Six options for Ministers to prove that they are  a Cabinet of model Malaysian patriots and leaders and not just a coterie of self-seeking politicians who cannot put national interests above personal and/or party interests

All eyes are on the first Cabinet meeting today after the Wall Street Journal report making unprecedented and ground-shaking allegation of embezzlement against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak when it reported last Friday that Malaysian government investigators have found almost US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) of 1MDB’s funds had been deposited into Najib’s personal accounts.

Today’s Cabinet meeting is a test for all the Ministers, whether they are  model Malaysian  patriots and leaders who will always put national interests above party and/or personal interests or whether they are just a coterie of self-seeking politicians who are not prepared to take a public and patriotic  stand on the great issues of the day.

And the greatest issue of the day is undoubtedly the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, the WSJ allegation of embezzlement and Prime Ministerial misconduct and Najib’s failure after five long days, in an information age of 24/7 communication of information, to categorically clear himself of impropriety by declaring two simple things: (I) that it is untrue that some US$700 million (RM2.6 bilion) had been deposited into his personal bank accounts; and (ii) that he has no  personal bank accounts in AmBank.

Yesterday’s announcement that the special task force of the quartet of investigating agencies (Bank Negara Malaysia,  Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Royal Malaysian Police and Attorney-General’s Chambers) into 1MDB and the allegation that RM2.6 billion of 1MDB funds had been transferred into Najib’s personal accounts, had frozen six bank accounts, three of them believed to belong to the Prime Minister, has cast a completely new complexion on the biggest Prime Ministerial crisis in the nation’s history.

Is the noose which the Wall Street Journal report had thrown around Najib’s neck getting tighter?

And if the noose for Najib is getting tighter, it is also getting tighter for the Cabinet Ministers as well, and the Cabinet meeting today is the  last opportunity for the Ministers  to acquit themselves as  honourable, upright and patriotic Malaysians for the annals  of Malaysian history.

There are six honourable and patriotic options open to the Cabinet today to prove that the Ministers are Malaysian patriots and  leaders who are prepared to put national interests above personal and/or party interests.

Firstly, to demand that Najib make a clean breast to the Cabinet and nation of his role in the 1MDB scandal, as he is in law and fact, the final approving authority for 1MDB deals not only as Prime Minister and Finance Minister but also under Clause 117  of the 1MDB Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A).

Most important of all, Najib must declare to the Cabinet and nation whether he could deny categorically that some US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) had  been deposited into his personal accounts in AmBank and to declare whether he had any personal accounts in his name in AmBank, and if so, to reveal their identities.

If some RM2.4 billion had been deposited into his personal accounts, then Najib should also explain where these colossal sums of money have now gone to.

Secondly, to ask Najib to explain to Cabinet and nation whether he is aware that the WSJ report “Investigators Believe Money Flowed to Malaysian Leaders’ Accounts Amid 1MDB Probe” was based on the government probe into 1MDB by BNM, MACC, RMP and AGC,  to state when  the report of the government probe finding that almost US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) of 1MDB’s funds had been deposited into his personal accounts had been presented to him, and what actions he had taken.

Thirdly, to declassify and make public the interim report of the Auditor-General on the 1MDB which will be presented to the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee tomorrow, to demonstrate that the National Transformation Programme principles and objectives of accountability, transparency and good governance are not empty slogans but living  operational principles of the Najib premiership.

Fourthly, to approve the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry with unfettered powers to inquire into all aspects of 1MDB, and to demonstrate that both the government and the Prime Minister have nothing hide and are not afraid of the most thorough inquiry, to appoint the strongest critics of 1MDB ventures as Commissioners – with the RCI headed by Tun Mahathir and  Commissioners including DAP MP for PJ Utara Tony Pua and PKR MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli.

Fifthly, to ask Najib to go on leave as Prime Minister  for three months which should be the time frame for the RCI into 1MDB to submit its report and findings.

If the Cabinet is unable to secure these five decisions, then Ministers, as honourable and patriotic Malaysians, have one final option left – which is to collectively resign as Cabinet Ministers to dissociate themselves from such  irresponsible, opaque and unaccountable management of massive public funds and even more important, to set high standards of trust,  integrity and good governance for all holders of public office for now and  the future.

The ball is in the court of the Cabinet Ministers later today.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 July 2015, 8:09 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Yes, Prime Minister, you must sue!

 — P Ramakrishnan

The Malay Mail Online

July 7, 2015

JULY 7 — Mere denials do not establish one’s innocence. Evidence must be established to dispel and nail false accusations and unfair allegations.

Unfortunately, denials are the only form of defence resorted to by people who are put on the spot whenever they are accused of corruption. They fail to understand that mere denials do not clear their name or safeguard their reputation.

This is something the Prime Minister must be mindful of. So must his coterie of supporters who mindlessly come to his rescue by denying and condemning others without any solid evidence to convince Malaysians that there is no shred of truth in what was claimed.

In his Facebook page, the Prime Minister wrote, “Let me be very clear: I have never taken funds for personal gain as alleged by my political opponents — whether from 1MDB, SRC International or other entities, as these companies have confirmed.”

We do not wish to contradict the Prime Minister. But it would have served his cause well if he had addressed the glaring questions staring at him and crying for honest answers.

It would have been helpful if he had, for example, commented on the private accounts that had been attributed to him in AmIslamic Bank Bhd in Kuala Lumpur into which billions of ringgit had been paid into.

1. These refer to the following account numbers quoted by the Wall Street Journal:

(a) Account number 2112022011880 (AmPrivate Banking) was quoted by WSJ as belonging to “Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak” at AmIslamic Bank in Kuala Lumpur;

(b) Account number 2112022011906 (AmPrivate Banking) was mentioned by WSJ as also belonging to “Dato’Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak” at AmIslamic Bank; and

(c) Account number 2112022009694 (AmPrivate Banking) is yet another account registered in the name of “Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj (sic) And Razak” at AmIslamic Bank in Malaysia;

Mr Prime Minister, are these your personal accounts? And do the names identified with these accounts refer to you?

If you had simply said that these were not your personal accounts and the names associated with these accounts do no refer to you — that would have carried great weight in support of your innocence. Regrettably, you did not say that!

2. It has been stated that RM2.6bn had been paid into these personal accounts. You could have simply stated that this money was not paid into your personal account. Regrettably, you did not say that!

3. Malaysians are wondering if any money was paid into your accounts at all. If none had been paid into your personal account, you could have honestly said that no money was paid into your personal account at any time. Regrettably, you did not say that!

4. It is a mystery as to what had happened to this vast sum of money paid into these accounts. How was it disbursed and how was it spent? Where did this money go to? Who were the beneficiaries? Regrettably, you did not say that you had no knowledge of it.

5. People tend to believe that there can be no smoke without fire! And as long as you do not address the specific issues raised above, people will remain sceptical and cast doubt over the wishy-washy explanations provided so far.

You have threatened to sue the WSJ. But it must not be a mere threat. You must really sue the WSJ to prove your innocence.

You must immediately send a legal notice demanding that the WSJ must immediately retract their false claims and apologise to you. This will be a clear indication to the public that you are serious in defending your integrity.

Yes, Prime Minister, you must sue the WSJ. You have no other option!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 July 2015, 5:37 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


3 questions for new Cabinet

Rama Ramanathan

The Malaysian Insider

9 July 2015

Because of 1Malayisa Development Bhd (1MDB), Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak must soon vacate his position. His successor will replace the Cabinet. What should we look for in the new Cabinet?

Of the many facts about 1MDB, I consider three to be especially pertinent: (1) the only money 1MDB ever had was borrowed – mainly from banks and partly from government agencies; (2) most of 1MDB’s profit is from revaluation of assets; (3) 1MDB overpaid for some assets.

I’ll consider each in turn.

First, banks will not lend without a pledge or a guarantor. To borrow RM900, you must pledge an asset worth at least RM1,000 – that’s “90% financing” – for a low-risk venture. Higher-risk ventures attract lower financing, e.g. 60%, though you must pledge the whole asset to the bank.

If you can’t pledge assets sufficient to cover the loan, you must provide a guarantor. If you miss repayments, the bank will collect from your guarantor.

Since 1MDB was established without any assets, and since Najib chairs its advisory board, it’s not hard to believe that 1MDB’s loans are guaranteed by the government.

That’s because bankers will only approve a loan if they have documentary proof that the loan and the interest can be recovered. They want to avoid being whipped by their internal auditors, external auditors, shareholders and Bank Negara. They want to avoid losing their jobs. (Except for Bank Negara, no bankers are suspected of wrongdoing around 1MDB.)

It’s been reported that 1MDB has RM42 billion in debts and owns RM51.4 billion in assets. If that’s true, and if 1MDB can make repayments, there are no financial losses. The only question that would arise is “how could the government be guarantor for 1MDB?”

However, 1MDB struggles to make payments. It has asked for extensions of time to pay. In February, it even borrowed money in order to pay Maybank and RHB.

So, on what basis could the government have agreed to be guarantor for 1MDB? Who signed the guarantees? What checks and balances were missing or failed? Who are the people who practised trickery to achieve a political, financial, or legal purpose?

That brings me to the second fact: 1MDB’s profits are mainly from revaluation of assets.

