Call for Commission of Inquiry by Malaysian Elders on whether there was an attempted “coup” to topple Najib as Prime Minister, the sacking of Gani Patail as AG and Muhyiddin as DPM, the arrest and harassment of top government officials and whether they are related to the twin scandals of 1MDB and RM2.6 billion in Najib’s personal accounts

The best response to Barisan Nasional’s (BN) strategic communications director Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan’s denial that he had confirmed in his Star Online interview that there was a draft of a corruption charge sheet against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is Abdul Rahman’s own words: “Excuse me. I was not born yesterday.”

Abdul Rahman has asked me to re-read his Star Online interview, and I have done so, and I reiterate that anyone reading it will come away with the ineluctable conclusion that there was an attempted coup against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak by criminalising him and toppling him from office; and “given that scenario”, a “flurry of action” was taken by the Prime Minister, including drastic action to “take these people out first, so that things will get back to normalcy and see what happened next”.

Those who were “not born yesterday” would realise that Abdul Rahman was giving a very graphic account of the atmosphere of great distrust, suspicion and division in the corridors of power  and the “cloak-and-dagger” power play in Putrajaya in the last days of July 2015, where he was undoubtedly one of the main backroom players.

If there was no basis whatsoever,  a key player of the Najib team in the Prime Minister’s “brush with death” – political death of course – would not have lent credibility to swirling rumours about the attempted “coup” against Najib involving a corruption charge by the then Attorney-General  which was averted in the last minute by the sudden sacking of Gani Patail, the instant appointment of Federal Court judge Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali as the new Attorney-General and the ensuing “madness in Putrajaya” with the arrest and harassment of key officials of Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

Abdul Rahman’s online Star interview had not just added fodder to the swirling talk of a coup against Najib saving him from a corruption charge from his Attorney-General, but given credibility and legitimacy to the rumours from the very sanctum of the Najib camp.

For instance, the article by Malaysiakini reporter, Hafiz Yatim,
“Did it all happen this way, Rahman Dahlan?”
 may have provided an important piece to the jigsaw puzzle of the tumultuous “last days of July 2015” in Putrajaya, when Hafiz wrote:

“The revelation by Rahman may explain what happened the last few weeks.

“According to those who claim to be in the know, there was a high-powered meeting held on Monday, July 27, comprising the police led by Khalid, the Armed Forces chief Zulkefli Mohd Zin, the MACC and Gani over what may happen the week after that date.

“MACC officers investigating SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former subsidiary of 1MDB, who were present at the meeting told Gani that they have strong evidence against the sitting prime minister, enough to charge him with corruption.

“Since the MACC cannot charge an individual unless it gets the consent to prosecute from the attorney-general, Gani (photo) offered to charge the PM himself.

Having faced allegations in the past, Gani, who was within two months into his retirement, wanted to go out with a bang in order to clean-up his alleged past deeds.

“Hence, he told those present that he would personally charge the PM, later that week.

“Word may have got out that Gani was preferring the charge and it got to the knowledge of Najib.

“Hence, on Tuesday, July 28, there was a swift move by the chief secretary to the government, Ali Hamsa, to announce Gani’sremoval as AG due to health reasons and his replacement by 65-year-old Mohamed Apandi Ali, a Kelantan Umno treasurer before he was made a judge.

Ali’s statement and the letter of appointment for Apandi were backdated to Monday, July 27, to quell what was decided at the high-powered meeting held that day.”

This is one piece of the big jigsaw puzzle of what happened in the “Last Days of July 2015 in Putrajaya” where the Prime Minister of Malaysia was to be toppled by a corruption charge by his own Attorney-General.

Is this true and what are other pieces of this jigsaw puzzle.

This jigsaw puzzle is not a child’s play but concerns the fate and future of 30 million Malaysians – and not just one person, Najib or his new coterie of strategists which clearly included Abdul Rahman.

Malaysia is a democratic country in an information era, and Malaysians are entitled to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the “Last Days of July 2015 in Putrajaya” – whether there was an attempted coup, whether Gani Patail was sacked because he was about to serve a corruption charge on the Prime Minister, or what were the reasons for the sacking of the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and the  crackdown against top offiicials in various government agencies?

I call for a Commission of Inquiry by Malaysian Elders on whether there was an attempted “coup” to topple Najib as Prime Minister, the sacking of Gani Patail as AG, the sacking of the Deputy Prime Minister, the  arrest and harassment of top government officials and whether they were related to the  twin scandals of 1MDB and RM2.6 billion in Najib’s personal accounts.

The Malaysians Elders who should be on this unprecedented Commission should include former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah, former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam, former Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin, former Inspector-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar, former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, former top public servants like Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz, Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, Datuk Seri Daniel Tajem, Datuk Noor Faridah Ariffin (who is also spokesperson of the group of prominent Malays – G25), jurists Datuk P Cumaraswamy,  Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan, Yeoh Yan Poh, etc.

Among the areas this Commission of Malaysian Elders should delve into are:

Whether there was a plot in the last days of July to stage a coup against Najib as Prime Minister by criminalizing him and toppling him from office;

Whether there had been illegal and unconstitutional acts to overawe and frustrate the  Attorney-General from exercising his discretionary powers under Article 145(3) of the Constitution to “institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence”;

Whether there  was any  basis for charging the Prime Minister for the offence of corruption.

I am not interested in any verbal joust with Abdul Rahman, although I congratulate him that in his less than a month as newly-minted BN Strategic Communications Director, he had been responsible for three strategic communications disasters, namely:

The discredited tale pivoting around  former Sarawakian editor Lester Melanyi alleging that there was a plot to topple Najib as Prime Minister, which Abdul Rahman himself abandoned as totally lacking in credibility – which was why the so-called Part 3 of the Lester Melanyi video never appeared.

Abdul Rahman’s “creativity” in coining the ridiculous term of “criminalise Najib” which he first used on July 15. It is to the credit to Najib and his lieutenants and IGP that they did not succumb to Abdul Rahman’s urgings to adopt such a ridiculous term of “criminalise Najib” – except for one Minister Shabery Cheek and Lester.

His disastrous Star Online interview.

I am looking forward to more strategic media disasters from Abdul Rahman.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 August 2015, 12:13 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Escaping Najib’s Malaysia, Investors Also Flee Currency and Stock Market

Y-Sing Liau and Lilian Karunungan

Bloomberg

August 19, 2015

While Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s cabinet overhaul may have achieved the “unified team” he was seeking in the face of probes into his bank accounts, global funds have been voting with their feet.

The ringgit has slumped 6 percent, the benchmark stock index lost 8 percent and sovereign bond risk jumped to a four-year high since the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on Aug. 3 said Najib had received 2.6 billion ringgit ($634 million) from donors and not state investment company 1Malaysia Development Bhd. The conclusion failed to help 1MDB’s bonds, which are trading at 82 cents on the dollar.

PineBridge Investments LLC has cut Malaysian sovereign bond holdings, while Schroder Investment Management Ltd. says it’s too early to buy Asia’s worst-performing currency, as political uncertainty clouds the outlook for an economy rocked by plunging oil prices and an emerging-market selloff. Najib denies taking money for personal gain and has counterattacked against what he described as a campaign to oust him, by reshuffling his cabinet, suspending a leading newspaper and seeking the arrest of a newsletter’s founder.

“By sacking everyone who criticizes him, Prime Minister Najib is putting himself more in the spotlight from an international investor perspective,” said Anders Faergemann, who helps manage $10.6 billion of emerging-market debt at PineBridge in London. “We are increasingly worried about the outlook for Malaysian government bonds due to the ongoing 1MDB scandal and have recently reduced our exposure further.”

‘Unified Team’

The U.K.-based Sarawak Report and the Wall Street Journal last month reported on documents that almost $700 million may have moved through government agencies and companies linked to 1MDB before ending up in accounts bearing Najib’s name.

A warrant is out for the arrest of the Sarawak Report founder under laws relating to false statements and acts detrimental to democracy. Lawyers for Najib sent a letter criticizing the Journal report. Malaysia’s Edge newspaper has been suspended from publication as the government said its coverage of the events threatened public order. Publishers of all three media outlets contested the criticism.

On July 28, Najib said he needed a “unified team” when he removed Muhyiddin Yassin from his cabinet, shortly after the deputy prime minister called for “the real truth” on 1MDB. His rural development minister also fell in the shuffle, while attorney general Abdul Gani Patail, who helped to lead a 1MDB probe, was replaced for health reasons. Amnesty International described Malaysia as a human rights “black hole” in May after the arrest of opponents on sedition charges.

Under Attack

Najib, who chairs the advisory board of 1MDB, has resisted calls from ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad to step down over the about 42 billion ringgit in debt amassed by the fund.

The anti-corruption commission said the money in Najib’s accounts was from donors in the Middle East and not 1MDB. It said it wouldn’t disclose their identities and planned to question Najib about the funds. A Malaysian opposition party announced Aug. 12 it’s suing Najib, saying his coalition breached campaign spending limits during 2013 elections.

Najib said last week that while there are rules on such expenditure, there are no laws on funding. He said better legislation is needed. His office didn’t respond to e-mailed requests for comment. 1MDB said in a statement that it had investor support for its reorganization plans.

Malaysia, Brazil

“1MDB maintains regular contact with its bondholders, via meetings and conference calls,” the statement said. “The vast majority of our bondholders are fully aware of our current strategy and the on-going execution of our rationalization plan, and we are pleased with the support they have provided.”

