After 30 years of being a staunch
supporter and a think-tank for Parti Keadilan Rakyat's de facto leader
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Prof Datuk Dr Sidek Baba decided that he
should abandon Anwar's struggle.
Describing Anwar as a man who has
serious problems with morals and integrity, Sidek said people,
particularly leaders from Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim) and Pas,
should evaluate whether Anwar is indeed a fighter for Islam as he has
been portraying himself.
Speaking with a group of reporters,
Sidek also shared some details of his private session with former Prime
Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, where they spoke on a few sensitive
issues about Anwar.
During the interview, he shared things he had discussed in the meeting, why he left Anwar, and why Anwar should not be trusted.
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Q: Earlier
you said that you were meeting Tun just to be "enlightened" and to get
rid of uncertainties. Could you share with us what kind of
uncertainties?
A: Obviously
people were asking, why so late (in revealing this issue)? Why do you
want to make your appearance now? Was it because we're getting nearer to
the General Election? Obviously not.
I asked Tun when it was that he
realised this (Anwar's problem). He told me that he knew about this long
ago, but he did not simply trust the information he had been given.
Tun told me that he wouldn’t
just simply accept it without proper investigation because it was
probably just a plan to overthrow Anwar. Tun told me that he was serious
about stepping down (as the Prime Minister) and making Anwar his
successor.
But Tun told me that after
everything was clear, he decided that Anwar could not be the Prime
Minister because of this morality and credibility issue. Tun was worried
that Anwar as a Prime Minister might be an easy target for people
inside or outside the country should they know his dark secrets.
I asked the statesman about one
of the chapters in his famous book 'A Doctor In The House'. There was a
chapter where Tun revealed his secret meeting with four women who had
had relationships with Anwar. Tun told those women that they should tell
the truth and not be afraid. If we read that book we will know what it
was all about.
My question is, the statement
from the chapter was so damaging, but why didn't Anwar take legal action
against Tun or even dare to say anything about it?
I am a man with integrity. Even if someone accuses me of stealing a chicken, I will definitely file a suit against that person.
A leader should have integrity. That's why Tun said he wouldn't let a leader with integrity problems be his successor.
When we talked about the
economic crisis we had (1997-98), Tun told me that Anwar had tried to
bring in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but Tun did not let it
happen.
You see, Tun has very good
observations because he is a rational man. He determines something based
on facts, not emotion. Some might think a few decisions he made were
not popular.
For example, he told me about
the Baling Incident. Tun said it was impossible that people in the area
were suffering due to starvation. In Malaysia, it has always been our
culture to help people in need.
But due to that incident,
students held demonstrations. Tun said he was sad because most of the
students were Malays. They preferred to join demonstrations and
abandoned their studies. I knew this because (Datuk) Ibrahim Ali (Member
of Parliament for Pasir Mas) was Anwar's good friend, Tun's friend and
even my friend. I asked Ibrahim about this (the student demonstrations)
and he said he had been one of the hardcore demonstrators.
The point is, Tun's views remained unchallenged. I've asked people to debate and challenge his views and decisions.
Take the Baling crisis, for
example. It has to be debated so we can figure out where the proof is.
But people are quick to conclude that it was just a conspiracy. They
even said I was part of a conspiracy, they accused me of being bought.
But where is the proof?
Taking the second sodomy case,
for example, Anwar said the judge was tyrannical, that the case was done
in a kangaroo court. But why he was freed? Why is there no more talk
about it all being just a conspiracy?
I like to point out that we
should never insult someone's intellect. My friends have been open on
this because they are academicians. Academia teaches us how to judge the
pros and cons to find a conclusion.
Like I said earlier, I'm an
academician and I've been doing all these investigations by getting
accurate facts. And as a Muslim, I perform Istikharah.
Q: When you decided to
abandon Anwar and revealed those reasons why you left him, what did your
friends in Abim have to say about this, and what about your students?
A: Obviously I
have received mixed reactions. But I have the patience to deal with
conflicts of views. If he thinks I was wrong, or his opinion is against
mine, he can come and see me. (Probably) they did not know that Anwar
has been painting his image positively until these people just can't
accept the fact the he is not. Even Tun at first had positive thoughts
about Anwar.