The best known example of revaluation by 1MDB is of land designated for the Tun Razak Exchange. 1MDB bought the land from the government in 2010, for RM191 million. Four years later, the land had been revalued to RM6.2 billion.

The RM6 billion “profit” wasn’t real money, so it couldn’t be used to make repayments. The land was revalued so it could be pledged to borrow more money.

Why should the revaluation “gain” go to 1MDB – with a huge cut to its directors, managers and brokers – instead of to all Malaysians?

What kind of political culture allowed 1MDB to happen?

Undervaluing assets to justify buying for peanuts, then revaluing and selling for coconuts is standard operating procedure in our government-owned agencies and in regime-linked companies. Just look at the properties owned by MCA, MIC and Umno.

Why would 1MDB (or similar) bother to earn profit through the hard toil of innovation and improvement when it’s so easy to profit through cronyism like other government-owned companies?

Malaysians are used to the sale of assets owned by all Malaysians to benefit select Malaysians such as the unit holders of Amanah Saham Nasional. Lending agencies like the EPF probably said “we should get a cut of 1MDB’s cut” when they discussed lending money to 1MDB.

The third fact is that 1MDB overpaid for some assets. For instance, in its accounts 1MDB took a write-down of more than a billion ringgit for power generation assets it had bought from Genting.

Overpaying is normal when procurement is not based on open tenders, when decisions are made for political rather than economic reasons and when the prime minister is also finance minister.

Under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tan Sri Ani Arope, that honourable man who was boss of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), relinquished his job rather than agree to buy electricity from IPPs (independent power producers) at exorbitant rates.

TNB, a government-controlled company with expertise in power generation, wasn’t even involved in IPP negotiations with the EPU (Economic Planning Unit).

The chicanery around 1MDB was made possible by the culture entrenched by Dr Mahathir. The cabinet then, as now, accepts and promotes a culture of concentration of power. This includes a massive cabinet whose members are blind to their failures, a prime minister who is also finance minister and an Election Commission which labours to keep the government in office.

The political culture must change. The most important questions for members of the new cabinet are: what caused 1MDB? What must you change? How much time do you need? – July 9, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2015, 9:32 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet Ministers guilty of abysmal dereliction of duty by giving  solid backing to the Prime Minister without knowing whether RM2.6 billion were deposited into Najib’s personal accounts in AmBank, where the monies came from and were they went to

One should thank the lawyers of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, for providing some relief to the long drawn-out (six years?), sordid,  dreary and astronomical 1MDB scandal which is claiming more and more  casualties in its wake, destroying reputations for integrity and even political and professional lives and futures.

The highly-publicised letter from Najib’s lawyers to Dow Jones, the owner of Wall Street Journal (WSJ), has become not only the toast of lawyers but of  the international  civil society as well.

There was no categorical demand for retraction of the WSJ report last Friday that Malaysian government investigators have found almost US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) deposited into Najib’s personal accounts at AmBank, unconditional apology for the defamation of the Prime Minister, undertaking of no repetition  of the defamation and payment of damages, but a most extraordinary (Eric Paulsen of Lawyers for Liberty  described it as  “bizarre”) letter seeking clarification!

No one can describe the situation better than lawyer Azhar Harun (better known as Art Harun) who commented on Facebook this was the first time he found lawyers asking their potential opponent the meaning of what they had published. Almost every sentence made him cringe.

He said: “If I were acting for Dow Jones, I would advise them to reply as follows : Dear lawyers, inability to grasp and/or understand what we had published is not a known or established ground for defamation suits. Thank you.”

If more “relief” is needed, there is the top banker, CIMB Islamic Bank chief executive officer Badlisyah Abdul Ghani for everybody to joke about as Badlisyah joined the long queue of 1MDB casualties when in a matter of hours, he had to eat his own words for  accusing WSJ of falling for false documents with regard to its report claiming that RM2.6 billion were deposited into Najib’s personal accounts in AmBank.

As if Fate has pity on Malaysia in having to suffer from the 1MDB scandal, Malaysians were presented with another “manna” today – the announcement that Najib is scheduled to speak at a high-profile international anti-corruption conference themed:
“Ending Impunity: People. Integrity. Action”
 in Putrajaya from Sept. 2 amid allegations that he embezzled US$700 million in state funds!

What type of an example of
“Ending Impunity: People. Integrity. Action”
 Malaysia can present to the world and some 800 international participants who will attend and be engaged in plenary debates and workshops on ending impunity for corruption?

Or is Malaysia to present a live example as to how difficult or even impossible in a country like ours to end impunity for corruption, unless there is a total change of government?

The Minister for Agriculture and Agro-based Industry, Datuk Seri Sabri Yaakob said yesterday that the Cabinet Ministers at their meeting yesterday were all behind Najib in facing the WSJ allegation.

The 35 Cabinet Ministers have proven their loyalty to Najib but they  have failed the country and people in their abject subservience and betrayal of the democratic principles of accountability, transparency and good governance.

Have Najib taken the Cabinet Ministers into confidence and fully informed them about his role in the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal as well as the WSJ report about some RM2.6 billion deposited into his personal bank accounts in AmBank two weeks before Parliament was dissolved for the 13th General Election on May 5, 2013?

As there had been no denial, dare any Cabinet Minister stand up in public to say that Najib had admitted that the WSJ report was true as far as his  personal bank accounts in AmBank were concerned, and the deposit of RM2.6 billion on March 21 and 25, 2013 into his personal accounts – just before the dissolution of Parliament on 3rd April, 2013?

If not, how can  the Cabinet Ministers give the Prime Minister “blind support” on this issue?

Furthermore, do the Ministers know where the RM2.6 billion deposited into Najib’s personal accounts in AmBank come from and where they have gone to?

If the Cabinet Ministers are totally ignorant about whether the RM2.6 billion had been deposited into Najib’s personal accounts in AmBank within two weeks of Parliament’s dissolution on 3rd April 2013, where the astronomical sums of money came from and where they have gone to, the Cabinet Ministers are guilty of abysmal dereliction of duty and should collectively resign in shame and dishonor.

Najib yesterday spelt out  the scope of the special task force constituting the quartet of investigating agencies (Bank Negara Malaysia, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Malaysian Royal Police and Attorney-General’s Chamber)  is to investigate WSJ claims against him whether he used 1MDB fund for his personal interest.

This is totally unacceptable.

Instead of pioneering world’s best practices to end impunity for corruption which could be show-cased in international anti-corruption conferences, we are doing the exact opposite like having a task force or an anti-corruption  investigation that answers or reports to the accused!

What’s more, allowing the accused to dictate the “scope”  of the investigations!

The special task force into the WSJ report should investigate into three areas: firstly, whether some RM2.6 billion were deposited into Najib’s personal accounts in AmBank two weeks before the dissolution of Parliament on April 3, 2013; secondly, where the RM2.6 billion came from; and thirdly, where the RM2.6 billion have gone to.

The Cabinet Ministers were as guilty of irresponsibility and misconduct in allowing Najib, as the accused, to decide on both the form and scope of the investigation.

The Cabinet Ministers really do not understand the axiom that Justice must not only be done but seen to be done.

The task force investigating into WSJ report comprising Bank Negara governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri  Khalid Abu Bakar, MACC head Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail are all subordinate and answer to Najib as the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister.

This violates all principles of  natural justice.

The investigation into the WSJ report should be conducted by independent Malaysians of impeccable character who are not  subordinate or answerable to Najib, armed  with wide-ranging terms of reference.

There should be an emergency meeting of the Cabinet within the next 48 hours to put these things right, appointing credible investigators and the widest  scope of investigations, so that Malaysians can stand tall in the world when we talk about ending impunity in corruption instead of bowing their heads in shame as of now.

Najib as Prime Minister should also  go on leave immediately until the outcome of the investigations.

If not, the IACC International Anti-Corruption Conference in Putrajaya on Sept. 2 should be scrapped altogether, as if Malaysians are not ashamed enough about rampant corruption and rampant impunity in the country.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2015, 1:35 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has the MACC thrown even ethics out the window?

By JD Lovrenciear

Malaysiakini

Jul 7, 2015

The Malaysiakini latest news report (Pre-polls goodies not graft, says MACC official, July 7, 2015) on how the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) interprets corruption probably best sums up why this nation is all tangled up in a web of political turmoil laced with allegations of billions of ringgit gone missing. And in all likelihood then we may never get out of this sinking hole of corrupt practices.

According to the deputy chief in charge of prevention at MACC, pre-election promises and handouts by the government is not to be regarded as bribery.

For Mustafar Ali of MACC, a case of graft applies only when gratification is ‘given for the purpose of inducing the recipient to do something, or refrain from doing something’.

In other words, when the government gives out goodies in kind or cash close to or during election campaigns there is no inducement whatsoever. It is charity? It is some kind of goody-boy Santa at work? It is a reward to the citizens for being poor and deprived these past five years since the last voting exercise?

When the government puts up huge billboards screaming ‘Satu lagi projek olih Barisan Nasional’, it is also not an inducement to the minds of the humble kampong folks?

When perceptions are moulded and or swayed there is no case of inducement?

If that was not enough an insult to the revered cornerstones of ethics, the deputy head of an all-important anti-corruption body draws an analogy of a government giving aid in times of disaster like aiding flood victims in the state of Kelantan.