La Francaise Des Placements, which sold almost half of its 1MDB debt in April, sees similarities between the controversy and allegations involving Petroleo Brasileiro SA that has led to protests against Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff. While the fund doesn’t expect a default, the current climate makes it “difficult to buy,” she said.

“As emerging-market fund managers, we are more or less used to difficult stories,” said Yasmine Ravai-Mans, a senior La Francaise Des Placements fund manager in Paris. But if the money was used for other purposes than the national interest, she said, “it will not be just a regular case of corruption, it’ll be a huge scandal. The mix of politics, money trails, central bank investigations would rank it close to Petrobras in terms of how toxic it is to emerging-market investors.”

‘Trust Deficit’

The ringgit has tumbled 23 percent in the last 12 months and slid to a 17-year low of 4.1340 per dollar on Monday. Local-currency sovereign debt handed investors a 8.1 percent loss in dollar terms this month, the worst performance after Russia among 16 emerging markets tracked by JPMorgan Chase & Co. indexes.

The cost to insure the securities for five years using credit-default swaps rose to 180 Monday, the highest since 2011. It’s the worst performing in Asia this month and almost 40 basis points more than similar-rated oil-producer Mexico.

“There’s a growing trust deficit with the current leadership,” said Chua Hak Bin, a Singapore-based economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, which sees the currency dropping to 4.28 by the end of 2016. “Without confidence returning on the leadership and government, investors will be reluctant to jump into the currency and the markets.”

Overseas investors cut holdings of Malaysian debt by 2.4 percent in July to a three-year low of 206.8 billion ringgit, central bank data show. The FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Index lost 10 percent this year as foreign investors pulled $3.3 billion. July’s inflation rate was the fastest in a year, data showed Wednesday, supporting the case for an interest-rate increase at a time of slowing economic growth.

Restoring Confidence

The nation has to show “a greater tolerance toward democracy, fighting corruption and a conservative monetary and fiscal policy” to restore confidence, said Christian Wildmann, a fixed-income portfolio manager at Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH in Frankfurt. Malaysia’s 10-year sovereign yield has jumped 26 basis points this month to 4.33 percent and Wildmann sees its rising to 4.7 percent by year-end.

Moody’s Investors Service is standing by its A3 rating on Malaysia with a positive outlook as Najib’s administration hasn’t reversed reforms despite the “increased political risk,” said Christian de Guzman, a vice president in Singapore. The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition lost the popular vote in May 2013, even as it kept a parliamentary majority. The next elections must be held by 2018.

Schroder Investment is among fund managers that view the probes as just one of the challenges for an economy that expanded at the slowest pace in almost two years in the second quarter.

“The domestic situation on the political side is uncertain,” said Rajeev De Mello, who oversees about $10 billion as head of Asian fixed income in Singapore. “But the other problems are the falling oil prices and commodity prices, which do impact Malaysia.”

Merrill’s Chua said politics may affect economic management. There are doubts that when central bank Governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz finishes her term at the end of April she will be replaced by someone as “independent and credible,” he said.

“Investors cannot see the end-game,” he said. “Anybody who questions the prime minister has basically been sidelined.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 August 2015, 8:03 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PAS “supports” no-confidence vote against Najib – I’ll believe it when I see it

(Scroll down for English text)

“Sokongan” PAS kepada undi tidak percaya terhadap Najib – Saya akan percaya hanya apabila ia benar-benar berlaku

Timbalan Presiden PAS Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man dan pengarah pilihanraya PAS Mustafa Ali telah menyatakan bahawa PAS akan menyokong undi tidak percaya terhadap Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Tuan Ibrahim dan Mustafa Ali bukan Ahli Parlimen, dan kenyataan mereka bahawa PAS akan menyokong undi tidak percaya terhadap Najib di Parlimen itu hanya saya akan percaya setelah mereka benar-benar melakukannya.

Pakatan Rakyat berkubur setelah tujuh tahun memikul harapan dan keyakinan rakyat tidak mengira kaum, agama, atau daerah, ke arah perubahan politik kerana PAS di bawah pimpinan Presiden-nya, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, tidak boleh dipercayai dan kata-katanya tidak boleh dipegang sebagai janji.

Berkali-kali PAS di bawah Hadi melanggar komitmen dan janji mereka, sama ada janji untuk setia terhadap Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat mahupun prinsip muafakat yang bermakna tidak ada satu parti atau seorang pemimpin mana-mana parti boleh membatalkan atau melanggar keputusan yang dicapai menerusi Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat, sama ada berkenaan ketetapan untuk bertanding satu lawan satu di semua kerusi Parlimen dan Dewan Undangan Negeri pada pilihanraya umum ke-13, keputusan untuk melantik Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail sebagai Menteri Besar Selangor atau keputusan sebulat suara bahawa rang undang-undang hudud atau sebarang usul persendirian PAS berkenaan hudud akan dibawa ke Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat sebelum dikemukakan di Parlimen.

Walaupun Hadi tidak hadir dalam sebahagian mesyuarat Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat, PAS telah diwakili oleh Mat Sabu sebagai Timbalan Presiden PAS dan Mustafa Ali sebagai Setiausaha Agung PAS.

Namun kehadiran Timbalan Presiden PAS dan Setiausaha Agung PAS menjadi sia-sia kerana mereka gagal mencegah Hadi daripada melanggar keputusan yang dicapai dalam Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat – malah melanggar keputusan Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat sendiri.

Memandangkan PAS di bawah pimpinan Hadi tidak berpegang dengan prinsip “kata mesti dikota”, maka sukar untuk saya berpegang dengan kenyataan Timbalan Presiden PAS dan Pengarah Pilihanraya PAS – saya hanya akan mempercayai kenyataan mereka setelah menyaksikan sendiri PAS menyokong usul tidak percaya terhadap Najib.

Lebih-lebih lagi baru-baru ini Hadi membuat kenyataan-kenyataan yang menampilkan beliau sebagai pembela kuat Najib dan isu 1MDB yang dihadapinya, malah melebihi para pemimpin dan ahli UMNO sendiri.

Saya tidak melihat ada sebab untuk Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi riuh-rendah tentang usul undi tidak percaya terhadap Najib kerana buat masa ini usul itu belum pun dikemukakan.

Parlimen hanya akan bersidang sembilan minggu lagi, iaitu untuk pembentangan Belanjawan 2016 pada 19 Oktober nanti.

Mungkin kemungkinan usul undi tidak percaya dikemukakan menjadi sebab mengapa Najib enggan mengadakan sidang tergempar Parlimen bagi mengisi kekosongan kerusi Pengerusi dan tiga anggota Jawatankuasa Kira-kira Awam yang berlaku berikutan rombakan Jemaah Menteri pada 28 Julai lalu, walaupun bagi saya sebab lebih kuat untuk Najib tidak mengadakannya ialah untuk mensabotaj penyiasatan jawatankuasa itu ke atas skandal hutang RM42 bilion 1MDB.

Mengapa Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi begitu heboh sejak beberapa hari lalu tentang seorang pemimpin UMNO yang menerajui percubaan untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan, mengutip kenyataan bersumpah Ahli-ahli Parlimen UMNO/BN dan Pembangkang bagi membuktikan majoriti Ahli Parlimen telah hilang keyakinan terhadap Najib sebagai Perdana Menteri.

Sama ada setuju atau tidak, tidak menjadi kesalahan di bawah mana-mana undang-undang untuk Ahli-ahli Parlimen bersatu bagi membentuk majoriti ke arah menukar Perdana Menteri atau bahkan kerajaan, kerana jika ia satu kesalahan maka sistem yang kita amalkan tidak boleh dianggap sebagai demokrasi berparlimen.

Saya sentiasa percaya bahawa undi di Parlimen dapat menentukan sama ada Perdana Menteri masih mengekalkan atau telah hilang majoriti, manakala UMNO/BN telah mencipta duluan di mana majoriti baru dibentuk di luar dewan tanpa menerusi sidang Parlimen.

Orang yang bertanggungjawab mencipta duluan itu tidak lain ialah Najib Razak sendiri apabila kerajaan negeri Pakatan Rakyat di Perak dijatuhkan oleh UMNO/BN pada Februari 2009 tanpa mengadakan undi tidak percaya di Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak.

Jika Zahid menganggap cara menjatuhkan kerajaan sebegini melanggar perlembagaan, apakah beliau ingin menyatakan bahawa Najib patut didakwa di mahkamah kerana menjatuhkan kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Perak secara tidak demokratik dan haram pada Februari 2009 lalu?

Telah tiba masa untuk Zahid menunjukkan kemampuan yang lebih baik sebagai Timbalan Perdana Menteri merangkap Menteri Dalam Negeri serta mengakhiri cakap-cakap karut tentang plot untuk membentuk majoriti baru bagi “menjatuhkan” Najib sebagai Perdana Menteri.

Jika ada sekali pun usaha untuk membentuk majoriti baru bagi membentuk kerajaan baru, Zahid tidak harus menggunakan kuasanya dan mendesak polis untuk terbabit dalam hal yang pada asasnya hanya melibatkan soal tata tertib dalam sebuah parti politik.

Para penentang dalam parti boleh dipecat, namun tidak sepatutnya Zahid atau malah Ketua Polis Negara mengugut untuk mengambil tindakan polis atau perundangan dalam keadaan tidak ada pelanggaran undang-undang berlaku dalam langkah menggunakan hak politik secara demokratik untuk memutuskan sama ada Najib patut terus menjadi Perdana Menteri atau diganti oleh orang lain yang mendapat sokongan majoriti Ahli Parlimen di Parlimen.

