Serially late – 1MDB’s tale of missed deadlines

Anil Netto

Aliran

15 Nov 2015

If you are late for school but if you have a good reason, you may be excused.

But if you are habitually late, say, more than three times in a short space time, then your excuses may wear a little thin. You could end up in detention class or whatever they call it these days. In earlier days, it could even have meant the rotan!

According to the Companies Commission of Malaysia, a “company’s financial statement need (sic) to be tabled (at the AGM) within six months after financial year ended.”

And then, Section 165 of the Companies Act 1965 requires all companies to lodge the annual return (which includes the financial statements and the auditor’s report) within one month of the AGM.

Of course, the company can apply for an extension under Section 143(2) and/or section 169(2) of the Act if it has a special reason for not holding the AGM in time. The registrar will then have to assess if the reason is valid.

One experienced company secretary told me, “The registrar is now very strict about these deadlines.”

So, what happens if a firm is habitually late? What happens if it misses the usual deadline for tabling or submission of accounts, not once but five times?

Let’s take a look at a company which has been very much in the news.

Serially late

1MDB’s financial year ends on 31 March each year. The chronology shows it has missed the initial six-month deadline (30 September) for tabling of accounts five times. The latest financial statements for the year 31 March 2015 are still not out even after six months have lapsed. The firm has reportedly been granted an extension.

The financial statements show that 1MDB’s auditors have more often than not signed the auditor’s report beyond the usual six-month time limit.

Deadline: Six months from financial year-end 31 March i.e. 30 September (183 days)

Year ended

31 Mar 2010 – Signed: 4 Oct 2010 after 187 days –
LATE

31 Mar 2011 – Signed: 5 Aug 2011 after 127 days – ON TIME

31 Mar 2012 – Signed: 12 Dec 2012 after 256 days –
LATE

31 Mar 2013 – Signed: 28 Mar 2014 after 362 days –
LATE

31 Mar 2014 – Signed: 5 Nov 2014 after 219 days –
LATE

31 Mar 2015 – Not yet signed after more than 183 days –
LATE

A more detailed chronology (below) shows how the PetroSaudi deal and the Cayman Islands “investment” appear to have drawn the attention of the auditors. In fact, as early as 2010, the auditors had already emphasised the Petrosaudi connection in their audit report.

2009

Feb 27 – 1MDB (formerly Terenggau Investment Authority)’s first financial year begins. Its first auditors are Ernst and Young.

1MDB raises RM5bn from the issue of Islamic bonds.

Sept 28 – 1MDB pays RM3.4bn in cash for a 40 per cent interest in a joint venture with PetroSaudi.

Flashback: The Edge reported:

SOMETIME in September 2009, currency traders at Bank Negara Malaysia were jolted by huge purchases of US dollars in the domestic currency market and quickly decided to halt the selling pressure on the local currency. They were promptly told to stand down by their superiors. The buildup of US dollar positions on that day paved the way for state-owned 1 Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) to move US$1 billion out of the country for an investment in a British Virgin Islands entity.

2010

Mar 31 – On the last day of the financial year ended 31 March 2010, 1MDB’s shares in the PetroSaudi joint venture are controversially “sold back” to 1MDB for RM4.1bn. The amount is converted into a loan repayable by 2021.

Sept –
CHANGE OF AUDITORS
: Auditors Ernst and Young quit or were terminated. KPMG takes over.

Sept 30 –
DELAYED
: 1MDB misses the deadline for submitting the accounts for the year 31 March 2010.

Oct 4 –
 FINALLY READY
: KPMG signs off the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2010. The surplus on the sale of the shares of RM652m allows 1MDB to show a first-year profit before tax of RM425m.

But in an “Emphasis of Matter” note to its audit report, KPMG red-flags RM4.2bn worth of notes (valued by “an independent financial advisory firm”) which it says are guaranteed by PetroSaudi.

The audit fee is RM55,000.

(On 27 March 2015, Tony Pua reportedly lodges a report with the Malaysian Institute of Accountants about key discrepancies in 1MDB’s financial statement for the year ending 31 March 2010:

The alleged discrepancies include details of 1MDB’s joint venture (JV) with PetroSaudi International Limited (PSI), including the US$700 million (RM2.58 billion) that was allegedly channelled into Good Star Limited, a firm allegedly owned by businessman Low Taek Jho, or popularly known as Jho Low.

Another alleged discrepancy raised by Pua was the 1.5 billion PSI shares that “disappeared” within months after the JV was signed, when it was converted into an Islamic loan.

2011

Mar 31 – KMPG are the auditors for the year ended 31 March 2011.

Anwar calls for a special audit to probe transactions involving 1MDB, PetroSaudi and UBG to ascertain whether or not government money has been used for a slush political fund.

Aug 5 –
ON TIME!
 KPMG signs off the audited financial statements. Profit before tax is RM544m – but this is after including a property revaluation gain of RM827m.

The audit fee is RM137,000 and the non-audit fee RM527,000.

2012

Mar 31 – KMPG are the auditors for 1MDB for the year ended 31 March 2012.

Sept 12 – 1MDB allegedly places US$2.3bn (RM7.4bn) in a segregated portfolio fund based in the Cayman Islands.

Sept 30 –
DELAYED
: Audited financial statements not yet ready.

Dec 12 –
FINALLY READY
: KPMG signs off the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2012. The accounts show a profit before tax of RM44m after including a property revaluation gain of RM570m. The audit fee is RM184,000 and the non-audit fee is RM1.8m.

2013

Mar 31 – KPMG are the auditors for the year ended 31 March 2013.

KEY QUESTION:
 Is KPMG able to obtain the necessary assurances for the US$2.3bn ‘investment’ in the Cayman Islands?

Sept 30 –
DELAYED
: 1MDB asks for a six-month extension on the annual financial statements for the year 31 March 2013 which are supposed to be filed with the Companies Commission.

Dec –
TERMINATED
: 1MDB terminates KPMG’s services and appoints Deloitte.

Malaysian Insider reports:

The removal of KPMG took place after it allegedly refused to finalise its audit on 1MDB’s financial accounts without more information on a US$2.32bn sum which 1MDB said it had invested in a Cayman Islands account, the WSJ reported.

2014

Mar 28 –
FINALLY READY
: After nearly a year, Deloitte signs the 1MDB accounts for 31 March 2013 with lengthy notes to the accounts – six pages dedicated to “Critical Accounting Judgements and Key Sources of Estimation Uncertainty” – presumably to cover the audit firm.

Among the accounting policies raised relate to:

– the Cayman Islands “investment”

– the purchase of power assets

– the policy on land revaluation. This year a RM2.7bn land revaluation surplus helped to cushion an ‘impairment loss on goodwill” (from the premium on acquisitions) of RM1.2bn, allowing 1MDB to turn a loss into a profit before tax of RM877m. Both the revaluation surplus and the impairment loss raise eyebrows among analysts.

The audit fee shoots up to RM3.1m and non-audit fees (payable to other auditors) amount to RM2.2m.

Mar 31 – Deloitte are the auditors for the year ended 31 March 2014

Sept 30 –
DELAYED
: Audited financial statements for year ended 30 March 2014 not yet ready.

Nov 5 –
FINALLY READY
: Deloitte signs off the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2014.

According to the Malay Mail:

(Deloitte) only signed off on 1Malaysia Development Berhad accounts after Middle Eastern firm Aabar Investments helped guarantee the US$2.32 billion (RM9.99 billion) held by the state-owned firm in the Cayman Islands, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

1MDB posts a loss before tax of RM670m, which could have been much worse if not for a property revaluation gain of RM897m.

The audit fee is RM4.7m, up from RM3.1m.

2015

March – Najib orders the auditor general to “independently verify” 1MDB’s accounts and submit its report to Parliament.

March 26 –
WASHING HANDS
: KPMG International denies any relationship or connection to 1MDB, saying that that the KPMG network represented nothing more than a “‘Swiss Cooperative’ of happy Helvetic brand sharers”. No one at KPMG headquarters was responsible for what their fellow franchise holders were up to, and they were just there to help and advise when required.

Mar 31 – Deloitte are the auditors for the year ended 31 March 2015.

May 19 – PAC begins investigations.

June 10 – Deloitte tells PAC that it has not yet received instructions to start the audit for the year ended 31 March 2015.

June 12 – Nazir Razak questions the delay in auditing the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015. PAC supposed to meet KMPG.

June 16 – PAC urges Putrajaya to authorise Deloitte to immediately go through the firm’s books. What is holding back the audit?

July 8 – Police raid 1MDB office and seize documents. Special task force set up to investigate 1MDB.

July 9 – The auditor general’s interim audit doesn’t find any suspicious activity. But 1MDB has not yet handed over several documents mainly connected to investment agreements and bank transfers. The auditor general’s audit will continue until the year end.

Sept 30 –
DELAYED
: Once again, 1MDB misses its deadline to table its audited financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2015. The Companies Commission of Malaysia grants 1MDB a six-month extension to 31 March 2016.

Apparently, according to the 1MDB chief, the auditor Deloitte needed the original sets of documents to audit the accounts but 1MDB did not have them after the raid. But why can’t the auditors gain access to those documents at the offices of the relevant authorities – who should welcome an independent scrutiny of the accounts by recognised auditors, right?