To Mustafar Ali of MACC, giving all kinds of goodies in cash and kind close on the heels of an impending general election and during campaigning is government aid and a manifesto to help target groups. Help in what manner, may we ask this seemingly learned man of MACC?

If this indeed is the manifesto of the Barisan Nasional government, then where do we place all the preaching about ethics?

We would have thought that MACC would set the highest demands and standards of ethical practices so that we can collectively strive as a nation of ethical governance and ethics-centric business practices.

But in this case even the very vanguard entrusted to make Malaysia a greater nation of ethical standards thinks, feels and now openly states that giving goodies close to an election deadline must be seen as aid and it is a manifesto for the government.

Let us get ethically honest here. You have a five-year timeline upon forming the government following a general election and you have not given enough aid. So when it nears the completion of your governing period, you rush to give out aid here there and everywhere for what reason? Is that the manifesto that Barisan Nasional upholds?

Then we might as well throw all the talk about ethics in the bin and carry on merrily till kingdom come.

And given all the blatant gerrymandering, learned and wiser Malaysians can kiss goodbye to a free and fair general election as their fellow village voters who make a significant difference to voting outcomes continue to get sucked up to all the aid-manifesto as they cast their votes with loyal hearts.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2015, 6:12 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Investigate 1MDB disclosures comprehensively and with integrity

– Steven Thiru

The Malaysian Insider

8 July 2015

The Malaysian Bar is extremely concerned over recent disclosures made by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and Sarawak Report (SR) of information contained in government investigation documents allegedly revealing that funds of about US$700 million (RM2.7 billion) were transferred between government agencies, banks and companies linked to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), and then deposited into the personal accounts of the Prime Minister in AmIslamic Bank Berhad in March 2013.

It has also been reported that the original source of the funds is unclear and the subsequent use of the funds is unknown.

The prime minister said today, “… saya ingin menegaskan sekali lagi bahawa saya tidak pernah mengambil dana 1MDB untuk kepentingan diri sendiri” (I would like to stress again that I had never taken 1MDB’s funds for my personal interest).

However, it appears that the prime minister has not expressly denied that funds were deposited into his personal bank accounts.

The disclosures made by WSJ and SR are exceptionally grave, and must be probed exhaustively, and without delay.

The basic questions that arise, and remain unanswered, are whether the funds were transferred to the prime minister’s bank accounts, and whether these bank accounts were his personal bank accounts.

If so, further questions arise, including the source of the funds; the prime minister’s relationship with the depositors of the funds; the reason they chose to deposit the funds into his personal bank accounts; and the purpose for which the funds were utilised, or the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds.

There must be clear, convincing and irrefutable answers to all these critical questions in order to determine the nature and extent of any criminal culpability.

Further, if the transmission of the funds occurred as reported by WSJ and SR, questions would need to be asked as to the application of exchange control regulations and anti-money laundering legislation.

In this regard, it would be pertinent and vital to know whether Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) had been notified of the remittance of these funds by the paying and receiving banks, and what actions, if any, were taken by BNM in response.

The Malaysian Bar notes that a multi-agency task force (Special Task Force) has been set up to investigate all of these matters, consisting of Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, the Attorney-General of Malaysia; Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz, the Governor of BNM; Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, the Inspector General of Police; and Tan Sri Abu Kassim bin Mohamed, the Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

It has been reported that, as a first step, an order to freeze six bank accounts of the parties suspected to be involved with the case was issued on 6 July 2015.

In addition, the Special Task Force has seized documents relating to 17 accounts from two banks to facilitate the investigation.

The Special Task Force has also seized documents pertaining to non-compliance of BNM’s rules and procedures by the banks involved.

The Special Task Force must conduct a comprehensive, detailed and unfettered investigation into the allegations made by the WSJ and SR, and any other credible reports that might come to the fore.

No stone should be left unturned, and no questions left unanswered. The investigation must also be transparent in that members of the public must be kept regularly informed of its progress.

The findings and conclusions of the Special Task Force must be substantiated and incontrovertible, and withstand scrutiny. Anything less will result in accusations of there having been a cover-up or whitewash.

Further, the Special Task Force must not only be independent, but must be seen to be independent, in discharging its functions.

The various agencies must carry out their duties without any direct or indirect interference or influence by any party, including the prime minister himself.

The scope of their investigation must be as wide as possible, and no one should dictate or limit their ambit.

As the Attorney-General is the chief legal adviser to the government, the MACC comes under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Department, and BNM falls under the portfolio of the minister of finance (who is the prime minister), it is wholly unacceptable and untenable for the Prime Minister to continue in office while the investigation is in progress.

In order therefore to safeguard the independence of the Special Task Force, and to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the investigation, it would be clearly necessary for the prime minister to take a leave of absence pending the outcome of the investigation.

This would dispel any perception of interference or influence. Any leave of absence that the prime minister takes should, however, not be seen or construed as a pre-determination of guilt, but rather as a prudent and scrupulous step in enhancing the credibility of the investigation into these allegations.

The Malaysian Bar urges the prime minister to act responsibly and conscientiously in upholding the personal trust vested in him, and the public confidence reposed in his office. – July 8, 2015.

*Steven Thiru is the president of The Malaysian Bar.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2015, 5:24 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib, your time is up sir, Game Over!

Dzulkefly Ahmad

The Malaysian Insider

6 July 2015

1. Granted, that the damning expose by both Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and Sarawak Report of the transfer of some US$700 million to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal account heralded Najib’s Waterloo, is a fait accompli and foregone.

2. Perusing the sensational exposition, one couldn’t help thinking that it is neither concocted nor a decoy personally contrived by Najib to divert media attention. Purporting it as a political sabotage, by political nemesis, doesn’t reduce its grave consequences on Najib.

3. Going by its incriminating details conducted by investigators for the Malaysian authorities as reported, Najib has truly met his Waterloo. Yes, he has finally been nuked by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a monster or more appropriately a “trojan horse” he personally helped to create to “embezzle funds” for his “do-or-die” election mission of the 13th general election in 2013.

4. What a way to end an otherwise “promising legacy” of Najibnomics, are both extremely perplexing, much as it is most disgraceful and devastating to his entire political career.

5. Going by the expose, what else needs investigating? The beneficiary’s account in an AmBank in Kuala Lumpur (for high net-worth individuals), belongs to Najib Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Period. There has not been any outright denial on that exposition.

6. All doubts about its accuracy, amount and dates of transactions, could also simply be verified, by a single phone call by the investigating authority to the AmBank branch concerned.

7. Do not spend a single ringgit more of the public fund to institute any form of a Commission of Investigation, much less a Royal one, after billions have already been plundered. The case isn’t deserving at all to warrant such action.

8. By far, the largest amount deposited of US$620 million and US$61 million were in March 2013, in the heat of the general election campaign. The cash came from a company registered in the British Virgin Islands via a Swiss bank owned by an Abu Dhabi state fund. The rest is history. All other details are already amply available. It is now for the Attorney-General to act without further ado.

9. The unsolicited confession of the unnamed government spokesperson that “The prime minister has not taken any funds for his personal use” is entirely irrelevant, at this juncture. Najib has similarly just now confessed that he didn’t use the fund for personal gains. It is an open secret, that state funds had always been alleged to be abused for Umno-Barisan Nasional parties’ general election needs. But this revelation is a “bomb-shell” that will annihilate the entire Umno-BN.

10. But what has this incriminating expose’ actually exposed?

Well, as usual, I would like to call “a spade a spade”. And it is no longer merely about the number 1 person of this ailing nation. It is about the damning impact on the entire nation!

11. Yes, admittedly, we have become a “failed state”, where critical institutions of the nation have failed in its duties to be the true custodians of the public interest and of its citizenry, the Rakyat!

12. Why had not the Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) immediately stepped in? Given Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz’s impeccable integrity as a governor is widely acknowledged globally, the question becomes ostensibly very disturbing.

13. Were BNM complicit to the whole transactions and even more bizarre, were they incompetent or worst, “coerced into submission” on those instances?

Well, one could easily rationalise the BNM’s catch-22 position, when the beneficiary concerned is none other than the most powerful, number 1 in Putrajaya. All the more difficult for BNM was because the funds, as already said, were not for personal gain as such. Or so it was purported to be. But that is immaterial and academic for now.

But criminal, it nonetheless is, by way of the many rules it had broken, that of of Anti-Money Laundering Act, AMLA of the least, while evidently abusing colossal public fund for parties’ partisan purposes and needs.

14. Be that as it may, this debacle has surely opened a Pandora box of sort, with more grim revelation of the state of affairs of this “failing nation”. Yes, we have truly become “A Failed State” in our own weird and humiliating ways.

The unending malaise of “party political funding” as the root of all crony capitalism and the endemic corruption in this country, must be immediately attended to by the legislative branch of the government ie the bicameral Parliament, for any semblance of a vibrant democracy to ever be witnessed.

15. While BNM is notably not only blameworthy for not being transparent, it is even bordering on being criminal themselves, by choosing to be complicit in crime, for not apprehending the culprits earlier.

This fiasco has undoubtedly ruined whatever little remnant of integrity left of this nation, after it has been being mercilessly abused by the power-that-be in Putrajaya for decades now.