(Kenyataan Media di Kuala Lumpur, Rabu, 19 Ogos 2015)

————————————-

Both the PAS deputy president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man and PAS elections director Mustafa Ali have said that PAS will support a no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Both Tuan Ibrahim and Mustafa Ali are not MPs, and as far as their statement that PAS will support a no-confidence vote against Najib in Parliament is concerned, I’ll believe it when I see it.

The reason why Pakatan Rakyat died after seven years bearing the hopes and trusts of the people, regardless of race, religion or region for political change,  is because PAS under its President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang is not to be trusted, as his word is not his bond.

Again and again, Hadi’s PAS has reneged on solemn commitments and undertakings, whether it is loyalty to the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework (CPF), the PR operational principle of consensus that no one party or leader of any one party can override or veto decisions collectively arrived at by the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council, whether about one-to-one contest in all parliamentary and state assembly constituencies the 13th General Election, the decision to appoint Datuk Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the Mentri Besar of Selangor or the unanimous agreement that the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council should be consulted first before any amendments to the Kelantan hudud bill or any PAS private member’s bill motion in Parliament on hudud is presented to the respective legislatures.

Although Hadi was absent in some of the PR Leadership Council meetings, PAS was always represented by Mat Sabu, the PAS  Deputy President and  Mustafa Ali, PAS Secretary-General in Hadi’s absence.

But the participation of the PAS deputy president and PAS secretary-general were useless as they could not prevent Hadi from overriding their decisions in the PR Leadership Council  – in fact, overriding even the decision of the PAS Central Committee.

As Hadi’s PAS does not believe in the maxim that “one’s word is one’s bond”, I take the statement of the present PAS deputy president and PAS elections director with more than a pinch of salt – and I’ll believe it when I see PAS supporting a no-confidence motion against Najib.

This is all the more so when from Hadi’s recent pronouncements, he seems to be a greater defender of Najib and  his 1MDB troubles than even UMNO’s own leaders and members.

I do not see the reason for all the hullabaloo about a no confidence motion against Najib caused by the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi , when it is not on the cards at present.

Parliament is nine weeks away as it is not scheduled to reconvene for the 2016 Budget meeting until Oct. 19.

May be the possibility of a no confidence motion was one of the reasons why Najib does not want to hold an emergency Parliament to fill the vacancies for the Chairman and three members of the Public Accounts Committee occasioned by the Cabinet reshuffle of July 28, although I think the stronger reason is for Najib to sabotage PAC investigations into the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal.

Why  is the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Datuk Zahid Hamidi going off the handle in the past few days about an UMNO leader  leading an attempt to topple the government, collecting statutory declarations (SD) of UMNO/BN and Opposition MPs to claim that they have the majority who have lost confidence in Najib as Prime Minister.

Whether one agrees with it or not, it is not an offence under the law for MPs to group together to form a new majority for a change of Prime Minister or even the government, or we cannot even claim to be a parliamentary democracy.

I have always believed whether the Prime Minister retains or loses a majority should be tested by a vote of confidence in Parliament, and it is Umno/BN which set the precedent that such a new majority could be established outside the chambers without having a meeting of Parliament.

The person responsible for such a precedent is none other than Najib Razak when the Pakatan Rakyat state government in Perak was toppled by  UMNO/BN  in February 2009 through what is now known as the Perak formula, with the majority against the incumbent Perak Mentri Besar established without going through a formal vote of confidence in the Perak State Assembly.

If Zahid thinks this is an unconstitutional way of “toppling” a government, is he suggesting that Najib should  be charged in court for not only undemocratically, but illegally and unconstitutionally “toppling” the Pakatan Rakyat State Government of Perak in Feb. 2009?

It is time Zahid show more depth as Deputy Prime Minister-cum-Home Minister and end the rigmarole about a plot to group a new majority to “topple” Najib as Prime Minister.

Even if there is such a case to group a new majority to form a new goverment, Zahid should not abuse his powers and dragoon the police into what is basically a party discipline matter.

By all means sack the party malcontents, but how can Zahid or even the Inspector-General of Police threaten police and legal action when there is no offence disclosed in the exercise of a democratic political right to decide whether Najib should continue as Prime Minister or be replaced by another who can command the majority of the MPs in Parliament.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 August 2015, 5:09 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
,
PAS
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Cabinet today resolve that all Ministers and Deputy Minister should seal their lips on the amounts of funds  they received from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts for 13GE campaigning?

I have given the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the expanded Cabinet of 37 Ministers 96 hours to prove that they are sincere in political funding – and this 96-hour challenge expires at the Cabinet meeting later in the morning.

Will there be  any surprises from Najib and the Ministers in announcing steps and measures to demonstrate  that they are sincere in political funding as a follow-up to the Prime Minister’s recent proposal for  a national consultative committee of political parties, NGOS, civil societies and youths to formulate guidelines on political funding with the aim of ensuring that funds are sourced with integrity?

Malaysians do not expect any surprises, and will in fact be shocked if the Cabinet could produce a rabbit from the hat and come up with initiatives to demonstrate that it is sincere about regulating the baneful effects of  money politics in Malaysia.

Najib suffers from a grave case of trust-deficit in the country, but  he is making a grave error  if he thinks Malaysians suffer from an equally serious case of judgment-deficit.

All Malaysians can see through what Najib is up to when he proposed a National Consultative Council on Political Funding which will be given a year to come up with proposals and guidelines in place in time for the next general election.

Najib wants to buy time for  up to one whole year to be able to continue stonewall from giving a full and satisfactory account of the RM2.6 billion deposited into his personal accounts in AmBank in March 2013 before the 13th General Election – where the money had come from, who had received handouts from Najib’s accounts, what is the remainder in the accounts after the 13th General Election, and whether there is any truth in last Saturday posting on Sarawak Report website that over US$650 million (RM2 billion) was transferred from Najib’s AmPrivate Bank account in Kuala Lumpur to an account in Singapore after the 13th general election.

The whistle-blower site alleged that the money was deposited into an account in the name of Tanore Finance Corporation (BVI) at Falcon Bank in Singapore on the day Najib’s AmPrivate Bank account was closed, August 30, 2013 – and that this was the same company account which had originally transferred US$681 million (RM2.6 billion)  into Najib’s AmPrivate Bank account, earlier in March of the same year.

And at the end of the a year of “consultations” on political funding, the whole initiative could be run to ground producing no results, in the same way that the multi-agency Special Task Force comprising Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Royal Malaysian Police and Attorney-General’s Chambers to investigate the 1MDB scandal and Najib’s RM2.6 billion  personal accounts had run aground and disbanded – resulting even in the sacking of Tan Sri Gani Patail as Attorney-General and arrests or harassments of top officers in MACC and BNM.

Najib could not have made the  proposal  for a National Consultative Council on Political Funding in worse circumstances, for though the concept  that  funds for political parties are sourced with integrity and in a transparent manner is right, proper and deserves support, Najib’s timing of such a proposal could only ensure its rejection or reception with great skepticism.

This is why the Bar Council has announced that it would not be part of the National Consultative Council on Political Funding as it wants investigations into the RM2.6 billion found in Najib’s private accounts be completed first.

Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said:  “The discourse on these new laws should await the completion of the ongoing investigation into the transfer of the funds. This is, in particular, because a donation is still within the definition of ‘gratification’ under the MACC Act 2009.

 “This is not the time to indulge in side issues that could be perceived as a smokescreen to cover up wrongdoing in this matter.”

I fully support the idea that funding for political parties and elections should be transparent with regard to its source and expenditure, which had been my stand in Parliament all these decades, but Najib’s proposal is  nothing but a cynical ploy to buy time for a whole year to continue to avoid and evade the principles of accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance on the twin scandals of 1MDB and RM2.6 billion in Najib’s personal accounts.

Najib has said that there are currently no laws regulating political funding or donations and thus the public can’t pass judgment yet.

This is a  shocking example of Najib’s warped perceptions of what is right and what is wrong – a Prime Minister who has completely lost his moral authority and compass and  ceased to distinguish between  right from wrong!

The question is whether Malaysia has also a whole Cabinet of 37 Ministers who have also lost the moral authority and compass in being unable to distinguish between right from wrong, with no single Minister who dare to speak up in Cabinet to tell Najib that he is wrong and has to make amends and that the government and cabinet must set an example of what is morally right and proper in the country?

DAP has never received a single sen of foreign funding in our five decades of political battle for democracy and justice in Malaysia.  If DAP had received just a ringgit  of foreign funding, we would be accused of being agents and tools of foreign powers and DAP leaders may find themselves under incarceration.

But here we have the Prime Minister receiving RM2.6 billion of foreign funding for the 13th General Election and he has the impertinence to say there is no law to say whether it is right or wrong!

Let Najib declare how much UMNO/BN had received in foreign funding for previous general election campaigns!

Tun Abdullah had led UMNO/BN in two general elections and Tun Mahathir had led the governing coalition in five general elections.

Let Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah declare how much foreign funding they had received on behalf of UMNO/BN in each of these seven general elections from 1982 – 2008.

Najib has lost the moral leadership and compass to talk about transparent and accountable political funding so long as he is not prepared to make a clean breast of the RM2.6 billion in his personal bank accounts, where the RM2.6 billion came from;  to whom they went to; and whether US$650 million (RM2 billion) from his personal accounts are now sitting in a Singapore bank.

There are at least three reasons why Najib is not sincere in wanting to have transparent and accountable political funding to ensure integrity and transparency  about the funding:

Firstly Najib was not truthful when he said that six years ago, he had suggested a law for political funding but was opposed by DAP. DAP was never approached from anyone in the UMNO/BN government with regard to a law to regulate political party funding.

