COMMENT Malaysia's decision to send back a military attache who was accused of a sexual crime in New Zealand during his tenure there has effectively ended the controversy over the matter.
Malaysia has rightfully been commended for doing the "right thing" and thus all that is left is for New Zealand authorities to put Muhammad Rizalman Ismail on trial over charges that he had committed burglary and sexual assault with intention to rape a 21-year-old woman in Wellington.
However, despite the government's announcement of its decision to send Rizalman back, there are plenty of questions that neither the Malaysian nor the New Zealand governments have satisfactorily answered.
Rizalman was arrested on May 9, and subsequently brought back to Malaysia on May 22. Why did it take more than a month before reports about Rizalman started surfacing in the Kiwi media?
What triggered the sudden interest in him, even though Rizalman had been back home for over a month before the issue cropped up? Would both governments have acted as swiftly to solve this problem if the entire diplomatic bungle had flown under the media radar?
While Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said that Malaysia had always been prepared to waive immunity in Rizalman's case, official communications showed that the Malaysian High Commission had flatly refused to do so.
Has someone failed to brief Anifah the full story? Who from the commission made the decision not to waive immunity, which wascommunicated officially to New Zealand on May 21 - the day before Rizalman was sent home?
It remains unknown whether Malaysian officials ever expressed their readiness to waive immunity even in their "informal" and "ambiguous" conversations with New Zealand authorities.
This is a question that has not been answered till today - even after the Kiwis unprecedentedly released official communications between the two countries over the affair.
Hours after the documents were made public, New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully tried to do some damage control, saying that Malaysia had acted in "good faith", but he did not touch on the contradictions surrounding the immunity waiver.
There already have been pressing calls for someone from the New Zealand side to take responsibility for this diplomatic bungle.
Serious diplomatic fallout
Both governments have obviously made mistakes in dealing with the scandal. But while statements of regrets have been streaming in from the Kiwi side, it remains unclear whether Malaysian diplomats had acted on their own accord or on instructions from the higher-ups.
Perhaps those who decided to bring back Rizalman to Malaysia, and also decided that immunity need not be waived, did not anticipate the kind of diplomatic fallout their actions could cause.
Indeed, under whose advice did they request the Kiwi authorities to drop all charges against Rizalman?
The Malaysian government initially was steadfast that Rizalman would face justice locally before a military court. Was this the plan all along, which eventually petered out due to international pressure, or was it an afterthought?
Could justice be really served in Malaysia when circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies are all in New Zealand? Did Malaysian authorities expect the victim to come to Malaysia to give her testimony?
If the board of enquiry set up by Malaysia was going to use evidence and reports produced by the Kiwi police to make its decision, why the need to bring him back in the first place?
Above all, what was Rizalman doing in the past one month? And when was the inquiry board set up? When were the psychiatric tests on Rizalman, said to done by Malaysian officials, conducted? And does it actually take more than a month for his state of mind to be evaluated?
The government has vowed not to sweep anything under the carpet. But there are plenty of questions that need answering before the government can be seen as transparent on this matter.
With answers come the need for accountability, but that is a culture that we strangely lack in the country’s administration.
RAM ANAND is a member of the Malaysiakini team.
Malaysia has rightfully been commended for doing the "right thing" and thus all that is left is for New Zealand authorities to put Muhammad Rizalman Ismail on trial over charges that he had committed burglary and sexual assault with intention to rape a 21-year-old woman in Wellington.
However, despite the government's announcement of its decision to send Rizalman back, there are plenty of questions that neither the Malaysian nor the New Zealand governments have satisfactorily answered.
Rizalman was arrested on May 9, and subsequently brought back to Malaysia on May 22. Why did it take more than a month before reports about Rizalman started surfacing in the Kiwi media?
What triggered the sudden interest in him, even though Rizalman had been back home for over a month before the issue cropped up? Would both governments have acted as swiftly to solve this problem if the entire diplomatic bungle had flown under the media radar?While Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said that Malaysia had always been prepared to waive immunity in Rizalman's case, official communications showed that the Malaysian High Commission had flatly refused to do so.
Has someone failed to brief Anifah the full story? Who from the commission made the decision not to waive immunity, which wascommunicated officially to New Zealand on May 21 - the day before Rizalman was sent home?
It remains unknown whether Malaysian officials ever expressed their readiness to waive immunity even in their "informal" and "ambiguous" conversations with New Zealand authorities.
This is a question that has not been answered till today - even after the Kiwis unprecedentedly released official communications between the two countries over the affair.
Hours after the documents were made public, New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully tried to do some damage control, saying that Malaysia had acted in "good faith", but he did not touch on the contradictions surrounding the immunity waiver.
There already have been pressing calls for someone from the New Zealand side to take responsibility for this diplomatic bungle.
Serious diplomatic fallout
Both governments have obviously made mistakes in dealing with the scandal. But while statements of regrets have been streaming in from the Kiwi side, it remains unclear whether Malaysian diplomats had acted on their own accord or on instructions from the higher-ups.
Perhaps those who decided to bring back Rizalman to Malaysia, and also decided that immunity need not be waived, did not anticipate the kind of diplomatic fallout their actions could cause.
Indeed, under whose advice did they request the Kiwi authorities to drop all charges against Rizalman?
The Malaysian government initially was steadfast that Rizalman would face justice locally before a military court. Was this the plan all along, which eventually petered out due to international pressure, or was it an afterthought?
Could justice be really served in Malaysia when circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies are all in New Zealand? Did Malaysian authorities expect the victim to come to Malaysia to give her testimony?
If the board of enquiry set up by Malaysia was going to use evidence and reports produced by the Kiwi police to make its decision, why the need to bring him back in the first place?
Above all, what was Rizalman doing in the past one month? And when was the inquiry board set up? When were the psychiatric tests on Rizalman, said to done by Malaysian officials, conducted? And does it actually take more than a month for his state of mind to be evaluated?
The government has vowed not to sweep anything under the carpet. But there are plenty of questions that need answering before the government can be seen as transparent on this matter.
With answers come the need for accountability, but that is a culture that we strangely lack in the country’s administration.
RAM ANAND is a member of the Malaysiakini team.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.