16. Najib, while I may jump the gun in “pronouncing you guilty”, this could very well be the final Smoking Gun we all waited “to be blazed on you and your cahoots”, in striving for A Better Malaysia!

Sorry Sir, your time is up! Game Over! – July 6, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2015, 5:57 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time for  all progressive and patriotic political leaders to come together on a common programme to save Malaysia from becoming a failed state as a result of rampant corruption, abuses of power, socio-economic injustices  and the collapse of good governance

Malaysia is undergoing rapid and even lightning political developments and changes.

Issues and concerns which were never thought of by Malaysians for years or even decades have overnight become popular concerns.

This is best highlighted by the headlines in online media and foreign news media in the past few days like:

•	Malaysia’s Najib Razak fights for political life amid 1MDB claims

•	A broken prime minister?

•	Is it ‘Game Over’ for Najib?

•	Can Najib Razak Survive 1MDB Scandal

•	Malaysian Leader Faces Risk of Criminal Charges Over Fund

•	Najib Appears Out But The Kleptocrats May Win

•	MP urges AG to prosecute Najib, if proof found

•	No surprise if Najib hauled to court, says veteran journalist

•	Can the Agong act to depose a sitting PM?

In the past few  days, I  myself had posed questions which I had never done before:

•	Whether the Attorney-General can  charge and prosecute the Prime Minister although the Attorney-General is clearly empowered by the Constitution to do so; and

•	Whether the Prime Minister will sack the Attorney-General first, if there is any inkling of such a possibility?

It is most unfortunate that at this pivotal period of national development to ensure that Malaysia does not become a failed state, drowned in the morass of rampant corruption, abuses of power, socio-economic justices and collapse of good governance, the two top leaders in PAS are giving the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri  Najib Razak  the strongest defence and support.

Yesterday, Members of Parliament were locked out of the Parliamentary Briefing Room in Parliament  which the Parliament Administration had earlier reserved for the occasion  to frustrate progressive MPs from gathering with NGO representatives to discuss the foremost issue confronting Malaysians – the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report and allegation last Friday that Malaysian government investigators have found almost US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) of 1MDB’s funds deposited into Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts in AmBank just before the 13th General Election.

The lock-out of MPs from parliamentary premises booked for the occasion was most deplorable and deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

In one fell swoop, the Najib administration is telling the whole world that the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary  does not apply in Malaysia, that Parliament in Malaysia is not an independent and autonomous institution of equal standing with the Executive, but an appendage and inferior  to the Executive,  subject to its whims and fancies.

Furthermore, it exposed  the whole Najib administration  on tenterhooks like the Chinese expression  “草木皆兵” – which literally means “every bush and tree looks like an enemy soldier” – over the WSJ report and allegation, making the Najib Government very  nervous, insecure and panicky that it is virtually “jumping at shadows”.

Malaysia is facing an unprecedented political crisis as never before in the nation’s history of six Prime Ministers in 58 years has any Prime Minister faced a direct allegation in an internationally influential and reputable publication of Prime Ministerial misconduct in having RM2.6 billion deposited into his personal banking accounts just before the previous general election.

But  while Malaysia’s international credibility which affects the nation’s economic future  and the moral authority and legitimacy of the Prime Minister are at stake, there is a great pretence in Malaysia, as if nothing amiss is taking place.

There is no emergency meeting of Cabinet, Parliament, the Supreme Councils of UMNO and Barisan Nasional.

Progressive MPs who had reserved the Parliament Briefing Room yesterday to discuss the grave national situation are locked out of the venue and have to meet at the Parliament public square, sitting on the ground with NGO representatives.

I had hoped that a few progressive UMNO/BN MPs would turn up in  Parliament yesterday to express concern and solidarity with all progressive Opposition MPs and NGO representatives about the deplorable state of national affairs, as I do not believe that there is not a single UMNO/BN MP who does not  feel outrage at the rampant corruption, abuses of power, socio-economic injustices and collapse of good governance in Malaysia.

Human rights activist Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan said yesterday that Najib should go on a leave of absence pending investigations into the accusations against him and she called for a caretaker government to run the country until the holding of a general election.

I have just read Zulkifli Sulong’s article in The  Malaysian Insider entitled “Siapa untung jika Najib berundur?”,  naming five persons and asking whether each of them  would benefit from the Prime Ministerial crisis to take over as Prime Minister after Najib.

The first name  is Tun Mahathir but Zulkifli does not think Mahathir could be  become  Prime Minister  again as “Agak sukar kerana beliau bukan ahli parlimen, tiada jawatan dalam Umno, sudah terlalu tua dan zamannya sudah berlalu”.

Zulkifili continued: “Namun, Dr Mahathir boleh mencaturkan siapa orang yang dikehendaki menggantikan Najib sebagai perdana menteri. Buat masa ini beliau memilih Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

“Dr Mahathir juga boleh memastikan orang yang beliau sayang dan suka mendapat tempat yang sewajarnya selepas kejatuhan Najib.”

The other four named by Zulkifli are Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

Siapa untung jika Najib berundur?

I think the focus should not be  on which individual will take over as Prime Minister after Najib, as what should be of paramount  importance is to ensure that the real beneficiaries in a post-Najib scenario are the Malaysian people.

The time has come for  all progressive and patriotic MPs and political leaders in Malaysia to come together on  a common programme to save Malaysia from becoming a failed state as a result of rampant corruption, abuses of power, socio-economic injustices and the  collapse of good governance.

This common programme to “Save Malaysia” from becoming a failed state should focus, among others, on the following agendas:

•	All-out war against  corruption and an end to financial scandals like  the 1MDB scandal’

•	Clean and Fair Elections;

•	Restore independence, impartiality  and  professionalism of key national institutions, in particular the judiciary, the civil service, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the police, the Elections Commission and  the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

•	Ensure  Economic Growth, Prosperity and Competitiveness.

•	Suspend Goods and Services Tax (GST).

•	Restore Malaysia’s educational standards, whether primary, secondary or tertiary.

•	Promote National Unity and  inter-racial and inter-religious understanding and tolerance.

•	Introduce local government elections.

Are there enough progressive and patriotic MPs and political leaders in Malaysia to save Malaysia from becoming a failed state as a result of rampant corruption, abuses of power, socio-economic injustices and the  collapse of good governance?

(Speech at the DAP Negri Sembilan State Committee meeting on the post-PR scenario and the future of Malaysia at DAP Negri Sembilan hqrs in Seremban on Wednesday, 8th July 2015 at 5 pm)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 July 2015, 8:32 am and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“Be Very Afraid!” when “ignoramus” Ministers give empty assurances about special task force investigation when they may not even be qualified to comment because of conflict of interest

“Fear not, ministers will ensure task force does its job”
is one headline for the assurance by the Youth and Sports Minister, Khairy Jamaluddin  that the special task force probing allegations concerning 1MDB will do its job without fear or favour.

I say,
“Be Very Afraid!”
 when “ignoramus” Ministers give empty assurances about the special task force investigation when they may not even be qualified to comment because of conflict of interest.

Khairy said the task force would have to report to Cabinet and that “we the ministers will be there to ensure that the investigation is done without fear or favour”.

What nonsense is Khairy talking about.  How can the Cabinet Ministers ensure that the investigation is done “without fear or favour” when the Cabinet Ministers cannot ensure that the establishment of the task force is done “without fear or favour”?

The 35 Cabinet Ministers cannot be unaware that  Malaysians have no confidence in the special task force because its four “Tan Sri” heads of the  quartet of enforcement/investigating agencies, namely Bank Negara, Royal Malaysian Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the Attorney-General Chambers are all junior, subordinate and beholden to Najib, whether as Finance Minister or Prime Minister, when Najib is in fact the “accused” in the investigations.

This is why Malaysians want independent and reputable Malaysians to investigate the Wall Street Journal allegation that US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) was deposited into Najib’s personal bank accounts in AnBank within two weeks of dissolution of Parliament on April 3, 2013.

Former Sabah state secretary and former Suhakam Deputy Chairman Tan Sri Simon Sipaun supports an independent royal commission of inquiry (RCI) consisting of members from both sides of the political fence, including having Tun Mahathir as the RCI Chair.

As Simon rightly pointed out, the investigations should be conducted by those who have a track record in anti-corruption work, who must be independent and they must not be civil servants.

The Attorney-General, Tan Sri Gani Patail, the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Chairman Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed are all civil servants.  Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz is the governor of Bank Negara but she’s very much like a civil servant as she works for a government bank.

Being civil servants, they work under the ethos  and status  of “I am your obedient servant” as far as the Prime Minister is concerned.

The special task force has started off on a totally wrong footing when it is more interested in finding out who leaked the documents to Wall Street Journal, than the truth of the allegations.

If the WSJ report leads to the expose of the first Prime Ministerial misconduct and largest financial scandal in the nation’s history, those who leaked the documents highlighting to the public the enormity of the financial scandal and criminal breach of trust deserve national recognition, gratitude and honours and not harassment and persecution!

Khairy’s claim that Ministers will ensure that investigations are conducted “without fear or favour” is completely far-fetched and not worthy of any belief as the Cabinet Ministers have absolutely no powers determing its establishment, composition and scope inquiry.