As DAP Parliamentary Leader in the past six years since Najib became Prime Minister, I was never contacted by anyone in Najib’s administration on a law to regulate political party funding.

Secondly, his belated proposal for political party funding is nothing but  a smokescreen to avoid and evade accountability and transparency on the RM2.6 billion deposited in his personal bank accounts in March 2013 just before the 13th General Elections.

Thirdly,  Najib’s proposal lack credibility, legitimacy or morality in naming Paul Low as Chairman and Idris Jala as the as Deputy Chairman of the National Consultative Committee on Political Funding.

Although Paul Low was drafted into the Cabinet directly as President of Transparency International, his three years in office as the Minister in charge of integrity and governance have not seen these two issues taken seriously by the Najib government. Things in these two areas have actually got worse rather than better.

Idris’ term as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department expires on Sept. 1 following the expiry of the maximum of his  two-term six-year tenure as Senator.

Why did Najib want to mislead the public in giving the  baseless perception that Jala will be both Minister and Deputy Chairman of this National Consultative Council for the next 12 months when Jala may not even be a Minister when the National Consultative  Council is formally established?

Former Minister and Barisan Nasional Backbenchers’ Club  (BNBBC) Chairman Tan Sri Shahrir Samad has confirmed   the posting on the Sarawak Report website last Saturday which named him as one of those who had received funds from Najib’s infamous RM2.6 billion personal accounts for the 13th General Election campaigning.

He received RM1 million. The other person named, Deputy Minister for International Trade and Industry, Datuk Ahmad Maslan who is listed as receiving RM2 million, is keeping very quiet.

At  the DAP forum “Ke Mana Halatuju Malaysia” at Tropical Inn, Johor Baru on Monday night, I named eight Ministers and two deputy ministers  and asked them to  declare the funds they had received from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts for the 13th General Election campaigning, viz:

1. Hishammuddin Hussein – Defence Minister.

2. Azalina Othman – Minister in Prime Minister’s Department.

3. Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah – Second Finance Minister.

4. Liow Tiong Lai – Transport Minister.

5. Anifah Aman – Foreign Minister.

6. Ismail Sabry – Rural and Regional Development Minister.

7. Ahmad Shabery Cheek – Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Minister

8. Madzir Khalid – Education Minister

9. Tajuddin Abdul Rahman – Deputy Agriculture Minister

10. Razali Ibrahim – Deputy Minister, Prime Minister’s Department

So far there is only silence from these 10.

Let me name another 10 Ministers who should declare whether and what amounts of funds they received from Najib’s RM2.6 billion accounts:

1.	Zahid Hamidi – Deputy Prime Minister/Home Minister.

2.	Jamil Khir Baharom – Minister in PMO in charge of Islamic affairs.

3.	Shahidan Kassim – Minister in PMO.

4.	Wee Ka Siong – Minister in PMO.

5.	Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz – Tourism and Culture

6.	Mustapha Mohamad – International Trade and Industry

7.	Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor – Federal Territories

8.	Khairy Jamaluddin – Youth and Sports

9.	Idris Jusoh – Higher Education

10.	Abdul Rahman Dahlan – Urban Wellbeing, Housing, Local Government

Or will the Cabinet this morning pass a resolution or reach a consensus that Ministers and Deputy Ministers should seal their lips as to the amount of funds  they received from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts for purposes of 13th General Election campaigning?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 August 2015, 8:28 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Election
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Did the new Attorney-General start off his tenure  making a public statement which is  far from the truth  when he said that the purported corruption charge sheet against the Prime Minister was a fake?

The 2015 Sabah earthquake which struck Ranau with a magnitude of Richter 6.0 on 5th June lasted for 30 seconds, but it killed 18 people on Mount Kinabalu and  caused some 90 aftershocks for the following next three weeks.

Similarly, the convulsions in the very sanctum of Federal government in Putrajaya in the last days of July, which saw the sacking of the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister on 28th July and the arrests and harassment of top government officers in key institutions are still having their aftershocks – like yesterday’s sudden and abrupt transfer out of the Special Branch (SB) of the deputy director of the police intelligence agency, Datuk Abdul Hamid Bador to the Prime Minister’s Department reporting directly to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak!

Abdul Hamid, who had been with the Police force for 37 years, was completely in the dark on the reasons for his abrupt transfer to the Prime Minister’s Office, reminiscent of the sudden transfer of  two Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) directors, Bahri Mohd Zin (special operations division) and Rohaizad Yaakob (strategic communications) at the height of the recent stand-off between the Police and MACC  over investigations into 1MDB and the RM2.6 billion Najib personal accounts, which also saw the most extraordinary solat hajat (special prayers) by MACC officers seeking divine intervention to allow MACC officers to carry out their anti-corruption duties.

Although the immediate and punitive transfer of Bahri and Rohaizad out of MACC to the Prime Minister’s Department had been cancelled because of adverse public reactions,  penalties are being considered to punish the two MACC directors – which the powers-that-be should know could not be kept secret but would have to be fully explained and accounted for when  Parliament reconvenes on  October 19 for the 2015 Budget meeting.

And what of Abdul Hamid?

Can the Police or the Prime Minister’s Department offer an explanation for such sudden and abrupt transfer?

As part and parcel of the continuing convulsions and aftershocks from the cataclysmic  “Last Days of July 2015”, the new Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali gave a “warning to everybody”, saying ominously: “Be careful. I will be watching”.

Mohamed Apandi must be the first Attorney-General in Malaysia to have suddenly resigned as Federal Court judge overnight to become the first legal officer of the  land, and to start off with a “warning to everybody” that he is “watching”.

How ominous, undemocratic and 1984-ish!

Mohamed Apandi better realise that in a parliamentary democracy, the  30 million Malaysians are also watching him as to whether he is discharging his constitutional duties as Attorney-General with independence, integrity and professionalism.

In the first place, Mohamed Apandi should explain whether he had started off his tenure as Attorney-General   making a public statement which is far from the truth  when he said that the purported corruption charge sheet against the Prime Minister was a fake?

Surely Mohamed Apandi is aware of the Star Online interview of the Barisan Nasional Strategic Communications Director and Minister for Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government, Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan who as good as admitted that there was an attempted coup against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak by “criminalising him and topple him from office”, particularly his less-than-subtle admission when he described the “cloak-and-dagger” power play in Putrajaya in the last days of July, viz:

“There are two theories out there. One is the one you mentioned that this is a deliberate attempt to stop, delay or interfere with the investigations (on 1MDB).

“But there is also another theory that there has been a deliberate attempt to criminalise the Prime Minister.

“This is what the new AG (Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali) was saying with regards to the (purported) draft charge sheet (against the Prime Minister). Apandi sent out a statement saying that the Attorney-General’s chambers is very concerned that there is a deliberate attempt to criminalise the PM and force him out of the office. If you are a politician of course you would take some pre-emptive steps so that it doesn’t happen.

“I am not privy to that information. I leave it to the PM and the AG who made that comment and also to the IGP whether or not there is an attempt to criminalise the PM. But it sure looked like it. Because there was an allegation of a draft charge sheet but MACC said ‘Wait a minute we have not completed our investigation. So how could there be a draft charge sheet when the investigation has not been completed?”

Further on in his Star Online interview, Abdul Rahman  said: “Given that scenario what would you do? You would take drastic action wouldn’t you?

 “Okay, take these people out first, so that things will get back to normalcy and see what will happen next.

“If you could appreciate that scenario then you would understand the flurry of action taken by the prime minister.”

Mohamed Apandi should confirm whether his predecessor Tan Sri Gani Patail was one of the people “taken out first”; who were the other government officers also “taken out” as a result of the “Last Days of July in Putrajaya”; whether this process of people “taken out” has ended; and finally, whether his own appointment as the new Attorney-General was among the “flurry of action taken by the Prime Minister” referred by Abdul Rahman in the Star Online interview.

There are two other questions which Mohamed Apandi should explain to the satisfaction of Malaysians in a system of parliamentary democracy and information era:

Firstly, why did he agree to the “taking out” of Gani Patail as Attorney-General, who had served three Prime Ministers and only two month short of mandatory retirement on reaching 60 years old.

Secondly, why did he disband the multi-agency Special Task Force comprising Bank Negara Malaysia, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission,  Royal Malaysian Police and Attorney-General’s Chambers when the Cabinet had been assured that the Special Task Force would get to the bottom of the two scandals of 1MDB and RM2.6 billion Najib personal accounts,  whether he had consulted or informed the Cabinet or the Prime Minister before he disbanded the Special Task Force.

Finally, would he agree that the Prime Minister should present a White Paper in Parliament on Oct. 19  on the convulsions of the “Last Days in July in Putrajaya” and their aftershocks, whether affecting Bank Negara Malaysia, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency, Royal Malaysian Police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers and how they had affected investigations into the twin scandals of 1MDB and the RM2.6 billion Najib personal accounts.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 August 2015, 1:29 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib Razak has too much power for Malaysia’s good

David Pilling

Financial Times

August 19, 2015

Once a model of development, the country’s reputation is sinking and so is that of the PM

The story is that in March 2013 one or more unnamed Middle Eastern donors transferred a total of nearly $700m into the personal account of Najib Razak, prime minister of Malaysia. The generous amount was a donation to be lavished on that year’s election campaign of the ruling United Malays National Organisation as Mr Najib saw fit. So sordid are the goings-on in Malaysia these days that, astonishingly, this is not the case being mounted against the prime minister. This is the case for Mr Najib’s defence. Malaysia’s widely lampooned prime minister is in such a deep, dark and money-stuffed hole that this is the version of events being promoted by his allies.

