quid pro quo, Singapore demanded that Malaysia agree to the sale of sand to Singapore, and to re-establish access to Malaysian airspace.
Well, of course, if it’s a question of sovereignty then we can’t really say anything. The question that remains unanswered, to my mind, is why the hell did negotiations cease at that seeming impasse?
Was Syed Hamid negotiating or playing footsie?
And if Mahathir is right, if negotiations were not based on a package of initiatives, then what compelling reason was there to treat this ‘demand of sand and airspace’ as an impasse in the first place? Perhaps I’m missing the finer points of diplomatic wheeling and dealing, but heck, I’m an ordinary citizen, and Syed Hamid’s answers make absolutely no sense.
It’s answers to the above sorts of questions that are required. Rumours and innuendos are dispelled by facts, not by vacuous declarations. It doesn’t help, however, when Najib demands that Mahathir present his own set of facts on the bridge issue. Those facts lie with the government, and not with Mahathir.
There must, however, be parity: the burden of proof lies with the accuser, and that is fair. If Mahathir doesn’t present anything solid and meaty, then his accusations are vacuous as well. The downside is, if Mahathir doesn’t have anything beyond opinion, then the general public may never know the whole, unadulterated truth of the matter. Mahathir needs a killer stroke, he needs to blow the covers off the naked truth.
Or else his reticence with evidence will engender the sort of counter-conspiracy that Khairy J’s come up with:
As the biggest party in Malaysia, it is easy for confusion to reign among members, especially when there are many agents of discord within and without. Some of these agents are party members and some of them have even held some official position at some level of the political hierarchy. But all of them share one thing in common: They are political mercenaries who are only interested in character assassination.(2)
And Khairy J knows this, he even recognizes that facts and sound logic work best to dispel lies (3). What we’ve not had, however, is as I’ve mentioned: the requisite quality of facts and answers. And as long as these facts and answers are not forthcoming from both sides of the Mahathir/Badawi divide for whatever reasons or interests at stake, the conspiracy theories we Malaysians are so enamoured with will continue to flourish.