Do the Ministers agree that the Prime Minister, as “accused”, should be able to dictate the “scope” of the investigations, when Najib said that the “scope” of the special task force is to investigate the WSJ’s claims against him as to  whether he used 1MDB funds for his personal interest?

Do the Ministers know whether the special task force will be investigating whether Najib has personal banking accounts, whether RM2.6 billion were deposited in them, and to probe where the RM2.6 billion came from and where it went to?”

Furthermore, can Ministers tell the public whether the special task force will be investigating into all aspects of the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal spanning the past six years?

If Ministers cannot answer anyone of these questions, how can Ministers ensure that the special task force will carry out its investigations without “fear or favour”?

This is not the time for Ministers to hide their ignorance about the 1MDB scandal and Najib’s role by flaunting empty assurances like the Cabinet ensuring that the investigations will be “without fear or favour”.

As the special task force, its composition and terms of reference, were formed without the knowledge, authority or approval of the Cabinet, the Ministers must do what is proper and right for the country – disband the special task force and set up a Royal Commission Inquiry with powers to get to the bottom of the 1MDB scandal.

Najib had never denied RM2.6 billion deposited into his personal accounts in AmBank but repeatedly said that he had “never taken funds for personal gain”.

Is Najib suggesting that if the RM2.6 billion deposited in AmBank or some parts of it  had been used for the 13th general election campaign for Barisan Nasional including all the Cabinet Ministers  (an earlier WSJ report specifically making this allegation had not been denied by Najib), this would be consistent with his repeated claim that he had “never taken funds for personal gain”.

However, if UMNO/Barisan Nasional candidates, including all the Cabinet Ministers,  had benefited in the 13th General Election campaign from the vast funds deposited in Najib’s personal accounts in AmBank, then the Cabinet Ministers are disqualified from taking part in any decision concerning these monies, including the question of a special investigatory task force because of a clear conflict of interest.

Can Ministers declare whether there is any conflict of interest not only in their deciding, but commenting, on the WSJ report and  allegations?

It is sad and tragic that the Prime Minister see what Malaysians and the world can see very clearly as to what are the real options before him.

As the Singapore Business Times said today, Najib owes a duty to Malaysians to unequivocally disprove allegations of corruption against him and must not leave this to investigators probing 1MDB.

In its opinion piece, the Singapore Business Times said Najib does not have the luxury of waiting for –  as he last night proclaimed – “the truth to emerge in the end”.

It said: “More than any other high office in the country, it is the top executive who owes his duty and loyalty – and the truth – to the Malaysian people.

“Unlike troubled 1Malaysia Development Bhd and the characters at the centre of the controversy who are not answerable to the people and whose fate lies squarely on the outcome of an ongoing probe, Mr Najib should be held to a higher standard.”

It is now a week since the first publication of the WSJ report and allegation. There has only been a non-denial and non-lawsuit by Najib – both falling far short of the “higher standard” expected of a Prime Minister on the fundamental principles of accountability, transparency and good governance.

The morass of government denial and paralysis cannot go on for another day. Let the four Tan Sris comprising the special task force submit their collective resignation to announce their recognition that the Malaysian public have no faith and confidence in them in the inquiry and to open the way for the establishment of  RCI into the WSJ allegations.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 3:48 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bekas setiausaha agung PKR dedah Anwar dihina ketika krisis Selangor

Thd Malaysian Insider

9 July 2015

Bekas setiausaha agung PKR Datuk Saifuddin Nasution Ismail mendedahkan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dikasari individu dipercayai presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang ketika mahu membincangkan kemelut menteri besar Selangor tahun lalu.

Walaupun tidak menyatakan identiti Hadi secara langsung, Saifuddin mengimbas peristiwa ketika dirinya menemani ketua umum PKR berjumpa dengan individu terbabit untuk mengadakan perbincangan.

“Masih ingat saat aku menemani Datuk Seri Anwar berjumpa dengannya. Bagaimana Datuk Seri Anwar diaibkan dengan bahasa yang cukup kasar,” katanya dalam status Facebook hari ini.

Perbincangan itu dipercayai merujuk kepada pertemuan singkat Anwar dengan Hadi di Terengganu untuk menukar jawatan menteri besar Selangor yang ketika itu disandang Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

Saifuddin berkata, pertemuan itu bagaimanapun tidak membuahkan hasil kerana individu itu beredar kerana kurang sihat implikasi pengambilan ubat.

“Perbincangan terhenti. Dia kemudian beredar. Dua temannya yang juga turut hadir kemudian meminta maaf. Dia baru makan ubat kata mereka.

“Aku dan Datuk Seri Anwar kemudian meminta diri. Indahnya akhlak,” katanya sinis.

Bekas ahli Parlimen Machang itu berkata, dirinya menyaksikan sendiri Anwar dihina dan menganggap individu itu “bukan malaikat” yang perlu dipertahankan.

Beliau turut menggambarkan individu tersebut semasa pertemuan itu sebagai “amat kasar” dan Anwar pula bersikap “amat lemah lembut”.

“Yang hadir di situ saya. Yang tengok dan dengar sendiri kata penghinaan itu saya.

“Yang dok cerita lebih-lebih kata dia lebih tahu pula sebenarnya tak ada di situ pun. Tapi pertahan gila-gila… ‘dia bukan malaikat’,” katanya.

Pada Ogos tahun lalu, media melaporkan Anwar dan Hadi mengadakan pertemuan sulit di sebuah hotel di Kuala Ibai, dekat Kuala Terengganu, namun beberapa sumber dalaman parti mendakwa perbincangan itu gagal mencapai kata penyelesaian.

Anwar dilaporkan enggan mengulas lanjut hasil pertemuannya dengan Hadi dan menganggap ia hanya pertemuan biasa.

“Perjumpaan biasa… kita baru dalam proses perbincangan… bincang banyak isu… hasilnya macam biasa,” kata Anwar dipetik Astro Awani ketika ditemui di Lapangan Terbang Sultan Mahmud, Kuala Terengganu, 12 Ogos lalu. – 9 Julai, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 5:43 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Door for PAS still open, says Kit Siang

By
Kow Gah Chie and Adrian Wong
 | 8:31AM Jul 7, 2015

Malaysiakini

INTERVIEW
 While DAP may have repeatedly proclaimed that Pakatan Rakyat is “dead”, the party does not rule out the possibility of teaming up with PAS in the future.

Asked whether DAP and PAS would form an alliance, for their fourth time, in the next general election, veteran DAP leader Lim Kit Siang said it was a possibility.

However, PAS would first have to show commitment towards Pakatan’s common policy framework.

“It is not for me to rule out anybody. The basic principle is that PAS has to be committed to the common policy framework of Pakatan.

“If PAS is not prepared for this, I don’t think it will be in the picture,” Lim said in an interview with Malaysiakini last Thursday.

In the 1980s, DAP teamed up with PAS as Gagasan Rakyat, and then again as Barisan Alternatif in the late 1990s. In 2008, the two parties, along with PKR, formed Pakatan Rakyat.

Unlike the loose coalitions in the past, Pakatan in December 2009 designed its common policy framework that was signed by Lim, PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim and PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.

Over the past year, DAP has been arguing that PAS’ renewed pursuit of implementing hudud, the Islamic penal system, which would alter the core of Malaysia’s criminal justice system, was a betrayal of the common policy document.

In reaction to DAP’s constant criticism, PAS resolved at its recent annual delegates meeting, the 61st party muktamar, that its leaders cut ties with DAP.

With that, DAP concluded that PAS had effectively announced the “death” of Pakatan.

Lim said that as a coalition, Pakatan had ceased to function effectively a year ago, after the coalition’s top leaders were unable sit together for meetings.

‘Think of the unthinkable’

DAP has for long been complaining about Abdul Hadi’s non-attendance at the Pakatan leadership council meetings, since his representatives are not authorised to decide on Pakatan’s collective decisions.

In declaring that Pakatan was dead, Lim, who has 50 years of politics under his belt, went on to moot the formation of a new “post-BN, post-Pakatan” coalition to “Save Malaysia”.

This suggestion came five days after Hadi (photo) tabled a Private Member’s Bill in the Dewan Rakyat, seeking the amendment of laws preventing Kelantan from implementing hudud.

Elaborating on the idea, Lim said Malaysians must envision a new political scenario, citing the example of how some countries can, after an election, have different coalitions at the federal and state levels.

“We had in Europe different situations at the national and state levels, coalitions with contracts for a period…. so, we will see how things can work out here in Malaysia,” he said.

Asked about the recent meeting among PKR, DAP and former PAS office bearers – the group that has been described as “progressives”, the G18 or Harapan Baru – at which the possibility of a “Pakatan 2.0” was raised, Lim said he was not privy to the discussions.

He said at this stage, he wasn’t sure what a new coalition, which DAP would be part of, would look like.

“This is not something everyone can plan or try to bring about. This is something we have to wait, for further developments.

“Pakatan was people-driven. Similarly, if there is a new alignment of political forces, it must be people-driven as well, rather than leader- or party-driven,” he noted.

No more ‘master race’

In April 2008, in the 12th general election, Pakatan was formed weeks after DAP, PKR and PAS caused BN the loss of its traditional two-thirds majority in Parliament, for the first time since 1969.

