Guan Eng is an open book  prepared to answer all questions about his RM2.8 million bungalow purchase while  Najib is a closed book running way from  questions about his twin mega scandals!

There are many reasons why Datuk Seri Najib Razak should step down as Prime Minister.

The first is of course the imposition of Goods and Services Tax (GST) which has caused great hardships to low-income Malaysians sandwiched between falling incomes and rising cost of living.

There are many other reasons why Najib should step down as Prime Minister, including:

•	Catapulting Malaysia  to the stratosphere and internationally  regarded as among the top ten nations in the world infamous for global corruption because of the RM55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” twin mega scandals.

•	Refusal  to come full and clean in accordance with the principles of accountability, transparency, democracy and good governance about the twin mega scandals, and even Parliament cannot be a venue to ask questions about Najib’s RM4.2 billion “donation” scandal. After a year of adverse international publicity, Malaysians and the world still do not have answers to basic questions like: Where the RM4.2 billion “donation” in Najib’s personal bank accounts from 2011 to 2014 came from and where the monies have gone to.

•	Failure to sue international publications, especially Wall Street Journal and Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the former for the revelation of RM2.6 billion donations in Najib’s personal banking accounts and the latter for the latest revelation that donations deposited into Najib’s personal accounts were not just RM2.6 billion but exceeded RM4.2 billion from 2011 to 2014.

•	National and international confidence in the Malaysian government under the Najib premiership at an all-time low, with popularity among Malay voters’ in Najib plummeting to 32% when it never fell below 50 per cent for any UMNO Prime Minister  in the nation’s history, while international repute and prestige of Malaysia never descended so low that Malaysians are even ashamed to identify themselves as Malaysians when overseas.

•	The first Malaysian Prime Minister to be investigated by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ) under the US Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, first reported by New York Times on Sept. 11, 2015, in connection with the twin mega scandals – which is a great shame, dishonor and humiliation to 30 million Malaysians.

Last November, Malaysians read the news report “US returns US$1 million stolen by former South Korean President Chun”, on the return by the United States of more than a million US dollars to South Korea that were embezzled by South Korea’s former president Chun Doo Hwan which were hidden abroad.

US officials said the return of the funds, US$1.13 million in today’s dollars, demonstrated Washington’s commitment to rooting out the profits of theft by foreign leaders.

The US Department of Justice said FBI investigators had traced US$726,951 to a California account linked to the sale of Orange County real estate by Chun’s son while a second US$500,000 was traced to a Pennsylvania company found to be linked to Chun’s “corruption scheme”.

Are Malaysians to suffer the intense shame, dishonor and humiliation that the South Koreans suffered when their former President Chun Doo Hwan was subject of US FBI and DOJ investigations under the US Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative?

It is for this patriotic reason that Malaysians are asking for the resignation of Najib, the first minority Prime Minister in the nation’s history, for his disregard of the woes of the common people, regardless of race, religion, region or politics, like the imposition of the GST, and the host of issues running against Malaysia’s commitment to democracy, the doctrine of separation of powers, the rule of law, independence and integrity of national institutions, respect for human rights, good governance, and the protection and promotion of the fundamental features of the Merdeka Constitution 1957 and Malaysia Constitution 1963.

This is the reason why we are committed to three objectives:

•	The resignation of Najib as Prime Minister;

•	Meaningful democratic and institutional reforms to Save Malaysia from hurtling down the slope of a failed and a rogue state;

•	Immediate release of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from Sungai Buloh Prison and restoration of all his civic rights to participate and even lead in the series of national deliberations ala-Nelson Mandela (who was incarcerated for over 27 years or over 10,000 days) to Save Malaysia and re-set Malaysia on the right path, based on the Merdeka Constitution 1957 and Malaysia Constitution 1963.

In the last few days, we see a strange development – where internally, all efforts are being made by the powers-that-be to sweep Najib’s twin mega scandals under the carpet, culminating with the “note” by the  Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia  to all  Members of Parliament imposing a blanket ban in Parliament from referring to  Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal on the ground of sub judice –  despite his earlier ruling that he will not impose a “blanket ban” but would decide  on a case-by-case basis whether the sub judice  rule applies.

Externally however, things are move fast with virtually daily revelations about various aspects of  Najib’s twin mega scandals, whether Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners 44-minute documentary on  “State of Fear: Money and Murder in Malaysia” which enumerated that the total donations deposited into Najib’s personal bank accounts from 2011 to 2014 exceeded RM4.2 billion and not the oft-quoted figure of RM2.6 billion; the Wall Street Journal report about Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor’s US$15 million shopping spree on luxury goods during their holidays in United States, Malaysia, Italy and elsewhere in 2014; Luxembourg’s state prosecutor launching a judicial inquiry into allegations of money-laundering, covering payments totaling hundreds of millions of US dollars, against 1MDB; Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)’s sequestration of a large number of bank accounts as part of an investigation into possible money-laundering linked to 1MDB  or the widening investigation by the US Department of Justice into 1MDB by asking Deutsche Bank AG and JPMorgan Chase & Co to provide details on their dealings with 1MDB.

With the world closing in  on the twin mega scandals, the the most likely effect is to provoke  greater suppression of information and denial of accountability, transparency and good governance practices by  Putrajaya.

This is why there is the sharp contrast between DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Guan Eng is accused by UMNO/BN leaders of corrupt practice in his RM2.8 million bungalow purchase without any proof whatsoever but he is prepared to answer all questions about his bungalow purchase – while  Najib is  running way from all questions about his twin mega scandals to the extent that  the Speaker had to  ban all discussion on Najib’s RM2.6 billion donation scandal in Parliament.

Nothing is more eloquent from the  contrasting responses and public postures by Guan Eng and Najib, showing clearly and conclusively that Guan Eng is an open book with nothing to hide about the UMNO/BN allegations of corruption about RM2.8 million bungalow purchase while Najib is a closed book with a lot of things to hide about his twin mega scandals.

(Speech at the Pakatan Harapan “Undur Najib, Mansuhkan GST” ceramah held at KL/Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on Friday, 1st April 2016 at 11 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 April 2016, 12:41 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Financial Scandals
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lim Guan Eng: Penang’s crusading chief minister

Wataru Yoshida

Nikkei Asian Review

March 24, 2016

PENANG, Malaysia   Lim Guan Eng, chief minister of Malaysia’s northern state of Penang, is invigorating the local economy through reforms and may inspire the country to set aside its protectionism to achieve sustainable growth.

   On Feb. 8, Lim was celebrating the Chinese New Year with his supporters in a meeting hall in Penang. The hall was surrounded by about 30 men carrying placards denouncing him. “It is clear they have no respect,” Lim said. “If they had an issue to protest about, they could have done it at any other time.”

     Lim is the only state chief minister of Chinese descent in Malaysia, which maintains a Bumiputera (“son of the land”) policy favoring ethnic Malays. Moreover, he comes from an opposition party. Eight years have passed since he became chief minister, and verbal attacks against him are still an everyday occurrence.

     He has earned a reputation as a reformer. He introduced an open bidding process for state projects, abolishing the practice of awarding contracts preferentially to ethnic Malays and opening the door to all, including foreign and ethnic Chinese companies.

     The state government handed over the operation of a golf course it owns to a Japanese company after the project was put out for tender. The decision led protesters to storm the golf course, but the company that won the order was relieved by Lim’s words: “To increase foreign visitors, foreign companies’ wisdom is needed.” Users of the golf course have grown 30% since the Japanese company took over the operation.

     In another reform, he introduced performance-based pay for state employees, including those doing menial street sweeping jobs. “My dream is to transform Penang into an international and intelligent city. To wake up, we must be clean,” Lim said. The heaps of garbage littering the roadsides disappeared in a year.

 Under Lee’s leadership, Penang has revived its image, which has suffered since the island’s heyday in the 19th century, when it flourished as a trading port. In the six years since he took office, investment in the state has doubled. The state has become a beacon of hope in Malaysia, which was criticized for its protectionist regulations in the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Penang’s economy grew 8% in real terms in 2014, compared with 6% for the whole country.

     His father, Lim Kit Siang, is also an opposition politician. When Lim was eight years old, his father was arrested and held for a year and a half on suspicion of violating the public security law. It was a lonely time for Lim Guan Eng. “Who wants to befriend a prisoner’s son?” he said. “I grew up quite alone and only had one or two close friends. I did a lot of reading on my own.”

     At age 25, when he was working for a foreign-affiliated bank, Lim’s father persuaded him to enter politics. He was imprisoned twice for anti-establishment activities. He got sick and almost lost heart, but he returned to politics, reflecting that “you don’t know how beautiful and important freedom is until you lose it.”

     He is now pondering how to ease the island’s traffic congestion. There are only two bridges linking Penang Island to Peninsular Malaysia, and Lim plans to build a tunnel and fund it by selling the rights to a reclaimed area.

     Many emerging countries realize growth by imitating developed countries’ model of relying on low wages to grow the economy. They then squash competition and turn inward when they suffer a slowdown. But protectionism will never lead to new growth. For Asia to continue growing through innovations, it will need the courage of nonconformists like Lim who open the door to the world.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 April 2016, 7:14 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Luxembourg launches probe in Malaysia PM fund scandal

Luxemburger Wort – English Edition

1 April, 2016

Money laundering probe

(AFP) Luxembourg on Thursday launched a money laundering probe linked to a corruption scandal embroiling Malaysian Premier Najib Razak who is accused of using money in a state-run fund for his own purposes.

Najib, 62, has been under fire over allegations that billions of dollars were stolen from 1MDB, the now struggling state firm he founded, and his acceptance of a $681 million overseas payment.