So are the accounts for the year ready for audit? When did the audit begin? And when will the audited financial statements finally be out?

What sort of precedent is this?

From the above chronology, we can sense that the PetroSaudi/Cayman Island ‘investment’ appears to have been a major issue that has caught the auditors’ attention.

Let’s see what Deloitte makes of the Cayman Island’s ‘investment’ (or units or whatever) that was redeemed, along with 1MDB’s other investments, when the latest financial statements for 2015 are finally released. Many will be watching closely – and scrutinising the auditor’s findings.

The chronology above might also give us an inkling as to why 1MDB’s accounts have been repeatedly delayed and its auditors changed.

What are we going to do about the repeated missed deadlines in the tabling/submission of audited financial statements? No doubt, 1MDB may have its reasons for applying for extensions – but late almost every year?

If this has become a habit, what do we do? What sort of example or precedent does this set for other firms in Malaysia? How is the Companies Commission of Malaysia to be strict with other firms who fail to make their submissions in time? After all, every firm that is late will have its own ‘special’ reasons.

In the meantime, we wait … and wait … for Deloitte to come up with its auditor’s report on the assets and liabilites as contained in the financial statements of 1MDB. The spotlight is on Deloitte almost as much as it is on 1MDB.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 November 2015, 4:44 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A call to sanity

 — Dan Ling

Malay Mail Online

November 17, 2015

NOVEMBER 17 — We live in a world of manufactured outrage. From one incident to the next, media does its best; knowingly and unknowingly, to polarise opinion and encourage consumers to adopt a certain stance. From incident to incident, we see this happening with alarming frequency.

It does so by inciting our more base emotions, poking and prodding them. It does so by being selective about what it decides to highlight, covering certain news with front page headlines, while relegating other news to the back pages with nary a few lines of detail. It sets up the perfect breeding ground for the more easily influenced among us to grow a black-and-white, us versus them mentality. And it is dangerous.

You’d have to have been living under a significantly large rock to not have heard about the recent attacks in Paris that claimed over a hundred and thirty lives. But have you been hearing about all the drone attacks over a large portion of Middle Eastern territory? According to official reports, 41 men were specifically targeted due to their involvement in terror cells, yet 1,147 innocent lives were taken as a result of these “precise” drone strikes that were apparently aided by “reliable intelligence.” Did you hear about the Beirut attack that occurred the day before the Paris attacks? Probably not until afterwards, when people started to draw the stark comparisons between how the two were treated by world media.

The only reason why I knew about the Beirut attack around the time it happened was because one of my friends was there, and only narrowly avoided being killed. And yes, I was disgusted by the lack of support that Facebook offered those who were killed. No flag filters to show support, and no check in system to mark off those who were safe. Why the discrepancy? Mark Zuckerberg did offer an explanation, albeit a very half-hearted one that I had the strong feeling he was doing a lot of back-pedalling. Euro-centrism? I think so.

The global “War on Terror” has done us all a huge disservice. Just as the “War on Drugs” has destroyed and ruined so many lives. It has caused chaos by punishing the users through prison and social stigmatism, and has enabled narco-terrorists across the world, but most specifically in the Central Americas, to grow their trade through fear and violence. What do both of these wars have in common? Well, both have been propagated by the US government. Both have killed a staggering amount of people. Both have enabled the US to create an increasingly growing police and military presence, both domestically and internationally. And both have benefited large corporations.

In the case of the war on drugs, arms manufacturers have thrived, as well as the booming prison industry. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 2013 having 716 out of every 100,000 people behind bars. Yes, these are private prisons. The more people they have in prison, the more they earn. I personally find this unconscionable. Being in an environment like this drives the desire for people to purchase more guns, giving them the illusion they are making themselves safer, but of course this couldn’t be further from the truth. The people suffer, and the corporations keep the money rolling in.

The war on terror isn’t much different when you think about it. There have been many false flag events that have occurred over the last few decades that have allowed America and its allies to bolster their power and military might over the world. For those unfamiliar with this term, a false flag event is one in which deceit and duplicity is used to stage an event that forces people to pick a side. This has been a known and well-used tactic by the US in far too many cases.

There’s also a lot of news that these governments don’t want the world to know about. Ever heard of the genocide that is happening in Bahrain? You most likely haven’t. Former CNN investigative journalist Amber Lyon covered that case, and nearly lost her life while doing so, and upon her return to America, had her documentary canned by her superiors. Upon doing a bit of digging, she discovered that the Bahraini government already had a standing agreement with CNN to the tune of millions of dollars to ensure that only approved news be aired. One must wonder how many arrangements like this exist across the world.

The Bahraini regime is inflicting terrorism upon its own populace that is directly funded and sanctioned by the United States, yet global outrage is funnelled towards a relatively small group of disenfranchised extremists whom the US helped to create in the first place. Why is there no widespread condemnation against the US, as well as all the countries who allowed this to happen in the first place? Let us be clear here: together with Israel and the UK, the US created the monster we see before us now. If you find that dubious, all one needs to do is to have a closer look at the geopolitics of the past. There is simply too much evidence there that one cannot possibly cover in the space of an article. And let me be very clear. This is not to say that we shouldn’t be shocked by the horrible acts committed by IS and their ilk. This means we should be more prudent in our condemnation.

So who benefits from all of these atrocities in the long run? The people surely don’t. Instead, they are cajoled into a constant state of fear and panic. The fearful masses are easier to control and manipulate. Families send their sons and daughters off to war in the deluded belief that they are fighting for their freedom and defending their liberties. They come back either in body bags or with emotional scars that lead them down the path to suicide.

The ones who benefit are the defence contractors. The Northrop Grummans and Halliburtons. Bomb makers, tank manufacturers, fighter-jet creators. The ones who benefit are big pharma, dispensing questionable medication that quite often don’t do the job, often triggering emotional outbursts as well as chronic addiction. Anti-depressants and opioid-based pain killers are churned out like candy. The media benefits by having more stories to alter and manipulate to their client’s approval. The larger the clientele, the bigger the paycheck. So in the case of Paris, who is to say that this is not simply another false flag attack? 9/11 sure did wonders in gearing up the American Military Industrial Complex for war. The CIA and the armed forces have also been caught out time and time again for supplying arms and munitions to the wrong people. They’ve been doing it again in the recent Syria conflict, so who’s to say that all of this isn’t simply another case of them fanning the flames of war?

All the while, the people of the world are still being pushed towards that cliff of fear and uncertainty. When people are backed into a corner, they are prone to irrational thought and reckless behaviour. Muslims become public enemy number one despite the fact that it is a very small percentage of their population that are committing these atrocities. This is not to say that Islam bears no responsibility, however. They too are guilty of manufacturing outrage amongst their own populace.

Too often have we heard of atrocities committed in the name of protecting the sanctity of their own religion. The beauty of being an educated and liberal society is that we have the right to challenge ideas, institutions, and individuals, and at times, make fun of them too when we deem necessary. Those rights are the bedrock of progressive society, for when we don’t possess that right, we walk right back into the arms of the totalitarianism and fascism we managed to claw our way out of not so many centuries, and in some cases, decades ago. So we question, we fact-check, and we mock all alike. Let us not forget the Latin saying: Castigat ridendo mores. One corrects customs by laughing at them.

However when this same treatment is applied to Islam by journalists, cartoonists and the like, the results are often deadly. And why? Because a few radical clerics issue death mandates against all those who “insult” the prophet or the religion. One must question whether or not a religion that is all that fragile is deserving of being protected in the first place. What gives the followers of Islam the right to behead those who don’t toe the line? As the eminent author Sam Harris once said, “People have been murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis.” Religion of peace? Think again. The extremists strike out, and the moderates suffer.

This is a problem that 21st century Islam faces. It is a religion that has unfortunately been perverted for far too long by the forces of Saudi Arabian inspired Wahabiism, which, by nature is an extremist and supremely intolerant wing of Islam. Guess who the biggest allies of Saudi Arabia are? You guessed it. America. Just as America can be considered the “stronghold” of western ideals, so too can be said of Saudi Arabia and Islamic ideals. Do you not see a pattern emerging here? Two bedfellows manufacturing opposing outrage to their own people, and profiteering off them?

To analogise the situation, imagine a donkey cart. The people are the donkeys. The reins and bits and ropes that bind are religion and media. Governments are the cart, and the drivers? Large corporations. Steering us down the cliff towards global implosion. What can we do to prevent this from happening? Retain a healthy scepticism towards what we accept as truth. Be discerning towards the media you consume, including this article as well. Be reluctant to jump aboard any emotional bandwagon that might just derail. Destroy the shackles of any religion that tells you to do harm to your fellow man. Demand accountability and transparency from our governments. When it is not given, take to the streets in peaceful protest. If no change is forthcoming, then it is up to the people to carefully consider what would be the best course of action to take with the minimum of human harm.

It’s imperative that we manage our outrage, and that we act maturely when insulted. As an atheist, I get offended nearly every day when I see the countless atrocities committed in the name of religion against our fellow man. I get offended when I see environmental destruction caused by corporate greed and ignorance. I don’t go fly buildings into planes or invade countries or blow people up because of it. Instead, I make sure I read more so that I better understand that which upsets me, and hopefully find a solution to it. I write, in order to share my thoughts with others and hopefully, win people over with logic and compassion. Other people have the right to offend me just as much as I have the right to offend them, and that right should never be rescinded.

