What happened to Tunku Abdul Aziz?

When I read Tunku Abdul Aziz’s column in The New Sunday Times, I felt disgusted by his partial comments, especially coming from a past President of Transparency International (Malaysian Chapter). Surely, his message could have been more subtle, and certainly not to form an opinion as though it was as clear as daylight that everything was conclusive. It was as though, the article was written by another person! For someone of his stature and with his credentials, I would expect more objectivity from him, though he is entitled to his opinion like everyone else. It certainly reminded me of when Chandra Muzaffa appeared on national television and started criticizing Anwar and how it backfired at the last General Elections! I would like to see how Ezam fare standing against Anwar!

These days, we cannot be sure of what we have read, even with Statutory Declarations, let alone a newspaper article. It actually made me unsure of myself. Was it me, or my perception or what? I even commented in Malik Imtiaz’s blog post: Disquiet: Why Has Anwar Not Been Charged?
Excerpts of his post:

With all of this and more, the burning question for me is why is it that much drama later - from the highly publicized police report by the alleged victim to Anwar seeking refuge with the Turkish Ambassador to his medical examination – Anwar Ibrahim has as yet to be charged?Considering the extent of the insistence by the Government as to there having been a basis for all that has happened, most importantly the taking into custody of Anwar Ibrahim, and the tremendous publicity given to almost every dimension of the entire sordid affair, there would be enough for the Public Prosecutor (the Attorney General) to have preferred charges already.

As I would have expected, soon after, I came across Din Merican’s The Pathetic Gyrations of Tunku Abdul Aziz, which reassured me, that I am not alone in my disbelief.
Excerpts:
I am reminded of this Toynbeean insight by the arguments deployed in a column in the New Sunday Times (July 27, 2008 ) by Tunku Abdul Aziz, my friend from Bank Negara and Sime Darby days. I do not think I am flattering him if I hold the view that the Tunku belongs to society’s elite; his cultural background and lineage, education and career, particularly in their latter manifestations in Transparency International (Malaysian Chapter) and Special Advisor on Ethics to Mr. Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, all place him in the upper crust of Malaysian society.
So what he wrote on July 27 in the New Sunday Times comes as a fantastic and shocking surprise in its abandonment of the norms of democratic discourse you would think a man of Tunku Aziz’s credentials would find little difficulty in abiding.
Tunku Aziz in his column contends that Anwar has been playing this crisis with self-serving threatrics that constitute an infernal distraction to the legitimate duty of governance that behooves Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi.
Tunku Aziz describes as “preposterous” Anwar’s claim that the latest allegations of sodomy is “part of a diabolically clever plot” to stop him from becoming Prime Minister. How conveniently he forgot that at a public forum in Corus Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, in late September 2007, in the presence of Anwar Ibrahim and others, he commented on the Lingam video clip that the whole episode was reflective of the ethos that the end justifies the means. If that is the case, then today Anwar has every reason to be circumspect.
The sycophancy he displays undermines his reputation and credibility as an exponent of transparent governance and ethics. He does not belong in Toynbee’s creative elite because he has enlisted as a chorus boy for a corrupt and dysfunctional regime. In the end, what he writes now demeans his former selves in Transparency International and at the United Nations. He has become no less and no more than a poseur, the sort that can, at the drop of coin, switch sides with no compunction.