Reports have also emerged of the luxurious lifestyles, lavish spending and jet-set travel arrangements of his family, stoking calls for his resignation.

The Luxembourg prosecutor’s office said in a statement that it had launched the probe “following revelations about the alleged diversion of funds from 1MDB”.

“The suit concerns money laundering of funds likely to have come from the embezzlement of public monies,” it said.

It said the decision to task an examining magistrate with the probe was taken “after concrete indications” that public money had been diverted via offshore companies with accounts in Singapore, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

The probe will focus on tracking down payments made after bond issues in May and October 2012, it said.

US authorities are reportedly looking into 1MDB-related fund flows, while Swiss, British, Singaporean and Hong Kong authorities also are scrutinising them.

Najib denies any wrongdoing, saying the corruption accusations are part of an unspecified political conspiracy against him.

He has curbed investigations into the scandal and purged his ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) of critics, essentially shutting off internal party challenges.

His no-nonsense predecessor Mahatir Mohamad demanded last week that Najib return hundreds of millions of dollars that ended up in his personal bank accounts to the government.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 April 2016, 8:19 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After Teoh Beng Hock outrage and tragedy, is MACC determined it will never again become a political pawn to persecute the Opposition?

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) must convince Malaysians that after the Teoh Beng Hock outrage and tragedy, for which there is still no closure for the Teoh Beng Hock family and justice-loving Malaysians for Beng Hock’s death at MACC premises, it is determined never again to become a political pawn to persecute the Opposition.

UMNO/BN leaders have accused the DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister, Lim  Guan Eng,  of corruption in the RM2.8 million purchase of his bungalow resulting from the sale of Taman Manggis land to KLDIC.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and if Guan Eng is guilty of corruption in his RM2.8 million bungalow purchase, the full rigours of the law should be applied. However, the maxim that a person is innocent until proven guilty must be scrupulously observed.

In this case, the allegation of Guan Eng’s corruption over the  sale of Taman Manggis land to KLDIC has proved to be baseless, as the Taman Manggis land had been sold by the Penang State Government via open tender to the highest bidder.

Even the allegation that the DAP-led Penang State Government had “robbed” the people of low-cost housing in Taman Manggis had easily been debunked with the declassification of the State Exco minutes of the Gerakan State Government in 2005 and 2007 which showed that the government back then had no plans whatsoever to build homes for the poor.  In contrast, the DAP-led Penang State Government had commenced a separate low, low-medium cost and affordable housing less than two kilometres away in  Jalan S.P. Chelliah which is nearly 10 times the size of the land in Taman Manggis.

While two wrongs do not make a right, this cannot be an argument to justify MACC abuses of power.

There are two questions which MACC owes satisfactory explanation and accounting to the Malaysian public.

MACC had immediately swung into action after the corruption allegations against Guan Eng by UMNO/BN leaders, despatching scores of MACC officers to investigate Guan Eng’s case, lightning searches of the Penang Chief Minister’s Office in Komtar, carting away crates of documents.

Can MACC explain how many officers they had assigned to investigate the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak over allegations of corruption over his twin mega scandals?

As Najib’s RM4.2 billion donation scandal is 1,500 times bigger than Guan Eng’s alleged RM2.8 million bungalow scandal, while the RM55 billion 1MDB scandal is 20,000 times bigger than the alleged RM2.8 million bungalow scandal, had MACC assigned hundreds of MACC officers to investigate Najib’s twin mega scandals, conducting lightning searches of the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya and carting away lorry-loads of documents?

If not, why not?

In fact, MACC’s credibility and authority, both inside the country and internationally, is under a critical test after suffering a mortal blow at the 16th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) with the theme “Ending Impunity: People, Integrity and Action” held in Putrajaya in early September.

Can the MACC justify to anti-corruption busters in the rest of the world why the MACC is ominously silent and inert  when all over world, Najib’s twin mega scandals are making world headline news, with new exposes about what are undoubtedly Malaysia’s first global corruption in the nation’s history?

The latest 1MDB exposes in the world media, whether in United States, Australia, United Kingdom, Europe or the Middle East are about the  widening of global investigation into Najib’s twin mega scandals, like Luxembourg launching a judicial inquiry into allegations of money-laundering, covering payments totaling hundreds of millions of US dollars, against 1MDB and the latest revelations stemming from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sources that more than US$100 million of the production budget for Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street came from 1MDB.

The world media are having a field day lampooning Malaysia for this latest revelation from the 1MDB scandal, with inquisitr website (http://www.inquisitr.com/) carrying an article entitled
“‘THE WOLF OF WALL STREET’ FINANCED BY WOLF OF MALAYSIA?”
 with the following opening paragraphs:

“The Wolf of Wall Street is a story rife with corruption. The story is based on real-life Wall Street broker Jordan Belfort, who made millions of dollars by bilking wealthy investors.

“The Wolf of Wall Street is about stolen money and international scandal, but in a strange, layered twist, authorities say the film may have been backed by stolen money and international scandal.”

Vanity Fair, in a report entitlted
“In Thematically Appropriate Twist, The Wolf of Wall Street Financiers Are Under Federal Investigation”
, said:

“In a development that sounds like something right out of The Wolf of Wall Street, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched a probe and full investigation at Red Granite Pictures to determine whether they used misallocated funds to finance their projects — such as The Wolf of Wall Street. It sounds too perfect to be true, one of those odd little twists of fate that keep the old ‘truth is stranger than fiction’ adage alive, but Deadline reports that the federal government has reason to believe that Red Granite cofounder Riza Aziz has engaged in some decidedly shady dealings involving the government of Malaysia, a fund known as 1MDB, and a network of offshore shell companies.

“The DoJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture arms have begun to look into the suspiciously rapid growth that the fledgling production house of Red Granite has experienced in the years since opening their doors in 2012. Aziz just so happens to be the stepson of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was personally responsible for establishing the 1MBD fund, out of which $155 million may or may not have been moved in the general direction of Red Granite. The company has unambiguously refuted all accusations of financial impropriety, pointing to their policy of transparency about the funds they receive from fair-game investors in Asia and the Middle East. But they now must answer for a tangled web of transactions that suggest underhanded dealings: last year, $681 million unaccountably appeared in PM Razak’s personal coffer and incited a sweeping inspection of his ledgers.”

Corruption busters in over half a dozen countries are crawling all over Najib’s twin mega scandals in their separate investigations and the world press in more than a dozen countries are reporting with bated breath  the ongoing investigations into the twin mega scandals – except  in Malaysia, where the MACC and the mainstream media and their journalists are ominously inert and  silent.

How long can such façade last?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 11:20 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Battle of ideas: Counter-radicalisation (1)

Economist

Apr 2nd 2016 | VILVOORDE

In the first of three articles about Western countries’ attempts to counter Islamist violence, we look at a Belgian programme for disaffected Muslim youngsters

“IT WAS a time-bomb; merely a matter of when,” sighs Rafiq, a young man who runs a newspaper shop in Vilvoorde, just north of Brussels. Surrounded by papers with pictures of the bombers who killed at least 32 people in the Belgian capital on March 22nd, Rafiq says he is sure more will follow in their footsteps. “In Molenbeek it’s all out in the open. It’s well-known that terrorists live there. Here, it’s more hidden.”

Vilvoorde is less notorious than Molenbeek, a suburb of Brussels that has become synonymous with jihadists and their sympathisers. Yet it has at least as troubling a history. Between 2012 and 2014 it is thought to have produced more recruits for foreign jihadist groups, as a share of Muslim residents, than anywhere else in western Europe. With a big Muslim population, and conveniently located on the AntwerpBrussels railway line, it proved an easy hunting ground for recruiters for Islamic State (IS). Security officials believe that 28 young locals had left for Syria by May 2014.

Khadija Boulahrir, who now works in Brussels, still cannot believe that her former playmates joined IS. In the town’s Grote Markt square, Hamed, an older man, says he understands all too well. “There is nothing to do here for them,” he says. “No jobs, no apprenticeships, nothing.” Of Vilvoorde’s 43,000 inhabitants, 43% are of foreign origin; nearly half of those are unemployed. Many have parents or grandparents who came here as guest workers, before the local Renault factory closed 20 years ago.

But in one respect Vilvoorde is very different from Molenbeek. In 2014 it decided to counter the lure of violent extremism head-on, with a prevention programme aimed at youngsters thought to be at risk. As the investigation into the bombings extends across Europe, evaluating its effectiveness has become a matter of urgency.

The Vilvoorde programme starts from the premise that alienated youngsters are most likely to turn to violent extremism. “We want to give them a stake in society,” says Moad el Boudaati, a social worker whose best friend was among those who left for Syria. Most of those who join IS come from broken homes, where the father is absent and the mother has lost all authority, he says. Now he spends much of his time meeting parents, speaking with young people and working with imams.

Tip-offs may come from schools or parents: after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris last year many teachers called, alarmed by pupils who called the killers heroes. For each tip-off a team is set up; perhaps a health worker, a religious leader, a social worker, someone from the parent network and a school employee. It may offer therapy, help in finding a job, or housing support or parenting advice for the family. The aim, says Jessika Soors, who runs the scheme, is to “increase resilience, both of the families and the young people”.

Relations between the police and local youngsters used to be disastrous, says Mr el Boudaati. Frequent house searches and random frisking on the street bred resentment. Now matters are slowly improving; police hold town-hall meetings to hear young peoples’ grievances. But Ms Soors is adamant that police involvement remain limited so as not to jeopardise trust.

