Social media narratives and the Yusoff Rawther case: Separating fact from agenda

So much content on social media reflects a particular agenda.

When an article comes from a politician, it must to be viewed within the context of the writer’s bias.

We have one former DAP member who now has nothing positive to say about his former party or the prime minister. He now campaigns for ethnic Indian community rights. This reflects his mindset.

He should mature and fight for the rights of all the people of Malaysia. Despite his education and qualifications, he remains imprisoned by an ethnic mindset, like many other politicians in Malaysia.

This approach only evokes negative emotions. Can we really pursue our own highest good without also promoting the good of others? A life based on narrow self-interest, however noble the intent, cannot be esteemed, by any honourable measurement.

Seeking the best in ourselves also requires actively caring for the welfare of other human beings. However, our human contact is perhaps with the few people from our own community or group with whom our affairs are mostly intertwined. On the other hand, sectarian groups, whether religious or ethnic, must be watched in today’s interdependent world.

Our circle of concern must extend beyond the boundaries of our ethnic group, and beyond the circle of the prominent, rich, educated and connected. It must extend to all our human brothers and sisters. Only in this way can we address the human challenges of poverty, inequality and the lack of basic needs so evident in society.

Doom-and-gloom merchants

Some social media content creators only see doom and gloom. Reading or viewing their contents gives you the sense that nothing good lies on the horizon. Malaysia seems doomed.

Some write or produce content to get hits. The more sensational their pieces, the greater the readership or viewership. This yields other benefits.

Yet it is their content that needs critical analysis. The unthinking mind is so easily swayed by negative news and blame, often moved by the plight of the victim.

Yet, as readers, we have all the time to ask the right questions. We can really dissect and discern the real agenda. We have all read about Yusoff Rawther painted as the victim in a case related to the current prime minister.

Who is Yusoff Rawther? This is an important question to probe. He seems well supported by online activists and opposition MPs. Are we being manipulated by his victimhood to attract sympathy and be blinded from the reality of his motives?

Recurring sodomy narrative

We are a nation where sodomy allegations form part of the political trash we live with.

We have a PM who has had enough of this challenge. How is it that he has survived? A first case led to a second. Remember the beds, mattresses and all forms of exhibits?

Then we heard of the case related to Azmin Ali in Sarawak. So much controversy and all very inconclusive.

Is this also a politically motivated suit? Is the PM so naive to make the same mistake again and again?

What is alleged is an incident that took place in 2018, nearly seven years ago. The statutory declaration was made by Yusoff Rawther only in December 2019, over a year later.

Why was there no immediate police report in 2018? Surely one would react immediately.

No immediate police action was taken, and it was only after political events changed that the plaintiff’s supporters saw in this a great opportunity.

But there were no charges and the case was closed by the Attorney General’s Chambers in 2020 after the matter was fully investigated.

The then attorney general (not appointed by Anwar Ibrahim) classified the case as ‘no further action’, citing insufficient evidence. Why is this now completely ignored? Are those championing respect for prosecutorial discretion and independence being selective in their criticism?

A civil suit was then initiated two years later in 2021. Those behind this move must have realised that the burden of proof was much lower and felt they had another opportunity for headlines. This would create further political damage to the prime minister. Some have described this as ‘reputation warfare’ by proxy.

Questions about jurisdiction and funding

For Pas and all the other opposition champions, another question remains. Why was the case not prosecuted under Sharia law and in the Sharia courts? Would there have been no case to answer?

Following the money trail often provides a good indication. Who is funding Yusoff Rawther is another important question to address and probe. One is made to believe that those promoting his cause are doing so in the name of justice, ‘pro bono’.

To have come this far legally would have cost the plaintiff several hundred thousand ringgit in legal fees and costs. The plaintiff, with his background and age, has to be able to afford this amount or alternatively can only be financed by those who perhaps have an agenda.

Given his age, qualifications and credibility, does he, having already been a criminal defendant, still have access to such financial resources?

Then there is the whole episode of alleged trafficking in drugs and possession of firearms. All this added much drama with Yusoff Rawther being held at the Sungai Buloh Prison.

The Attorney General’s Chambers, in declining to prosecute in 2020, noted “contradictions of material facts” in the alleged attempted modesty outrage case.

In Yusoff Rawther’s civil suit, a High Court judge said in May it was interesting that the plaintiff, not long ago, in this same case, had affirmed under oath in an affidavit saying that the information about his polygraph test was irrelevant and unnecessary.

We who witness this drama through our media have to ask how politically loaded this issue remains.

Justice or sabotage?

Is the case about justice or about sabotaging the prime minister and his “unity government”? Hit them where it hurts and destroy public perception about the personality of the PM and his anti-corruption agenda.

Just as the plaintiffs have their rights in a court of law, the same also applies to the defendant. It is only fair that constitutional questions are raised. If we believe in fairness and justice and have faith in the judiciary, then let the courts make their decisions.

It is not up to the media and the public to judge. But then, those with an agenda use all this towards ends they have in mind.

To ask the Federal Court under Article 128(2) of the Constitution whether a suit like this filed under these circumstances can proceed is a fair question.

Let the Federal Court make its judgment. We have a politically charged situation where the judiciary has to respond.

The PM should not be surprised as he has taken on grave challenges in questioning the wealth of key members of the elite, including Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the late Daim Zainuddin and several others.

Look at the opposition and the numerous corruption cases filed against several of them. They need power and only with power can they save their skins, possibly with “DNAAs” (discharges not amounting to acquittal) and live to tell their tales.

No one is perfect and while we lesser mortals may have a greater sense of self-awareness, the same cannot be said of our politicians who fill public spaces with their egos

The bigger picture

“No one can be right in one department of life while doing wrong simultaneously in many other areas,” remarked a spiritual leader.

Why not catch the PM on corruption, money laundering, cheating and other sins of repute and charge him, if there is any evidence. Why is this not possible?

Using the same sordid story only reveals an agenda, a man of allegedly one weakness, all aimed at damaging his standing as an Islamic leader.

Look at the ranks of the opposition and recent past prime ministers. We hear tales of money and corruption committed by not only some of them but also their family members and close associates.

Our options are limited. There is turmoil within PKR and this the PM has to handle. All this is part of being a politician, and one does not envy the PM who has to also moderate a coalition government.

I am glad that two PKR stalwarts resigned when they lost support within the party – unlike what happens in Umno. This is a good ethical standard to impress in politics.

Ultimately, it is a question of the cause one wants to take up. Defend the victim Yusoff Rawther or consider the merits of the case.

I stand unconvinced by all his allegations and my agenda, if any, is that controversies like this should not take up our time when there are more serious issues to consider.

K HaridasCo-editor, Aliran newsletter14 July 2025

...