It was also the finding this month of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. It turns out that an anonymous donation from a foreign benefactor is the least damaging explanation of how 2.6bn ringgit found its way into Mr Najib’s account. The prime minister has denied committing any wrongdoing or accepting money for personal gain.

If this is the positive take, the negative version is worse.

This would have it that in 2009 Mr Najib set up a development fund, now in debt to the tune of $11bn, with the express purpose of generating cash to be spent on prolonging UMNO’s already nearly six decades in power. Seeded with a tiny amount of state capital, 1Malaysia Development Berhad, or 1MDB in its now dirt-splattered initials, avidly set about borrowing money on the capital markets. It issued bonds worth billions of dollars and bought sundry energy and property assets in Malaysia and around the world. 1MDB, which has a chronic lack of cash flow, is struggling to service its debts. In May, it received a lifeline when an Abu Dhabi state fund injected $1bn into its coffers to tide it over.

According to a report last month in the Wall Street Journal and investigative journalists at the Sarawak Report, the money in Mr Najib’s account had been moved by agencies, banks and companies linked to 1MDB. Mr Najib denies any connection between 1MDB and the funds in his account. He has threatened to sue the Wall Street Journal. 1MDB, says Mr Najib’s defenders, was a genuine, if flawed, attempt to modernise the Malaysian economy through developing innovative sources of growth.

Whether you believe the bad version of the story (donation) or the very bad version (slush fund) comes as small consolation to Malaysia. Once considered a model of development, the country’s reputation is sinking fast. So is that of Mr Najib. The urbane, blue-blooded and British-educated prime minister was once courted by the likes of Barack Obama, US president, and David Cameron, British prime minister, who saw him as an economic moderniser and a progressive standard-bearer of moderate Islam.

One disaffected Malaysian, in an allusion to the former dictator of the Philippines, described his country as “going backwards to the era of [Ferdinand] Marcos”. In Mr Najib’s wife, the fashion-conscious Rosmah Mansor, Malaysia may even have its own prospective Imelda, the former first lady of the Philippines whose extravagant shoe collection became a symbol of the rottenness of the Marcos regime. The reputational risk to Malaysia is having financial consequences too. The ringgit has fallen to a 17-year low and Malaysian stocks, the worst performing in Asia, are down one-third over the past 12 months.

Mr Najib’s supporters say he is the victim of a conspiracy being led by Mahathir Mohamad, the still-influential former prime minister who built the system of patronage and money politics that has sustained UMNO for so long. At 90, Mr Mahathir is launching salvo after vituperative salvo via his blog.

Yet more than the innuendo and the as-yet-unproven accusations, Malaysia’s crisis is about the legitimacy of its institutions. To the extent that these were ever strong, they are now being badly compromised. Mr Najib has moved aside the attorney-general who was investigating his case. He has sacked his deputy prime minister for daring to suggest there was a case to answer. Four members of a committee co-ordinating a probe into 1MDB have been conveniently promoted, bringing that part of the investigation to a halt. Two newspapers have been suspended for running with the 1MDB story and the leader of the now-fractured opposition, Anwar Ibrahim, has been jailed for sodomy.

Tony Pua, an opposition MP who has led the charge against Mr Najib, thinks the prime minister will survive. “He can’t be removed because he controls the wheels of power,” he says. As prime minister, Mr Najib wields enormous authority. As president of UMNO, whose interests often trump those of the state, he perhaps wields even more. That is Malaysia’s real problem. UMNO’s interests and those of the nation have been artificially fused. For the good of Malaysia, they should be prised apart.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 August 2015, 6:18 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Election
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sustaining strong institutions for clean gov’t

By Group of 25

Malaysiakini

Aug 19, 2015

COMMENT
 The success of the transformation and development of the Malaysian economy and its financial system has been primarily due to an empowering legal framework and sound institutions that operate on structured processes and with strong accountabilities, underpinned by a good governance framework.

Malaysia is indebted to visionary leaders whose dedicated focus and emphasis on building strong institutions have provided the foundation to support the development of the Malaysian economy.

These institutions continue to be led by strong leaders with a vision, a culture of integrity and competence which is imbued with values and virtues of hard work and prudence. This institutional framework has been the most important aspect of the growth and resilience of the economy today.

The ‘invisible hand’ does not work, by itself: it requires help from the rules of the game which govern how the market and its participants interact with each other. Institutional quality not only has a significantly positive impact upon income per capita, but it is also positively auto-correlated with the level of economic integration and trade (Rodrik & Subramanian 2003).

An improvement in institutional quality raises GDP directly, as well as promotes closer integration into the global economy, hence, enabling the economy to benefit from international trade and foreign investment flows. The auto-correlation also implies that higher national income and exposure to developed markets tend to lead to demand for improved institutions, thus enforcing a benign cycle.

Today, as the country faces an unprecedented test of its governance at the highest level which unfortunately is cascading into an economic downturn and threatening financial stability, only by allowing its key institutions to undertake their functions independently can Malaysia hope to redeem itself and stall the contagion which is emerging from a governance issue into an economic and financial setback.

In today’s circumstances, Malaysia cannot blame external parties and owe to itself to quickly correct the situation. An important aspect in any corrective action is to allow institutions to continue their work, even though results may not favour the government leadership.

Key institutions in the limelight now and its senior officials being penalised for doing their jobs are the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the nation’s central bank, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).

In the case of the MACC, the office of the chief secretary which governs and has oversight over the quality and performance of government agencies seems to also be under threat in recent transfers of MACC staff involved in investigations of transgressions within government.

Bank Negara Malaysia

Any actions now to cast aspersions on the integrity of Bank Negara, its governor and its senior officials will have significant adverse consequences.

Ismail Ali, the first Malaysian governor of the central bank, had built a body of traditions – a tradition of efficiency, a tradition of dependable expertise in economic and monetary affairs, and above all a tradition of absolute acceptance of the dictates of the national interest as against the interest of the individual.

He set the tradition where the impact of Bank Negara and its influence depended on the virtues and the standards that the central bank is able to develop and maintain (Zeti 2000). This culture of integrity, competence and professionalism that Ismail cultivated has been sustained and is the most important foundation contributing to the strength and soundness of financial institutions today.

‘Good Governance’ is not a discovery of the 1990s. One of the most significant heritage left by Ismail was a system, culture and practice of good governance. He set the basic requirement of good governance as soon as he became governor.

The principles of good governance are the key to the strength and independence of BNM. Further improvements in the governance framework, both at the central bank and in financial institutions were made by subsequent governors in the more recent periods.

Further, during governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz’s tenure, the reputation of Bank Negara in upholding good governance in the financial sector, as well as building the human capital and technical expertise of the central bank has made Bank Negara a role model in many parts of the developing and emerging world.

In terms of macro-economic management, governor Zeti has gained the respect of her peers globally in liberalising the financial sector while ensuring sound banking institutions and stability of the Malaysian financial sector.

While there were doubts on the independence of the judiciary and capacity of other institutions, the confidence in the strength and capability of Bank Negara in steering the financial sector to support economic growth has always been sustained and has been the single most important factor contributing to investor confidence and favourable economic prospects for Malaysia.

In this difficult time and the circumstances on the flows of funds, globally benchmarked processes require that BNM exercises its key role in the processes of investigation. While BNM will indeed have knowledge on the specifics of capital flows, it is also required by law not to divulge confidential individual information.

Malaysia has put in place regulations and processes which have been assessed as compliant with global standards. It is important that BNM be allowed to follow these processes and conduct its investigations in a fair and judicious manner. Efforts by any part of government to create doubts on the integrity of the BNM and its officials will actually tantamount to interfering with the investigation processes.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission

The recent transfer of officers investigating companies involved in suspicious transactions and their reinstatement amidst public outcry of attempted cover ups do not auger well for Malaysia. It casts further suspicions that integrity and independence of institutions are again being compromised for personal objectives.

The MACC has undergone various stages of reforms to ensure a certain degree of independence. The lack of prosecution of high level corruption is a dent in the reputation of the MACC. Now that the MACC leadership is showing commitment to doing what is right, it is detrimental to transfer its investigation officers before completion of their work.

It inevitably smacks of interference with investigations. It is a relief that the two officers have been reinstated to their posts and continuing with the investigations.

The civil service and the office of the chief secretary

The transfer of the two MACC officers has raised questions on the role of the chief secretary. The Federal Constitution provides for the separation of Parliament, judiciary and the executive as the

foundation of the governance structure and providing the checks and balance in ensuring an effective, ethical and fair administration.

A quote from the foreword by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (photo) in the book, the Shafee Yahaya Story: Estate Boy to ACA Chief, is most apt at this time of confusing actions by the administration. It is apt not only for the timely reminder to all of its message, but that Shafee started a career in the civil service as the private secretary to (former premier) Abdul Razak, rising to the position of director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency:

“It is not easy being a civil servant…. The civil servant must be aware that he has an important role to play—the implementor of government policies and enforcing and upholding the laws of thecountry.

He should be a person of high integrity, thrifty in managing government coffers, selfless and loyal to the nation and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. I believe it should not be blind loyalty if the instructions are not right and in accordance with government policy and the general orders. In other words, a civil servant must direct, be truthful and be brave enough to say ‘No’ if asked to do things that are not right.”

The other even more significant quote from the same book is one by Razak made in 1967:

“As civil servants, I hope you will stand up to us as politicians, and not allow yourselves to be dominated by us, because in a true democracy, the civil servants has a duty to perform… to place

fairly and squarely facts before the politicians, based on balanced, unbiased judgement, which the politician ‘can take it or leave it’ as he so wishes. After all civil servants are pensionable; you have nothing to lose…. The future of our country’s democratic way of life is dependent on you…”

Recent events show the adverse consequences when the civil service is not strong enough to exert its “balanced unbiased assessments” and “serve our government with dedication”.

Religious authorities, Jakim and others

Key institutions like BNM and MACC have been set up under explicit legislations and report to the prime minister/finance minister. The integrity of these institutions are being threatened by actions which appear to be intended to influence the investigations being undertaken.

Yet, religious institutions like Jakim which is not supported by federal legislation are NOT being sanctioned for failing to fulfil their functions. Ironically, in practice, these institutions appear to be given more authority and independence and freedom than respected institutions like BNM.

Jakim officials have taken actions of moral policing to detect and bring about criminal charges on personal sins by Malaysian Muslims. Yet, there have been no efforts by Jakim to condemn corruption which is a personal sin and a crime against society in Islam, and of course a civil crime under the Penal Code and the MACC Act, and a predicate crime under the Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act.

While Jakim cannot enforce civil acts covered by legislation outside its remit, it can undertake the education and advisory roles to promote anti-corruption behavior among Muslims.

G25 seeks corrective actions as follows:

Attempts to raise doubts on integrity of the leadership in BNM and the transfer of the MACC officials erode public confidence that investigations will be thorough and objective.

Now that BNM has completed its investigations and submitted its report to the AG, credibility of the AGC is dependent on the actions that it will be taking on the report.

This is critical at this juncture when there is mistrust of the government and concerns that civil service and the office of the chief secretary will be undermined, and concerns of more civil servants being penalized for doing their jobs.

Corrective actions should include the following:

Greater safeguards needed on the appointment and dismissal of the AG. In addition, the office of the AG should not combine the advisor role to the government and the public prosecutor. G25 supports recommendations made by other CSOs to transfer the prosecutorial powers to an independent office of the director of prosecutions;

Reforms in legalizing political contributions with pre-requisite rules of transparency benchmarked against principles and standards set by the OECD;

Application of regulations to require declaration of assets by politicians and senior civil service officers; the declaration is made to an independent audit firm, which is able to take measures to verify, including checking against bank accounts;

Independence of the MACC as a public authority reporting to Parliament, and it should be given prosecutorial powers in addition to strengthening its investigative powers.

There is no role for Jakim in moral policing of personal sins. Jakim to focus only on education and research, as well play an advisory role. In the area of corruption, Jakim can use its advisory role to urge condemnation of corruption and influence development of a culture of zero tolerance for corruption through khutbahs delivered at Friday prayers, for example; and

The government implements the proposals to set up the office of the Ombudsman as recommended in the report commissioned by the cabinet in 1990/91

The Group of 25 is a group of individuals dedicated to the cause of a moderate Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 August 2015, 11:08 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is Anifah Aman the only one out of 69 Ministers and Deputy Ministers  who dare to declare that he has not received any funding from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts?

I commend the Foreign Minister Anifah Aman for declaring publicly that he has not received any funding from Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts in AmBank in 2013 for 13GE campaign.

Malaysians are  intrigued why Anifah is the only one out of 69 Ministers and Deputy Ministers (Senators will have to be excluded) who dare to declare that the has not received any funding from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts for 13GE campaign.

Although my 96-hour notice to all Cabinet members to demonstrate that the Najib administration is serious when it proposed the National Consultative Council on Political Funding by individually declaring whether they had received any funding from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts for the 13 GE campaign, and if so, how much they received and spent, Cabinet Ministers could still declare whether they had been connected in any way to Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts.

Since the DAP forum “Ke Mana Halatuju Malaysia” at Tropical Inn, Johor Baru on Monday night, I  had named 18  Ministers and two deputy ministers  and asked them to  declare whether they had received  funds from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts for the 13th General Election campaigning, and if so, to state the amounts.

Anifah is the only Cabinet Minister to respond and in the negative.

Lest Ministers and Deputy Ministers not named in the twenty names I had mentioned thought the omission is a good excuse for them to keep their silence, let me name the third batch of 10 Ministers/Deputy Ministers who should declare whether  they have received funding from Najib’s RM2.6 billion for 13GE campaign and if so, the amounts involved.

The third list of 10 Ministers/Deputy Ministers are:

1.	Hamzah Zainuddin – Minister (Domestic Trade, Co-operatives, Consumerism).

2.	Johari Abdul Ghani – Deputy Minister (Finance)

3.	Nur Jazlan Mohamed – Deputy Minister (Home)

4.	Abdul Aziz Kaprawi – Deputy Minister (Transport)\

5.	Hilmi Yahya – Deputy Minister (Health)

6.	Mas Ermieyati Samsudin – Deputy Minister (Tourism, Culture)

7.	Mohd Johari Baharom – Deputy Minister (Defence)

8.	Reezal Merican Naina Merican – Deputy Minister (Foreign)

9.	Abu Bakar Mohd Diah – Deputy Minister (Science, Technology, Innovation)

10.	Jailani Johari – Deputy Minister (Communications, Multmedia).

Looking at the Cabinet list, one is struck by its size which had increased further after the Cabinet reshuffle on July 28, from 35 to 37.

In fact, Najib has now the most number of Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department, as there are now 11 Ministers with the latest addition of Azalina Othman.

The number of Ministers in Najib’s Prime Minister’s Department is even bigger than the first Cabinet of the country when we achieved Merdeka in 1957, when we had a Cabinet of only 10 Ministers!

The annual budget for the Prime Minister’s Department alone is a walloping RM19 billion, which is about 20 times more than the full Federal Government budget when we achieved Merdeka 58 years ago – which was around RM800 million.

But the Malaysian Cabinet today is not able to be as effective and productive than the Cabinet of 1957 – despite having a 11-Minister Prime Minister’s Department which is bigger than Tunku Abdul Rahman’s first Merdeka Cabinet!

Is Malaysia going forward or backward in good governance, economic efficiency or human capital development?

Although not surprised, I am  disappointed that Anifah has so far been the only one of the 30 Ministers and Deputy Ministers named to declare whether he or she had received funding from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal bank accounts for 13GE campaigning.

Malaysians will wait and see whether there are more Ministers or Deputy Ministers who will step forward to declare their stand, as Malaysians are  dumbfounded that the culture of subservience are now so deep-rooted that even those Ministers and Deputy Ministers who have not received a single sen from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts for 13GE campaign dared not speak up, with the exception of Anifah.

Despite 58 years of nation-building, Malaysia has not made much headway in developing a culture of zero tolerance for corruption in high political and public places. In fact, we seem to have become worse in this field than during the times under the first three Prime Ministers, Tengku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn.

I still remember that  four decades ago, I had moved a private member’s bill to be known as Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 1975 to propose  three amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961, viz:

(i)	to make it an offence for any public officer including Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Chief Ministers, EXCO Members, members of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies or civil servants who have amassed property or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, punishable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to both imprisonment and fine;

(ii)	to provide powers to the Government to forfeit the property or the value of the pecuniary resources acquired by the accused; and

(iii)	to provide for the accused to prove his innocence where the accumulation of such property or pecuniary resources has been proved;

as  more effective legislative measures to combat and check the mounting scale of corruption in high public positions.

In my speech in Parliament when moving the private member’s bill on Oct. 27, 1975, I explained the objectives meant to be achieved by the private member’s bill, viz:

•	Corruption must be sternly stamped out as it undermines social discipline, retard development efforts, and lay the seeds for national disintegration.

•	Corruption among minor officials cannot be combated if it is not first stamped out at higher levels.

•	A full purge must be conducted in the whole Government and public services to check misconduct in the Government and to restore the declining public confidence in public office, so that those guilty of conspicuous spending, unexplained wealth, incompetence and involved in graft and corruption can be speedily brought to court without delays.

•	Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Menteri-menteri Besar, Chief Ministers, State Executive Councillors, Members of Parliament, State Assemblymen and top public servants must be above suspicion that they are corruptible and are immune from punishment for corrupt practices.

Two years later, in my motion on the  private member’s bill to be known as Ministers and Members of Parliament (Declaration of Assets) Act 1978 in Parliament on Oct 18, 1977, I said:

“In Malaysia, the problem is not ikan bilis corruption, but corruption in high political and public places.

“In my mind, there cannot be any effective war against corruption in the country unless there is an honest and incorruptible political leadership, where every political leader is prepared to subject himself regularly to public scrutiny and accountability to demonstrate that  he has not abused his public or political office for personal monetary gain.

“Political corruption takes many forms and has many causes. For instance, the annual allocation of $100,000 a year for Barisan Nasional Parliamentary constituencies for minor development projects is a form of political corruption. Yet the Government cannot recognize it for what it is, which showed that it has a moral blind-spot which prevented it from discerning what is morally right and what is morally wrong.”

This moral blind-spot which prevented government leaders from distinguishing between what is right and wrong, politically and morally if not yet legally, has worsened over the years.

This is illustrated by Najib’s announcement to buy support and loyalty from UMNO/BN Members of Parliament in the midst of talk of  a possible motion of  no no confidence against him in Parliament.

On Sunday, Najib announced that more money will be provided for UMNO/BN MPs next year with financial allocations to BN parliamentary constituencies increased from RM5 million for each UMNO/BN MP.

Imagine a more than 50-fold increase for UMNO/BN MPs allegedly for their constituency development  from four decades ago – which is denied to Oppositon MPs as if taxpayers’ money are the private funds of the UMNO/BN Ministers and MPs.

Here  is where corruption started – the fatal moral blindspot to distinguish between right from wrong, as illustrated by the twin scandals of 1MDB and the RM2.6 billion Najib personal accounts and why Najib’s proposal of a National Consultative Council on Political Funding is doomed to failure if such moral blind-spots about corruption  are not eradicated and persist among the government Ministers and leaders.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 August 2015, 8:58 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ambiga: Why we need Bersih 4

By Ambiga Sreenevasan

Malaysiakini

Aug 20, 2015

COMMENT
 We have to fix this nation for the next generation. We cannot hand them a broken nation

There is no change in the usual anti-Bersih rhetoric. “It is anti-government, it will ruin businesses, it will cause chaos.”

Pictures of (Bersih chairperson) Maria (Chin Abdullah) are being defiled. They have simply run out of ideas, and no one is really listening to them.

Judging by the thousands of t-shirts being sold every day, Bersih 4 is set to see a massive turn out. Why? Because people are sick to death of the dishonest governance of our beautiful nation.

And it is time our leaders know they are not fooling us with their ridiculous responses.

It is time they know that they have crossed all bounds of decency and that they have hurt the nation and its people. It is also time they realise just how much we, the rakyat, love this country.

They have all the power, yes. They want to hang onto it, yes. But we have the power of truth.

We have to fix this nation for the next generation. We cannot hand them a broken nation with a debt that they have to pay for the rest of their lives. We need to hand them a nation that is built on the fundamentals of strong institutions, with honest leaders.

An empowerment

So I would say to the police and other enforcement officers – by all means do your duty, but be fair. We are the rakyat, not your enemies.

In fact, we are fighting for your children’s future too. Would you not want a Malaysia where our democracy is strong, and where there is a fair distribution of wealth?

We will gather peacefully on the 29th and 30th. That is our right. When you see us, remember that we are there because we love our country.

To our leaders I say, you have no idea what it is like to walk with the rakyat. It is empowering.

You should come, if only to reconnect with us and see how we feel. You may not agree with all our demands but you will show that you nevertheless respect our right to gather and speak.

To everyone else, see you at Bersih 4!

AMBIGA SREENEVASAN is the former co-chairperson of Bersih and former president of the Malaysian Bar.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 August 2015, 3:32 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Najib to help ensure the success of Bersih 4 as it is  Malaysia’s “coming of age” as a democracy in the world stage

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should send a clear directive to the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar to facilitate and ensure the success of Bersih 4 to demonstrate to the world the Malaysian Government’s respect of the people’s rights to  free expression and peaceful assembly and readiness to listen to the people’s legitimate views and criticisms.

There has been  a lot of irresponsible talk recently by those in power about plots to topple the elected government of Malaysia.

There are no such subversive plots involving violent and/or unconstitutional means to topple the elected Prime Minister or elected government, as I dare say after five decades in politics  that Malaysians regardless of race or religion do not want any violent or unconstitutional change of government, and everyone is committed to upholding the fundamental principles  of the Malaysian Constitution – which means a change of the elected government only  by  peaceful, democratic and constitutional means, not just during a general election, but also at times in between general elections as by a vote of no confidence in Parliament.

It is the people who deny Malaysians the right to peaceful, democratic and constitutional means of changing the government who are the real culprits guilty of violating Section 124B of the Penal Code, i.e. “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”.

It is the people, however high in office, who deny the people the right to peaceful, democratic and constitutional means of changing the elected government of the day who should be the subject of police scrutiny and investigations, and not those who uphold  the constitutional right to peaceful and democratic change of government,  whether at a general election or in between general elections.

Bersih 4, and Global Bersih all over the world, will be Malaysia’s “coming-of age” as a parliamentary democracy and a message to the world that a self-confident Malaysian democracy has arrived to join the ranks of world democracies –  turning away from the path to a rogue state, where there  are only the trappings but not the substance of democracy.

The Malaysian Government has as much interest as the Bersih organisers and the Malaysian people to ensure the success of Bersih 4, and I urge the Prime Minister to adopt a statesmanlike approach to help ensure the success of Berish 4 to herald the arrival of Malaysia on the world stage of democracies.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 August 2015, 6:23 am and is filed under
Bersih
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Political leaders can meet and discuss Mahathir’s interesting proposition to see how far it could advance the cause of “Save Malaysia”

(Scroll down for English text)

Pemimpin-pemimpin politik boleh bertemu dan membincangkan cadangan menarik Mahathir untuk melihat sejauh mana ia boleh membawa kepada matlamat “Menyelamatkan Malaysia”

Pada Mac tahun ini, saya telah menyarankan agar rakyat Malaysia mengumpul keberanian untuk memikirkan perkara-perkara yang tidak terfikirkan, termasuk membayangkan kemunculan seorang Perdana Menteri baru dan gabungan kerajaan baru sebelum Pilihanraya Umum ke-14 dalam tempoh tiga tahun ini bagi “Menyelamatkan Malaysia”, mempertahankan Perlembagaan Malaysia, kedaulatan undang-undang dan membentuk urus tadbir yang baik.

Menerusi beberapa kenyataan media dan ucapan sepanjang Mac dan April, saya telah membincangkan kemungkinan wujudnya satu pakatan besar “Menyelamatkan Malaysia” pasca-BN dan pasca-PR.

Saya juga telah menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa jika pakatan besar “Menyelamatkan Malaysia” pasca-BN dan pasca-PR itu dibentuk, ia mestilah tidak terhad kepada hanya kaum atau agama tertentu tetapi meliputi semua kaum, agama, dan daerah, atau dalam ungkapan lain, sebuah kerajaan gabungan yang jamak-kaum, jamak-agama dan jamak-daerah, meliputi Muslim dan bukan-Muslim, Melayu dan bukan-Melayu, serta warga Malaysia dari Semenanjung Malaysia, Sarawak dan Sabah.

Gabungan itu juga mesti melampaui pakatan dan parti politik sedia ada, merangkumi Ahli-Ahli Parlimen dari kedua-dua kubu politik dan juga kedua-dua sisi Laut Cina Selatan, iaitu meliputi Sabah, Sarawak dan Semenanjung Malaysia, bagi mempertahankan perlembagaan dan kedaulatan undang-undang dengan seorang Perdana Menteri baru dan sebuah kerajaan Malaysia yang baru.

Saya juga telah melakar satu senario, iaitu berasaskan kedudukan di Parlimen sekarang, Perdana Menteri baru boleh dilantik dari kalangan Ahli Parlimen dari Sarawak, Sabah atau Semenanjung Malaysia, dari mana-mana jua parti politik, lelaki atau wanita, yang mendapat sokongan majoriti daripada 222 Ahli Parlimen – dan beliau mesti komited untuk Menyelamatkan Malaysia serta mempertahankan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan kedaulatan undang-undang.

Saya malah telah menyebut nama beberapa Ahli Parlimen dari Sarawak, Sabah dan Semenanjung Malaysia; dari kedua-dua kubu politik, lelaki dan wanita, yang boleh dilantik untuk menjadi Perdana Menteri – antara nama yang telah saya sebut ialah Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah dan Nur Jazlan Mohamed.

Saya juga telah menegaskan bahasa pakatan besar “Menyelamatkan Malaysia” tidak harus menjadi satu gabungan yang oportunistik, sebaliknya ia mesti diasaskan atas satu program yang berasaskan prinsip-prinsip dan kepentingan negara, misalnya untuk mempertahankan ciri-ciri asasi Perlembagaan Persekutuan, memulihkan kebebasan institusi negara, serta meningkatkan integriti, kebebasan, keadilan, dan harga diri rakyat negara ini.

Gabungan besar “Menyelamatkan Malaysia” pasca-BN dan pasca-PR harus menjadi satu gabungan berwawasan dan berpandangan jauh, dengan matlamat mengembalikan keagungan negara Malaysia dan membolehkan Malaysia melonjak naik dalam pelbagai bidang, termasuk bidang politik, ekonomi, pendidikan, teknologi dan alam sekitar, selain membentuk sebuah kerajaan yang bersih dari rasuah, cemerlang dan menjunjung kedaulatan undang-undang dan hak asasi manusia – bukannya terjerumus ke dalam jurang dan menjadi sebuah negara gagal.

Dalam ucapan kepada para pelajar di Iskandariah, Mesir, pada bulan April lalu, saya menyebut bahawa salah satu agenda utama gabungan besar “Menyelamatkan Malaysia” pasca-BN dan pasca-PR ialah membebaskan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dari penjara Sungai Buloh untuk kembali menyertai arus perdana politik Malaysia.

Saya telah bertanya ketika itu sama ada gagasan gabungan besar “Menyelamatkan Malaysia” pasca-BN dan pasca-PR ini, melampaui pakatan dan parti politik sedia ada, adalah sesuatu yang praktikal dan mampu dicapai?

Sudah tentu ia cabaran terbesar yang sedang dihadapi rakyat Malaysia kini dan hanya masa akan menentukan sama ada gagasan itu mampu dicapai atau tidak.

Mantan perdana menteri Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad telah mencadangkan agar Pembangkang menyokong undi tidak percaya di Parlimen terhadap Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak sambil mengekalkan Barisan Nasional sebagai kerajaan.

Para pemimpin politik boleh bertemu dan membincangkan cadangan menarik itu bagi melihat sejauh mana ia boleh membawa kita kepada matlamat “Menyelamatkan Malaysia”.