Lim said that although Pakatan was no more, the hopes and aspirations signalled by the voters, back in 2008, was still very relevant and achievable.

“It is not a complete loss cause,” he said.

“A very easy platform is to go back to Pakatan’s common policy framework as a basis to defending the Federal Constitution, featuring fundamental principles, ensuring justice, freedom, democracy and good governance as a starting point.

“(For the new coalition) there is no Ketuanan Melayu. There is no master race or master religion.”

The new political entity should open to all like-minded parties and individuals, even the progressives in Umno, Lim added.

However, Lim declined to comment if G18 or Harapan Baru should state their stand on hudud before deciding to be part of the new coalition.

“I don’t think it is anybody’s business in order to say what the party should or should not do. We will come to an issue when it arises,” he said.

‘At least we were honest’

On whether Pakatan had wasted a good opportunity of taking Putrajaya by dissolving the coalition, Lim disagreed.

He pointed out that both Pakatan and BN were in a disarray. Thus Putrajaya was still ripe for the picking.

“I don’t agree on that theory at all. Although I believe there will be setbacks, but there is no such thing as the opposition spoiling its own chances.

“Looking back, this may be the best for the country. At least the issues have been clarified, and there is a greater sense of candour and honesty about it.”

Asked if PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim was still DAP’s choice for the post of prime minister, should an opposition coalition win the elections, Lim replied in the positive.

However, he did not want to be drawn into discussions on whether Anwar’s wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail could serve as a replacement.

“Well, he is still in the picture, he is still very much in the picture, although he is in the Sungai Buloh Prison,” Lim said.

Part 2 :
DAP has made progress in ‘Malay-nisation’

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 3:07 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
PAS
,
Personal
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Excerpt 7:  Culture Is Internally Consistent

by Bakri Musa

[email protected]

Jul 79, 2015

Every group of humans whether dwelling in the same cave or working for the same corporation must share some common goals, values, and worldview, as well as everyday routine practices. This is what culture means; it is the social glue that binds the members together and differentiates them from others. Far from being society’s oppressor, culture is its savior.

The human baby is not born a carnivorous hunter or a vegetarian ascetic anymore than it is born an Aryan or Chinese. The baby may have Aryan characteristics (sharp nose, blond hair, and blue eyes) or that of a Chinese (moon face, jet black hair, and epicanthic folds) but those features do not make what it will be. Whether that baby will turn out to be a proud bearer of a swastika or marches the streets waving Mao’s Little Red Book depends upon the culture in which it has been raised.

Tune to BBC News. If you close your eyes you would assume the announcer to be a lithe English lassie. Look at the screen and your preconceived images would be shattered for behind that flawless British voice might be a lady of African descent or a Semitic-looking Arab woman, minus the purdah of course.

The process by which a group instills its collective ways and values upon its new members – acculturation – is by nature conservative, to uphold prevailing norms and standards. The dark-skinned BBC announcer could not possibly sound so elegantly authoritative had she been brought up in Southside Chicago or a Soweto township.

I had a childhood friend back in the old village. Born as I was during the terrible deprivation of the Japanese Occupation, his family, like so many poor Chinese families in rural Malaysia at that time, was forced to give him up. Growing up in his adopted Malay family, he was no different from the rest of us. I was not even aware that he was adopted despite his obvious non-Malay features.

Later as a teenager he became extremely chauvinistic, espousing fanatical sentiments of Malay nationalism. Even that did not trigger any irony on my part. On one occasion he was particularly virulent in his denunciations of the immigrants while within hearing distance of my parents. When he was gone my father laughed, remarking that someone ought to hold a mirror to my friend’s face whenever he was indulging in his racial demagoguery. Only then did it register on me that he was Chinese looking. The incongruity of his being a Malay supremacist!

My digressing short story here must have an uplifting ending. My friend did indeed outgrow his adolescent delusions and become a successful businessman with a multiracial and international clientele. Today he is the paragon of the liberal, progressive Malay, the ones the PERKASA (the acronym of a Malay ultra right wing group) types love to hate.

Just as my friend’s upbringing (his acculturation) turned him into an insular, chauvinistic nationalist, his later vocation reformed him into an open, worldly businessman. Later, I will pursue this unappreciated but important role of trade and commerce in liberating minds.

Culture provides the backdrop for much of our learning and experiences, as well as the environmental (both physical and social) stimuli that our brain is exposed to. These are what shape our view of reality, or in the language of neuroscience, the subsequent patterns of neural networks. Culture conserves the values and norms of that society and transmits them unchanged to the next generation.

Culture is also internally consistent even though to outsiders some of its norms and practices may appear destructive or non-productive. To the Mafia of southern Italy, being violent and vengeful are valued traits, to maintain family ‘honor.’ In not-so-ancient China members of the triad maintained their strict code of silence through uncompromising and merciless enforcement; the price for breaching being gruesome death. Then there are the “honor killing” of the Pashtuns and the self-immolation suttee where a widowed Indian would throw herself on her husband’s funeral pyre.

Those destructive acts must have served some purpose otherwise the culture would have abandoned them long ago. The Chinese code of silence was perhaps a protective reaction to the brutish local warlords, while “honor killing” and suttee were meant to demonstrate the supreme value of family honor and marital fidelity. In that culture a widowed woman would be treated so harshly and discriminated against so mercilessly that she would be driven to prostitution or home wrecking.

To someone from a culture where infidelity is the norm (if we can believe Hollywood movies and the scandals involving Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger), suttee and honor killing seem barbaric and way out of proportion.

Likewise hudud’s stoning to death for adultery; to Muslims it reflects the sanctity of marriage and the high premium we place on marital fidelity. Humans being human, the culture does provide an outlet to minimize the possibility of imposing this harsh penalty; thus multiple wives or even “temporary” ones. The ancient Chinese accepted concubines.

As an aside, despite hudud’s current notoriety, it is well to remember that during the four centuries of Ottoman rule, the actual number of cases of “stoning to death” was only one. Compare that to the number of deaths through suttee burning and gentleman’s duel.

The Anglo Saxons’ “duel unto death” is on the same plane as suttee and honor killing; the difference merely in means and methods. The underlying principle and end result are the same – a matter of “honor” and the senseless taking of a life respectively. It illuminates my point that culture is internally consistent. It is futile for anyone, especially outsiders, to pick and choose a particular element of a culture and pronounce it regressive or uncivilized. The true and only meaningful test of a culture is how it prepares its people to stresses and changes, especially when those are sudden and dramatic, or imposed from the outside.

      I will use this criterion to grade the resiliency of our Malay culture in meeting the challenges posed by the arrival of Islam, European colonization, and the path we chose to pursue independence.

This essay is excerpted from the author’s latest book, Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia , 2013.

Next July 5 Excerpt # 8:  Changing a Culture

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 6:15 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


FAQ on WSJ’s money trail exposé

By Malaysiakini Team

Jul 9, 2015

On July 3, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) dropped a bombshell on Malaysians by claiming that nearly US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) somehow made its way to bank accounts allegedly owned by our prime minister.

Given the complexity of the issue, Malaysiakini has compiled a series of questions sourced from our readers as well as our newsroom, and attempts to answer them.

1. What exactly was the WSJ report about?

The report claims that an ongoing probe by Malaysian investigators have traced nearly RM2.6 billion being transferred into what they believe to be Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s personal bank accounts.

2. Are the accounts really owned by Najib?

The WSJ report does not say this with certainty. They note that remittance documents show account numbers, but does not name Najib.

However, they are in possession of flow charts, purportedly obtained from Malaysian investigators, which attributed the accounts to Najib.

Whistleblower website Sarawak Report, which published a similar report on the same day as the WSJ, claimed that the accounts – bearing the name AmPrivate Banking-1MY, AmPrivate Banking-MY and AmPrivate Banking-MR – indeed belonged to Najib.

3. Has Najib explicitly denied owning the accounts?

No.

4. Has Najib explicitly denied that the transactions took place?

No.

5. How has Najib responded?

Nearly half a day after the WSJ and Sarawak Report broke the news, Najib responded by claiming to be the victim of “unsubstantiated, and many simply outrageous” allegations.

“The latest allegation is that I have taken state-linked funds for personal gain.

“I believe (Dr Mahathir Mohamad), working hand in glove with foreign nationals, including the now discredited political attack blog Sarawak Report, is behind this latest lie.

“Let me be very clear: I have never taken funds for personal gain as alleged by my political opponents – whether from 1MDB, SRC International or other entities, as these companies have confirmed.”

Yesterday, Najib repeated this point on his blog.

“I want to again stress that I never took 1MDB funds for my personal gain.

“The WSJ allegation was done in bad faith and is supported by certain quarters in the country who want me to step down as prime minister and Umno president”.

On the same day, Najib’s lawyers also sent a “pre-letter of demand” asking Dow Jones, the owners of WSJ, to clarify if it really meant that the prime minister had misappropriated state funds.

The letter was panned by lawyers as a stalling tactic as defamation suits are normally and immediately initiated with a letter of demand.

6. Did WSJ accuse Najib of using the money for “personal gain”?

No. Neither did Sarawak Report.

However, the WSJ did run an article in June 18 accusing Najib of using funds originating from 1MDB for BN’s 2013 election campaign.