We should instead look to more productive and constructive means of dealing with our outrage. Because, guess what… nobody is going to do it for us.

Cedant arma togae
 — Let military power yield to civilian power.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 11:47 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A response to the Attorney-General

— G25

Malay Mail Online

November 15, 2015

NOVEMBER 15 — We, members of G25, wish to refer to the interview that the Malaysian Insider had with the Attorney-General as published in the Malaysian Insider on 14 November 2015 under the heading ‘Why the snub, Apandi asks Bar Council’.

We wish to make the following comments.

Firstly, we are perturbed to note that the Attorney-General is reported to have said —

‘G25 consists of those have-been government servants, isn’t it? Have-beens.’

With respect to the learned Attorney-General we consider it arrogant, crude and unnecessarily offensive for him to have referred to us as “Have-beens’.

Secondly, Tan Sri Apandi appears to be under the delusion that since we have retired from Government service therefore we could no longer contribute constructive ideas for the good governance of our country.

Thirdly, the recent press statement of G25 on the role of the Attorney-General as the Public Prosecutor and our proposal for the creation of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions was issued by G25 collectively as a group. It was not issued by our colleague Datuk Noor Farida, let alone issued by her in her personal capacity. Thus it is unfair and uncalled for the Attorney-General to have singled out Datuk Noor Farida in his criticism of our press statement.

Fourthly, it is not quite accurate for the Attorney-General to have said —

‘And that system has gone fine since Merdeka. And I see no reason to change that. Is this now the only country where the public prosecutor and the A-G are the same person? It’s happening all over the world. It’s a Commonwealth practice. Why didn’t she [Datuk Noor Farida] get this grand idea when she was in Eastern Europe? Why?’

With respect, surely the learned Attorney-General cannot be ignorant of the legal developments that had taken place in developed Commonwealth countries such as England and Wales, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where by statute or by convention the Attorney-General ceases to exercise the powers of prosecution; such powers being vested in the Director of Public Prosecutions, who exercises such powers independently of the Attorney-General. In some jurisdictions, the role of the Attorney-General regarding prosecutions, if at all, has become merely supervisory in nature. The purpose of these developments are essentially to enhance integrity in Government by statutorily ensuring the independence of the prosecution decision-making function from inappropriate political control, direction and influence.

In England and Wales the Attorney-General still exercises control on the prosecution of certain serious offences; but in the vast majority of cases the prosecution is carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions independently of the Attorney-General..

In India the Attorney-General has no powers of prosecution. Such powers are vested in the respective Union/State Director of Prosecutions.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 5:25 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After Paris Attacks, a Darker Mood Toward Islam Emerges in France

By ADAM NOSSITER and LIZ ALDERMAN

New York Times

NOV. 16, 2015

PARIS — November is not January. That thought has been filtering through the statements of most French politicians and the news media, and most people seem to understand.

Unlike the response in January after attacks at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and elsewhere left 17 dead, there were no grand public appeals for solidarity with Muslims after the Friday attacks that left 129 dead in Paris. There were no marches, few pleas not to confuse practitioners of Islam with those who preach jihad.

Instead, there was a palpable fear, even anger, as President François Hollande asked Parliament to extend a state of emergency and called for changing the Constitution to deal with terrorism. It was largely unspoken but nevertheless clear: Secular France always had a complicated relationship with its Muslim community, but now it was tipping toward outright distrust, even hostility.

Already, tough talk from officials in the government shows them shifting rightward, calling for new scrutiny of mosques, extending the state of emergency and possibly placing restrictions on the 10,000 or more people loosely indexed as possible threats to the state. France needs to “expel all these radicalized imams,” Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Saturday.

France had already been expelling handfuls of imams in recent years. But the attacks have not ceased, and experts point out that the paths to radicalization more typically run through the prisons or the war in Syria, not the mosques. At the same time, there are whiffs of hardening feelings — mosque desecrations over the weekend, and harsh words between non-Muslims and Muslims in the crowds mourning.

The concern among Muslims in France is palpable. “We’re already feeling the backlash. It started right away,” said Latetia Syed, 17, whose family gathered on Sunday near the Bataclan concert hall, where 89 people were killed on Friday, to pay respect to the victims. “There was a flood of violent language on Facebook to kill Muslims.”

France’s imams “are all worried,” said Hassen Farsadou, the head of a group of Muslim associations in the Paris suburbs. “We are trying to figure out how to handle this.”

Fear and suspicion are pervasive. “Today, I went to the gym, and I was wearing my helmet,” said Aykut Kasaroglu, a shop worker in the immigrant-rich Montreuil district. “The policeman stopped me and told me to take it off so they could see me. Everyone is suspicious.”

The grim public mood, with hardened jaws and frowns on the emptied streets, is bubbling up. Deep shades of distinction that previously separated France’s political groupings — left, right and far right — on how to handle the terrorist threat, or even how to deal with France’s large Muslim community, are blurring.

“We know, and it is cruel to say it, that on Friday it was French who killed other French,” Mr. Hollande told a rare joint emergency session of Parliament on Monday. “There are, living on our soil, individuals who from delinquency go on to radicalization and then to terrorist criminality.”

Similar words, references to France’s “enemy within,” recently have provoked an uproar, particularly on the left. But this time Mr. Hollande’s speech was met with universal applause, a singing of the national anthem and some rare praise from the far-right National Front leader, Marine Le Pen.

As for the audience newly receptive to Ms. Le Pen, “certainly it will grow,” said Bernard Godard, a leading French expert on Franco-Muslim relations and former Interior Ministry official.

Anti-Muslim feelings that had been kept under wraps may no longer be so discreet, Mr. Godard suggested. On Sunday, tensions flared when a Frenchman, approaching a group of Muslim women in head scarves who were paying homage to the Bataclan victims at a makeshift shrine, began inveighing against the Quran as a source of inspiration for extremists.

“The Quran says that nobody can take a life,” said one of the women, Abiba Trabacke, who was wearing a blue head scarf. She likened the killers to Nazis, adding: “They have nothing to do with us.”

But the man persisted, and several women in the entourage burst into tears. “We are calling for peace and love,” one said.

“Shut up!” a bystander yelled at them. “This is not the time to get into this.”

Mrs. Trabacke turned to the growing crowd. “You see this head scarf that I’m wearing?” she asked. “This is my conviction; it comes from God.”

How this might play out in coming weeks is hinted at in rapidly evolving propositions for how best to use the notorious “S files,” an index of thousands of people considered possible threats to the state — on the basis of dubious associations, for instance, or even online threats. At least one of the attackers at the Bataclan, Ismaël Omar Mostefaï, was on the S list; so were the two brothers who shot up Charlie Hebdo in January and a train attacker thwarted by three Americans in August.

Each time, there has been an outcry in France over why a dangerous individual known to the state was not stopped beforehand. Each time officials have explained that a place in the S files is not the basis for an arrest.

Since Friday, there have been the customary calls from the right and far right for crackdowns on the lists’s members, with a top National Front functionary on television Monday seeming to call for imprisoning all of them. The former President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested electronic monitoring. But this time the left-wing government was careful not to dismiss a heightened role for the S files.

“You can’t dismiss any tool,” Mr. Valls, the prime minister, said on radio about the files. “We are not setting aside any solutions.” As his boss, Mr. Hollande, put it to lawmakers on Monday, “With the acts of war of Nov. 13, the enemy has crossed a new line.”

The question, rights advocates say, is how far the government can go in restricting the rights of a mostly law-abiding minority without further alienating its more marginal members and driving them to the militants.

The Socialist government, with its intensified bombing campaign in Syria and its promises of an internal crackdown, is trying to stay ahead of a deeply uneasy public. But experts say its efforts may not be enough.

Ms. Le Pen’s criticism of Mr. Hollande on Monday may be more significant than her unusual praise. The president had failed to mention the “fight against Islamism” or the “indispensable cleaning out of the cellars and suburbs gangrened by criminality,” she said. In the National Front lexicon, Ms. Le Pen’s words — “suburbs” and “criminality” — are often code for Islam and Muslims.

“There is a serious risk, in public opinion, that people will become more radical,” Mr. Godard said. “Maybe people will now say, ‘No, no, no Islam in the public space, not anymore.’”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 11:41 pm and is filed under
International
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Do Paris terror attacks highlight a clash of civilisations?

Gideon Rachman

Financial Times

November 16, 2015

Multiculturalism is not a naive liberal aspiration — it is the reality of the modern world

Ever since the late Samuel Huntington predicted that international politics would be dominated by a “clash of civilisations”, his theory, first outlined in 1993, has found some of its keenest adherents among militant Islamists. The terrorists who inflicted mass murder on Paris are part of a movement that sees Islam and the west as locked in inevitable mortal combat.

Leading western politicians, by contrast, have almost always rejected Huntington’s analysis. Even former US President George W Bush said: “There is no clash of civilisations.” And everyday life in multicultural western nations, most of which have large Muslim minorities, offers a daily refutation of the idea that different faiths and cultures cannot live and work together.