Opinions are divided over the effectiveness of showering could-be jihadists with attention and support. (A similar programme in Aarhus, Denmark, is even more generous.) And, like all prevention programmes, this one is hard to evaluate — how to count the youngsters who would have left had it not been for timely intervention? But in a positive sign, authorities think no further recruits have left from Vilvoorde since May 2014. Yet a new challenge is looming. Of the 28 who left to fight before that date, eight are known to have died in Syria (including Mr el Boudaati’s former best friend) and three are in prison in Belgium. One who returned and is living in Vilvoorde is intensively monitored and supported by local services.

Hide and seek

Keeping tabs on returning IS fighters is more onerous than preventing someone leaving for Syria in the first place. Both in Belgium and elsewhere, they may live openly, claiming to have volunteered in refugee camps. Others go into hiding: the arrest in Molenbeek on March 18th of Salah Abdeslam, the Belgian-born prime suspect in the attacks on Paris last November, demonstrated the frightening ease with which security services could be evaded. According to the authorities, at least one returned fighter is among the eight suspects in the Brussels and Paris attacks who are still on the run.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 8:40 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Counter-radicalisation (2) – Talking cure

Economist

Apr 2nd 2016 | NICE

France puts its faith in secular authorities to help fight radical Islamist ideas

IN THE 15 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, many attempts have been made to draw people away from the jihadist world-view, involving health, social and security services; national and local authorities; and secular purveyors of advice as well as religious ones.

Saudi Arabia lavishes cash on suspected terrorists who co-operate with its deradicalisation programme, setting them up with jobs, cars and even wives.

Efforts by Indonesia’s government have been intensive but snarled up in the wider problems of a corrupt prison system; as in many countries, local initiatives have done better than central ones.

In Western democracies schemes have targeted both those suspected or convicted of terrorist offences and those thought to be at risk of going down the same path.

Not only the tools, but the aims and terminology vary. Some pundits reject the term “deradicalisation”, which became popular in Europe a decade ago, because it seems focused on the individual, ignoring social context. Some make a sharp distinction with counter-radicalisation — attempting to stop people turning to violent extremism in the first place. And in many countries “countering violent extremism” has become the preferred expression for both. It is often stressed that ultra-right fanaticism must be targeted, as well as the Islamist kind.

Whatever they are called, all such programmes now face a growing challenge. By the end of 2015 the number of jihadists from western Europe fighting in Syria had doubled in just 18 months. Governments are scrambling to stop more joining them, and to deal with those who return.

As a share of population, Belgium is the western European country that has supplied the most fighters to IS. But in absolute numbers France is top. Twice targeted by Islamist terrorists and still under a state of emergency, it has turned somewhat belatedly to deradicalisation. Earlier this year it began a compulsory re-education programme in four prisons, where convicted terrorists have been grouped into special units. It is soon to open its first residential centre, for radicalised young adults. Some of the most interesting experiments, however, have emerged at the local level.

Unlikely as it may seem, Alpes-Maritimes, the department that covers the swish Côte d’Azur, has one of the biggest problems with radicalisation outside the Paris region. A short drive from the shuttered façades and palm trees of old Nice, and in the shadow of a raised motorway bearing fast cars towards nearby Monaco, grim concrete tower blocks crowd into the narrow valley. Partly thanks to the efforts of a vigorous local recruiter, Omar Omsen, at least 55 residents from Nice or nearby towns are currently fighting in Syria, including 11 members of one family. Since 2014, the department has recorded 522 alerts about newly radicalised individuals, and it recently closed five underground prayer houses suspected of preaching violent Islamism.

A year ago Alpes-Maritimes put in place a programme that has become something of a model. Thanks to local family-help organisations such as Entr’Autres, the department has trained teachers, social workers, doctors, policemen, prison officers and others to watch for signs of radicalisation and sound the alert. The basis for detection is a grid, devised by the French interior ministry. Signs range from the weak, such as a teenager who cuts himself off from his friends, to the strong, such as a pupil who defends terrorism in the classroom. A national telephone helpline for families also flags local warnings. A counter-radicalisation cell meets weekly to sift cases.

When the system works, alerts have stopped some youngsters leaving for jihad in Syria. Last year two teenage boys were hauled off a plane at Nice airport before take-off. Under French counter-terrorism laws, would-be jihadists can be forbidden from leaving the country, and their passports confiscated. Thanks to an extra €425m ($476m) for counter-terrorism in last year’s national budget, if such hard-core cases involve minors, they can be referred to counsellors.

“Some young people turn up like blocks of concrete,” says Patrick Amoyel, a psychoanalyst and co-founder of Entr’Autres. In a consulting room fitted out with a regulation couch and ample supply of cushions, he sees non-residential patients referred by the counter-radicalisation cell. Analysts follow a three-stage process. First, says Mr Amoyel, they need to forge trust. For an ordinary patient in psychoanalysis this requires a few weeks; with radicalised youngsters it can take months, if it happens at all. Next comes the attempt to “break down their ideological certainties” by finding a weak point in their armour of beliefs. Third, the putative jihadists are confronted with a “counter-discourse”, sometimes with the help of (often Muslim) mentors.

Room for doubt

“The objective is to bring someone back from the edge,” says Mr Amoyel, “from the point at which the radicalised mind turns to terrorism.” Brigitte Juy-Erbibou, co-founder of Entr’Autres, is most hopeful about the young girls, whether Muslim or converts. Some seem to be in the grip less of political Islam, she says, than of an adolescent identity crisis. But Mr Amoyel reckons there is, at best, a 50:50 chance of turning a hardened teenage boy.

Two difficulties mark the French experience. One is linked to the country’s strict secular tradition, which keeps religion out of public institutions. Alpes-Maritimes has begun, tentatively, to include local Muslim leaders. Many social workers and teachers, however, remain uncomfortable. Yet excluding religion leaves a big credibility gap. Boubekeur Bekri, an imam in a tough part of Nice, says the youngsters he tries to talk out of extremism have been “exploited by ideas that have nothing to do with our religion”, so the fact that he shares their faith is “decisive”.

The second issue, shared with other countries, touches fears about confidentiality. Those encouraged to flag trouble do so voluntarily. Yet social workers, trained in child protection, do not want to be seen as informers. There are particular worries about what happens to such information in a country that keeps intelligence files on some 10,500 Islamists and is under a state of emergency. Yet the need to step in and talk to young teenagers, long before they contemplate strapping explosives to their backs, makes it essential to look out for small early-warning signs.

Perhaps most striking, the experience in Alpes-Maritimes reveals a three-way cultural gap between the security-driven tradition of French counter-terrorism, that of psychological therapy, and scholarship on political Islam. If deradicalisation is to mean anything — and some Islamic scholars are sceptical — it needs to link all three. Even the French intelligence services now recognise that a security-driven approach is not enough.

“We should be honest,” says David Thomson, author of a book on French jihadists. “These programmes haven’t yet deradicalised anybody.” A 15-year-old girl from the French Alps recently tried to leave for Syria — after spending time in a deradicalisation programme. Mr Thomson, who is conducting research with returned jihadists, says such teenagers are typically drawn to fight through a sense of social humiliation. Working out the causes of this may be as important a part of the effort as counselling or surveillance. Deradicalisation, says one official, is a “growing industry with lots of exaggerated claims”. The aim, he says, “has to be to stop the process of radicalisation in the first place.”

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 8:57 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Counter-radicalisation (3) – A disarming approach

Economist

April 2nd 2016

Can the beliefs that feed terrorism be changed?

ACCORDING to Peter Neumann, a terrorism-watcher at King’s College London, experience points to three common features in successful efforts to wean someone off extremism. He must already have inner doubts; trusted people, whether imams, friends or relatives, must be involved; and he must be offered an alternative peer group. He may also be more concerned with personal problems or geopolitical grievances than matters of theology.

Still, given that IS’s appeal lies in a perverse but seductive form of religion, some of the counter-argument has to be religious. How to persuade a jihadist, or somebody tempted by jihadism, that there might be better, and truer, ways to understand Islam than the murderous fanaticism of IS and similar groups?

One approach is to challenge their vision of the world, according to which a place belongs either to Dar al-Islam, the realm where Islam prevails, or to Dar al-Harb, where the faith’s enemies are to be found. In the land it controls, IS claims to have re-established Dar al-Islam with a purity comparable to the first Muslim community. The more idealised his vision of Dar al-Islam, the easier it is for an impressionable young Muslim to convince himself that everywhere else is Dar al-Harb, a zone of adversaries deserving no mercy.

But a mentor can show that this division has never been binary. There are intermediate situations such as Dar al-Dawa, the abode of invitation, where Islam does not predominate but can be practised and preached freely. Another important term is Dar al-Ahd, abode of the contract: places which live in established peace with Muslims. Some Muslim scholars say the West is a more comfortable place to practise the faith than many Muslim-majority countries. And Islam has a lot to say about loyalty and obedience to states that allow Muslims to live safely and devoutly.

To the jihadist and the Islamo-sceptical Westerner alike, sharia law may conjure up images of cruel religious punishment. To a young Muslim frustrated by the ambivalence of life in the West, there may be something seductive about the idea of swift, ruthless justice, ordained by God and therefore not open to question. But a mentor can suggest returning to the original meaning of sharia: a way of promoting the well-being of the individual and the community. The term refers not only to retribution but to Islam’s positive guidance for living generously and humbly.