7. How did WSJ and Sarawak Report get hold of this information?

The WSJ merely cited documents obtained from “Malaysian government investigation”. They made the documents public on Tuesday.

8. Are the documents authentic?

We don’t know. But thus far, no government agency has come up to say it’s fake. Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail alluded that the documents were leaked from an ongoing investigation.

9. Who is investigating 1MDB related matters thus far?

There is the National Audit Department and Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Then there is a multi-agency task force, comprising the police, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the Attorney-General’s chambers.

We now know that Bank Negara is part of the task force.

10. Who formed the task force? When?

We don’t know.

11. What are their terms of reference or scope?

The task force did not explicitly say. However, the Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar mentioned back in March that it involved Section 409 and Section 420 of the Penal Code.

Section 409 of the Penal Code refers to “criminal breach of trust by public servant or agent”, while Section 420 is on “cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”.

Najib, even though an interested party in the investigation himself, yesterday said the special task force will determine whether WSJ’s allegations that he had taken 1MDB’s funds for person interest had basis or not.

He went on to say that the investigation must consider the authenticity of documents put forward by WSJ.

The task force has been very particular in its statements by not mentioning specific individuals that are being investigated.

Instead, the task force often refers to the “allegations against the prime minister” as its subject of probe.

12. Who is in the task force?

Bank Negara governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz, the IGP, MACC chief Abu Kassim Mohamed, and the AG are signing off task force statements, so it is reasonable to conclude that they are task force members.

We don’t know how many people are in the task force or what the composition is like.

13. Who does the task force report to?

We don’t know. However the task force’s information collected from its investigation had been sent to Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail for review.

14. What is the progress of their investigations?

Until June 4, the task force didn’t provide any progress reports. However, Sarawak Report published an article on April 29 claiming that “investigators” found that Bank Negara was supplied with “false documents”, in connection with 1MDB.

However, the task force began issuing regular status updates since last Saturday, a day after WSJ implicated Najib in taking state funds.

It had since frozen six bank accounts related to the case and also raided 1MDB’s office yesterday.

Highly-placed sources in the task force told Malaysiakini that three of the six bank accounts belonged to Najib but Abdul Gani denied this.

It is noteworthy that the denial statement was signed by Abdul Gani, as opposed to the previous task force statements which were signed off by the heads of Bank Negara, MACC, police, and the AG himself.

15. Can the four heads of the task force act independently if Najib doesn’t take leave?

If they are professionals, yes.

However, there will still be concerns of conflict of interest as all of them report to Najib and they have also faced criticism in their handling of less controversial cases in the past.

For their normal duties, Abu Kassim and Abdul Gani report to Najib as prime minister. Zeti reports to Najib as finance minister.

Should Najib take leave, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong would make Muhyiddin Yassin acting prime minister with full powers of the prime minister. In this scenario, Abu Kassim, Abdul Gani, and Zeti would report to Muhyiddin.

16. So why isn’t Najib taking leave? Wouldn’t that give the task force more credibility?

True. But Najib going on leave would have political implications.

Some of Najib’s political opponents have made it clear that they intend to oust him and Najib may never return as prime minister if he does not remain on top of things.

Furthermore, if the allegations hold merit, then staying on as prime minister would offer better leverage.

17. If Najib goes on leave, would it confirm an independent investigation?

It is likely to yield a more credible and independent investigation but issues may still persist as some of the investigation members have also been accused of a cover-up.

For example, Bank Negara itself may be implicated in the probe for failing to uphold its own rules to flag the transaction of huge sums of money into accounts purportedly controlled by Najib. The first transaction occurred in 2013.

An alternative is for the setting up of a royal commission of inquiry into the matter.

18. Why is the Cabinet and Umno still strongly backing Najib?

While there are some voices of dissent, the vast majority of ministers still support Najib.

The bulk of the money was deposited into accounts purportedly controlled by Najib shortly before the 13th general elections, which would suggest that the funds were meant for the national polls.

If the allegation is proven true, it means the money trail does not end with Najib and other party leaders may be implicated.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 5:28 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Going on leave best of 3 options for Najib, says Musa Hitam

by V. Anbalagan

The Malaysian Insider

10 July 2015

Embattled Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has three options to consider for his immediate future as he wards off allegations that US$700 million (RM2.67 billion) was transferred into his personal bank accounts, Tun Musa Hitam told The Malaysian Insider.

The former deputy prime minister said Najib could: 1) remain in office and fight the allegations, 2) resign as prime minister and, 3) go on leave pending the investigations by a special government task force.

On a personal note, Musa said he would prefer it if Najib took the third option to allow for an open and transparent investigation.

Speaking exclusively to The Malaysian Insider yesterday, the 81-year Musa said he could no longer sit quietly as the issue gripped the nation.

“I have been under pressure from friends and foes to offer my views although I am out politics,” said Musa who was deputy prime minister from 1981 to 1986 to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Najib’s harshest critic.

Explaining why he preferred Najib to take the third option, Musa said this would give investigators the “space psychologically, politically and legally for them to find the truth”.

He said Najib could resign and this would be the best “treat” the country would have and give way to new leader in Umno.

“But I humbly suggest that Najib take leave of absence for a certain length of period to facilitate the non-partisan investigation that is under way,” he said.

“To me, this (going on leave) is the best option that will show Najib’s leadership, character and personality in line with the principles of parliamentary democracy,” he added.

Musa said he was making the suggestion in Ramadan and also was invoking the good name of his mentor, Tun Abdul Razak, who had taken the nation to where it was now.

The late Razak, the nation’s second prime minister, is also Najib’s father.

“He (Razak) cared for the people and the nation,” said Musa, almost in tears.

Musa said should Najib go on leave, it should not be construed as a sign of weakness.

“As for me, I hold dear to the legal maxim that one is innocent until proven guilty and this also applies to Najib.”

Commenting on Umno, Musa, who was a former deputy president, said the party was in denial mode over its leadership problem.

“There is a very big problem in Umno and this affects the people because Najib was legally and constitutionally elected,” he said, adding that the Umno president is always the prime minister of the country.

Musa said Umno must recognise the problem and find ways and means to overcome it.

“They must find an alternative and this does not mean getting the president out but looking at the options before them.

“But this must be done rationally, calmly and in the interest of the country and the people.”

Musa said all the implications of the options must be studied before a decision was made.

“This is the way I will do it but unfortunately I am not there.”

Musa also said that he did not believe in the declaration of support for a leader in power.

“Those who pledge their support will be first to scoot off when their leader is in trouble,” he said recounting his own experience in the party.

Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that up to US$700 million was transferred into Najib’s personal bank accounts in AmPrivate Bank in Kuala Lumpur between 2013 and 2015.

The WSJ reported that US$681 million (RM2.6 billion) originating from Tanore Finance, a company in the British Virgin Islands, was deposited into Najib’s accounts in two transactions on March 21 and 25 in 2013, ahead of the general election in May.

It also uploaded documents it used in its report which showed instructions for telegraphic transfers and charts showing the money trail.

The task force confirmed yesterday that Najib had accounts at AmBank, but added that the two accounts were closed before the business daily broke the story last Friday.

The task force, in a statement yesterday, had also said one of the accounts had been closed on August 30, 2013.

Another sum of US$11.1 million (RM42 million) originating from Finance Ministry-owned SRC International Sdn Bhd was moved in three tranches between December 2014 and February this year.

The second account was closed on March 9 this year, the task force said in the same statement.

The task force on Tuesday froze six accounts in relation to its investigation.

Najib denied taking money for personal gain, but has not commented directly on the fund transfers to his accounts. Bank Negara and AmBank have also not responded to the allegations.

The task force yesterday also said the documents being investigated had been provided by the group itself and were not the ones the WSJ had published.

The statement was signed by the four members of the task force: Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Bank Negara governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed. – July 10, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 7:39 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hisham fools himself!

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 10:41 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Hishammuddin
,
Martin Jalleh
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia Premier Najib Under Fire: What You Need to Know

by Niluksi Koswanage Shamim Adam

Bloomberg

July 9, 2015

As Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak fights claims aired in a Wall Street Journal report that about $700 million in funds connected to a state investment company allegedly ended up in his personal bank accounts, here’s a guide on the key players in the furor and what to watch for.

Q: What is 1Malaysia Development Bhd. or 1MDB?

Najib chairs the advisory board of the debt-ridden state investment company. The Wall Street Journal reported July 3 that money may have moved through government agencies and companies linked to 1MDB before apparently appearing in Najib’s personal accounts. A task force investigating the claims visited 1MDB’s Kuala Lumpur headquarters on Wednesday and left with documents.

1MDB had its origins in the Terengganu Investment Authority, which was created in 2009 to invest oil royalties from the state of Terengganu. When Najib became prime minister that year it was renamed 1MDB, became a national entity and its funding source was changed to government-backed debt.

The company has courted controversy, accumulating $11 billion of debt in less than five years, paying a premium in the acquisition of energy assets, and criticized for overpaying Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to manage its bond sales.

1MDB flirted with default when it missed a loan repayment late last year and eventually settled it in February. It announced plans the same month to wind down, with asset sales or an initial public offering of its energy unit, and the spinning off of its property businesses. Its purpose was to serve as a catalyst for projects of strategic importance, it said Feb. 18, and it’s “achieved this.”