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, that core idea needs to be reaffirmed. And yet a necessary restatement of liberal values should not prevent a sober acknowledgment of some malign global trends. The fact is that hardline Islamism is on the rise — even in some countries, such as Turkey, Malaysia and Bangladesh, previously regarded as models of moderate Muslim societies. At the same time, the expression of anti-Muslim prejudice is entering the political mainstream in the US, Europe and India.

Taken together, these developments are narrowing the space for those who want to push back against the narrative of a “clash of civilisations”.

Terrorist attacks, such as those in Paris, promote tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims — as they are intended to. But there are also longer-term trends at work that are driving radicalisation. One of the most pernicious is the way in which the Gulf states, in particular Saudi Arabia, have used oil money to spread intolerant forms of Islam into the rest of the Muslim world.

The effects are now visible in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Africa and Europe. Malaysia has long been held up as an example of a successful and prosperous, multicultural nation with a Muslim Malay majority and a large ethnic Chinese minority. But things are changing.

Bilahari Kausikan, a former head of the foreign ministry in neighbouring Singapore, notes a “significant and continuing narrowing of the political and social space for non-Muslims” in Malaysia. He adds: “Arab influences from the Middle East have for several decades steadily eroded the Malay variant of Islam . . . replacing it with a more austere and exclusive interpretation.” The corruption scandal that is undermining the government of Prime Minister Najib Razak has increased communal tensions, as the Malaysian government has fallen back on Muslim identity politics to rally support. One junior government minister even recently accused the opposition of being part of a global Jewish conspiracy against Malaysia.

In Bangladesh, a Muslim country with a secular constitution, radical Islamists have been responsible for murders of intellectuals, bloggers and publishers in the past year. There has also been a rise in attacks on Christians, Hindus and Shia Muslims. Much of this violence has been perpetrated by Isis or al-Qaeda. But, as in Malaysia, the rise of radical Islam seems to have been heavily influenced by the Gulf states — through the funding of education and the connections forged by migrant workers.

For many in the west, Turkey has long been the best example of a majority-Muslim country that is also a successful secular democracy. But in the era of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, religion has become much more central to the country’s politics and identity. Mr Erdogan has been labelled as “mildly Islamist” by The Economist and others. But there was nothing mild about his statement in 2014 that westerners “look like friends, but they want us dead, they like seeing our children die”.

While Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, has not said anything this inflammatory about Muslims, he has long been accused of tolerating anti-Islamic prejudice and violence. During his first months in office, Mr Modi reassured some critics by concentrating on economic reform. But in recent months, members of his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party have ramped up anti-secular and anti-Muslim rhetoric — with the lynching of a Muslim man, accused of eating beef, making national headlines.

In Europe, even before the Paris attacks, the migrant crisis had helped to fuel the rise of anti-Muslim parties and social movements. As Germany has opened its doors to refugees from the Middle East, violent attacks on migrant hostels have risen. In France, it is widely expected the far-right National Front will make significant gains in next month’s regional elections.

Anti-Muslim rhetoric is also rising in the US and has become commonplace among Republican candidates for the presidential nomination. Ben Carson, who leads in many Republican polls, has said that no Muslim should be allowed to become US president; Donald Trump has said that he would deport any Syrian refugees admitted to the US.

The confluence of these developments in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia is fuelling the idea of a clash of civilisations. Yet the reality is that the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds are intermingled across the globe. Multiculturalism is not a naive liberal aspiration — it is the reality of the modern world and it has to be made to work. The only alternative is more violence, death and grief.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 6:33 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Husni’s answer yesterday  a “washout” and total disgrace, further proof that Najib government has more to hide than reveal and account about the RM2.6 billion “donation” and  RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega-scandals

Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanazlah had the unenviable task of standing in for the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the final winding-up of the 2016 Budget, although Najib who had already returned from Turkey and was in Parliament for the voting, could have handled the winding-up personally.

But what is the use of having a Second Finance Minister if one is unable to send him like a Roman gladiator into the Coliseum of ancient times to fight the lions.

Husni’s answer on the twin mega scandals was a “washout” and total disgrace, further proof that Najib government has more to hide than to reveal and account about the RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals.

Husni should have had  an easy job with the 1MDB explanation in Parliament, not only because he is undoubtedly the   most knowledgeable Minister on  1MDB after he was appointed as the Cabinet spokesman for 1MDB  for two months in mid-year forcing him  to try “master” the  intricacies and complexities of the 1MDB scandal – but also because the 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy should have prepared the stage for him with Arul’s “virtuoso” explanation of the 1MDB to 2,000 UMNO divisional leaders, representatives from UMNO-compliant NGOs and government agencies at the Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC) on Saturday.

But Husni was wise not to try to repeat Arul’s “cop-out” performance as with “hawkish” MPs in Parliament, like DAP MP for PJ Utara Tony Pua and PKR MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli, he would not  get away unscathed if he had repeated Arul’s stunts  in Parliament yesterday.

As a result, MPs and the nation were none the wiser about the RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega-scandals despite another budget debate in Parliament – the sixth in the history of the 1MDB scandal since 2009!

Arul had boasted that 1MDB was the most investigated state fund in the country with five agencies – Bank Negara Malaysia, police, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Auditor-General’s Chambers and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – launching several probes.

What Arul failed to add is that despite being “nominally” the most investigated state fund in the country by five agencies, 1MDB is probably the most superficially probed with the police suspending investigations and awaiting the outcome of Auditor-General’s investigations, Bank Negara and MACC hamstrung in their probes and the PAC derailed from continuing its investigations for more than three months and has still to resume its probe.

What is more  significant is not that 1MDB is “nominally” the most investigated state fund in the country by five agencies, but it is the first Malaysian case which is most investigated internationally by over a half dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Hong Kong, United States and Australia.

So much for international infamy.

It is most depressing and most hurtful for patriotic  Malaysians that while the Najib government continues to do its utmost to avoid and evade accountability for the twin mega scandals, the expose of the multiple layers of the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal overseas continues unabated and peeling off one after another  – the latest coinciding with United States President Barrack Obama’s visit to Malaysia next week.

1MDB has admitted  that the state-owned fund, through its unit 1MDB Synergy Sdn Bhd, had entered into a master joint venture agreement with Yurus PE Fund to develop the solar plant project in April 2014.

The Yurus PE Fund is managed by US-based DuSable, a company owned by Frank White, a chief fundraiser for Obama.

Will 1MDB and DuSable Capital Management  come clean on their 50MW solar power plant joint venture project in Kedah and  the US$69 million (RM300 million) proceeds that Yurus Private Equity Fund (Yurus PE Fund) earned in less than six months?

On Nov 11, US-based The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the investor in Yurus PE Fund was Aabar Investment PJS, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, International Petroleum Investment Co (IPIC) which is involved in financing deals of US$3.5 billion to help 1MDB’s rationalisation scheme.

Yesterday, the news portal Asia Sentinel in a report entitled “1MDB May Have Violated US Election Laws” said records compiled by the Sarawak Report, the UK-based news site run by Clare Rewcastle Brown, indicate that 1MDB  may have violated US Federal Election Law by channeling money to a well-connected US lobbying firm, which subsequently poured money into the 2014 electoral campaigns of at least seven Democrats.

The Asia Sentinel Report said:

“The vehicle was DuSable Capital Management, incorporated in Delaware, which features some of the US’s weakest corporate registration laws, on May 9, 2013.

“DuSable was the brainchild of Frank White Jr., the National vice-chairman of President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign and co-chair for the president’s 2013 Inauguration Committee, and Shomik Dutta, a former hedge fund executive and fellow political campaigner.

“DuSable registered as a foreign agent for the government of Malaysia five months later, on Sept. 9 with its sole registered client 1MDB and the government of Malaysia.

“In its registration as a foreign agent, DuSable declared multiple roles in both consulting for the 1MDB solar project, raising investment for a related development partnership and lobbying to obtain US government ‘non-financial support’ for these ventures.

“However, there was no discernible need for 1MDB to seek approval or support from the US for the project. It would also appear that the US$506,000 paid to DuSable by 1MDB was the sole source of DuSable’s funds.

“On Sept. 29, 10 days later, DuSable made contributions of US$5,200 to the Senate campaigns of Mark Begich and Michelle Nunn. On July 1, 2014, DuSable contributed US$25,000 to the gubernatorial campaign of Terry McAuliffe. Other US$500 contributions went to the Senate campaigns of Don Beyer, Kevin Strouse and Rho Khanna. Dick Durbin, the Democratic Senate Whip, received another US$5,200.

“Surreptitious contributions to US political candidates from overseas is no laughing matter. In 2001, Indonesia’s James Tjahaha Riady, the head of the Lippo Group, was fined a record US$8.6 million on a felony charge of conspiring to defraud the United States by unlawfully reimbursing campaign donors with foreign corporate funds in violation of federal election law. In addition, LippoBank California, a California state-chartered bank affiliated with Lippo Group, pleaded guilty to 86 misdemeanor counts charging its agents, Riady and John Huang, with making illegal foreign campaign contributions from 1988 through 1994.”