A hardened jihadist may have been swayed by “The Management of Savagery”, a kind of manifesto for al-Qaeda and its imitators that was published online in 2004. It calls for merciless violence, especially in Muslim countries where Western countries have some influence. The intention is to foment grievance, force the West to over-react and bring about chaos and collapse from which a true caliphate can emerge. It may be possible to convince the subject that all this is alien to the philosophy of war set out in the Koran and by its interpreters. These emphasise that war should only be waged in response to aggression, treachery or a broken treaty, and that civilians should be spared.

Today’s jihadists can also be cast in an unflattering light by drawing parallels with an extremist sect from Islam’s earliest days. Known as the Khawarij, they turned against the caliph of the day and assassinated him, because he was emollient enough to submit to arbitration in a conflict with a rival. The Sunni preachers of IS strongly reject the comparison between themselves and the Khawarij. But the defining feature of the Khawarij, shared with today’s terrorists, was a fondness for denouncing as infidel any Muslim less fanatical than themselves.

Among Muslims who set out to woo people away from terrorism, none of these points is much disputed. Each is intended to challenge the jihadists’ claim to be returning to Islam’s purest sources. But that does not mean that the work is free of controversy.

In Britain, especially, there has been bitter argument, not over how to go about mentoring, but over who should do it. Is the job best given to religious teachers who themselves hold quite hard-line theological and political views and can therefore partly empathise with their subjects, or should it be restricted to those who espouse secular notions of liberty and equality, including, for example, gay rights?

Words and wounds

In recent years, the more restrictive view has prevailed. In comparison with interventions focused on social work elsewhere, Britain’s deradicalisation programme, known as Channel, is perceived to be police-led. It is part of an anti-terror strategy known as Prevent, which was denounced this week by a teachers’ union for requiring teachers to report on their pupils.

Channel is also theology-heavy — but it only uses mentors who espouse liberal democracy, secular law and Western notions of freedom, tolerance and equality. They must unconditionally oppose attacks on British forces. Rashad Ali, one of those mentors and a fellow of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think-tank in London, argues that deradicalisation can be worse than useless if practitioners, while condemning IS, condone other violence.

The difficulty, insists Alyas Karmani, a British imam who has mentored jailed extremists but has now fallen out of official favour, is that restricting the pool to such impeccably liberal-minded folk disqualifies the great majority of those well-placed to communicate and empathise with their subjects. In particular, imams who share their subjects’ anger at Western foreign policy, for example the use of drones over Pakistan and Afghanistan, are excluded.

In Islamic terminology, there is a degree of ijma, or consensus, on what to say to a would-be jihadist. But on who should say it there is fitna, a state of dangerous strife.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 9:12 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Donation or 1MDB funds? Luxembourg probe may uncover missing link

Nigel Aw

Malaysiakini

2 Apr 2016

Malaysians may be wondering why a tiny European country is joining the growing global investigation into 1MDB, but the outcome of the Luxembourg probe could have great bearing on Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

To begin with, the Luxembourg investigation does not indicate that it has anything to do with Najib.

But the Luxembourg probe is significant as it may solve an important missing link – the connection between 1MDB and a number of entities which have generously pumped billions of ringgit, claimed to be donations, into Najib’s personal bank accounts.

ABC News on Tuesday, citing Najib’s bank records, revealed that US$1.051 billion (RM4.2 billion) in the prime minister’s personal accounts originated from entities such as Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Finance, Prince Faisal bin Turkey bin Bandar Alsaud, Tanore Finance (BVI) and Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Ltd (BVI).

The Prime Minister’s Office claimed the Saudi entities are proof of what Najib had always asserted – that the money was a Saudi donation and any links to 1MDB is wrong.

So how is this related to the Luxembourg investigation?

The Wall Street Journal today reported that the Luxembourg unit of Banque Privee Edmond De Rothschild Group, which manages funds for wealthy clients, confirmed it was cooperating with the country’s investigators who are determining whether 1MDB’s funds flowed into the private bank.

However, even before the Luxembourg authorities made public their investigation, Sarawak Report had in January zoomed in on Banque Privee Edmond De Rothschild.

In particular, the whistleblower portal released documents showing that Khadem Al-Qubaisi’s Luxembourg account at Banque Privee Edmond De Rotschilde, held under the name of ‘The Vasco Trust’, received US$472.75 billion (RM1.84 billion) in deposits between May 29, 2012 and Dec 4, 2012.

The money originated from Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Ltd (BVI), the same offshore company which had pumped at least US$120 million (RM480 million) into Najib’s personal bank accounts between Jan 3, 2012 and May 23, 2012.

Khadem was formerly the chairperson of Aabar Investments PJS, the subsidiary of Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), of which he was also managing director. Both entities have business dealings with 1MDB.

Five transactions

The Luxembourg probe is believed to be centred around Khadem’s account in Banque Privee Edmond De Rotschilde.

This was based on the fact that the Luxembourg state prosecutor’s statement said investigators “aim to trace the origin of four transfers in 2012” which corroborates with the four transactions first highlighted by Sarawak Report in January.

The four transactions Khadem received from Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Limited (BVI) over a seven-month period began with a US$158 million deposit on May 29, 2012 and subsequently another US$100.75 million, US$129 million and US$85 million were transferred on Aug 3, Oct 31 and Dec 4 respectively, totalling US$472.75 million.

The Luxembourg state prosecutor’s statement added that investigators were also tracing the origin of another transaction in 2013, which appeared to refer to a US$20.75 million deposit Khadem received on Feb 2 that year from Good Star Limited, also highlighted by the whistleblower portal in January.

Good Star Limited was controlled by Najib’s associate and Penang-born billionaire Jho Low. The company was accused of siphoning off US$1.030 billion from 1MDB’s joint-venture with PetroSaudi International, but 1MDB had insisted all its funds in the deal was accounted for.

As the Luxembourg investigation will look into whether 1MDB’s fund flowed into Khadem’s Banque Privee Edmond De Rotschilde account, it would mean establishing the source of Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Limited (BVI) and Good Star Limited’s funds which were responsible for the five deposits.

Ultimately, determining whether Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Limited’s (BVI) got the funds it sent to Khadem from 1MDB, or not, will have a bearing on Najib. In other words, it would be a test on Najib’s assertion that the multi-billion ringgit deposits he received had always been a donation and is not linked to 1MDB.

And as for Good Star Limited, the facts established by the Luxembourg investigation will also help shed light if 1MDB was truthful that its aborted joint-venture with PetroSaudi International was above board or whether allegations that US$1.030 billion of 1MDB’s funds was siphoned by the company held merits.

Sarawak Report in an article today also noted that the Luxembourg state prosecutor’s statement said its investigation of the five transactions is in the context of the issuance of two bonds in May and October 2012.

The timeline corresponds with the two bonds of US$1.75 billion each, totalling US$3 billion, which 1MDB had raised to acquire power assets.

These were the same bonds which Goldman Sachs underwrote and charge over US$300 million, or a staggering 10 percent, and which is now under investigation in the US.

The UAE investigation

But the Luxembourg probe, in the context of the bonds, has more to do with yet another investigation on 1MDB taking place in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In September last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that US$2.4 billion 1MDB was supposedly to pay to Aabar Investments PJS, the subsidiary of Abu Dhabi’s IPIC, never arrived.

The money 1MDB had to pay were the conditions set out in exchange for IPIC guaranteeing the US$3.5 billion bonds the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund it was raising.

Under the deal with IPIC, 1MDB would allow the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund to keep US$1.4 billion of its US$3.5 billion bonds as security deposit.

1MDB would also give IPIC’s subsidiary Aabar Investments PJS a 49 percent option to subscribe to the former’s power assets subsidiaries, which 1MDB later terminated for around US$1 billion.

But the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund never received the total of US$2.4 billion, so where did the money go?

The Wall Street Journal in December reported that at least US$850 million of this money was paid to Aabar PJS Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), which carried a similar name to IPIC’s subsidiary.

This company, though having a similar name to IPIC’s subsidiary Aabar Investments PJS, was not owned by IPIC. Instead, it was incorporated by Khadem and Mohammed Al-Husseiny, who was also the chief executive officer of the “real” Aabar and have since been removed, according to Sarawak Report.

The whistleblower portal speculated that the Aabar PJS Ltd (BVI) may be linked to Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Ltd (BVI), in the context of the Luxembourg authorities probing the 1MDB bonds and Khadem’s Banque Privee Edmond De Rothschild account.

If the Luxembourg authorities do establish such a link, then the ‘donation’ saga may prove to be more than just a ‘donation’ and may well pile pressure on the Malaysian attorney-general to reopen the case.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 6:14 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


First time Dr M accused of being my puppet, laments Kit Siang

by S Thayaparan

Malaysiakini

29 Mar 2016

“Our chief want is someone who will inspire us to be what we know we could be.”

– Ralph Waldo Emerson

INTERVIEW |
 Very few Malaysians can say they have they lived up to the second part of the famous John F Kennedy quote “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” as DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang has.

After decades of wrestling with his political adversary, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, for the soul of Malaysians after years of being on the receiving end of the all-encompassing power of the Umno state, the honourable gentleman from Gelang Patah, found himself part of a joint declaration along with Mahathir, calling for the ouster of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

While the DAP has enjoyed a political resurgence with a newly awakened electorate, the long struggle against the Umno state has not diminished the enthusiasm and vigour of one the few people who can credibly claim title to elder statesmanship.

Here in two parts, Lim Kit Siang, explains what is at stake when it comes to the machinations of the Najib state, boldly answers questions from a sceptic (the writer) and reminds Malaysians that while we must never excuse the sins of the past, we can move beyond them.

Does “saving Malaysia” mean “saving Umno”, because Mahathir has made it clear that his agenda is to save Umno from Najib?

