Is Speaker Pandikar  capable of leading MPs to fend off Executive and police threats to parliamentary privileges and immunities by arbitrary, unconstitutional  and illegal assumption of non-existing powers against  Parliament?

Overnight, Malaysia is faced with  a major constitutional crisis with the gravest threat in the nation’s history on  the proper place and power of Parliament in our system of governance and the  traditional as well as constitutionally-entrenched parliamentary privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament, regardless whether from the government or the opposition.

Central to this constitutional crisis facing Malaysia is whether the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, is capable of leading MPs to fend off the Executive and Police threats to parliamentary privileges and immunities by arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal assumption of non-existing powers against Parliament?

The latest incident in the insidious subversion of Parliament’s proper role and place in the Malaysian system of governance, based on the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, is the shocking announcement by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar that the police are now investigating former Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah for sedition over his speech in Parliament about 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), aside for alleged violations of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972.

The Inspector-General of Police made the nonsensical statement that Husni’s case is  also classified under the Sedition Act because the investigation into the state investment firm was still underway and that talking about it might jeopardise the process.

He said: “Even in Parliament, it doesn’t give an MP the immunity against the Sedition Act to speak about such matter(s).”

Why is Khalid making such a silly statement and Malaysians are entitled to know who in the Police made such a ridiculous re-classification – the IGP or the Attorney-General?

I am thoroughly shocked that the No. 1 Policeman in the land has  such a shallow knowledge of the law and the Constitution.

Let me tell Khalid, that even if is right that “talking about it (1MDB) might jeopardise the (investigation) process” allegedly bringing it within the confines of  the Sedition Act, (but Khalid cannot be wrong unless the term “the rule of law” has lost all meaning in present-day Malaysia and I wonder whether  the Attorney-General has become his instant  “law guru”), an MP in such a situation is still protected from any form of police harassment or action under Article 63(2) of the Constitution which states:

“ 63 (2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in any proceedings of either House of Parliament or any committee thereof”.

There was an amendment to the Malaysian Constitution in 1971 qualifying the parliamentary privileges and immunities provided under Article 63 (2) and they are  Article 63 (4) and (5), which  reads:

“(4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948  as amended by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 45, 1970.

“(5) Notwithstanding Clause (4), no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or a Ruler when taking part in any proceedings of either House of Parliament or any committee thereof except where he advocates the abolition of the constitutional position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Supreme Head of the Federation or the constitutional position of the Ruler of a State, as the case may be.”

Any careful reading of Husni’s speech in Parliament on the 2017 Budget, which applies equally to the speeches by the other two former Cabinet Ministers, former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and former Rural and Regional Development Minister, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, would show that neither of three former Cabinet Ministers said anything about the four entrenched “sensitive” issues on Article 181 on the  sovereignty of Rulers, Article 152 on the National Language, Article 153 on Special Provision for Malays and Part III of the Federal Constitution on citizenship provisions so as to lose their parliamentary privileges and immunities on these issues.

Even if Khalid is right that Husni’s questions and speech in Parliament on  1MDB could be “seditious” in interfering with current investigations concerning 1MDB scandal (and I have said Khalid is very wrong and even  obtuse to think so),  MPs are clearly and categorially protected by Article 63 on parliamentary privileges immunity of MPs when they speak on the 1MDB issue and are  not liable to any civil or criminal proceedings for their speeches on 1MDB in Parliament.

Everybody knows that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak would be the happiest man in the world if MPs are not allowed to raise 1MDB issues in Parliament on the ground that  MPs would lose their parliamentary privileges and immunities and liable to be charged in court under the Sedition Act, but what should be the role of the Speaker in such an extraordianry situation?

Should the Speaker lead the parliamentary fight against such arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal usurpation of parliamentary powers and privileges by the police and Executive, or should the Speaker throw in the towel, and worse still, be the first to concede that MPs may have lost their parliamentary privileges and immunities and could be charged in court under the Sedition Act for what they say about 1MDB in Parliament?

These are very serious and weighty questions about the Constitution, the rule of law, Parliament privileges and immunities, and the proper place of Parliament in Malaysian government scheme of things.

It is for this reason that I propose convening  a meeting of all MPs, Ministers including former Ministers and MPs in Parliament on Tuesday at 10 am to discuss the Malaysian constitutional crisis which have suddenly been  sprung on the nation.

Former Prime Minster, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, has confirmed that he will attend this meeting in Parliament House on Tuesday at 10 am as it involves the grave question of parliamentary privileges and immunities and freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia.

Although request for a room in Parliament is still awaiting the Speaker’s personal approval, I would like to openly invite the Speaker,  Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, the Deputy Speakers, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and all Ministers and Barisan Nasional MPs  to this meeting in Parliament on Tuesday at 10 am, as it concerns a most fundamental issue affecting not just Opposition MPs, but the very quality of democracy and Parliament in Malaysia!

All former and current  Ministers and MPs are  invited to the Tuesday meeting in Parliament on parliamentary privileges and immunities  through this Open Invitation.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 4 November 2016, 1:53 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Demonstrations and counter-demonstrations ― Where lies the government’s duty?

― Lim Wei Jiet

Malay Mail Online

November 5, 2016

NOVEMBER 5 ― Of late, there have been statements by ministers and authorities which seem to have blamed Bersih for the threatening menace of the Red Shirts come November 19.

Khairy Jamaluddin, in his infinite wisdom, said: “…if Bersih does not do anything, the reds would certainly not do anything, so the burden lies on Bersih. The best way is to not allow the Bersih 5 rally to happen”.  The Home Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi similarly opined: “You see, if there is no yellow, there will be no red. If there is no Maria Chin, there will surely be no Jamal Yunos”.

With respect, such line of thinking is simply erroneous. Imagine this scenario ― a group of students are enjoying a game of football during P.E. lesson. The school bully appears from nowhere, pushes several students to the ground and snatches the ball away like the jerk he is. A brouhaha ensues. The teacher comes along and not only does omit to discipline the bully, but proceeds to scold the students for causing him problems and orders the students back to class.

How’s that for logic?

One can’t put it more simply than O’Brien J in R v. Londonderry Justices (1891) 28 LR Fr. 440: “If danger arises from the exercise of lawful rights resulting in a breach of the peace, the remedy is the presence of sufficient force to prevent the result, not the legal condemnation of those who exercise those rights”

In other words, stop the bully, not reprimand the peaceful demonstrators!

The European Court of Human Rights in Platform Arzte fur das Leben v Austria (1988) 13 EHRR 204 very nicely held: “The participants must, however, be able to hold the demonstration without having to fear that they will be subjected to physical violence by their opponents; such a fear would be liable to deter associations or other groups supporting common ideas or interests from openly expressing their opinions on highly controversial issues affecting the community. In a democracy the right to counter-demonstrate cannot extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate.”

The prospect of a violent counter-demonstration cannot be justified to call for a blanket ban for peaceful protests. In fact, the law suggests that it becomes the positive duty of the government to protect Bersih’s right of assembly from the threats of the Red Shirts.

As mentioned by the UN Human Rights Committee in Alekseev Russia: “An unspecified and general risk of a violent counter-demonstration or the mere possibility that the authorities would be unable to prevent or neutralise such violence was not sufficient to ban a demonstration…In such circumstances, the obligation of the state party was to protect the author in the exercise of his rights under the ICCPR and not to contribute to suppressing those rights.”

Further, Section 18 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 clearly provides the solution to the prospect of a counter-assembly by the Red Shirts: “If the Officer in Charge of a Police District receives a notification of a counter assembly and it is evident that the organization of the counter assembly will cause conflict between the participants of the assemblies, the Officer in Charge of the Police District shall give an alternative for the counter assembly to be organised at another time, date or place.”

This means that priority should be given to Bersih for the November 19 rally and that the State should actually facilitate the Red Shirts to hold their counter assembly at a venue distant enough to avoid clashes.

It is clear that the law dictates that the government should defend and protect Bersih’s right to demonstrate peacefully, not pour scorn and blame them for the existence of rowdy counter-demonstrators.

If we extend the ministers’ logic, then any exercise of the right to assembly under Article 10 of our Federal Constitution can be stopped as long as there is a threat of a counter-demonstration. This only encourages a nationwide culture of lawlessness and intimidation ― the more violent, the higher the prospect of stopping a group you disagree with.

Come November 19, one sincerely hopes that the government will do the right thing ― uphold the rights of its citizens to assemble peacefully, and to defend such right from being denied by a group of thuggish counter-demonstrators if need be.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 5 November 2016, 4:50 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sanusi confirms he will attend with Tun Mahathir the meeting in Parliament on Tuesday of MPs (including former MPs and Ministers) to discuss  how to defend Parliament and MPs’ parliamentary privileges and immunities against insidious police encroachments

Former Cabinet Minister Tan Sri Sanusi Junid has confirmed that he will attend with former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad the meeting in Parliament on Tuesday of Members of Parliament (including former MPs and Ministers) to discuss the country’s latest constitutional crisis on the doctrine of separation of powers and how to defend Parliament and MPs’ parliamentary privileges and immunities against insidious police encroachments.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said yesterday that
“3 ex-ministers under probe over 1MDB statements”

(New Straits Times 5/11/06 headline p. 10)
 and this is most shocking for two reasons:

Firstly, when did the police have free roving liberty to investigate speeches by MPs (whether former Minister or not) made in  Parliament, as if MPs’s traditional and constitutionally-entrenched parliamentary privileges spelt out in Article 63 (2) of the Malaysian Constitution and the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 do not exist in the eyes of the IGP.

Should MPs submit their speeches to the police for approval before they are delivered in Parliament. Is this what Malaysia has become, in the eighth year of premiership of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak?

Secondly, is the IGP through  his  arbitrary and unconstitutional action sending out a message that 1MDB issue is a “banned” subject in Parliament, as MPs who raised the issue of 1MDB in Parliament could be next in line of police’s interrogation  when the three ex-Cabinet Ministers could be targeted by the police for speaking in Parliament on 1MDB?

Khalid’s statement yesterday has laid bare the frightening and even Kafkaesque nature of the constitutional crisis on the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary which has been suddenly sprung on the nation when he said that the police had enough reasons to investigate former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, former Rural and Regional Development Minister, Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal and former Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah as there was no immunity from seditious statements in Parliament.

Khalid has not made any correction of this erroneous statement in the 24/7 world of information technology, and if the IGP is right, then there is no rule of law or constitutional government leftl  in Malaysia by only a police and a lawless state presided over by the Prime Minister of the land.

Khalid should know that what he said is the not the law of the law as at present as   even a first-year law student would know that the IGP is not being a loyal  guardian of the law!

I believe conscientious MPs and Ministers, including former MPs and former Ministers, are very distressed when the Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia abdicated his role to be in the vanguard to defend the parliamentary privileges of MPs when he said:
“Up to courts to rule if MPs subject to OSA’”

(New Straits Times 4/11/06 headline p. 22).

Does Pandikar agree with Khalid about the police harassment and  investigation of the former Cabinet Ministers for speaking on 1MDB in Parliament during the debate on the 2017 Budget?

I do not agree that it is up the courts, and not the speaker, to decide on whether Members of Parliament are subject to the Official Secrets Act (OSA) while speaking in Parliament.

A conscientious Speaker should lead the fight to protect and uphold traditional and constitutionally-provided  parliamentary privileges and immunities, and if challenged in a court of law, should himself go to court to protect and uphold parliamentary privileges and immunities and not to fold his arm to supinely await the outcome of the court decision.

The defence and  upholding of parliamentary privileges and immunities is not a partisan issue, but rises above party politics and should be the concern all MPs as well as Ministers (who are also  MPs) – including former MPs and former Ministers.

This is the reason why I propose an initial meeting of all MPs (including all former MPs as well as former Ministers) to discuss the sudden constitutional crisis confronting  Malaysia over the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, bearing directly on the issue of  MPs’ parliamentary privileges and immunities.

What a former Minister, Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz said yesterday reinforced my feelings that  the time has come for all Malaysians to rise above political party and other differences to come together as one Malaysian people to keep the country safe from “marauders” who come in various forms, so that we can live to see a day with more hope for the future of Malaysia.

Rafidah said in her Facebook that  she is sad, angry, worried and fearful over the problems plaguing the nation now.

Among the things that have become “haywire”, she said, is the absence of good social governance and the proliferation of xenophobia in the country.

Despite that, she said, the vast majority of Malaysians love the country and accept diversity.

She wrote on her Facebook:

“AND YET..there is the vast MAJORITY of Malaysians, who love their Malaysia, and who totally accept the diversities amongst us. THEY have to face the Xenophobia, the Hypocricy, and the near insanity of the MINORITY..who flex their puny muscles..make near crazy utterances…and THREATEN the very fabric of the Malaysian Society.

“AND these are in parallel with the EROSION of the Culture of GOOD and effective Political and Economic Governance ..forged over the decades..by past Leaders and Leadership.

“YES…Past Leaders do have their shortcomings..and have made mistakes..

“THEY..AS WE ALL ARE..ARE ONLY HUMAN..not infallible..PERFECTION is ONLY reserved for the Almighty.

“BUT..It is a different ballgame..when issues of personal interest, lack of Integrity ..and abuse of Public Trust is concerned.

“Today..I ..and all of us I am sure..are weighed down by emotions that reflect.

…..sadness

……upset and even anger

……disbelief

……concern and deep worry

……and maybe even fear.

“These emotions have to do with what is happening around us..and the problems the Society and Nation are facing..and with our future.”

In her lifetime, Rafidah said, Malaysia has progressed from a colonial territory to a highly respected, rapidly developing nation.

However, she said, many of the countries Malaysia had been ahead of are now catching up or have caught up, with some even having overtaken us.

How did things go so wrong in recent years with the country’s policies and politics, she asked.

“Some have become ostriches with heads in the sand, but exposing their backsides for all to see.

“I am sure we can feel the world talking about us, laughing at us even, and in not so complimentary ways,” she said.

Rafidah’s restiveness and  agony  is the restiveness and  agony of all patriotic Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region, or party politics, who love Malaysia.

This  is the reason for the Tuesday meeting of MPs and ex-MPs in Parliament on a subject which is close to the heart of the question of the quality of democracy and Parliament in Malaysia and the type of Malaysian nation we want to build  for future generations.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 5 November 2016, 11:32 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should learn from the anti-corruption campaign in China where some one million officials, from Ministers and other “tigers” downwards, were punished in the last three years to ensure that Malaysia is famed as one of the top countries for anti-corruption

The video on 50 years of DAP we saw at the beginning of the Convention reminds us of the DAP leaders and activists who had slogged and sacrificed for the  party, not for any personal gain or benefit, but for the DAP  ideals and principle which inspired and motivated them.

As a DAP member and leader for 50 years, I can speak with knowledge and authority that this is the great difference between DAP leaders and members from those who joined the parties in the ruling coalition – that unlike their counterparts in the ruling parties, members and leaders in the DAP joined and are in politics not because of money, business  opportunities, position or titles, or even to be Members of Parliament or State Assembly representatives, but because of their patriotism,  ideals and commitment to the DAP cause of justice, freedom, equality and a better Malaysia for all Malaysians.

We are reminded by the video of the  past  DAP leaders who have contributed through their  sacrifices and struggles which formed the basis for the DAP’s present success in Penang, but who have now  left us, in particular Karpal Singh, P. Patto, Chian Heng Kai, Peter Dason, Tan Loo Jit and N. Shanmugam.

DAP thanks the Penang State Government for naming roads after Karpal, Patto and Heng Kai in appreciation and commemoration of their patriotism, service and sacrifices to the welfare of the people, state and nation.  I understand that a road has been earmarked to be named after Peter Dason, and I urge the Penang State Government to also commemorate the patriotism, services and sacrifices of Loo Jit and Shanmugam so that they could all be role models for the new generation of Malaysians in Penang.

The video brought back memories of the five decades of the DAP political struggle, the first time I brought Guan Eng to Penang in the course of my political travels before the 1969 general election, and nobody expected that some 40 years later, he would become the Penang Chief Minister with the challenging tasks to lead the Penang State to a new breakthrough.

I remember my first visit to Penang after release from  my first Internal Security Act (ISA) detention on Nov. 22, 1970 where Penang DAP organized a historic dinner on the occasion of my ISA release.

In my speech at the Penang Dinner, which was held at the Sun Hoe Penang Restaurant, I referred to four issues in my call to all political parties and forces to

dedicate themselves to promoting the cause of democracy in Malaysia:

1.	Renounce force and violence and commit acceptance of the verdict of the people in any general election.

2.	Refrain from undermining or demeaning the role, function or powers of Parliament – including upholding and protecting of parliamentary privileges and immunities.

3.	Abolish the Internal Security Act.

4.	Take firm and strong action against all authoritarian and violent forces to impose their will on the people.

Apart from the item on the abolition of Internal Security Act, which has been achieved, the other three items are as pressing today as 46 years ago in 1970.

In fact, on Tuesday in Parliament, there will be an  important meeting of  MPs and ex-MPs (which include Ministers and ex-Ministers) to discuss the country’s latest constitutional crisis on the doctrine of separation of powers and how to defend Parliament and MPs’ parliamentary privileges and immunities against insidious police encroachments.

The police action to investigate three former Cabinet Ministers for their speeches in Parliament on the 1MDB financial scandal is an unconstitutional,  intolerable and unacceptable infringement of the traditional and constitutionally-entrenched parliamentary privileges spelt out in Article 63 (2) of the Malaysian Constitution and the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952, and must be opposed and resisted by all Malaysians who cherish parliamentary democracy as the country’s choice of the  system of government.

Former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, and former Minister Tan Sri Sanusi Junid have indicated their concern at the latest threat to parliamentary democracy where traditional parliamentary privileges and immunities are infringed with impunity and will attend Tuesday’s meeting in Parliament of MPs and ex-MPs who are disturbed by these latest political and parliamentary developments.

I want to reiterate publicly the standing invitation to the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, all current and former Ministers, as well as the Barisan Nasional MPs, to Tuesday’s meeting in Parliament on the latest threat to Parliament and MP’s parliamentary privileges and  immunities.

Recently, the Speaker had been making a number of shocking statements.

In defending the Prime Minister’s frequent absences  from Parliament, Pandikar asked which should one prefer, whether it was more important for investment of RM144 billion to come  to Malaysia, or for Najib to “to sit here (Parliament)  and see the same face and then they (MPs) ask irrelevant questions?”.

By  RM144 billion, Pandikar  was referring to the reported amount involved in Najib’s trade talks with China during his recent visit to China.

The Speaker’s retort to a reporter’s question at a media conference was uncalled for and unworthy for three reasons:

1.	It is not the role or task of the Speaker of Parliament to justify the Prime Minister’s frequent absences from Parliament.

2.	Secondly, the Speaker was betraying his contempt for MPs in dismissing their queries as “irrelevant questions”. Did he mean that all questions about the 1MDB scandal and Malaysia’s infamy and ignominy for being regarded world-wide as a “global kleptocracy” are “irrelevant questions”?

3.	the Speaker was wrong in presently the issue as a “either-or” scenario, when it should be one where the Prime Minister can diligently and dutifully attend Parliament as the case with Prime Ministers of parliamentary systems of   “developed nations” as well as leading important investment missions abroad.   Why  Prime Ministers of developed nations can  ensure their important overseas missions do not clash with their parliamentary calenders, but not Najib? Did Najib deliberately schedule his trip to China to have a good excuse to avoid parliamentary attendance?

Najib claims to have made a very successful visit to China.

He should appear in Parliament tomorrow to give a full report during the last day of the Ministerial winding up of the debate on the 2017 Budget on his visit to China, and until his report to Parliament, I will withhold comment on his visit to China.

However, I am curious about one aspect of Najib’s China trip and  relations – why he is not learning from China in the battle against corruption.

Najib cannot be unaware that China, under  President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption drive, had punished more than one million officials for corruption over the past three years.

Top officials, including Ministers and other “tiger” personalities, have been punished for  corruption.

In contrast, what has Najib’s anti-corruption campaign got to show, as everybody is still waiting for a “shark” in Malaysia to be charged in court.

Instead of making headway in the war against corruption, Najib has achieved the opposite – acquiring for Malaysia the infamy and ignominy of being regarded world-wide as a “global kleptocracy”.

I defined in Parliament on Monday that “kleptocracy” is rule by thieves and robbers, and I stood uncontradicted and unchallenged  in Parliament when I said in Parliament that as a result of Malaysia’s disgraceful epithet of a “global kleptocracy”, Malaysia is ruled by  PPP – Pencuri, Perompak dan Penyamun!

In the past year, Malaysia had topped the global charts as among the most corrupt nations in the world like the third place in international website, foreignpolicy.com’s ranking of the world’s “worst corruption scandal in 2015” at the end of last year, TIME magazine’s second ranking of “global corruption” in March and the Economist’s second placing in its second index of crony capitalism in May.

Malaysia was ranked 50th among 175 countries in 2014 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) but dropped to 54th among 168 countries in 2015 with a CPI score of 50/100.

The Najib government had been boasting about its target for Malaysia to be in the top 30 countries in the TI CPI by 2020, but this is nothing but a pipe-dream.

Studying the TI CPI ranking and score for the 177 countries and the 21-year series of TI CPI from 1995-2015, there is no reason or ground for anyone to believe that the target of Malaysia being ranked in the top 30 of TI CPI in 2020 is a realistic or achievable one.

In fact, within a decade, Malaysia faces the risk of being overtaken by China and even Indonesia in both TI CPI ranking and score, when in the first TI CPI in 1995, Malaysia was ranked No. 23 out of 41 countries with a score of 5.28 out of 10, while China and Indonesia were ranked as the last two bottom countries with CPI score of 2.16 and 1.94 out of 10 respectively.

However, in the last 21 years, Malaysia achieved the dubious distinction as one of the few countries which had been downgraded both in TI CPI ranking and score, but had lost out to countries which had lower CPI ranking and score in 1995 and is also now at risk of being overtaken by countries including China and Indonesia which had been at the bottom of TI CPI in 1995.

What should concern all Malaysians and the MACC is that from these trends, Malaysia runs the risk of being overtaken by both Indonesia and China within a decade in the annual TI CPI both in ranking and score unless Malaysia quickly bucks up and show its seriousness on the anti-corruption front.

Najib should learn from the anti-corruption campaign in China where some one million officials, from Ministers and other “tigers” downwards, were punished in the last three years to ensure that Malaysia is famed as one of the top countries for anti-corruption and not the reverse, allowing China to overtake Malaysia in the annual TI CPI in having a better record than Malaysia in fighting corruption!

Is this the reason why Najib is abandoning Vision 2020 in favour of his Vision 2050?

(Speech at the DAP 2016 State Convention held at Vistana Hotel, Penang on Sunday, 6th August 2016 at 11.30 am)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 6 November 2016, 3:44 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why China Is Cannibalizing Its Own Economy To Combat Corruption

Wade Shepard

Forbes

Oct. 24, 2016

China is a country that rose to the top on the back of vibrant markets with weak institutions, and the lack of enforced regulations led to a very dynamic business climate where deals were not hamstrung by red tape and money feverishly cycled between both the white and black spheres of the economy.

“The first step of development is always to build markets with weak institutions,” said Yuen Yuen Ang, the author of How China Escaped the Poverty Trap, a book which flipped the conventional wisdom about emerging markets on its head. “Meaning, it may look corrupt, it may look like you have the wrong types of practices and the wrong types of property rights, but it’s all about people making use of the existing institutions they have to stimulate market activities.”

Ang related how in the early 80s, when China was searching for ways to initially spark its economic renaissance, virtual armies of bureaucrats were directed to use their personal relationships to find investors for development-related projects.

“They make use of expenses that would strike us as kind of a corrupt system, because these bureaucrats are unleashed to go out to do development, look for investors, and they are given very powerful monetary incentives. . . There are explicit rules, sometimes even written down in documents, where as a bureaucrat you can collect five percent of the value of investments that you bring in, for example.”

China has developed economically and infrastructurally faster and more extensively than any other country in history, and this was partly due to an under-regulated, grassroots business environment that was built by networks of social connections and peppered with monetary incentives for decision-makers to engage in large-scale development. Many of the measures which are generally the firm foundations and safeguards of developed economies are often little more than economic barriers in emerging markets — things like due bureaucratic processes, fair practices, transparency, property rights, and even personal rights. And China was able to rise so successfully in large part due to the fact that it didn’t hamstring itself by following the rules set forth by more developed countries.

As Ang pointed out, emerging markets often find themselves in a chicken or egg scenario in terms of what should come first, getting rich or establishing strong institutions. China chose to get rich first. For all of the obvious drawbacks, when looking at the bottom line — i.e. economic growth and development at a time when the country was severely deficient of both — China’s under-regulated business and political environment ultimately worked. But now that China has developed more mature markets that are producing at a higher capacity and are more integrated in the international sphere, these same weak institutions and seemingly corrupt practices are now eroding the economy from the inside out.

“At first you can make use of things like corruption, informal institutions, connections to kick-start markets, but at some point when you actually start having a market some things are going to have to change, and China on a national level is now at this point,” Ang continued.

In late 2012, President Xi Jinping very publicly stepped up and declared an end to the era of weak institutions in China, vowing to fight corruption at all levels and demanded a more austere trajectory for government officials. While the campaign that followed was initially written off and even mocked by some foreign observers as merely a purge of political opponents, in theory it was exactly what the country needed at the time it was needed.

Throughout the four years that the anti-graft campaign has been active, both officials high and low have had their professional and personal practices more closely monitored, and many ended up being purged. According to government information, nearly 300,000 officials were punished last year alone, which piles on top of the 400,000 who were punished in years previous. While not long ago government officials were encouraged to attract investors and reap the personal spoils as a normal part of business, now this was grounds for going to jail.

The result, as could be expected, was less economic dynamism, stalled development, and seas of abandoned infrastructure and investment projects.

“It’s definitely had a dampening effect on the economy,” said James Roy, a principal at China Market Research Group.

Entire consumer and service sectors that were once the beneficiaries of an environment where gift giving, lavish dining, high-end boozing, and premium entertainment were an everyday part of the business experience, suddenly found themselves in a customer vacuum. Faced with the very real prospect of being punished for these types of engagements — or even sporting too fancy of a watch, a common “gift” — government officials and entrepreneurs rapidly began altering the way they did business.

“You saw a very dramatic drop off at around the exact same time [as the beginning of the corruption crackdown] for a lot of Swiss watch brands as well as the designer brands, Louis Vuitton and Gucci . . . going from fairly consistent double digit annual growth to very flat to slightly negative growth,” said James Roy. “It’s caused a shift in the way the consumers are making purchasing decisions, there’s less of a desire to have too high or flashy a profile.”

The high-end F&B sector has also been hit hard, as dining and boozing were once common ways to spin the wheels of a deal or to cultivate those all so essential relationships.

“So you really are seeing a lot more closure of restaurants that relied a lot on private parties, private banquet table rooms for a lot of their business,” Roy continued. “Because any government business, any state-owned enterprise, dinner or an event now has to be much more limited in scope.”

The effect of this transition has gone beyond merely not being able to give gifts or throw extravagant banquets to pressure or gain the good graces of business partners, but also shook up some of the fundamental ways that local governments function.

Suddenly, government officials no longer seemed confident as to how to go about their work. The old ways of doling out tenders and other investment opportunities to companies based on personal connections was no longer acceptable, but a new system had yet to be developed. The general fear of being pegged as corrupt — caused mostly by a lack of clarity on the line between acceptable and unacceptable practices — led to some officials simply doing nothing. So rather than having this streamlined system where top officials could get massive projects underway with, almost literally, a flip of their wrist and a nod of their head, a decision-making-by-committee process evolved, with those at the top wanting to maintain as much distance from the action as possible. To put it simply, there was a reason why China was able to develop so quickly, and this hallmark aspect of the country’s era of rapid growth may be coming to an end.

“Basically, no one wants to make a decision anymore, so everything stops in the business world,” explained Richard Brubaker, a professor of sustainability at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai. “You talk about the fact that entrepreneurs are being brought in as part of these investigations. What entrepreneur now wants to actually do much and not hedge their bets? So it’s had a huge impact and I won’t say it’s all for bad. I think there’s quite a bit of good that’s coming from this but it’s certainly creating this hesitancy in the market, and the bad thing is that they don’t know where it’s going to go.”

“I think it has first of all slowed down processes, which is not necessarily bad,” said Daan Roggeveen, the director of MORE Architecture in Shanghai. “Secondly, I think it has caused a slowdown on overarching, in the sense that over-ambitious projects are now easier sidelined. This can be good, so pointless vanity projects don’t get a chance.”

Responding to this slow down, the central government has been punishing and criticizing officials who don’t actively perform their duties or spend the stimulus money that was pumped into the economy last year. This has put some officials in a rather compromising position where they could face a punishment for engaging in business and development or for not engaging in business and development.

The true economic impact from the corruption crackdown is impossible to definitively measure, but a researcher at BNP Paribas estimated that it alone could be taking between 1 and 1.5% off of annual GDP. While this estimate may seem a little high, what it highlights is a raw fact: the corruption crackdown is leaving a big economic footprint – and is further evidence that the decline in China’s annual GDP growth rate is not just about market fundamentals.

However, while shaking up the society from top to bottom, China’s crackdown on corruption has yet to produce much in the way of desired results. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, China is apparently more corrupt now than before the anti-corruption campaign began. With a ranking system where a score of 0 means most corrupt and 100 least corrupt, China pulled a 37 last year. This is three points worse than in 2013 and two points worse than in 2012. To put it simply, Xi’s crackdown has been more focused on combating the downstream effects of corruption rather than its upstream institutional causes. It is easy to put people in jail, much more difficult to completely reconfigure an entire bureaucracy and develop truly strong institutions — a fact that has not been lost on the Communist Party as they enter the next phase of the anti-corruption campaign.

“[China] is a middle income economy, and if it wants to continue growing it needs to change a lot of its institutions,” Ang said. “If you’d taken this discussion back in the 80s, 90s, even 2000s it was not clear that you need political reform to have development. But I do think that China has now reached a point where it actually does need to change its institutions, including its political institutions, in order to continue this process.”

“Many in China would suggest that corruption is a lubricant to keep the economy turning,” said Mark Tanner of China Skinny, a Shanghai-based marketing and consumer research firm. “In the short-term there is a degree of truth in that, but in the medium to long-term if China can stamp out corruption across all levels the economy will come out stronger, more dynamic, transparent, and sustainable.”

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 6 November 2016, 9:06 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


China is catching “tigers” and Indonesia “crocodiles”, why is Malaysia not catching “sharks” in the war against grand corruption?

The 2016 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI)  will be made public in a month’s time.

Will Malaysia’s ranking improve or deteriorate?

In the TI CPI 2015 report, Brazil was specifically mentioned as follows:

“Dealing with many entrenched corruption issues, Brazil has been rocked by the Petrobras scandal, in which politicians are reported to have taken kickbacks in exchange for awarding public contracts. As the economy crunches, tens of thousands of ordinary Brazilians have lost their jobs already. They didn’t make the decisions that led to the scandal. But they’re the ones living with the consequences. “

Brazil was ranked No. 76 out of 168 countries, with a CPI score of 38 out of 100 and was one of the five countries named whose CPI had deteriorated compared to previous years.

Will Malaysia be dishonourably named in the TI CPI 2016 Report, especially with Malaysia recently regarded world-wide as a “global kleptocracy” after a spate of disastrous developments in province of  kleptocracy, in particular the US Department of Justice (DOJ) forfeiture suit of  US$1 billion 1MDB-linked assets in the United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland arising from US$3 billion international embezzlement and money-laundering and the  the regulatory and criminal actions taken by over half a dozen countries connected with 1MDB kleptocracy, including the Switzerland, United Kingdom, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong and Australia?

Earlier in the year, after the release of TI CPI 2015 Report, Malaysia gained a spate of disreputable titles, like  third place in international website, foreignpolicy.com’s ranking of the world’s “worst corruption scandal in 2015”,  TIME magazine’s second ranking of “global corruption” in March and the Economist’s second placing in its second index of crony capitalism in May.

The question uppermost in everyone’s mind, in Malaysia and outside the country, is why China is catching “tigers” and Indonesia “crocodiles”, but  Malaysia is not able to catch a single  “shark” in the war against grand corruption.

In China,  a million of the party’s 90 million members have been sanctioned for corruption-related offences since Xi Jinping took power  as President – including  scores of  officials of deputy ministerial or higher status,  demonstrating that high status within the party is no protection for “tigers” against investigation and conviction.

In Indonesia, another Minister in Susilo Bambong Yudhoyono presidential administration  was arrested last week in a  corruption case, joining three other Ministers in Yudhoyono’s second   administration (2009-2014) who were among the “crocodiles” who had been arrested and sentenced to imprisonment because of corruption.

In September last year, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak conspicuously backed out of officiating the opening of the 16th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Putrajaya  with the theme “Ending Impunity: People. Integrity. Action”.

The 16th IACC, which was meant to be the high-water mark of  Najib’s six-year anti-corruption campaign and show-case Najib as one of the exemplary global leaders spearheading a transformation programme with anti-corruption as one of its core objectives, proved to be the exact reverse: exposing the hollowness of Najib’s anti-corruption campaign which reached its lowest depths when Malaysia was the subject of the largest kleptocracy action by the US DOJ some 10 months later!

The 17th IACC in Panama City on December 1 – 4 will follow up on the 16th IACC declaration in Putrajaya on the commitment of the  global movement to zero tolerance of impunity for corruption with the IACC theme of “Time for Justice” as a global call to turn the pledge of zero tolerance into concrete action and to support all those who take a stand against the corrupt.

Malaysia will only have meaningful contribution to the 17th IACC in Panama City if we address  the question as to why China could catch “tigers” and Indonesia “crocodiles”, but Malaysia is incapable of catching a single “shark” in the anti-corruption campaign and for Malaysia to start catching the “sharks” to demonstrate that they cannot enjoy impunity.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 November 2016, 6:06 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In defence of Malaysiakini

Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysiakini

4 Nov 2016

In all its years functioning as a responsible media organisation, Malaysiakini has been doing the right thing. As a former journalist, I have watched its progress through the years and can vouch for its steadfastness in adhering to the ethics and principles of journalism.

But it is now being investigated for carrying out activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

This is totally absurd.

That it should be singled out to be persecuted by the Malaysian authorities is a testament of how deep into the mud of absurdity our country’s leaders are pushing Malaysia into.

Our leaders are going mad.

So, Malaysiakini received a bit of money from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF). Is it therefore guilty of carrying out activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy?

The police, led by inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar, are quick to act against Malaysiakini over this. He says a special five-man team has been set up to investigate the online news website.

However, the police are reluctant to act against the one person who is carrying out activities that any sensible person can judge to be truly detrimental to parliamentary democracy. i.e. Jamal Md Yunos, leader of the red-shirts.

He has been trying to stop Bersih from realising its democratic right to gather peacefully in public, even to the extent of using violence and threatening to bathe the Nov 19 Bersih 5 rally in blood.

Yesterday, he brought about 100 of his thugs to Malaysiakini’s office to demand answers regarding the grant Malaysiakini received from OSF. He threatened to destroy Malaysiakini’s building at a rally this Saturday.

But what does Khalid the IGP say to that? “We will see on Saturday.”

What Jamal threatened is criminal intimidation. And yet Khalid is cutting him so much slack. He even brushes it off lightly by saying, rather cavalierly, “Yeah, Jamal has been making a lot of statements, but nothing comes of them.”

Now, how has he got away with making such “a lot” of such statements? How could the police have been so lenient with him? Isn’t he a threat to society for saying such gangsterish things? Aren’t he and his red-shirts a threat to peace?

What if one day, something DOES come out of his verbal threats? Isn’t he therefore a menace to parliamentary democracy?

So, please, Khalid Abu Bakar, before you get called Barisan Nasional’s ‘goalkeeper’ by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad (who called Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Aman Mulia that recently), do your bloody job right and go after the right skunk.

Leave Malaysiakini alone and set up instead a special five-man team to investigate Jamal Md Yunos and the red-shirts.

KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of the bestsellers ‘Unbelievably Stupid!’ and ‘Unbelievably Stupid Too!’

                This entry was posted on Monday, 7 November 2016, 11:09 am and is filed under
Media
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Had Pandikar committed the crime under section 124(B) of  Penal Code of activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy when he egged on  police investigations of three former Cabinet Ministers for their speeches on 1MDB in Parliament?

During the final winding-up of the 2017 Budget debate yesterday, I asked the Second Finance Minister, Datuk Johari Abdul Ghani whether and how the three former Cabinet Ministers, MP for Pagoh and former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, MP for Semporna and former Rural and Regional Development Minister, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal and the MP for Tambun and former Second Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdul Husni Hanadzlah had violated Cabinet secrecy when they took part in the debate in Parliament on the budget.

Johari was unable to give a cogent and intelligible answer.

I in fact asked Johari why he dared not repeat inside Parliament  what he had earlier said outside the Parliament chamber, that it was not wrong for MPs and former Cabinet Ministers like Husni to ask questions about 1MDB in Parliament.

There was no answer from Johari.

Although the Second Finance Minister, the Minister tasked with the final reply on the 2017 Budget speech, does not know that the three former Cabinet Ministers had violated Cabinet secrecy, the Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia seemed to know more about Cabinet secrets about the 1MDB than Johari with his media conference statement on Thursday, 27th October that the three former Cabinet Ministers might have broken their oaths of secrecy when debating the 2017 Budget.

This has shocked  many lawyers and law professors, as well as the former longest-serving Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, who was AG for 13 years from 1980-1993, who expressed surprise and questioned how the Dewan Rakyat Speaker knew that three former ministers had revealed government secrets when they raised the 1MDB issue during budget debate.

Abu Talib wondered how Pandikar, as head of the legislature, knew that the Cabinet had discussed the 1MDB issue. Also, how did he know what was discussed was classified information.

Abu Talib asked whether somebody had told the Speaker about it, and if so, Speaker should have lodged a police report against that very person who told him.

However, this most  important question is whether Pandikar had committed a crime under section 124(B) of  Penal Code of an activity “detrimental to parliamentary democracy” when he egged on police investigations of three former Cabinet Ministers for their speeches on 1MDB in Parliament – especially as the police seemed to be using Section 124(B) against all and sundry, including university students and peaceful critics of the government-of-the-day!

As the longest-serving MP in the country – I have just calculated and found that Tun Mahathir had been a Member of Parliament for 34 years compared to my 43 years as MP – Parliament and MPs are facing the gravest attack on parliamentary privileges and immunities by the Executive in the  nearly six decades of the nation’s history.

In such a constitutional crisis on the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, where Parliament and MP’s parliamentary privileges are facing the worst encroachments by the Executive, with the police summoning and investigating MPs like the three former Cabinet Ministers for what they say in Parliament about 1MDB, the Speaker should be in the forefront defending Parliament and protecting parliamentary privileges and immunities of MPs.

But we do not see this happening, as  Pandikar seems to be the cause of police reports being lodged against the three former Cabinet Ministers resulting in their being summoned by the police for interrogation on their speeches in Parliament.

The Police action is completely unacceptable and intolerable, as the three former Cabinet Ministers did not even touch on the four entrenched sensitive issues which entail automatic sedition offences and are the only exceptions to parliamentary privileges and immunities enjoyed by MPs with regard to freedom of speech in Parliament.

In suggesting that the three former Cabinet Ministers might have broken their oath of secrecy, Pandikar might have violated Section 124(B) of Penal Code in being engaged in an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

A police report had been lodged by former Batu Kawan UMNO vice chairman  Khairrudin Abu Hassan against Pandikar under Section 124(B) of the Penal Code.

Why have the Police acted instantly on the police reports against the three former Cabinet Ministers but completely inactive and inert on Khairuddin’s police report against the Speaker for his media conference statement outside the Parliamentary Chambers?

Malaysia has recently achieved many firsts in the world, but these “firsts” are not something for Malaysians to be proud of.

Firstly, Malaysia has shot into the stratrosphere and is regarded worldwide as a “global kleptocracy”, which was why I said in Parliament that Malaysia is now known as a government of PPP – Pencuri, Perompak dan Penyamun, without any protest or  objection from the Barisan Nasional side, whether Ministers or backbenchers.

It is an eternal shame for the present 13th Parliament that there is no sense of shame or outrage at the infamy and ignominy of the epithet of a “global kleptocracy”. It is most shocking that MPs could support or even abstain in the voting of the 2017 budget of a “global kleptocracy”!

Secondly, we are supposed to set a world record with the RM144 billion worth of deals signed by the Prime Minister in his recent visit to China.

DAP was recently accused of amazing and even superhuman powers of “infiltrating” Malay parties, planting “proxies” to do DAP’s bidding. I do not know whether DAP will be accused of masterminding the RM144 billion deal signed by the Prime Minister in his visit to China, which would  mean that DAP”s  “infiltration” policies and activities which  DAP is accused of have reached very high political levels in government!

Thirdly, what takes the cake however must be the parliamentary episode yesterday where the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister sneaked into Parliament House during the final winding-up by the Second Finance Minister. Najib should be in Parliament as the Finance Minister to do the final winding up, but instead, he sneaked into Parliament House, but never entered the Parliament Chambers. Even worse, he did not enter Parliament Chambers for the voting on the second reading of the 2017 Budget.

I do not think what Najib did had been done by any Prime Minister or Finance Minister in other parts of the world.  Was he afraid of entering the Parliamentary Chambers and being booed as Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister of a “global kleptocracy”?

But all these shade into insignificance when the Speaker is not in the forefront to defend  Parliament and the parliamentary privileges and immunities of MPs when facing encroachments by the Executive. The Speaker must not be seen to have crossed the line to the side of the Executive, in “inciting” police reports to be lodged against the three former Ministers for their speeches in Parliament, and egging on the police with its encroachment on parliamentary privileges and immunities.

Today’s gathering of MPs and former MPs (including former Ministers) is to send out a clear and unmistakable message firstly, to the Inspector-General of Police to “hands off” MPs (including the three former Cabinet Ministers) for their speeches on 1MDB as the police should not  undermine the important constitutional doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary; and secondly to remind the Speaker of his role to be in the forefront to defend Parliament and the parliamentary privileges and immunities in the face of Executive encroachments, and not to cross over to the side of the Executive.

(Speech at the Meeting of MPs and former MPs (including former Ministers) to protect Parliament and parliamentary privileges at Bilik Taklimat, Parliament on Tuesday, 8th November 2016 at 11 am)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 November 2016, 4:16 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Corruption
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Instead of being referred to the Committee of Privileges, MACC Chief  Commissioner Dzulkifli Ahmad should volunteer to appear before Committee of Privileges to explain his offence of parliamentary contempt in his 100-day “Open Warkah”

Instead of being referred to the Parliamentary Committee of Privileges, the MACC Chief Commissioner Dzulkifli Ahmad should volunteer to appear before the Committee of Privileges explain his offence of parliamentary contempt in his 100-day “Open Warkah” yesterday

.

To mark his 100th day in office yesterday, Dzulkifli issued an Open Warkah (Open Letter) which, among other things, referred to Members of Parliament when he told YBs to “stop fooling the people”

In his “Open Warkah”, he urged YBs not to betray the people and not to fool the people with fairy tales while at the same time engaging in corruption.

Dzulkifli told MPs:

“Don’t be swayed by the desire to be praised and raised on thrones, to the extent of neglecting judgement and (public) interests.

“Stop lulling the people with fables and fairy tales which hide the truth, when at the same time you greedily grab the spoils of corruption

Without mentioning names, Dzulkifli also warned those who are mired in corruption to turn themselves in to the authorities before it is too late.

“To those still drunk and drowning in graft, heed this warning. For the last time, stop this betrayal of corruption and abuse of power.

“Surrender. Stop foolishly beating your chest, lest you risk your life and limbs and fall into tragedy.”

I stood up in Parliament today after Question Time under Standing Order 26(1)(p) to refer the MACC Chief Commissioner to the Committee of Privileges as he had committed the offence of parliamentary contempt not only besmirching the honour and dignity of  individual Members of Parliament, but also the institution of Parliament. A motion under SO 26 (1)(p)  does not require any notice as it is a motion “relating to a matter of privilege when it occurred”.

The Deputy Speaker, Datuk Sri Ismail Mohamed Said however asked such a motion to to submitted first, which would be done by the Pakatan Harapan MP for Sungai Petani, Johari Abdul.

I am surprised however that two Barisan Nasional MPs stood up to object to the matter, as if they felt very comfortable when MPs are included in the group castigated by the MACC Chief Commissioner for “fooling the people with fairy tales while at the same time engaging in corruption”.

As I said on the floor of Dewan Rakyat when proposing referring  Dzulkifli to the Committee of Privileges, Parliament and all MPs should take offence at the insinuation by the MACC Chief Commissioner that MPs are corrupt and Parliament a corrupt institution.

Pakatan Harapan MPs take strong offence against Dzukifli’s “warkah” insinuating that MPs are corrupt even if Barisan Nasional MPs and Ministers do not take offence.

Was Dzulkifli only insinuating that Barisan Nasional Ministers and MPs are corrupt in his “warkah”?

As I said in Parliament this morning, Dzulkifli’s insinuation in his “warkah” must be taken seriously, especially at a time when Malaysia is regarded worldwide as a “global kleptocracy” and the MACC had done nothing to go after “Malaysian Official 1” (MO 1) in the world’s largest kleptocratic case in Malaysia.

I has proposed that Dzulkifli should be summoned to appear before the Committee of Privileges to  name the Ministers and MPs who are corrupt and the subject of his warkah warning, or he should explain why he committed the offence of parliamentary contempt by bringing Parliament and MPs into disrepute with his “warkah”.

Dzulkifli’s warkah  lacks sincerity and sensitivity when the world reverberates with unending chain consequences in various foreign countries arising from the 1MDB financial scandal but the MACC is blissfully unconcerned and indifferent about the one global kleptocratic event in Malaysia which has made the country regarded worldwide as a “global kleptocracy”.

Is Dzulkifli aware that that being Chief Commissioner of anti corruption agency in a country suffering the infamy and ignominy of being regarded worldwide as a “global kleptocracy” confers no honour or repute  to him or the MACC at international anti-corruption conferences like the 16th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) to be held in Panama City on Dec. 1 -4, 2016?

Is Dzulkifli aware that it is not only an adverse reflection on the integrity of the Malaysian government and leadership, but an adverse reflection on the effectiveness of the MACC when Malaysia shoots into the stratosphere of a “global kleptocracy”?

After 100 day as Chief Commissioner of MACC, can  Dzulkifli explain why China is catching “tigers” and Indonesia “crocodiles”, but Malaysia is not able to catch a single “shark” in the war against grand corruption.

In China, a million of the party’s 90 million members have been sanctioned for corruption-related offences since Xi Jinping took power as President – including scores of officials of deputy ministerial or higher status, demonstrating that high status within the party is no protection for “tigers” against investigation and conviction.

In Indonesia, another Minister in Susilo Bambong Yudhoyono presidential administration was arrested last week in a corruption case, joining three other Ministers in Yudhoyono’s second administration (2009-2014) who were among the “crocodiles” who had been arrested and sentenced to imprisonment because of corruption.

The 2016 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) will be made public in a month’s time.

Will Malaysia’s ranking improve or deteriorate?

Can Dzulkifli explain why he  failed to address these important issues in his 100-day Open Warkah?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 November 2016, 1:15 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


HOW WILL NAJIB’S GOLFING BUDDY TRUMP TREAT MALAYSIA’S 1MDB PROBE?

BY AMY CHEW

South China Morning Post

9 NOV 2016

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is apparently US president-elect Donald Trump’s golfing buddy and “favourite Prime Minister”. Given the ties between the two men, some observers expect the relationship between…

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak is apparently US president-elect Donald Trump’s golfing buddy and “favourite Prime Minister”.

Given the ties between the two men, some observers expect the relationship between Muslim-majority Malaysia and the US to remain good despite Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric during his bitterly fought campaign.

“Next to the prime minister’s chair in his office is a photo of him and Trump. It is signed by Trump with the words “To my favourite Prime Minister”, a Malaysian government source told This Week in Asia. “They are golfing buddies,” he said, adding the picture was taken “not too long ago”.

The government-owned New Straits Times quoted Najib as saying he “personally knows Trump and the president-elect is no stranger to him.”

“I congratulate President-elect Trump on this extraordinary victory, and look forward to meeting him again soon,” said Najib on his official Facebook account.

Outgoing President Barack Obama is also a golfing buddy of Najib and was the first sitting US president to visit Malaysia in 50 years when he made an official trip to the country in 2014.

This was followed by a second official visit to Kuala Lumpur in November last year, a trip which some saw as a move to secure Malaysia’s support for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The relationship cooled when the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to seize assets allegedly stolen from investment state firm 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) last July.

Najib chaired the advisory board of 1MDB when the alleged embezzlement took place.

The DOJ named a close business associate of Najib and his stepson in a civil lawsuit to recover US$1 billion in assets that Washington says were bought by money embezzled from the fund.

Some politicians are waiting to see how the investigation into 1MDB, which led to the opposition calling for Najib to resign, proceeds under a Trump presidency.

“After failing with Obama, the question is whether Najib will have better luck lobbying the new president to drop attempts to seize the laundered funds and assets siphoned from 1MDB,” said Tony Pua, opposition Member of Parliament from the Democratic Action Party (DAP).

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 November 2016, 4:30 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Southeast Asia’s strongmen revel in Trump victory

Michael Peel in Bangkok

Financial Times

10th Nov 2016

Region’s autocratic leaders look for change in US approach after Obama years

Donald Trump’s election win has thrilled autocratic leaders in several countries in Southeast Asia, an area of strategic and security focus during the Obama years. Some have bridled in the past against US criticism of their human rights and corruption records. Most are strongmen who might see in Mr Trump’s victory a tacit endorsement of their tactics — and a repudiation of the outgoing Washington administration’s agenda.