Husni should have responded to this Asia Sentinel report in his winding-up yesterday, in particular, the Asia Sentinel’s report of the speculation that the US$69 million (RM300 million) proceeds that Yurus Private Equity Fund (Yurus PE Fund) earned in less than six months was linked to Frank White’s relationship with President Obama in connection with persuading Obama to take Najib golfing with him in December last year at the Clipper Golf Course on the US Marine base in Hawaii.

Will the Public Accounts Committee Chairman Datuk Hasan Arifin ensure that the PAC investigations into 1MDB probe into the serious allegations contained in this Asia Sentinel report?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 6:07 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I was held hostage by Isis. They fear our unity more than our airstrikes

Nicolas Hénin

Guardian

16 November 2015

In Syria I learned that Islamic State longs to provoke retaliation. We should not fall into the trap

As a proud Frenchman I am as distressed as anyone about the events in Paris. But I am not shocked or incredulous. I know Islamic State. I spent 10 months as an Isis hostage, and I know for sure that our pain, our grief, our hopes, our lives do not touch them. Theirs is a world apart.

Most people only know them from their propaganda material, but I have seen behind that. In my time as their captive, I met perhaps a dozen of them, including Mohammed Emwazi: Jihadi John was one of my jailers. He nicknamed me “Baldy”.

Even now I sometimes chat with them on social media, and can tell you that much of what you think of them results from their brand of marketing and public relations. They present themselves to the public as superheroes, but away from the camera are a bit pathetic in many ways: street kids drunk on ideology and power. In France we have a saying – stupid and evil. I found them more stupid than evil. That is not to understate the murderous potential of stupidity.

All of those beheaded last year were my cellmates, and my jailers would play childish games with us – mental torture – saying one day that we would be released and then two weeks later observing blithely, “Tomorrow we will kill one of you.” The first couple of times we believed them but after that we came to realise that for the most part they were bullshitters having fun with us.

They would play mock executions. Once they used chloroform with me. Another time it was a beheading scene. A bunch of French-speaking jihadis were shouting, “We’re going to cut your head off and put it on to your arse and upload it to YouTube.” They had a sword from an antique shop.

They were laughing and I played the game by screaming, but they just wanted fun. As soon as they left I turned to another of the French hostages and just laughed. It was so ridiculous.

After all that happened to me, I still don’t feel Isis is the priority. To my mind, Assad is the priority

It struck me forcefully how technologically connected they are; they follow the news obsessively, but everything they see goes through their own filter. They are totally indoctrinated, clinging to all manner of conspiracy theories, never acknowledging the contradictions.

Everything convinces them that they are on the right path and, specifically, that there is a kind of apocalyptic process under way that will lead to a confrontation between an army of Muslims from all over the world and others, the crusaders, the Romans. They see everything as moving us down that road. Consequently, everything is a blessing from Allah.

With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.

Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see.

Why France? For many reasons perhaps, but I think they identified my country as a weak link in Europe – as a place where divisions could be sown easily. That’s why, when I am asked how we should respond, I say that we must act responsibly.

And yet more bombs will be our response. I am no apologist for Isis. How could I be? But everything I know tells me this is a mistake. The bombardment will be huge, a symbol of righteous anger. Within 48 hours of the atrocity, fighter planes conducted their most spectacular munitions raid yet in Syria, dropping more than 20 bombs on Raqqa, an Isis stronghold. Revenge was perhaps inevitable, but what’s needed is deliberation. My fear is that this reaction will make a bad situation worse.

While we are trying to destroy Isis, what of the 500,000 civilians still living and trapped in Raqqa? What of their safety? What of the very real prospect that by failing to think this through, we turn many of them into extremists? The priority must be to protect these people, not to take more bombs to Syria. We need no-fly zones – zones closed to Russians, the regime, the coalition. The Syrian people need security or they themselves will turn to groups such as Isis.

Canada withdrew from the air war after the election of Justin Trudeau. I desperately want France to do the same, and rationality tells me it could happen. But pragmatism tells me it won’t. The fact is we are trapped: Isis has trapped us. They came to Paris with Kalashnikovs, claiming that they wanted to stop the bombing, but knowing all too well that the attack would force us to keep bombing or even to intensify these counterproductive attacks. That is what is happening.

Emwazi is gone now, killed in a coalition air strike, his death celebrated in parliament. I do not mourn him. But during his murder spree, he too followed this double bluff strategy. After murdering the American journalist James Foley, he pointed his knife at the camera and, turning to the next intended victim, said: “Obama, you must stop intervening in the Middle East or I will kill him.” He knew very well what the hostage’s fate would be. He knew very well what the American reaction would be – more bombing. It’s what Isis wants, but should we be giving it to them?

The group is wicked, of that there is no doubt. But after all that happened to me, I still don’t feel Isis is the priority. To my mind, Bashar al-Assad is the priority. The Syrian president is responsible for the rise of Isis in Syria, and so long as his regime is in place, Isis cannot be eradicated. Nor can we stop the attacks on our streets. When people say “Isis first, and then Assad”, I say don’t believe them. They just want to keep Assad in place.

At the moment there is no political road map and no plan to engage the Arab Sunni community. Isis will collapse, but politics will make that happen. In the meantime there is much we can achieve in the aftermath of this atrocity, and the key is strong hearts and resilience, for that is what they fear. I know them: bombing they expect. What they fear is unity.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 8:20 am and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Laying the foundation for fanaticism

– Sheela R.

The Malaysian Insider

16 November 2015

Imagine yourself to be seven years old. A tender age where your foremost consideration would be if you get to play your favourite game with your friends, watch a television programme or simply decide on which ice-cream flavour to indulge in.

Now imagine yourself at that age in a class, where a teacher talks of hell and heaven and the myriad punishments awaiting sinners and unbelievers.

The stuff of nightmares is introduced progressively to you, in the guise of imparting religious values. These visions terrify you, but you don’t have the maturity or intellect to challenge the teacher.

You ask your parents about it but at best, they are noncommittal or at worst, they brush off your concerns as trifling.

You can’t blame them, they themselves have had a limited education and are too busy making ends meet, in a difficult economy. They tell you that teacher knows best.

Now allow five years to go by. You are now 12. You have learnt to obediently parrot your teacher’s religious sayings, without a squeak of protest. Any sign of disobedience is met with harsh earthly punishment and you are anxious to avoid that.

Moreover, you have come to believe your teacher’s words and you are determined not to go to hell, at all costs.

Sadly, you avoid people from different religious backgrounds or alternative opinions; your teacher has imbibed you with prejudices that make it impossible for you to seek companions from other races.

Give yourself another two years. You are now 14.

As a child of this generation, you are internet savvy. You come across worlds inherently different from the one you have been exposed to.

One group catches your attention. This group espouses violence as a way to defend your faith. Their members brandish weapons, swords, AK47s, RPGs; it all looks very exciting. They guarantee you a place in heaven if you die, while defending your faith.

They tell you your parents will go to heaven as well, if you embrace their path.They tell you anyone who is not of their faith is an enemy who deserves to die for being an unbeliever.

You feel confused. You want to belong. You want validation and recognition, for you are a teenager after all. You don’t immediately succumb to the ideologies of this violent group; that will take more time.

Unfortunately, the seeds of destruction have already been sown from the time you were a mere child. You have been taught not to question the tenets of your religion, however absurd its interpretation, and this is the very weakness your “handlers” will exploit for their own selfish political ends.

Using charm, tactics of friendship and constant badgering, they succeed in drawing you in. You become one of them.

An exaggerated preponderance on sin, rigid dogmas, prejudices against other groups passed off as religious values, only stifle a child, robbing him of his ability to think.

By immersing a child in an environment of fear, boredom and insularity, we are fanning the flames of fanaticism and bigotry in Malaysia.

The recent carnage in Paris is a grim yet sad reflection of how fanaticism often ends in tragic violence. While policing may thwart immediate threats of terrorism in our country, we need to seriously examine what is being taught to our children in the name of religion.

Ironically, while the perpetrator of violence is labelled a terrorist, the persons responsible for shaping his mind, escape condemnation. They are the real terrorists, not the child that has been brainwashed to make violence his religion. – November 16, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 11:55 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Islamic state
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Lost Decade

By WILLIAM PESEK

Barron’s Asia

November 17, 2015

The 1MDB scandal is a microcosm of what ails Malaysia. Prime Minister Najib Razak need only look in the mirror to find the culprit for its woes.

Najib Razak, Malaysia’s prime minister, attends prayers at the National Mosque in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Photographer: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg

For journalists who love politicians who say wacky things, Mahathir Mohamad is the gift that keeps on giving. As the world mourned the dead in Paris over the weekend, the one-time Malaysian prime minister couldn’t help but share his latest nutty theory: blame Israel, not ISIS.

Students of the 1997 Asian crisis will recall Mahathir’s rants against George Soros and a shadowy cabal of Jews crashing Malaysia’s currency. His latest controversial comments are a reminder 18 years later of the challenges Malaysia faces marketing itself in a globalized age. Don’t take my word for it –- ask the brother of the latest leader tarnishing the national brand, current Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Najib’s brother, Nazir Razak, runs investment bank CIMB Group. For years, being helmed by the PM’s brother was a great business advantage for one of Southeast Asia’s homegrown success stories. But Nazir has recently taken to social media to express misgivings about the direction of his nation and the political coalition that’s held power for six decades. Ground zero for this perception crisis is 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), the scandal-plagued investment program Prime Minister Najib created in 2009.