For me to reveal my findings was
not easy. If people want to ask me about the truth, then I'll be more
than glad to welcome the person. But somehow some people decided to
attack me in social media. They were quick in making the perception that
I was wrong without even hearing my opinions first.
Is that the current trend of our
society? Bloggers for example should have the initiative to ask. There
might be something that I just can't reveal but I've done enough for
people to know. Be fair to me.
Speaking of students'
perceptions. A few higher education institutes like Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) invited
me earlier and even Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Mara) has invited me to give
talks all over the country. I will try to meet as many people as
possible to touch on this issue.
One thing that people should
know is that I don't have any intention to humiliate Anwar, but since
I'm a Muslim, I have been taught that we have to do everything we can to
prevent misconduct.
Some people said I have been
unfair to Anwar since he appointed my as deputy rector during his tenure
as Deputy Prime Minister. But the issue is the truth against lies. I
can't just zip my mouth if I know that something is wrong. Because I am answerable to Allah.
For the record, never once did I
accuse him of being involved in sodomy or free sex. All I said is, I've
done my research, I've figured out that he is a man with no
credibility. So I can't force myself to be with him. It is my right do
so and please be fair to me.
Q: We all
know that Anwar loves to debate with someone who is against him. What
will your decision be if he asks you to debate with him?
A: Obviously Anwar has the ability to debate. He has been a debater one since his time as a student leader. That was his specialty.
But if you ask me, debate for
what? Truth or just for the sake of twisting words? Let's talk about
(Prime Minister Datuk Seri) Najib (Tun Razak) for example. He likes to
give talks, but his talks have content.
When it comes to Anwar, all he
did was give rhetorical speeches, but zero on implementation. I also
used to debate, but to debate with someone like Anwar, it just won't
happen.
Q: There
was a controversy in Johor recently when Anwar's choice of candidate,
one of the Abim leaders, was not well-received by PKR grassroots
members. But it was said that there is a plan to parachute more Abim
leaders as PKR candidates for the upcoming GE. Any comment?
A: I'm trying
to be as non-partisan as possible, but based on my observations, I would
agree that there will be more Abim leaders in the political arena. This
somehow is different from during Anwar's tenure as the deputy Prime
Minister. During that time Abim was a non-partisan non-governmental
organisation (NGO).
Abim is a missionary body that
educates people about Islam. If someday Abim starts to have political
inclinations, what will happen to it in the longer term? I am an Abim
member and I always have that pride to be one. Because in Abim I had the
chance to be what I am today.
Some people may agree to disagree, its up to them. We can have different opinions but they must be underpinned by ethics.
I am different because I do
research. I conclude based on facts. When we talk about Anwar, there
will be strong protests by his hardcore supporters. If I can take the
effort to find these 28 people, why couldn't they do the same?
Yes, some information couldn't
be accepted, but we have the intellectual capcity needed to judge. Like I
said, I was educated by Abim to not make assumptions, but to
investigate to find the truth. Because that was what Abim was all about.
I still remember the days whe (Datuk Dr) Siddiq Fadzil was the
president of Abim and I was the secretary-general. We looked at things
Anwar did during his days in the government, and if we found out that he
did something that wass unacceptable, we criticised him in a proper
way.
When we're talking about Umno,
is it true that Umno rejects Islam? Recently I was involved in a meeting
about establishing a University of al-Quran in Malaysia. Is that
rejecting Islam? The university will give the chance for students to
expand their education in human sciences, humanity, technology,
pharmacy...is that not good for Islam? We can see Islamic-based banking
institutions, we have Takaful, we have Islamic bonds. Should this be
considered rejecting Islam? Are the teachings of Islam limited only to
ritual?
Let's look a simpler thing. We
have highways, and even complemented with rest and recreation (R&R)
areas. And not to be forgotten, places where Muslims can perform their
prayers. Is that non-Islamic? Is giving assistance to the poor people
against Islam's principles?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment