What exactly was Zahid trying to say? – TK Chua

Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was reported to have said that if he had revealed the stack of letters signed by previous home ministers to the United States, they would have suffered great shame. But he had chosen not to do it, preferring to bear the embarrassment alone because of his recent letter to the FBI.

With due respect to the home minister, I think his statement is just so bizarre and illogical. There are so many implications we can draw from his statement.

First he was implying that letters by previous home ministers could be detrimental to national interests or “improper” from ethical point of view.  Otherwise, how could these letters shame to the previous ministers? In fact, with this revelation, it is now incumbent upon the present home minister to disclose the “shameful” letters.

After all, these are not personal letters but official letters of government.  Surely putting the ministers to shame could mean many things – perhaps the strategic interests of Malaysia were compromised; perhaps there were elements of “trade off”, or perhaps the previous ministers were protecting certain individuals at the expense of Malaysia's national interests or security.

There are in fact many other possibilities to speculate on.  Isn’t the present home minister duty bound to disclose these letters?

 Second, is he "justifying" his much criticised letter to the FBI?  I don’t know, it sounds like if previous home ministers have done the “shameful” things, surely his letter to FBI was not so bad. 

As a member of the cabinet, I don't think it is acceptable to argue in this manner.  He was effectively saying he can do wrong because ministers before him have probably done things worse than him. 

Third, by accusing the previous home ministers, I think Zahid was also alluding to his own embarrassment. But why is he feeling embarrassed? No one has any evidence (as far as I know) to say that he has profited from that letter to the FBI. No one is saying unambiguously that he was trying to help his friend. No one is specifically accusing him of compromising national security. 

There is no need to feel embarrassed if no wrong was committed. All he needs to do is to explain why that particular person has attracted his attention. What was the rationale of that letter? What strategic interest would the letter serve? I am not asking the minister to disclose national secrets. Just tell us the broad justification, the principle and the rationale involved.

* TK Chua reads The Malaysian Insider.