Nazir recently posted a 22 year-old photo on Instagram, captioned: “London 1992 with CIMB colleagues, my first investor roadshow. I have been promoting Malaysia for a long time & it has never been tougher than now due to 1MDB and related issues.” By related issues, Nazir probably means the $700 million The Wall Street Journal traced to his brother’s private bank account.

Najib’s people have tried their best to explain away the controversy. They claim, for example, it was a donation from someone in the Middle East (without saying who, what it was for or when Najib might return the funds), not cash from 1MDB. They also suggest another shadowy overseas cabal is attacking poor Malaysia.

How about instead calling out the gang that’s really undermining Malaysia: the nation’s ruling party, Najib’s United Malays National Organization. The party that’s dominated since 1946 is now the engine driving Malaysia right off the road toward greater prosperity and global esteem.

Najib represented a fascinating bookend when he rose to the office his father held from 1970 to 1976. It was Abdul Razak Hussein who devised the “New Economy Policy” of racial preferences for the Malay majority. When it became his turn to lead in 2009, Najib pledged to dismantle a program that dents competitiveness, lowers productivity, turns off foreign executives and encourages many of Malaysia’s best and brightest to flee to neighboring Singapore. Instead, Najib doubled down on economic apartheid for the good of his increasingly embattled party.

What about the good of all of Malaysia’s 30 million people, including ethic Chinese and Indians? Najib’s UMNO took a page from Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, figuring what’s best for the party is best for the people. This mindset isn’t even working out for Japan, which is suffering its second recession since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office in December 2012 (growth shrank 0.8% in the third quarter). With only a couple of short breaks, Abe’s LDP has run Japan for 60 years and still puts party before country.

Japan is a wealthy nation, though, and Malaysia is ensnared in the “middle-income trap” that bedevils developing nations that lose track of what’s important. Malaysia is stuck near the $10,000 per capita income level because leaders aren’t restructuring the economy. Of course, Najib’s spinmeisters will say the 4.7% third-quarter growth rate signals all’s well. But the challenge is to grow better, not faster. Only once the fruits of economic output are shared widely does rapid growth matter.

The reason Malaysia is such a cautionary tale is 1997, when Mahathir was blaming everyone but his government for the ringgit’s crash. Whereas South Korea, Indonesia, and at times even Thailand, fixed their economic cracks, Malaysia walked on the spot. Some of that complacency reflected smugness. Malaysia never went hat-in-hand to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. The view Mahathir’s capital controls saved the day ignores how complacency may have lost Malaysia a decade, or more, of advance up the economic ladder.

THAT’S WHY THE RINGGIT IS DOWN 20% and global funds have pulled more than $7 billion out of Malaysian assets this year. The government – surprise, surprise! — is playing the blame game: it’s the fault of everyone from the Federal Reserve to commodity markets to shadowy international forces, of anything except that Malaysia significantly lagged in Asia’s post-1997 reforms. Had Malaysia merely kept pace in leveling the playing field, improving transparency, adopting meritocratic principles, tightening corporate governance and limiting the collusion between politicians and business there might not be a run on the ringgit.

The 1MDB saga is a microcosm of the problem. Its creation struck many as odd; Malaysia already had a government investment fund — Khazanah Nasional. But the lack of transparency, overlapping objectives, overly ambitious mandate and politically-tainted dealmaking bear all the hallmarks of Malaysia Inc., circa 1997. Government conspiracy theories can’t change the fact that, 18 years on, China’s slowdown and Fed rate hikes are a bigger threat to Malaysia than neighbors. Or global mistrust in Najib’s government.

Even Najib’s brother over at CIMB appears to be losing faith. And even the Federal Bureau of Investigation is probing allegations of corruption and money laundering. If I were among the advisors to U.S. President Barack Obama, who’s visiting Malaysia this week, I’d recommend a serious intervention: Time to look in the mirror, Mr. Prime Minister.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 10:04 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What to call Islamic State

Economist

Nov 15th 2015

The Economist explains

HOURS AFTER France and America pledged to ramp up the war against Islamic State (IS) in response to attacks in Paris that killed 129 and wounded more than 350, French warplanes began pounding the group’s stronghold in Raqqa, in north-eastern Syria.

The operation was conducted in co-ordination with American forces. The French and Americans seemed to be unified over the name they are using for this terrorist scourge, too.

Announcing strikes, the French defence ministry referred to a target “used by Daesh as a command post”.

Barack Obama used the same term when he spoke, at a G20 leaders’ summit in Turkey, of redoubling efforts “to bring about a peaceful transition in Syria and to eliminate Daesh as a force that can create so much pain and suffering for people in Paris, in Ankara, and in other parts of the globe.”

John Kerry, the American secretary of state, also called IS Daesh during a meeting in Vienna. The group has variously been dubbed ISIS, ISIL, IS and SIC too. Why the alphabet soup?

Part of the reason is that the group has evolved over time, changing its own name.

It started as a small but viciously effective part of the Sunni resistance to America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI. In 2007, following the death of its founder (and criticism from al-Qaeda for being too bloodthirsty), AQI rebranded itself the Islamic State in Iraq, or ISI.

It suffered setbacks on its home turf, but as Syria descended into civil war in 2011 ISI spotted an opportunity.

By 2013 it had inserted itself into eastern Syria and adopted a new name to match: the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Increasing the confusion, ISIS changed its name yet again in June 2014, declaring itself the State of the Islamic Caliphate (SIC), a title that reflects its ambitions to rule over Muslims everywhere.

Translation presents another opportunity for acronyms to flourish. In its earlier incarnation as ISIS, the group had sought to challenge “colonialist” borders by using an old Arab geographical term—al-Sham—that applies either to the Syrian capital, Damascus, or to the wider region of the Levant; hence the official American preference for calling it Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, rather than ISIS. The Arabic for this, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil ’Iraq wal-Sham, can be abbreviated to Daesh, just as the Palestinian group Hamas (which means “zeal”) is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, or Islamic Resistance Movement. Daesh is the name that has widely stuck among Arabs, although the group’s own members call it simply the State, al-Dawla, for short, and threaten with lashes those who use Daesh. (Daesh and §sh are one and the same acronym in Arabic, merely transliterated differently for the Roman script.)

There is a long history of pinning unpleasant-sounding names on unpleasant people. Rather as the term Nazi caught on in English partly because of its resonance with words such as “nasty”, Daesh rolls pleasurably off Arab tongues as a close cousin of words meaning to stomp, crush, smash into, or scrub. Picking up on this, France has officially adopted the term for government use; its foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, has explained that Daesh has the added advantage of not granting the group the dignity of being called a state. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, has cast similar aspersions, denouncing the group as a “Non-Islamic Non-State”. Rather than obediently adopting the acronym NINS, this newspaper has chosen for the time being to continue calling the group simply Islamic State (IS).

This article was originally published in 2014 in a different form; it has been updated and republished

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 6:16 am and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why did Malaysian Parliament miss the historic opportunity to be the first Parliament in the world to condemn the massacre and carnage in Paris by IS suicide bombers and to call on world Parliaments to speak with one voice against such atrocities?

I am very disappointed that the  Malaysian Parliament missed the historic opportunity to be the first Parliament in the world to condemn the senseless massacre and carnage in Paris by Islamic State (IS) suicide bombers and to call on world Parliaments to speak with one voice against such atrocities which have left at least 129 dead and over 350 injured.

On Sunday,  I had suggested that the Malaysian Parliament should, in an emergency motion the next day (Monday, 16th November) set a world example and speak in one voice the next day on behalf of 30 million Malaysians to condemn the senseless massacre in Paris on Friday night, as well as to urge Parliaments and legislatures all over the  world to similarly condemn such dastardly and uncivilized savagery as crimes against humanity which cannot be mitigated by any ground or reason.

But there was no such emergency government motion in Parliament yesterday, and the Paris massacre and carnage were furthest from the minds of  government Ministers and MPs who were only obsessed with getting the 2016 Budget adopted in its second reading without any mishap in the voting stage.

The threat to peace, whether in Malaysia, the ASEAN region or world-wide, posed by Islamic State cannot be taken lightly, as evidenced by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar’s revelation of the arrest in the past week of five persons – four Malaysians and one Indonesian –involved in planned  terrorist activities in the Klang Valley.

Khalid said that one of those arrested believes he is “Imam Mahdi” was planning to launch attacks in several locations in the Klang Valley and was  capable of “killing anyone, including family members, who get in the way of the group’s ‘battle’.”

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who has returned from the G20 (Group of 20) Summit in Turkey which he attended as ASEAN Chairman, said G20  leaders generally say Islam is not a problem but how Islam has been abused for the benefit of Islamic State (IS) group.

Why did  the Malaysian Parliament missed the historic opportunity yesterday to be the first Parliament in the world to condemn the senseless massacre in Paris by IS suicide bombers and to call on world Parliaments to speak with one voice against such atrocities?