Interestingly, I issued a statement in Abu Dhabi on April 19, 2015 en route back to Malaysia after a DAP MPs fact-finding visit to Jordan and Egypt, where I differentiated between the “Save Malaysia”, “Save Umno” and “Save Najib” concepts.

This is what I said in my statement last April:

“When I said in my speech to Malaysian students in Alexandria on Friday that I am prepared to work with Mahathir on the ‘Save Malaysia’ agenda, I was not thinking of ‘Save Umno’ or ‘Save Najib’.

“In fact, there is nothing for me to work with Mahathir or anyone else as far as ‘Save Umno’ or ‘Save Najib’ is concerned, as Umno is an incorrigible party set in the ways of money politics and abuses of power, and the greatest contribution Umno can make to the healthy development of democratic politics and Malaysian nation-building is for Umno to go into the opposition benches to allow Malaysia to become a normal democratic country where the transition of power from one political coalition to another is not regarded as a national catastrophe but a necessary rite of passage from a country to graduate to become a normal democracy.

“I believe the first and third prime ministers of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn would agree with me and this was why both of them refused to join Umno Baru which was formed by Mahathir in 1988 and both remained outside Umno Baru till their last breath…

“I stand by what I said to Malaysian students in Alexandria that the focus of the present must be unwaveringly to ‘Save Malaysia’ from the present roller-coaster policies which threaten to plunge Malaysia down the slippery slope, whether in nation-building, politics, economics, education or other aspects of national life, to that of a ‘failed state’.

“I have said that for this formidable task, we must be prepared to put our differences in the past to one side and concentrate all our energies on one common agenda, to save Malaysia from all centrifugal forces to tear the country asunder.”

As far as I am concerned, “Save Malaysia” means saving the country, and not an individual, be he Prime Minister Najib Razak or a particular party, be it Umno.

How can meaningful reforms be carried out by anyone who has Mahathir’s imprimatur?

When Mahathir suggested that political and civil society leaders gather to sign and proclaim the Citizens’ Declaration to Save Malaysia, his first draft focused on concerns over the deteriorating political, economic and social conditions in the country and the damage done to the country under Najib’s premiership, in particular by the RM55 billion 1MDB and RM2.6 billion “donation” twin mega scandals.

However, as the problem is not just about the man but also the system, Mahathir agreed that apart from Najib’s resignation there would also be “much-needed democratic and institutional reforms” to restore the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary and ensure the independence, credibility, professionalism and integrity of our national institutions.

This was highlighted in the last paragraph of the 37-paragraph Citizens’ Declaration, which has to be elaborated in the second step of a national consensus.

The original 42 signatories to the Save Malaysia Citizens’ Declaration, as well as all citizens I hope will endorse the Citizens’ Declaration, have our separate political and national agendas – but the salvation of Malaysia lies in our ability to agree on a core common agenda to save Malaysia, and to enlarge this core common agenda.

Could you describe the processes which led to the declaration and what was your reaction to potentially working with your long-time political adversary?

The country has reached a historic watershed where Malaysians must rise above racial, religious, regional and political differences to take a united stand on a common national agenda – to save Malaysia from hurtling down the slippery slope of a failed and a rogue state.

There have been historic examples, both international and in our country – from Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai Shek forming a common front to fight a bigger common enemy in China, to the United States President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Russian dictator Stalin uniting to fight Germany’s Hitler in the Second World War, or the British colonialists teaming up with the Malayan communists under Chin Peng in the Malayan jungles through Force 136 during the Japanese Occupation.

What the Citizens’ Declaration to Save Malaysia sought to do is to spark off a national movement involving the unity all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region or politics to save Malaysia – the highest form of patriotism at this time.

You have said that we can’t undo the past. But how do we secure a future with someone who has been the cause of much of the damage of in the past, who has refused to even acknowledge the role he played, in destabilising our public institutions?

The March 4, 2016 Citizens’ Declaration is not Mahathir or Lim Kit Siang’s declaration – it is a declaration by citizens of Malaysia, regardless of race, religion, region or politics to save Malaysia.

The historic and unprecedented gathering on March 4 to sign and proclaim the Citizens’ Declaration is not about Mahathir or Lim Kit Siang, Muhyiddin Yassin or Mohamad Sabu or Ambiga Sreenivasan, but about 30 million Malaysians, their hopes, aspirations, dream and future.

How do you counter the perception that this declaration gives legitimacy to Mahathir and his decades long rule of Malaysia?

The declaration is a statement about the future as to how Malaysians can unite at present on a common platform to save Malaysia, not a judgement or verdict of the events of the past. The question of legitimatising or criminalising any individual or event in the past does not arise.

I am aware that questions have been asked as to how Lim Kit Siang and Mahathir can sit on the same table, considering the decades of differences and Mahathir’s responsibility in sending me and Guan Eng into incarceration, twice not once in Guan Eng’s case.

In my 50 years of politics, I have been accused of all sorts of things – of being a Chinese chauvinist; communist; cause of the May 13, 1969 riots; anti-Malay, anti-Islam, all completely baseless and pure defamation.

For my joint appearance with Mahathir for the March 4, 2016 Save Malaysia Citizens’ Declaration, I have been accused of being Mahahtir’s puppet and Mahathir accused of being my puppet.

I am used to all these epithets and abuses, but it must be the first time that Mahathir is being accused of being my puppet.

I am no puppet of Mahathir, just as Mahathir is no puppet of mine. It was not easy for me to appear on the same table with him just as it was not easy for Mahathir to appear on the same table with me.

This is a testimony of the exceptional times we are in, where Malaysian patriots must rise above their differences to reach an accord in the higher national interest, which is why the March 4 Citizens’ Declaration marks a historic watershed in Malaysia’s political development.

Although there seems to be a cautious optimism amongst the general vote base of the opposition, what do you think of the scepticism from certain quarters of civil society with regards to this declaration?

I can understand such reservations and even skepticism.

I can imagine similar debates before the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Kuomintang decided on a united front against the Japanese invaders in China, or in the capitals of Washington, London and Moscow before the conclusion of the “Grand Alliance” of the Big Three against Nazi Germany or by the British colonialists who had retreated to India during the Japanese Occupation and the Malayan Communist Party in the jungles before they cemented their operation and the infiltration of Force 136.

I believe many of the signatories also have doubts and reservations about whether what they had embarked upon will lead to success.

For the sake of saving Malaysia, it is better to have tried and failed than never to try at all.

If Najib carries out another Operation Lallang, do you think that politically the opposition can survive?

I was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) twice, first time for 17 months in 1969 after my first election as member of parliament for Bandar Melaka and the May 13, 1969 riots in Kuala Lumpur and second time, under Operation Lallang for 18 months.

Although the iniquitous ISA has been repealed, the country appears to be heading to a new period of repression with new draconian legislative measures likely to be presented in the current meeting of Parliament, with new draconian provisions and increased penalties for offences under the Official Secrets Act, Sedition Act as well as giving the prime minister dictatorial powers to virtually declare emergency in the country without checks and balances from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Parliament.

While we must stay vigilant to safeguard our fundamental liberties entrenched in the Constitution and not allow these human rights to be diluted or taken away in any manner under any circumstances, we know that we are in situation where we must be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.

The acts of repression, oppression and persecution have been the game of Barisan Nasional in their effort to maintain power. And as I mentioned, I too am a victim of the vicious ISA, and even the Sedition Act. But whatever bad things done to the opposition, we have always come back stronger, with the people’ support. This is the magnitude of the task and challenge confronting Pakatan Harapan.

How does the DAP counter the perception that their efforts to reach out to the Malay community is not an attempt to subvert “Malay” political control and do you think that compromising on core secular values to court the Malay vote is in the long run detrimental to the progressive agenda of the DAP?

There are two dangerous fallacies played up by some Umno leaders and their cybertroopers. Firstly, that the defeat of Umno in the next general election will result in Malay losing political power in country, and secondly, the defeat of Umno will result in the defeat of Islam in Malaysia.

Let me quote our national laureate A Samad Ismail, who is also a DAP member, who has asked Umno many times: how would the Malays lose political power if Umno is defeated in a general election? He also asked: “How are Malays under threat? How can religion (Islam) and Malays be threatened when those in power have been Malays for over five decades?”

Pakatan Harapan will ensure that the defeat of Umno will not be a threat or disaster for Malays or Islam, or for that matter, for any race or religion in the country. Will Umno’s electoral loss in the 14th General Election be such an unmitigated disaster than it will end in Umno’s demise?

I do not believe Umno is in such a terminal stage of political cancer that it will die and can never recover if it loses the 14th General Election. Both DAP and our Pakatan Harapan partners have been explaining the issue in all our ceramahs and forums, and our views are disseminated through our respective party publications.

On the question of compromise, let me reiterate the fact that people support DAP because they believe we can lead them to a better Malaysia. However, we cannot lead them to a better Malaysia unless we are a part of a coalition to be able to govern, formulate and implement policies for the whole country.

We are in need of change and we must dare to reach out, and to do that, we must dare to transform the DAP into a truly Malaysian party, with the support of all Malaysians, including Malays, Ibans and Kadazans as well as Chinese and Indians.

Nobody is suggesting that we betray or compromise or sell out our principles, ideals and objectives. What we need to change drastically is our modus operandi, and not our ideals and principles, to be more inclusive to appeal to all Malaysians. We have always been a constitutional secular social democratic party fighting for all Malaysians based on the fundamentals of freedom, justice and solidarity.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 4:20 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s big central bank challenge

Nicholas Spiro

Nikkei Asian Review

March 29, 2016

Commentary

Emerging Asia’s central banks are sitting pretty, especially when compared with their Latin American counterparts.

     Many of South America’s monetary guardians have been forced to raise interest rates aggressively over the past several months to combat a sharp rise in inflation, but emerging Asia’s central banks have been able to loosen monetary policy, with rate cuts in India, Indonesia, Taiwan and, most conspicuously, China.

     Yet for Bank Negara Malaysia, the country’s central bank, these are challenging times.

     Incumbent governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz is stepping down on April 30 after 16 years, at a time when investor sentiment towards south-east Asia’s third-largest economy remains volatile. The region’s sole net oil exporter, its ringgit currency has lost 25.5% against the dollar since September 2014, although it is up 10.5% since mid-January amid a stabilization in oil prices.

     The stakes for Malaysia are high.

     Zeti has proved to be one of the most credible and respected emerging market central bank governors. Since the ringgit’s peg to the dollar was jettisoned in 2005, interest rates have remained remarkably stable (with the exception of emergency cuts imposed during the global financial crisis) and the central bank’s autonomy has increased significantly. She has also been extremely candid about the reputational damage wrought by the scandal surrounding 1MDB, Malaysia’s state investment fund.

     The changing of the guard at the central bank is taking place at a sensitive time for Malaysian assets.  While the country’s main equity index has risen 7.5% since late January, Malaysia’s local government bond market suffered outflows of foreign capital – which accounts for nearly half of the market, one of the highest shares in developing economies – in February for the first time in five months, according to data from JP Morgan. This reveals the fragility of the recent improvement in sentiment.

     While oil prices have risen 33% since mid-February, they have been more or less stable since early March, with Brent crude, the international benchmark, struggling to surpass the $40 a barrel level.  This explains why the ringgit’s rally is fading, despite dovish comments from U.S. Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen on March 29 which buoyed emerging market assets.

     While sentiment towards Malaysia has been shaped mainly by external factors, the 1MDB scandal has shaken investor confidence. The country’s attorney-general has cleared premier Najib Razak, who chairs the fund’s advisory board, of any wrongdoing over a $680m payment linked to 1MDB that ended up in his bank account but Najib remains mired in the scandal amid signs he may be losing his grip on his party, the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).

     The central bank under Zeti has been the only domestic institution to take a hard line on the scandal at a time when there are mounting concerns, notably among credit rating agencies, about the political and economic governance of Malaysia.  On March 23, Zeti announced that the central bank had launched enforcement proceedings against 1MDB for failing to provide documentation to substantiate its decision not to repatriate $1.8bn in foreign investments.

 Not surprisingly, there are growing concerns that Zeti’s successor – who will be appointed by Najib, who doubles as the country’s finance minister, once all the candidates have been vetted by the central bank – will lack the independence and credibility that have underpinned confidence in Malaysian monetary policy.

     JP Morgan notes that “the current preference of decision-makers seems to be for the appointment of an outsider”, with Zeti’s successor “faced with a difficult task, as economic growth remains under pressure and fiscal policy remains constrained [by the drop in revenues stemming from low oil prices].”

     An indication of whether the new governor will be willing to stand up to the government could be the extent to which monetary policy becomes more dovish after six years in which the central bank’s benchmark rate has remained in a narrow range of 2.75% to 3.25%.   A sudden cut in rates could be treated by investors as a sign that the central bank has succumbed to political pressure.

     Yet with headline inflation having risen to 4.2% last month – above the central bank’s 2-3% target and up from 2.7% at the end of last year – and persistent concerns about the ringgit given the scope for a renewed decline in oil prices, a cut in rates would be difficult to justify, notwithstanding the increased pressure on monetary policy to help shore up growth at a time when there is little scope for fiscal stimulus.

     Indeed, Malaysia’s new central bank chief will be under even more scrutiny given the severe governance problems which the 1MDB scandal has exposed and the standards set by Zeti during her 16-year term as governor.

     Zeti has set a high bar for her successor.  Even if Malaysia’s new central bank chief is a respected and market-friendly policymaker, her governorship will prove a hard act to follow.

Nicholas Spiro is a partner at Lauressa Advisory, a specialist property and macroeconomic consultancy in London.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 11:32 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Murky Malaysian money trail that funded The Wolf of Wall Street – report

Edward Helmore

Guardian

2 April 2016

The FBI reportedly believes that $100m of the Leonardo DiCaprio-starring film’s budget came from a Malaysian state fund for local economic development

Sources within the FBI have confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that more than $100m of the production budget for Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street came from a Malaysian state fund connected to a scandal that has damaged a senior Goldman Sachs banker and led investigators to examine the lifestyle of a notorious New York playboy.

According to the Journal, FBI investigators believe much of the cash used to make the Leonardo DiCaprio-starring film was never intended for the movie business. Instead, it originated with 1MDB, a Malaysian state fund meant to boost local economic development.

1MDB, the Journal reported, passed the money to Red Granite Pictures, a Hollywood production company controlled by Riza Aziz, stepson of the prime minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, who set up 1MDB seven years ago.

1MDB also appears to be behind the lavish lifestyle of Low Taek Jho, known as Jho Low, a notorious New York party boy and friend of Aziz.

Jho Low, 34, made his reputation buying multimillion-dollar properties in New York and Los Angeles and bidding on fine art – he is widely believed to have bought Picasso’s Women of Algiers last May, for $179m – while enjoying the limelight alongside celebrities such as DiCaprio and Paris Hilton.

Because Goldman Sachs was involved in the setting up and administration of 1MDB, the scandal is swirling closer to the investment banking giant.

In 2013, the year The Wolf of Wall Street was released, at least $681m, money the Malaysian government said was a gift from the Saudi royal family, landed in the personal bank accounts of Razak. In January, the prime minister was cleared of corruption over the sum.

However, this triggered an investigation into 1MDB that led to Goldman Sachs, which according to the New York Post helped raise $6.5bn for the fund and now faces a congressional hearing into its Malaysian dealings, under a range of statutes.

The company’s south-east Asia chairman, Tim Leissner, took a leave of absence last month. According to the Post, five countries, including the US, UK and France, are said to be looking for evidence of money laundering.

The FBI has issued subpoenas to several current and former employees of Red Granite.

“Red Granite is responding to all inquiries and cooperating fully,” a spokesman for the company told the Journal.

The movie business is long accustomed to accepting funds from investors with little experience in film. Even by Hollywood standards, though, the young Malaysian investors lived large.

Three months after shooting on The Wolf of Wall Street began, Red Granite invested in a birthday gift for DiCaprio: the Oscar statuette given to Marlon Brando for best actor in On the Waterfront, which cost about $600,000.

On New Year’s Eve 2012, revellers celebrated the arrival of 2013 in Australia and then flew to Las Vegas on a rented jetliner in time to celebrate it again. The party was reported to have included the two Malaysians, Aziz and Low, DiCaprio and Wolf of Wall Street co-star Jonah Hill, and the actor and singer Jamie Foxx.

Six months after the movie’s release, DiCaprio, Aziz and Low attended the World Cup in Brazil and spent time on a Saudi-owned, 482ft yacht.

The alleged scandal came to public notice last year, when the Sarawak Report, a UK-based site run by a former BBC journalist, published a series of what it said were internal emails between 1MDB and Saudi energy company PetroSaudi.

The emails, the Sarawak Report said, showed that $700m involved in a deal between 1MDB and PetroSaudi was sent to a bank account belonging to a company controlled by Low.

Low’s current whereabouts remain unknown, though much of the art he is believed to have purchased has reappeared at auction over the last several months. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing, his lawyers calling allegations that he benefited from the fund “false, materially misleading and categorically denied”.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 9:19 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No room for opportunism in politics, says Kit Siang

by S Thayaparan

Malaysiakini

30 Mar 2016

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.”

– Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

INTERVIEW |
 This is the second part of an interview with DAP leader Lim Kit Siang on why he is willing to work with his nemesis, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in the ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign.

The first part appeared yesterday.

DAP has always struggled with the perception and Umno propaganda that it is a “Chinese” entity. Do you think that the DAP has made some missteps that gives credence to this perception?

DAP had never aspired to be a Chinese or non-Malay party. Right from the beginning during DAP’s formation in 1966, DAP had pledged itself to pursue a Malaysian Dream, not a Chinese Dream, an Indian Dream or a Malay Dream.

This is why DAP is the first political party in the country to be Pan-Malaysian, establishing branches in Sarawak and Sabah before any other political party in the country.

All through the past five decades, DAP had been accused of being anti-Malay and anti-Islam by Umno, because of Umno fear that the DAP will be able to make inroads into Umno spheres of influence with our Malaysian political appeal, transcending race, religion or region.

No political party seeking support from all Malaysians can be anti-Malay or anti-Islam, or for that matter, anti-Chinese, anti-Indian, anti-Dayak, anti-Kadazandusun or anti-Buddhism, anti-Christianity, anti-Hindiuism or anti-Sikhism.

The battle against such lies and falsehoods had been a particularly uphill battle for the DAP because we had to face the full onslaught of the Umno juggernaut with its control and ownership of the mass media, particularly in the era before the advent of Internet, news portals and the social media.

However difficult the terrain, DAP had never wavered from our objectives and principles that the DAP had been formed not to fight for any one race but for all races and Malaysians in the country!

This is why right from the beginning, starting from the first general election in 1969 contested by the DAP, the party had always put up a multi-racial and multi-religious slate of candidates.

In fact, in the 1969 general election, two Malay state assemblymen were elected, one in Perak and the other in Negri Sembilan. In the past 11 general elections, DAP had elected Malay members of parliament and state assembly representatives in peninsular Malaysia.