(Kenyataan Media di Kuala Lumpur, Jumaat, 21 Ogos 2015)

———————-

In March this year, I suggested that Malaysians must dare to think of the unthinkable, even of a new Prime Minister and a new government coalition  before the 14th General Election in three years’ time  to “Save Malaysia”, protect the Malaysian Constitution, the rule of law and entrench good governance.

In a series of media statement and speeches  March and April, I discussed the possibilities of a post-BN, post-PR “Save Malaysia” grand coalition.

I made it very clear that if there is going to be such a post-BN, post-PR “Save Malaysia” grand coalition, it must not be exclusive for  any one race or religion but fully inclusive of all Malaysian races, religions and regions, in other words, a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-regional new Malaysian coalition government comprising Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays, and Malaysians from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah.

It must go  beyond the existing political coalitions and parties, comprising  MPs from both sides of the political divide as well as both sides of the South China Sea, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia, to defend constitutionalism and  the rule of law with a new Prime Minister and a new Malaysian Government.

I even canvassed  the scenario that based on the present parliamentary position, the new Prime Minister can come from Sarawak, Sabah or Peninsula Malaysia, from whichever political party, can be man or woman, who enjoys the support of the majority of the 222 Members of Parliament – and committed to Save Malaysia and defend the Federal Constitution and the rule of law.

I had even named names of the MPs from Sarawak, Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia; from both sides of the political divide, both man and woman, who could be appointed the new Prime Minister – and the names included Razaleigh Hamzah and Nur Jazlan Mohamed.

I had stressed that the “Save Malaysia” Grand Coalition must not be an opportunistic get-together but must be based on a programme of principles and the national interests, for instance,  to protect the fundamental features of the Malaysian Constitution, restore the independence of national institutions and promote integrity, freedom, justice and dignity in the country.

The post-BN, post-PR “Save Malaysia” grand coalition should be  a visionary and forward-looking programme to restore Malaysia’s greatness and allow Malaysia to punch above its weight in many areas of human endeavour, whether political, economic, social, educational, information technology or environmental, creating a clean, incorruptible government of excellence which upholds the rule of law and human rights – and not sliding down the slippery slope to a rogue and failed state.

In  my speech to Malaysian students in Alexandria in April, I said one of the top agendas of the post-BN, post-PR “Save Malaysia” grand coalition must be the release of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from Sungai Buloh prison to be back in the mainstream of Malaysian politics.

I has asked at the  time whether this idea of a post-BN, post-PR “Save Malaysia” grand coalition, going beyond the existing political coalitions and parties, was a practical and achievable concept?

It was undoubtedly  the greatest challenge facing Malaysians and only time wouild tell whether it is feasible or not.

Former prime minister Tun  Dr Mahathir Mohamad has come out with the proposal that the Opposition support a no-confidence vote  in Parliament against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak while still retaining Barisan Nasional as government.

It is an an interesting proposition which political leaders can meet and discuss to see how far it could advance the cause of “Save Malaysia”.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 August 2015, 3:46 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Good Governance
,
Malaysian Dream
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2015, year that never was for Malaysia

 – Rizal Rozhan

The Malaysian Insider

21 August 2015

To be honest, as a student of international relations, and a fan of international affairs, 2015 was supposed to be a benchmark year for Malaysia. A year to prove that Malaysia can strut her stuff in the global plane.

Once more, like 2014 (we were anticipating Visit Malaysia year to boost our tourism, yet we were marred with a series of unfortunate events), this year is turning out to be a disaster as well.

Even worse than 2014.

Because this time, the problems which beset Malaysia are not those caused externally. This time, we brought ourselves to the chopping board.

Our ringgit problem because of a lack of investors’ confidence, which stems from political instability and mismanagement of funds.

When we are supposed to be internationally applauded for showing positive movements in Asean, as the Asean Chair.

When we are supposed to be pushing for a just and fair closure for flight MH17 victims and family members by mustering all we can for the United Nations Security Council to reverse Russia’s veto for an MH17 tribunal.

When all blood, sweat and tears of lobbying for a Security Council non-permanent seat for 2015-2016 were expected to bring Malaysia’s name to the fore of global security.

Instead, being Asean’s chair stands for galas and more galas. Economic, security, community, political, foreign ministers’ galas and more galas. Nothing on the ground.

Instead, our prime minister failed to lobby his international counterparts to reverse Russia’s veto.

He was preoccupied with problems in Malaysia. Uncharacteristically, if we were to compare him with the man who was lauded by the media last year for his secret diplomacy to secure access to the Ukrainian crash site. But he failed to uphold justice for victims of MH17.

Instead, our PM once again seemed distracted by the persistent calls on to resign over the RM 2.6 billion “donations” in his personal account.

This time, by diverting the population’s attention to LGBTIQ issues. By solemnly swearing that Malaysia will never ever defend the rights of these people.

What happened to a people-centric Asean? When all the galas are all but filling of the top 1% elites’ stomach to the brim.

What happened to being a UNSC member? When our prime minister fills the hearts of our people with hatred and prejudice towards a group of people needing recognition and at least a sense of being human? UNSC member, but never a human rights defender.

These are just to name a few of the mishaps, mismanagement, and mystery surrounding Malaysia in 2015. For all we know, Malaysia is finally global news. For all the wrong reasons.

I used to be a believer in our government. All that trust is now gone, for all I can see is those in power grabbing to whatever they can, just to stay in power.

Thus, August 29 and 30 are the dates. Mark those dates, go to the ground and say “enough is enough”.

Kuala Lumpur, Kota Kinabalu and Kuching. Be prepared. Paint the town yellow!

Because I believe in the power of the people. All the best fellow Malaysians! – August 21, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 August 2015, 7:31 am and is filed under
ASEAN
,
Bersih
,
MH 17
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Are there at least 35 UMNO/BN MPs who are prepared to join with Opposition MPs in October Parliament on a “Save Malaysia” agenda including a no-confidence motion on Najib?

The universe  seems to be conspiring against Malaysia, as there is no surcease of  daily bad news for the country.

Yesterday’s, it was disclosed that Bank Negara’s international reserves have declined further to US$94.5 billion (RM356.4 billion) as at Aug 14 compared to US$96.7 billion (RM364.7 billion) on July 31.

At this rate of shrinking international reserves to stem the ringgit slide against the US dollar which yesterday stood at RM4.17 to a US dollar, the BN international reserves could fall to some US$92 billion on Merdeka Day on August 31 and by Malaysia Day on Sept. 16, might be  struggling not to fall below the US$90 billion level.

The news yesterday of the flip-flop by the new Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, forming a new task force to investigate the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, after disbanding the earlier multi-agency Special Task Force to investigate into the twin scandals of 1MDB and the RM2.6 billion in Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts, but now excluding the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), is only calculated to further undermine and not restore a very shaken  public confidence in the key national institutions in the country.

In this context, the “interesting proposition” by former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir that the Opposition support a no-confidence vote  in Parliament against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak while still retaining Barisan Nasional as government has opened up a Pandora’s Box about the directions Malaysia should be heading in the coming years.

In his FaceBook, Najib said it up to the people who elected him “to give and to take away” his mandate and the right doesn’t fall to any “individual, however eminent.”

Najib seems to have forgotten two things:  Firstly, he  is a minority Prime Minister, the first one in fact, in Malaysia as the majority of voters in the 13th general election  did not vote for him but Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Secondly, his role as the mastermind of the undemocratic and unconstitutional coup toppling the Pakatan Rakyat state government in Perak in February 2009, without seeking a vote of no confidence against the then Perak Mentri Besar, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin. If Najib had been consistent in the past and acted in accordance with what he claimed in his  FaceBook yesterday, Nizar would have served out his term as Perak Mentri Besar afer the 2008 General Election and  moved on to become a second-term Perak Mentri Besar in the 13th General Election.

Is Najib going to degenerate from one undemocratic history (the Perak coup in Feb 2009) to another undemocratic outrage as to now claim that it is undemocratic and even unconstitutional for any motion of no confidence to be discussed, proposed and decided by Parliament and that those who advocate any such vote of no confidence against him are guilty of the offence under Section 124B of the Penal Code on “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” and can be jailed up to 20 years?

Will there be a vote of no confidence against Najib as Prime Minister and is such a motion likely to succeed when Parliament reconvenes on Oct. 19?

Mahathir’s “interesting proposition” would be a good starting point to explore such a possibility.

One of the key factors for consideration of such motion of no confidence is whether there are at least  35 UMNO/BN MPs who are prepared to join Opposition MPs in October Parliament on a “Save Malaysia” agenda including a no-confidence motion on Najib, and the terms and conditions of such an unprecedented united front.

Although the three former Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PKR and PAS have a total of 88 MPs, it will be foolhardy for anyone to assume that  the 21 PAS MPs will  all support a vote of no confidence against Najib unless this is clearly and specifically spelt out by the PAS President, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang himself.

In the circumstances, the safest bet is to assume that some 75-78 Opposition MPs will take a united common position on the no-confidence motion with the balance having to be made up from UMNO and Barisan Nasional MPs.

At present, UMNO/BN have 134 MPs, i.e. 88 UMNO MPs and 46 non-UMNO BN MPs, comprising:

UMNO – 88

MCA  –  7

MIC  –  4

PBB –  14

Gerakan-2

SUPP –  1

PBS –   4

PRS –   6

SPDP –  4

UPKO –  3

PBRS –  1

Are there at least 35 UMNO/MPs who are prepared to join with Opposition MPs in October Parliament on a “Save Malaysia” agenda including a no-confidence motion on Najib?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 August 2015, 11:29 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.