It could not be because Najib was in Turkey for the G20 Summit, as the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi, could have moved such an emergency motion in Parliament for debate and resolution  immediately after Question Time, taking priority over all other parliamentary business.

Or is it because Zahid was not sure that there would be unanimous support by all Malaysian MPs, regardless of party affiliation, for such a motion?

The Pakatan Harapan parties of DAP, PKR and Parti Amanah Negara had declared their stand condemning the killing of innocent lives in Paris by the Islamic State suicide bombers and gunmen.

Have Zahid any reason to believe that UMNO/BN MPs might not have given unanimous support to  such a motion, or was he unsure of the stand of the PAS MPs?

Unlike  the three Pakatan Harapan parties, PAS  had not made any statement condemning the dastardly massacres in Paris.  Will all PAS MPs support a motion to condemn the Islamic State massacre in Paris last Friday?

Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said yesterday that he had revealed on Sunday that he is on the IS “hit list” although he had been informed about it in March to create a sense of urgency to ensure that such attacks did not happen here.

If so, he should reveal the others on the IS “target list” to show that he is being serious and not embarking on any “ego trip”.

There are four  things the government can and should do to show that it is very serious about the IS threat:

1.	Reveal all Malaysian leaders on the IS “target list”.

2.	Move  an emergency motion in Parliament to unanimously condemn the massacre and carnage by IS suicide bomber and gunmen in Paris last Friday.

3.	 Demonstrate that the government will not “play politics” on an issue which affects the security of the nation like the IS threat, by forming a Parliamentary Select Committee on IS and terrorism in the current Parliamentary meeting to share information with all MPs regardless of party politics so that there could be a national consensus on the threats of IS and terrorism.

4.	Withdraw all criminal prosecutions using the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) which had no relationship with terrorism or terrorist activities, as Parliament and the nation had been explicitly assured that  special legislation like SOSMA are meant to combat terrorism and not to deal with dissent against the ruling authorities of the day.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 November 2015, 10:41 am and is filed under
Islamic state
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Attorney-General Apandi Ali should declare whether he accepts the High Court decision on the release of Khairuddin and Chang and would withdraw all prosecutions and halt police investigations based on SOSMA for activities unrelated to terrorism or terrorist activities

Human rights and civil liberties advocates have cause to rejoice that the battle to uphold the rule of law in Malaysia is not a lost cause when recently-sacked UMNO division deputy chief Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer, Matthias Chang were released under bail after the High Court ruled that the charges of sabotage of financial services do not fall under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA).

High Court judge Mohd Azman Husin decided that financial services do not come within the ambit of Article 149 (1) of the federal constitution where the SOSMA law was enacted by Parliament and ordered the case against Khairuddin Abu Hassan and Matthias Chang to be tried in the Sessions Court.

Both were allowed  bail at RM10,000 each  with one surety.

Mohamad is  charged with sabotaging the financial and banking institutions of Malaysia by lodging police reports on the 1MDB scandal  in Singapore, Hong Kong and United Kingdom.

The duo have been detained for more than one month and denied bail, after authorities categorised the charged offence as a security offence.

The past five days with the senseless massacre by Islamic State (IS) suicide bombers and gunmen in Paris last Friday, leaving 129 dead and 350 injured, and the beheading of the Malaysian hostage Bernard Then by Abu Sayyaf terrorists in Sulu yesterday, have changed the geo-political and security picture not only world-wide but also in the region.

The Government must combat terrorism as a real threat to the peace and security of the country, region and the world and seek a national consensus rising above race, religion and politics and not to use it as a convenient excuse to “play politics” to carry out  repression against  dissent and fundamental human rights of Malaysians.

Any thought to exploit the terrorist threat to  advance  the narrow and sectional objectives of those in power to preserve their position must be completely discarded as the terrorist threat against the country and region  is real and not an imaginary one.

Malaysia had moved dangerously in such a direction in recent times when the government abused SOSMA laws to persecute and prosecute persons for  activities which  have no relationship whatsoever with  terrorism – for instance prosecuting Khairuddin and Chang under SOSMA laws for their actions critical or inimical to 1MBD   so as to shut up Khairuddin and put the duo in custody indefinitely.

The High Court decision releasing Khairuddin and Chang on bail is an important step to return  Malaysia to the rule of law, and it should be followed up with a full review by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to withdraw   all criminal prosecutions  and halt all police investigations under  the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) with regard to actions or activities which are not related to  terrorism or terrorist activities.

It is really ironic and in fact a legal and  juristic scandal that instead of having the most “judicial” Attorney-General, as Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali had been appointed Attorney-General with a mere 24-hour notice of resignation as Federal Court judge, Malaysia is facing the danger of having the most “political” Attorney-General in the nation’s history!

Let Apandi Ali declare whether he accepts the High Court decision on the release of Khairuddin and Chang and would withdraw all prosecutions and halt all police investigations based on SOSMA for activities which may be detrimental or inimical to the vested interests of the government of the day, but have no relationship  whatsoever with terrorism or terroristic activities.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 November 2015, 3:29 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Judiciary
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bernard’s beheading open slap in Najib’s face as well as expression of  utter contempt for the Asia-Pacific leaders gathering in Manila for APEC Summit

Malaysians mourn and grieve with the family of Bernard Then over the heinous and dastardly killing of their loved one by Abu Sayyaf terrorists who beheaded him after holding him  hostage for six months following his kidnap at a restaurant in Sandakan on May 15.

The beheading of the Sarawakian on the day the  Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak arrives in the Philippines capital for a two-day Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Summit is not only an open slap in the face of the Malaysian Prime Minister, but a show of utter contempt for  the Asia-Pacific leaders gathered in Manila for the APEC Summit.

With the backdrop of the senseless massacre by Islamic State (IS) suicide bombers and gunmen in Paris last Friday, leaving 129 dead and 350 injured, Bernard’s execution is a reminder that South East Asia, in particular Sabah, remains a very dangerous place and terrorism a grave threat to modern societies and human civilisations.

Najib should place Bernard’s barbarous and uncivilised  execution on the agenda of APEC Summit for what human progress and APEC co-operation  could  APEC leaders be  talking about in Manila when they could not even ensure Bernard’s safety and life.

Malaysian Parliament, for its part, should observe a minute of silence and outrage at the start of its meeting today and ensure that there is an urgent debate on the heinous and dastardly killing of Bernard by the Abu Sayyaf terrorists, where the Defence Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein should inform the nation of the government’s response to the Abu Sayyaf terrorists on their latest outrage in Bernard’s execution.

Parliament should hold an urgent debate on Bernard’s beheading, which should be held by  tomorrow, when a Parliamentary Select Committee on IS and terrorism should be set up so that the government could share information with all MPs regardless of party,  to ensure a national consensus on the threats of IS and terrorism whether from Abu Sayyaf or other terrorist organisations.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 November 2015, 9:45 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ronald Kiandee wrong when he said Parliament only observed minute’s silence for deaths of heads of states or MPs but Parliament must move on to send clear message that Bernard’s killers must be found to pay for their crime

Deputy Speaker Datuk Seri Ronald Kiandee was wrong when he said that it was only customary for the Dewan Rakyat to observe a minute of silence for the deaths of heads of states or MPs when he rejected the request by the DAP MP for Sandakan, Steven Wong, today  that Parliament observe a minute of silence for Sarawakian Bernard Then who was beheaded by the Abu Sayyaf terrorists.

Bernard was kidnapped in Sandakan on May 15 and was held as a hostage by Abu Sayyaf terrorists for six months in Jolo, Sulu.

The present Parliament elected on May 5, 2013 had on three occasions observed a minute of silence in memory and respect of those who were neither heads of states or Parliamentarians, viz:

•	On March 25, 2014, Parliament observed a minute of silence to pay its respects to the 239 passengers and crew members  aboard the missing MH 370 after the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that the aircraft  had ended its journey somewhere in the south Indian Ocean.

•	On March 10, 2015, when Parliament observed a minute’s silence to mark the one-year anniversary of the disappearance of MH 370 flight.

•	On June 8, 2015 when Parliament observed a minute of silence for those who died in the earthquake that hit Ranau over the weekend.

Parliament should have observed a minute of silence at the beginning of its meeting today not only to convey the nation’s sorrow, grief and condolence to the family of Bernard Then, but also to express the nation’s outrage at such heinous crime committed by Abu Sayyaf terrorists against an innocent and defenceless Malaysian.

Parliament should  move on from the mistake this morning, and ensure that there is a full emergency debate on the unspeakable crime committed by the Abu Sayyap terrorists against a Malaysian citizen, so as to send a clear message that the killers of Bernard must be sought out to pay for the murder of an innocent Malaysian.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 November 2015, 12:45 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Yapeim in the spotlight – who, what and why

Malaysiakini

17 Nov 2015

The Malaysian Islamic Economic Development Foundation (Yapeim) was created in 1976 under the Trustees (Incorporation Act) 1952 and is similar to a charity trust fund.

However, Yapeim is not an ordinary charity trust fund as it is supported by the government with the prime minister as its patron, who delegates a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, normally in charge of Islamic affairs, to oversee the organisation.

Yapeim is managed by its president, deputy president and a board of trustees whose members are appointed by the minister.

It participates in various economic activities including running supermarkets, gold trading and in real estate with part of the profits used to fund welfare programmes.