In the 2013 general election, we elected a Kadazan state assemblyman in Sabah and we look forward to the election of the first Dayak state assembly representative in the forthcoming Sarawak state general election.

As in the 1969 general election, DAP has now more Indian MPs than MIC. It is because of the DAP that there is an Indian deputy chief minister in Penang and the first Indian speaker in the Perak state assembly after the 2008 general election.

All these precedents and breakthroughs are testimony that DAP had never aspired to be a Chinese or non-Malay party.

DAP does not apologise for its objective and commitment to be a party representing Malaysians regardless of race, religion or region – whether Chinese, Indians, Malays, Ibans, Kadazans or Orang Asli.

It has not been an easy road in a country where the politics of race and the politics religion have played such a dominant role in the Malaysian politics.

Where does pragmatism end and political opportunism begin?

There can be no room for opportunism as principles and ideals cannot be compromised, but the tactics and strategies to “Save Malaysia” from hurtling towards a failed and a rogue state must be pragmatic and flexible.

After the acrimonious split with PAS, is there a lesson to be learnt on the folly of engaging with an Islamic party and if so, how could this be applied with DAP’s political alliance with Parti Amanah?

Political Islam is a reality we must live with, whether in Malaysia or the world, and I do not agree that it is folly to engage with an Islamic party.

The split with PAS and the rupture of Pakatan Rakyat is not because PAS is an Islamic party, but because it has failed to honour its compact on the Common Policy Framework and the consensus operational principle reached when Pakatan Rakyat was formed.

The political alliance with Parti Amanah Negara in Pakatan Harapan is fully justified if the component coalition parties can learn the lesson from the rupture of Pakatan Rakyat, that any political coalition is only viable and sustainable if the component parties of the coalition abide by the common policy programmes agreed among them, for there is no other basis for a genuine political coalition of equals to succeed.

Pro-establishment bloggers and news portals have demonised the DAP as a pro-Christian political force. Do you think that religion has a role to play in the political discourse and if so, how does one maintain the balance in pursuit of a secular society?

The majority of DAP leaders and members are not Christians. How can DAP become a pro-Christian political force? This is why the allegation of Umno-BN propagandists and cybertroopers that DAP wants to create a Christian Malaysia is even more bizarre and ridiculous.

Right from the very beginning, the DAP stand is clear and unequivocal that we fully accept and respect the fundamental constitutional provision of Islam as the official religion while other religions can be practiced peacefully anywhere in the country.

The stand taken by the DAP, that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion, is the same and consistent with the public positions taken by the first three prime ministers of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Razak Hussein and Hussein Onn.

Is it seriously suggested that the first three prime ministers of Malaysia were enemies of Islam because they uphold Malaysia as secular nation, which does not mean anti-Islam or anti any religion but respect for all religions?

When you said you would even work with Prime Minister Najib Razak if he was serious in reforms, you received much public opprobrium. I took that particular statement as a sign of that you were willing to work with anyone to save the country but more importantly as a sign of frustration. After decades in the forefront advocating change, how frustrated are you with the direction this country is headed in?

I had clarified in Padang Besar why I said in Sungai Petani on March 12 that I was prepared even to work with Najib to save Malaysia.

I said in Sungai Petani that I believe that the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, race or politics, love this country and can subordinate self-interest to national interests and support a Save Malaysia campaign to stop the country hurtling down the slippery slope towards a failed and a rogue state.

I listed some of the things which Najib should do if he is to come on board the “Save Malaysia” campaign, like freeing Anwar Ibrahim and restore to him all his political rights and civic enfranchisement so as to fully participate in a national consultative process on the democratic and institutional reforms necessary to restore national and international confidence in Malaysia; an independent and credible royal commission of inquiry to carry out comprehensive and far-reaching investigations into Najib’s twin mega scandals; halt the lurch towards dictatorial trends by withdrawing all draconian legislative proposals, including proposed amendments to the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act, the Penal Code and the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the withdrawal of the National Security Council Bill, and the withdrawal of all charges and investigations against opposition and civil society leaders under a variety of repressive and undemocratic laws; and the immediate suspension of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and end wasteful government expenditures and corrupt practices.

I believe there will be many Malaysians who will agree that with some of these initiatives, Najib will qualify to come on board the “Save Malaysia” campaign.

I do not think I am the only one frustrated and even exasperated with the direction this country is headed to, which is why the Citizens’ Declaration to Save Malaysia deserves full public support to give it a chance to succeed.

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng is currently facing in my opinion a politically motivated witch-hunt regarding the purchase of his house. Do you see this as a prelude to more insidious manoeuvrings to cripple the opposition?

Yes, to distract public attention from Najib’s twin mega scandals, which are virtually making headlines all over the world and completely beyond the control of Najib’s minders and the impact of the Citizens’ Declaration to Save Malaysia.

From the television time and the newspaper space given to the issue of Guan Eng’s bungalow, the government and Umno-BN media, without being able to show that there is any element of corruption, are creating the impression that the allegation about Guan Eng’s RM2.8 million bungalow issue is 1,000 times more serious than the worldwide allegations about Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal.

There is a general perception that the DAP cannot accept legitimate criticism without deflecting or engaging in victimhood. Do you think this perception is justified?

I do not think DAP leaders have any objection to legitimate criticism. If there are DAP leaders who bristle over legitimate criticism, they have to learn to live with it as an integral part of a democratic society.

Our problem is baseless and biased criticism stemming from dishonourable agendas, and this seems to be a season for them. I have been criticised for things I had not said, and this appeared in what was until recently a reputable media. What is one to make of such scurrilous attacks passing off as legitimate criticism?

How do we nurture a more productive form of discourse with BN supporters when Umno is using the instruments of the state to neutralise the opposition?

Although Umno leaders are demonising DAP in their attempt to portray DAP as its “main enemy”, it doesn’t mean DAP and Pakatan Harapan will not respond in kind to such attacks. DAP does not regard those three million Umno members as “enemies” but only as Malaysians with different political inclinations.

We are always prepared to engage with them for the common purpose and objective to save the nation and all Malaysians comprising different races and religions. It was for that reason alone we agreed to the Citizens’ Declaration.

I know it is tough to even engage with Umno leaders and members to discuss on such matter because their top leadership would never allow such meetings. Yet if we can promote the campaign on the declaration and efforts to save Malaysia, I believe that would be one of the many ways to engage with Umno and Barisan supporters, even when Umno leadership is using the state apparatus.

We know that the top Umno leadership is afraid of DAP because Umno is losing support of Malays and Muslims as it is not prepared to stop the rampant corruption and injustices of its policies, like Najib’s RM2.6 billion and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals.

What do you think the consequences would be if the agenda to remove Najib fails?

The Citizens’ Declaration is work-in-progress to save Malaysia. Nobody is so naïve to believe that just because 42 political and civil society leaders can bridge the political divide to reach consensus on the Citizens’ Declaration on March 4, Najib will heed the call of the Citizens’ Declaration and will resign the very next day.

The journey to save Malaysia is going to be a long, arduous and most challenging one. There is no game plan. We have to take one step at a time. I favour the Chinese saying “mo zhe shi tou gua he” or “cross the river by groping the stone under foot” to describe the approach we have to take to carry out the challenging mission to “Save Malaysia”.

We must be prepared for the long haul. This sounds rather odd coming from a 75-year-old, who does not have many active years left. But the message and task of “Save Malaysia” must be borne particularly by the young generation of Malaysians because we are a youthful nation.

I therefore call on all young Malaysians to step forward to take over the baton to save Malaysia from becoming a failed and a rogue state.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 5:01 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Secret Money Behind ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’

By Bradley Hope, John R. Emshwiller And Ben Fritz

Wall Street Journal

April 1, 2016

Investigators believe much of the cash used to make the Leonardo DiCaprio film about a stock swindler originated with embattled Malaysian state development fund 1MDB

LOS ANGELES—Despite the star power of Leonardo DiCaprio and director Martin Scorsese, the 2013 hit movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” took more than six years to get made because studios weren’t willing to invest in a risky R-rated project.

Help arrived from a virtually unknown production company called Red Granite Pictures. Though it had made just one movie, Red Granite came up with the more than $100 million needed to film the sex- and drug-fueled story of a penny-stock swindler.

Global investigators now believe much of the money to make the movie about a stock scam was diverted from a state fund 9,000 miles away in Malaysia, a fund that had been established to spur local economic development.

The investigators, said people familiar with their work, believe this financing was part of a wider scandal at the Malaysian fund, which has been detailed in Wall Street Journal articles over the past year.

The fund, 1Malaysia Development Bhd., or 1MDB, was set up seven years ago by the prime minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak. His stepson, Riza Aziz, is the chairman of Red Granite Pictures.

The 1MDB fund is now the focus of numerous investigations at home and abroad, which grew out of $11 billion of debt it ran up and questions raised in Malaysia about how some of its money was used.

Investigators in two countries believe that $155 million originating with 1MDB moved into Red Granite in 2012 through a circuitous route involving offshore shell companies, said people familiar with the probes. This same money trail also is described by a person familiar with 1MDB’s dealings and supported by documents reviewed by the Journal.

The story of how “The Wolf of Wall Street” was financed brings together Hollywood celebrities with a cast of characters mostly known for their connections to the Malaysian prime minister. It detours through parties in Cannes and aboard a yacht, and spending on such embellishments as a rare, million-dollar movie poster and an original 1955 Academy Award statuette.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued subpoenas to several current and former employees of Red Granite and to a bank and an accounting firm the company used, according to people familiar with the subpoenas.

