A question has been posed as to the ethical/legal implications of Maumoon's continued involvement in politics. The AG has gone so far as to say “No democratic country allows financial privileges granted to former presidents to be used for political purposes.”
That is a hilarious statement to make considering the self-indictment for utter stupidity. If the AG were keeping up with current affairs he would know about the extent of Bill Clinton's involvement in his wife's campaign. This is what was hinted in the last post, but one reader has failed to understand the obvious interrelation.
The question is, did Bill Clinton refuse to use tax-payer funds for office premises? The answer is no. President Clinton did indeed use state funds to rent an office space with an annual rent of USD 354,000. No one questioned his dedication towards the US when he signed up as 'campaigner-in-chief' for Senator Clinton's campaign.
If the AG prefers a lesser democracy akin to Maldives, then consider Malaysia's Dr. Mahathir's love-hate political stance with regards to Datuk Najib's ascension.
The AG's obsession over the former president brings into question his objectivity and his political motivations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
AG is biased, should take him to anti-corruption if that hasnt been dissolved.
AG is a 'he'? When did that happen?
There are two AGs:
Auditor General (a he. honorable Naeem)
Attorney General (a she. the wonderful Diana Said)
Shaafiee,
What exactly are you implying? Gayoom is leader of his party and active in politics. Mr. Clinton is a retired former president. How can you compare the two?
On what basis have you assumed that Mr. Clinton used state funded privileges for Mrs. Clinton's campaign?
Can anyone please attain confirmation of the office of the ex-president being involved in the parliamentary campaign?
Post a Comment