Why is Yapeim in the middle of a controversy now?

Yapeim group chief executive officer Abibullah Samsudin said the organisation has been successful in its economic activities and it has generated enough income for its own operations without the need to rely on government grants.

National Oversight and Whistleblower (NOW) director Akmal Nasir (photo), however, has alleged misappropriation in Yapeim but if it is not being directly funded by the government, why is it a public issue?

The reason is simply because as a government-backed charity organisation, it gets a lot of goodwill assistance including from members of the public who participate in Yapeim’s salary deduction scheme.

Money the public contributes to Yapeim is meant for various programmes the organisation is running, such as for Muslim welfare and economic empowerment.

So the idea that funds given to Yapeim may not have been used for their intended purposes are not sitting well with contributors and backers.

Yapeim accused Akmal of stealing the foundation’s documents and ‘twisting’ them.

How has Yapeim responded to the scandal?

Allegation No 1:
 Yapeim’s deputy president Zaleha Binti Hussin’s husband and son are alleged to have been appointed to the foundation and collectively, the family earns RM81,700 in salary a month from the foundation.

Response
: Yapeim group chief executive director Abibullah Samsudin says this: “With regards to the appointment of the deputy president’s family members to Yapeim, the appointments were made according to legitimate processes and procedures.

“There are no rules which prevent the appointment of family members to Yapeim,” he added.

Abibullah said Zaleha’s son Wan Johan Wan Ismail has a BSc in planning, construction and housing and a master’s degree in project management from Universiti Sains Malaysia.

He added that Zaleha’s husband Ismail Ismail Mohd Nasib has a bachelor’s degree in counselling from the University of Western Michigan, a bachelor’s degree in history from Universiti Malaya and a post-graduate diploma from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

“They were appointed to Yapeim’s subsidiary based on their qualifications and the company’s needs.

“They have contributed to Yapeim’s business development,” he said in a lengthly statement published on pro-government portal myKMU.net.

He added that even though Yapeim’s business activities are similar to government-linked companies like Tabung Haji and Felda, its president, deputy president and board of trustees do not enjoy bonuses, dividends or other corporate perks.

Allegation No 2:
 Minister in the Prime Minister’s Jamil Khir Baharom went golfing and shopping in the US using funds from Yapeim’s subsidiary Yayasan Pembangunan Anak Yatim/Miskin (Pemangkin), totalling more than RM400,000, which were meant for orphans.

Response
: Jamil Khir insists that his trip to the US from May 21 to 29 in 2014 was on official business.

He said the functions he attended were organised by a foundation under his purview in cooperation with the Malaysian embassy and Education Malaysia (EM), a Malaysian government agency, in Chicago.

Jamil said incidentally, EM had organised a round of golf for the minister, ambassador and embassy staff.

Abibullah said the programme it organised overseas was meant to reach out to Malaysian students abroad and to give them a chance to engage in dialogue with Jamil on Islamic matters.

“Throughout the dialogue and interaction, they were given explanations about national issues, Islamic matters, terrorism issues, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues and others.

“Yapeim denies accusations that the minister attended the programmes organised by Yapeim overseas for leisure.

“The minister was not only invited to officiate and participate in the programmes with the students but also represented Yapeim in discussions with the Malasian embassy and EM which are also involved in taking care of the welfare of Malaysian students abroad,” he said.

Allegation No 3:
 RM290,000 of Yapeim’s funds was used for fund a marriage course in Paris with NOW questioning whether Jamil was also present.

Response:
 Nik Mohammad Izzul Azfar Nik Razali, the deputy programmes director for the course organised in 2014, said the event was organised by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) in cooperation with Yapeim, the Malaysian Students’ Association in France (Masafrance) and other agencies.

“To ensure the programme went smoothly, various facilities were provided for Malaysian students attend from nearby countries such as the UK, Poland, Russia, Ireland and also within France. This included transportation, lodging and food.

“According to Jakim, Yapeim did not misuse funds as all expenses for the programme were in accordance to the set procedures and rules,” he said in a statement yesterday.

He said the event was organised due to the high demand for such courses from Malaysian students overseas and following this, 10 participants tied the knot a few months after the event.

Nik Mohammad Izzul, who is also Masafrance vice-president, said the event had benefited the students and met its objective.

“(But) perhaps in terms of expenditure, this needs to be reexamined even though the spending was according to procedure.

“Allow the responsible authorities to investigate and decide,” he said.

Allegation No 4:
 RM223,000 of Yapeim’s funds were used for a function that has no record of ever having taken place, raising suspicion if it was used for election campaigning as the date coincided with the Rompin by-election.

Response:
 Yapeim has not specifically addressed this claim but stressed that all of its activities and decisions are made based on policies approved by the board of trustees.

“The board of trustees comprises 12 members who include accountants, lawyers, former mufti, university rectors, former deputy vice-chancellors, senior government officers and others.

“Yapeim is also supervised by a syariah oversight committee that oversees all of Yapeim’s operations,” said its chief executive Abibullah Samsudin.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 November 2015, 7:49 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Honour requires Hasan to resign as PAC Chairman for his  obnoxious “cari makan” remark or he should be referred to the Committee of Privileges to determine whether  his “cari makan” remark  had brought shame, disrepute and dishonour to PAC and  Parliament

Honour requires Datuk Hasan Arifin to resign as Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman for his obnoxious “cari makan” remark or he should be referred to the Committee of Privileges to determine whether his “cari makan” remark had brought shame, disrepute and dishonour to PAC and Parliament, and therefore a gross breach of parliamentary privilege.

Compounding his egregious breach of parliamentary privilege, Hasan has added insult to injury by resorting to the final  ruse of a desperate and dishonest politician – blaming the media for reporting what he had actually said.

Hasan  messed up a very bad situation with his subsequent clarification attempting to do the impossible – to deny and to admit with qualification, one at the same time, which is an impossible job of  trying to square the circle!

On the one hand, Hasan denied  the quip when he  claimed that he  literally meant ‘looking for food’ when he uttered, ‘Saya pun cari makan’.

But in the same breath, he admitted the quip but tried to excuse himself with extenuating circumstances, blaming the reporters as unethical in undermining his reputation as PAC Chairman and a politician in publishing his quip as he had informed the media that it should not be reported as it was “just a joke”.

Further admitting that he had actually made the offensive remark, Hasan said it was off the record as it was made in jest with the intention to be friendly with the media, for whom he provided lunch.

He said: “As the press conference was coming to a close, I invited the media to lunch and after that joked ‘saya pun cari makan’ to create a more friendly environment with the media.”

Can Hasan make up his mind – is he admitting or denying that he had made the offensive remark?

I had viewed the video recording of Hasan’s press conference remark and there is no doubt that Hasan was not telling the truth, as he made the remark 14 minutes into his 18-minute long press conference, while the media was only invited to lunch at the beginning and towards the tail-end of the press conference.

Hasan also did not state that his remark was off the record.

Hasan should have acted with honesty and honour as expected of a PAC Chairman, admit his  mistake and take the medicine for such parliamentary breach of privilege, instead of trying to equivocate, quibble or weasel out of a bad situation of his own creation.

As the Public Accounts Committee would want all witnesses appearing before it to “speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, how can PAC has a Chairman who has the reputation of being  the very opposite of such high standards of honesty and integrity?

The last thing MPs and Malaysians want from their PAC members is for them to have the “cari makan” mentality and mind-set in discharging their duties.

What is the reason for Hasan’s shocking stand that PAC is not calling the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to appear before the PAC in  its investigations into the 1MDB scandal.

Let Hasan explain the rationale for not calling  Najib to the PAC investigation when Najib is the only person in the world  who knows the ins-and-outs of the RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals, as the 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy is only the latest highly-paid “operative” to join the “revolving-door” teams of  1MDB operatives in the past six years to be the 1MDB “public face”.

Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanazlah had admitted when he was  appointed the Cabinet spokesman on 1MDB  in the middle of the year that Najib, as the Prime Minister, was the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals, investment and transactions and that Najib’s written approval was needed for any financial deal undertaken by 1MDB.

Under these circumstances,  any  PAC investigation into 1MDB  without calling Najib to testify would be an utter waste of time and reduce the PAC investigation into a charade.

Worse, PAC members would be guilty of gross dereliction of duty in failing to summon Najib as the person who knows the most about the 1MDB to testify at the PAC investigations.

Hasan also made the startling statement that Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal  is not related to 1MDB, and he quoted as authority the Auditor-General’s Interim Report on 1MDB which was submitted to the PAC in July.

Was Hasan right that the Auditor-General in his Interim Report on 1MDB had reached the conclusion that Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal and the RM50 billion 1MDB scandal are two “entirely different subjects” or did Hasan misread the Auditor-General’s Interim Report?

The first thing the PAC Chairman should do is to table the Auditor-General’s Interim Report on the 1MDB in Parliament  so that Members of Parliament on both sides of the House can know whether Hasan was right in reaching the conclusion that the twin mega scandals are two “entirely different subjects”.

(Speech at the ceramah in conjunction with the launching of Parti Amanah Negara Gelang Patah in Kangkar Baru on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 10 pm)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 November 2015, 7:15 am and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.