“Red Granite is responding to all inquiries and cooperating fully,” said a spokesman for the company, based in West Hollywood, Calif. He said it had no reason to believe the source of its financing was irregular.

The 1MDB fund and Mr. Najib’s office didn’t respond to questions about Red Granite. In the past, both have denied any wrongdoing. Representatives of Messrs. DiCaprio and Scorsese didn’t respond to numerous requests for comment.

The film grossed about $400 million and was nominated for five Academy Awards, including best picture. There is no indication any profits from it flowed to 1MDB or Malaysia.

The movie, heavy on depictions of Wall Street debauchery, wasn’t distributed in Malaysia after authorities there demanded more than 90 cuts to comply with local morality laws, a Malaysian official said.

Red Granite Pictures was set up in 2010 by Mr. Aziz, the Malaysian prime minister’s stepson, now 39 years old, and  Christopher McFarland, a Kentucky businessman who is 43.

Mr. Aziz had worked in finance in London, left to travel and ended up in the U.S., he once told the Hollywood Reporter. Mr. McFarland, called Joey, invested in various ventures and moved to Hollywood to try to make movies, people who know him say.

The two were introduced by a mutual friend: a peripatetic Malaysian businessman named Jho Low, who became a fixture on the party circuit in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York starting in 2009. Mr. Low gained media attention for a lavish lifestyle that brought him into the orbit of celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.

Mr. Low knew Mr. Aziz from the U.K., where both had studied, and forged ties to Mr. Aziz’s family, including Prime Minister Najib. In Malaysia, Mr. Low, whose full name is Low Taek Jho and who is 34, played a role in setting up the fund that became 1MDB.

Messrs. Aziz and McFarland worked for a time out of L’Ermitage Beverly Hills, a luxury hotel owned by a company Mr. Low founded. The aspiring movie moguls later set up an office on Sunset Boulevard that they filled with Hollywood memorabilia.

These included a poster for the 1927 Fritz Lang science-fiction film “Metropolis,” a rare original that cost $1 million, said people familiar with it.

Red Granite burst on the scene in 2011 by throwing a million-dollar beach extravaganza at the Cannes film festival with fireworks and performances by Kanye West, dressed all in white, and Pharrell Williams. A few months later its first movie was released, “Friends With Kids,” starring Adam Scott and Kristen Wiig.

“They definitely came off as high rollers when they started,” said Howard Cohen, co-president of Roadside Attractions, the distributor of Red Granite’s first film.

In the insular movie business, many were surprised to find the high-energy but inexperienced Mr. McFarland overseeing dealings with filmmakers. “Joey is their mouthpiece, and Riza — he said maybe 20 words to me,” said Charles Wessler, a producer of a later Red Granite-backed film.

Messrs. Aziz and McFarland next turned their attention to “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Mr. Low, the Malaysian financier, made a key connection: He knew Mr. DiCaprio and introduced him to Red Granite, according to people familiar with the introduction.

Mr. DiCaprio had long been interested in a movie based on the memoirs of a penny-stock operator who went to prison for fraud, Jordan Belfort. But the actor and other boosters couldn’t find a studio that believed a film so expensive and potentially offensive would find a big enough audience.

Red Granite was willing to take the risk.

Shooting began in August 2012. Three months later, when Mr. DiCaprio had a birthday, the Red Granite principals forged a closer tie to him with an unusual gift: the Oscar statuette presented to Marlon Brando in 1955 for best actor in “On the Waterfront.” People who described the gift said the statuette had been acquired for around $600,000 through a New Jersey memorabilia dealer.

Mr. Aziz, asked about Red Granite’s financing in a 2014 New York Times interview, identified the main investor as a businessman in Abu Dhabi named Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny. “There was no Malaysian money,” he said.

Mr. Al-Husseiny is an American who then headed Aabar Investments PJS, which is an arm of an Abu Dhabi sovereign-wealth fund known as IPIC. The state-owned firms did business with 1MDB. For instance, IPIC guaranteed some of the Malaysian fund’s bonds.

In connection with the IPIC guarantees, 1MDB reported in corporate filings that in 2012, it sent $1.4 billion to Aabar as collateral.

Investigators believe this money never got to Aabar in Abu Dhabi but went instead to a separate, almost identically named company that Mr. Al-Husseiny had helped set up in the British Virgin Islands, called Aabar Investments PJS Ltd., said people familiar with the probes.

The investigators believe about $155 million of this money then flowed to Red Granite Capital, a firm Mr. Aziz had formed to fund the film company.

Documents reviewed by the Journal show three transfers to Red Granite Capital: of $60 million, $45 million and $50 million in 2012.

The $60 million and $45 million transfers were booked by Red Granite Capital as a loan from the British Virgin Islands company that had a name almost identical to Aabar Investments.

Most of the $50 million moved to Red Granite from that same British Virgin Islands company, via intermediaries, the investigators believe.

Among the intermediaries, according to people familiar with investigations and the person familiar with 1MDB: Telina Holdings Inc., a company that had been set up in the British Virgin Islands by Mr. Al-Husseiny and his boss, Khadem Al Qubaisi.

Representatives of the two men, who have been removed from their posts in Abu Dhabi, declined to comment.

A November 2012 loan agreement from Telina Holdings, reviewed by the Journal, shows the $50 million was to fund “The Wolf of Wall Street.” This loan has been repaid, said people familiar with it.

The spokesman for Red Granite said it “has been repaying and will continue to repay all of its loans in accordance with their terms.”

It isn’t clear to whom Red Granite could repay the $105 million loan. The British Virgin Islands firm that extended it was liquidated last June.

“Red Granite had no reason to believe at the time that the source of Aabar’s funds was in any way irregular and still believes the loan to be legitimate,” said the film company’s spokesman.

Once “The Wolf of Wall Street” was in production, Messrs. Aziz and McFarland were sometimes on the set and involved.

On Dec. 31, 2012, around the end of filming, many of those involved celebrated New Year’s festivities in Australia and then flew to Las Vegas on a rented jetliner in time to celebrate it again, according to people familiar with the trip, who said the celebrants included Messrs. Aziz and Low, “Wolf of Wall Street” stars Mr. DiCaprio and Jonah Hill, along with singer and actor Jamie Foxx, an acquaintance of Mr. Aziz. A representative of Mr. Foxx declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Hill didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Six months after the movie’s debut, Messrs. DiCaprio, Aziz and Low attended the Brazilian World Cup and spent time on the Topaz, a 482-foot yacht owned by Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, chairman of the Abu Dhabi sovereign-wealth fund IPIC, according to people familiar with the excursion. Sheikh Mansour, who is also deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, didn’t attend, they said.

The success of “The Wolf of Wall Street” established Red Granite as a player in Hollywood. It went on to produce “Dumb and Dumber To,” a sequel to the 1994 Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels comedy, and another comedy, “Daddy’s Home,” with Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg. It is planning to bring out a film about George Washington.

Investigations of 1MDB “will not affect our ability to move forward with the exciting projects Red Granite is developing,” the firm’s spokesman said.

—Erich Schwartzel and Tom Wright contributed to this article.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 8:37 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Wolf of Wall Street dragged into Malaysia corruption scandal

Rob Crilly, New York

The Telegraph

2 APRIL 2016

Even with Leonardo DiCaprio on board, The Wolf of Wall Street – an 18-rated film about financial corruption – struggled to find the backing it needed.

It took a little known production company, Red Granite, to take the gamble on such explicit material and come up with the $100m or so needed to bring the film to cinema screens.

Now that company has been swept up in a corruption investigation amid allegations that some of the money used to make the film was laundered from a scandal-hit Malaysian firm founded by the country’s prime minister.

Najib Razak, Malaysia’s prime minister, is at the centre of allegations that hundreds of millions of dollars were stolen from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a company that has racked up debts of $7 billion since it was founded.

Global investigators believe $155 million from 1MDB moved into Red Granite in 2012 through an intricate route involving offshore shell companies, according to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal.

FBI agents have issued subpoenas to several current and former Red Granite employees and to a bank and an accounting firm the company used.

One of the company’s founders is Riza Aziz, the London-educated 39-year-old step-son of Mr Najib. The company denies any wrongdoing.

“Red Granite is responding to all inquiries and cooperating fully,” a spokesman for the company, based in West Hollywood, California, told the newspaper. He said it had no reason to believe there was anything suspect about the source of its financing.

The Wolf of Wall Street is based on the life of Jordan Belfort, who in the 1990s become a wealthy stockbroker living a life filled with sex and drugs by swindling investors in a securities scam. His firm was shut down in 1995 and Belfort was sentenced to four years in prison, of which he served 22 months.

He has since made a living as a motivational speaker.

DiCaprio won the rights to his memoir in 2007 but the project was shelved by Warner Bros before Red Granite stepped in.

The film was eventually released in 2013 and nominated for five Oscars, although it won none.

Ironically, it was never shown in Malaysia, where censors demanded more than 90 cuts to comply with local morality laws.

But the success of the film elsewhere established Red Granite as a force in Hollywood and it went on to produce Daddy’s Home, with Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, among others.

For his part, Mr Najib denies any wrong doing and says he is the victim of a political conspiracy. He has struggled to explain how hundreds of millions of dollars ended up in his bank account, and initially denied receiving overseas payment.

However, his government later acknowledged that Mr Najib was the recipient of $681 million, saying it was a gift from the Saudi royal family – most of which was given back – to “promote moderate Islam”. That explanation is yet to be confirmed by Saudi Arabia and is widely dismissed in Malaysia as a cover story.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 April 2016, 8:19 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.