If not Anwar, then who?

FMT - Anwar never planned to unseat Mahathir, Azmin tells court (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR: Anwar Ibrahim never had the intention of toppling Dr Mahathir Mohamad as Umno president some 20 years ago, the High Court was told today.

Anwar’s former private secretary Mohamed Azmin Ali said, instead, it was Anwar’s political enemies who hatched plans to remove his former boss from the party and government.

“Anwar’s political opponents were unhappy with his meteoric rise in politics and his quest to bring about change.

“They wanted to remove him to achieve their own agenda,” Azmin said when testifying for Anwar who has filed a RM100 million defamation suit against Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin.

Azmin, who is now Selangor Menter Besar, said Anwar never harboured the idea of challenging Mahathir for the top post during meetings with his (Anwar) political think-tanks.

He said Anwar had always regarded Mahathir as a fatherly figure and as the person who developed the country.

Do you believe Azmin, considering he is NOW allied to Mahathir and Pribumi (PPBM), and purportedly so NOW is Anwar too (ie. allied to Mahathir)?

Let's examine who would be the best person to tell us if Anwar had in 1998 wanted to topple Mahathir in order to become PM of Malaysia.

Nearly two decades ago, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was UMNO Youth Chief and the ally of (then DPM) Anwar Ibrahim.

He (Ahmad Zahid) was touted as the vanguard to oust Dr Mahathir out from the PM position well ahead of schedule (ie. Mahathir's planned and then-abandoned plan to retire), by voicing allegations of the PM Mahathir’s cronyism and nepotism. On June 1998, The New York Times ( NYT ) reported in its World Business page:

In what was seen as a jab at Mr Mahathir’s 17-year leadership, the head of Umno’s youth wing, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, had called for an end to cronyism and nepotism during a speech to delegates.

“Why were big loans to big businessmen approved so easily when small guys had to wait so long to get a loan of RM50,000?” (US$12,500) Mr Ahmad Zahid asked.

The NYT also reported that the PM (Mahathir then) responded to Zahid’s allegation the next day by posting hundreds of names of people who have won government projects in recent years, a list which included his accuser, Zahid.

Subsequently, Zahid’s superior survival skills [wakakaka] had him confessing that Anwar was the person who instructed him to attack Dr Mahathir with allegations of cronyism and nepotism.

'twas anwar, not innocent me
wakakaka 

The New Straits Times (June 19, 1999) informed us that Zahid finished his confessional by apologising to the then PM, and with a flamboyant flourish, acknowledged Dr Mahathir’s rebuke of him as a father-to-son advice.

Though many (at that time) wondered whether Mahathir was repulsed, revolted and repelled by Zahid’s smarmy volte-face, considering he was Anwar Ibrahim’s vanguard in that intra-party power manoeuvre, or was instead somewhat mollified by Zahid's bodek-speak, as Mahathir was known to appreciate 'due repentance', wakakaka, by UMNO blokes who attempted to rebel against him.

But doesn’t that make Zahid a far more credible (if even that adjective can be applied to him, wakakaka) witness than Azmin Ali as to whether Anwar Ibrahim had in 1998 wanted to depose Mahathir?

I have to admit I love the convoluted, complex and catawampus ‘treachery’ among Umno leadership aspirants. Niccolò Machiavelli would be enraptured with their intricate chicanery. Oh, that fabled Malay loyalty! Wakakaka.

But let's get back on track. Let's ask Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to confirm whether indeed it was Anwar who had in 1989 instructed him to attack Dr Mahathir with allegations of cronyism and nepotism. Wakakaka.