The auditor-general has been probing 1MDB’s finances since March. It is set to hand its interim report on Thursday to a parliamentary committee.

Q: Who Are the Key Politicians?

Prime Minister Najib Razak:
 The 61-year-old leader also heads the finance ministry, which oversees 1MDB.

Najib has taken steps to narrow Malaysia’s budget deficit through the scaling back of subsidies and a new consumption tax, moves that have hurt his approval rating. In 2013 he led the ruling coalition to its worst electoral showing since independence in 1957, even as it retained power.

The premier remains popular within his United Malays National Organization, whose members have largely backed a decision by the leadership to postpone party polls to 2018 to prevent internal rifts.

Since the election Najib has sought to shore up his support base with ethnic Malay voters. The government’s made increased use of the country’s Sedition Act, recently introduced an anti-terrorism law that has elements of security measures repealed in 2012, and not opposed efforts by an opposition party to introduce Islamic criminal law in one state.

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad:
 Mahathir, who turns 90 on Friday, ruled Malaysia for 22 years until 2003. His successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi stepped down in 2009 after Mahathir led calls for his resignation and backed Najib as a replacement.

In August, he announced he was withdrawing his support for Najib, citing worsening race relations and differences over economic policies. Since then he has led calls for Najib to resign over mounting debt and “lost” funds at 1MDB. How much power Mahathir still wields is unclear.

Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin:
 Muhyiddin, 68, is the second-most powerful man after Najib in UMNO and party convention suggests he’s next in line to be premier.

Mahathir has tried to pit Muhyiddin against Najib, saying the deputy prime minister would be a good replacement as he wouldn’t repeat Najib’s mistakes, the Malaysian Insider reported in April.

Muhyiddin has called on Najib to give a convincing explanation or denial of the Wall Street Journal report even amid a chorus of support from other UMNO leaders and ministers. He has also said the investigation should be allowed to run its course.

Others:
 UMNO leaders seen as key Najib allies include Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who has said attempts to undermine a serving leader may be a threat to national security. Najib will also depend on his cousin and Defense Minister Hishammuddin Hussein to shore up support within the party.

Q: What Is the Task Force Investigating Najib?

The special task force comprises officials from the Attorney General’s office, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the police and the central bank. It’s not clear when the task force was set up, though its existence was unveiled on July 4 as it announced the probe of funds related to 1MDB allegedly ending up in Najib’s accounts.

The Attorney General’s Chambers and the anti-corruption commission fall under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office. The police force is a function of the Home Ministry. The investigators on the task force have not been named but their activities are signed off by the heads of each of the four parties involved.

Aside from the visit Wednesday to 1MDB’s offices, the task force has announced a freeze on six bank accounts believed linked to the money trail — the Attorney General’s office says they are not Najib’s alleged accounts — and obtained documents related to 17 accounts from two banks. The task force has not said how long its investigation may take.

Q: What’s the Sentiment Among Investors?

Some investors have voiced concern that the political turmoil may affect risk in the country at a time when economic growth is slowing. “Malaysia isn’t helping itself by making domestic issues an additional concern for investors,” Alan Richardson, a Hong Kong-based money manager at Samsung Asset Management Ltd, said this week.

Still, the main focus of investors has been the country’s fiscal health, while external factors such as the Greece tumult have also hurt markets. “Ongoing political turbulence has resulted in continued uncertainty in Malaysia, reducing investor confidence. However this is unlikely to be a long term phenomenon,” analysts at BMI Research said in a report.

Concerns that Fitch Ratings would downgrade Malaysia’s sovereign ranking were a specter over its financial markets in the first half of the year, one that disappeared four minutes before midnight on June 30 when the company affirmed its rating and upgraded its outlook to stable.

Malaysia pegged the ringgit at 3.8 against the dollar for about seven years, from the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis to July 2005. After flirting near the level for a month, the currency weakened beyond 3.8 on July 6 as the investigation into Najib intensified and given concerns that Greece might exit the euro.

Fixed asset investments are still spurring the economy and driving jobs growth, even if foreigners are leaving the stock market. Approved investments climbed about 19 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, the Malaysian Investment Development Authority said last month, led by the manufacturing sector.

Q: Where Do We Go From Here?

Najib’s lawyers have given the Wall Street Journal 14 days to respond to a July 8 letter asking for clarification of the allegations. After the response, his lawyers say the next step would be to “immediately exhaust all legal avenues and remedies.”

“We stand behind our fair and accurate coverage of this evolving story,” Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. said in an e-mailed response.

Analysts at BMI Research say their core view is for Najib to fight the allegations and “seek to maintain his position” within the party. Less likely is the scenario where he succumbs to party pressure to “step down gracefully.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 11:42 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib, Misappropriation is Not the Main Issue

By Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysiakini

Jul 9, 2015

COMMENT
 A few things related to the Wall Street Journal’s expose of 1MDB funds having been deposited into Prime Minister Najib Razak’s private AmBank accounts are becoming clearer.

Najib has not denied that he received the US$700 million (RM2.66 billion). And that is very telling. Instead, he is constantly harping that he did not use the money for his personal interest.

He could be telling the truth there because the bulk of the money might have been used to finance Barisan Nasional’s campaign during the 13th general election (GE13) in May 2013.

But even so, it is wrong for him to receive the public funds – if he did receive them. It constitutes a crime. That is the main issue of the case. But he has not addressed it.

That is the issue that the special task force set up to investigate the scandal should focus on. But Najib has announced that the scope of the investigation is only to determine whether he misappropriated the funds for his own use. And this is the same line he is taking with WSJ.

His lawyers have sent a letter to WSJ demanding to know if it stands by its accusation that Najib misappropriated public funds.

The demand is stupid. A reading of the WSJ articles exposing the transfers of monies to Najib’s accounts clearly shows that WSJ makes no such accusations. And of course they would not do so because they were merely reporting, not editorialising.

It is not the job of news reports to editorialise and make accusations. Anyone who knows the basics of newspaper reporting could have told Najib’s lawyers so – and spared them the embarrassment of making such an asinine demand.

I suspect what Najib wants to achieve in sending that letter to WSJ is to get an answer from the latter that it does not accuse him of misappropriating funds. Then he can say to the people of Malaysia, “See! WSJ has admitted I did not steal any money!”

This is the tack he appears to be taking. This is what he wants us to believe. That is why he has dictated the scope of the investigation of the special task force thus.

He probably thinks that if he can convince the rakyat that he did not steal the money, he would be forgiven, that he would regain our trust and confidence.

But that’s wishful thinking. To regain public trust and clear his name of the scandal, he should do the obvious thing. i.e. to sue WSJ outright on the grounds that its reporting was false and that the said monies were never deposited into his private bank accounts – and win the case. Right now, his lawyers’ letter to WSJ is mere pussyfooting.

But would he dare sue? Well, if he is clean, he would. But if he isn’t and the case goes to trial and WSJ does bring out the dirt, and proves beyond doubt that those money transfers were made as reported, he would be in deep shit.

I reiterate, whether he misused the monies allegedly deposited is not the main issue. Proving that he received the funds is enough. Regardless of whether he used the money for his personal interest, the crime is already implicit in the taking of the US$700 million.

And let’s also be clear on another point. Even if he used the money for purposes other than his own, like funding BN’s GE13 campaign, that still amounts to abuse of power and misuse of public funds – simply because public money should not be used for the benefit of a political party, even if it is the ruling party.

Furthermore, if the money was used in that way, it would have been to ensure that the party won the elections and remained in power, which meant Najib would also remain as prime minister, so, technically, that can be said to be fulfilling his personal interest.

Speaking of the special task force, the Attorney-General’s call to hunt down the mole who leaked the investigation documents to WSJ is another telling development.

It seems clear from this that the A-G inadvertently acknowledges the WSJ report to be true, that it was based on documents from the 1MDB probe that was already being carried out by the Malaysian government before the news story broke.

The A-G’s promise to prosecute the mole is sidetracking us from the main scandal and an attempt to kill the messenger. That should not be so. If it had not been for the messenger, Malaysians would not have known of the greater scandal of the alleged money transfers to Najib. (On that score, the Home Ministry should also stop harassing The Edge.)

The A-G should get his focus right. But the fact that he serves the prime minister and reports to him makes him vulnerable. So, in the interest of an independent and bias-free investigation into the Najib case, he should not be part of the special task force.

Neither should the other three members – Bank Negara’s governor, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief and the Inspector-General of Police (IGP). They, too report to the prime minister.

Besides, Bank Negara’s governor could also be implicated if she had been aware of the transfers in the first place. We don’t know if she knew because she has said absolutely nothing about it.

All four should therefore be immediately replaced by neutral parties who are also not public servants.

As for Najib, he should not be involved in the investigation at all and, certainly, not dictating its scope. He is the one being investigated; how can he call the shots?

This scandal is the biggest to hit Malaysia, and, to all intents and purposes, Najib may not be guilty of the allegations, but until we know for sure, let us for goodness’ sake carry out the investigation properly and honestly.

Malaysians deserve to know the truth because their money is at the centre of this scandal. So, too, the integrity of their prime minister. If Najib truly believes his slogan of “people first”, he should do the right thing and open the door to the truth.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Can We Save Malaysia, Please!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 July 2015, 6:40 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.