I am indeed shocked and outraged by Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s statement yesterday that Lim Guan Eng’s denying sexual harassment claims against his son (my grandson) was inadequate.
Let the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and every Cabinet Minister declare whether they agree with Muhyiddin or not – which will also be a measure of the quality of Cabinet Ministers Malaysians have.
The school principal concerned has denied that there was ever such an incident of sexual harassment involving my grandson. The Penang State Education Director Ahmad Tarmizi Kamaruddin also said yesterday that his department found no evidence to back the allegations in several blogs.
The alleged victim Anya Corke, who is a 21-year-old Woman Grand Chessmaster in her third year in Wellesley College in the United States have rubbished the allegation, as she had not been in Malaysia for seven years and does not know Guan Eng or my grandson.
Can Muhyiddin explain what is “inadequate” when there is the total and unequivocal denial and rebuttal of the most irresponsible, diabolical and devilish allegation which could be hurled against an innocent 16-year-old student solely for the accusers to score political points against Guan Eng?
Admitting that he did not have the information on the allegations, Muhyiddin said that in such matters, “if we want to clear this up, we ask the police to investigate. If it is true that it had never happened, what do you have to worry about?”
Is the Education Minister saying that he does not trust his own subordinates, whether the school principal concerned or the Penang State Education Director who have categorically denied such allegations?
Malaysians want to know whether Najib and all other Cabinets endorse or dissociate themselves from Muhyiddin’s perverted illogic.
As I said at the Sabah DAP State Convention in Penampang this morning, going by Muhyiddin’s perverted illogic, if blogs accuse the Sabah and Sarawak Chief Ministers of corruption by accummulating great wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income, Datuk Seri Musa Aman and Tan Sri Taib Mahmud should be lodging police reports to clear their names.
Similarly, if blogs accused Muhyiddin of abuse of power and corruption when he was Johore Mentri Besar, Muhyddin should be lodging police reports to allow for re-opening of full investigations to clear his name, going by his illogic of “If it is true that it had never happened, what do you have to worry about?”
Would Muhiyiddin dare to answer positively to both these questions?
However, I am very intrigued by the reasons and motives of Muhyiddin surfacing publicly to salvage the campaign of UMNO bloggers by trying to keep the issue alive, when the irresponsible and diabolical conspiracy to attack my grandson and Guan Eng has been exposed as a sheer lie and concoction.
As a responsible UMNO leader, Muhyiddin should have condemned the irresponsible and diabolical conspiracy of the UMNO blogs and cybertroopers by admittingthat they had concocted a downright lie against my grandson.
In trying to keep alive the lie against my grandson, it raises the question whether Muhyiddin had been involved in the diabolical conspiracy making use of the Umno blogs and cybertroops in the first place – whether Muhyiddin was one of the masterminds explaining why is trying to keep the issue alive with his belated intervention and perverse illogic.
Muhyiddin seems to have forgotten that he is also Education Minister who has responsibility to protect students under the Malaysia Child Act. By being party to such an irresponsible attack on my 16-year-old grandson, Muhyiddin has failed his first duty as Education Minister.
He is probably the only Education Minister in the world who has violated the Child’s Rights of students, whether the Malaysia Child Act 2001 or the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Children to ensure children and students a safe physical, emotional and mental environment.
Under such circumstances, is Muhyiddin fit to continue as Education Minister when he could violate a student’s child rights just to serve a blatant and dishonest political agenda?