Outspoken Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte
 welcomed the election of a man he appears to see as a kindred spirit — and as having the potential to patch up relations that have frayed amid US criticism of his bloody war on drugs. Mr Duterte, who has called President Barack Obama a “son of a bitch” and told him to “go to hell”, noted that he and Mr Trump were “both making curses. Even with trivial matters we curse.” He also said he hoped he could now stop arguing with Washington, whose longstanding security alliance with Manila is crucial to the US military presence in Asia’s seas. Mr Duterte has attacked Washington frequently, announcing a “separation” from the US and claiming it has treated the Philippines like a dog tied to a post. There may yet be obstacles between the two new leaders, however: Mr Trump last month said Mr Duterte’s pledge to expel US troops from the Philippines showed “a lack of respect for our country”.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak
 appeared jubilant at a result he claimed was a sign voters wanted fewer “foreign interventions” by the US. Mr Najib has faced the embarrassment of a US investigation that has alleged billions of dollars were looted from Malaysia’s 1MDB state investment fund, whose advisory board he used to chair. A US Department of Justice lawsuit to recover $1bn in assets allegedly bought with stolen 1MDB money claimed in July that $681m had been paid into the account of “Malaysia Official 1”, whose biography matches Mr Najib’s. The Malaysian leader has always denied any wrongdoing and his government has stifled efforts to investigate the 1MDB case in Malaysia. Now he has the chance to develop his relationship with a new president whom, according to the statement, he already knows. “I congratulate him on this extraordinary victory, and look forward to meeting him again soon,” Mr Najib said.

Thailand’s Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha
 also offered congratulations. The prime minister, who overthrew a popularly elected government in 2014, noted that Mr Trump’s victory was the will of the people and so must be accepted, according to the Bangkok Post. The junta has long bridled against criticism of its putsch by the Obama administration. The generals have tentatively promised elections for late next year and are pushing through a new constitution that will entrench their powers in the name of stability. Liberal critics counter that this is an effort to rig the system in favour of traditional establishment interests.

Cambodia’s Hun Sen
, Asia’s longest ruling leader, gave Mr Trump an especially warm welcome. Mr Hun Sen, a leader who stood out for endorsing Mr Trump before the election, has for 31 years led a government with a “lock them up” approach to political opponents. A Cambodian court this week sentenced an opposition legislator to seven years in jail over comments he made on Facebook attacking Cambodia’s contentious border arrangements with Vietnam. Kem Sokha, deputy opposition leader, has taken refuge in his party headquarters in Phnom Penh after being sentenced to five months in prison over what he says is a politically motivated case over his alleged procurement of prostitutes. Sam Rainsy, opposition leader, has been in exile for a year after authorities revived an old criminal defamation conviction against him — and this week he was found guilty of defamation in another case because he alleged a top government official had bought “likes” for the prime minister’s Facebook page in an attempt to make him look more popular.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 November 2016, 5:08 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Congrats Pandikar on improving googling skills but he has  still some distance to go to  acquire general proficiency of an ordinary Internet user

Congrats to the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia on his improving googling skills but it is obvious he has still some distance to go to acquire general proficiency expected of any ordinary Internet user.

Early this month, Pandikar “congratulated” the DAP MP for Segambut, Lim Lip Eng, for discovering on the Internet an episode which revealed that in 1981, several parliamentarians had left the House of Commons when the finance minister tabled the budget – in rebuttal of the Speaker’s earlier remark on the walkout staged by Pakatan Harapan MPs when Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak tabled Budget 2017 in Parliament on Oct 21.

Pandikar had at the time  admitted to not being as well-versed, or careless, in “Googling”.

Yesterday, in his weekly media conference, Pandikar said I appeared to have forgotten that my attempts to speak freely was once curtailed during Tun Dr. Mahathir’s time – referring to my attempt in the nineties to table a motion under Standing Order 18(1) to debate the Perwaja Steel controversy, which was rejected by the then Speaker, Tun Zahir.

I have forgotten the number of times I had attempted to adjourn Parliament on  a motion of urgent, definite public importance under Standing Order 18 (1) in my 43 years in Parliament , from 1971 when Parliament reconvened (excluding the 10th Parliament when I was not a MP), under six of the eight Speakers in the nation’s history, namely, C.M. Yusuf (1971-74), Nik Ahmad Kamil Nik Mahmood (1974-1977), Syed Nasir Ismail (1978 – 1982), Mohamad Zahir Ismail  (1982 – 2004), Ramli Ngah Talib (2004 – 2008) and Pandikar Amin Mulia (since 2008).

But I do not think that there is another MP who had submitted more motions under Standing Order 18(1) to adjourn the House on an urgent matter of definite public importance than myself, and to have to such motions rejected by the Speaker of the day.

Going by Pandikar’s logic yesterday that a Speaker’s rejection of Standing Order 18 (1) tantamounts to the curtailment of freedom of speech of a Member of Parliament, then all the five Prime Ministers (Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahahthir, Tun Abdullah and Datuk Seri Najib Razak) and the six Speakers i.e. C.M.Yusuf, Nik Kamil, Syed Nasir, Mohd Zahir, Ramli Ngah and Pandikar himself, during my time in Parliament, had been guilty of such curtailment of freedom of speech of Members of Parliament.

Does Pandikar agree with such an  implication?

Pandikar would have found all these facts if he had just done some simple googling.

At his media conference yesterday, Pandikar admitted that Prime Minister Najib was in Parliament during the final winding-up of the debate on the 2017 Budget on Monday, and that Najib was “observing” Finance Minister II Datuk Johari Abdul Ghani from the Speaker’s Chambers with him.

This is a major parliamentary faux pas by both the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister and the Speaker.

The Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister should be in the Parliamentary Chamber and not in the Speaker’s Chamber to personally wind up the debate on the 2017 Budget, and Pandikar had failed in his duties as Speaker when he failed to remind the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister that the latter should be in the Parliamentary Chamber to wind up the debate instead of in the Speaker’s Chamber to watch the live telecast of the parliamentary proceedings.

Even worse, the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister compounded his “parliamentary faux pas” and committed a major breach of parliamentary discipline for Barisan Nasional MPs   by not appearing in the Parliamentary Chamber during the division to vote on the 2017 budget, although present in the precincts of Parliament.

Is there another Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister in another parliamentary democracy who behaves like Najib on Monday?

In his media conference yesterday, Pandiar “thanked” me for bestowing upon him a shortened version of “mahazalim” label.  I made no such bestowal. In fact, I should thank Pandikar for it was the Speaker’s earlier use of the term “zalim” which inspired me to use the term “zalim”. Pandikar should thank himself.

I am mystified by Pandikar’s statement that one day I might stop calling him “mahazalim” or “firaun” if we  ever end up on the same side in politics, as firstly, I had never called him names, and secondly, I thought Pandikar had renounced involvement  in  partisan politics. Or is Pandikar still politically partisan?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 November 2016, 10:02 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ex-BSI Banker Yak Found Guilty in Singapore 1MDB-Linked Case

Andrea Tan and Livia Yap

Bloomberg

November 11, 2016

Yak Yew Chee, a former BSI SA private banker, became the first person to be found guilty in a Singapore case linked to 1Malaysia Development Bhd. He also became the first banker to be convicted in the global corruption and money laundering probes surrounding the Malaysian investment fund.

Yak pleaded guilty in a Singapore court Friday and the judge convicted him of four charges, including forging documents and failing to disclose suspicious transactions allegedly related to Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho. The former senior banker at BSI had faced seven charges, and prosecutors said the other three charges would be taken into consideration for sentencing.

Low has been named as a key person of interest by Singapore authorities and characterized by U.S. prosecutors as the controller of an illicit payments scheme draining billions from the Malaysian investment fund. The high-living financier had previously described his role with 1MDB as informal consulting that didn’t break any laws.

Efforts to reach Low haven’t been successful. A call to Low’s Hong Kong-based company Jynwel Capital earlier Friday wasn’t answered. Both 1MDB and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who formerly chaired 1MDB’s advisory board, have consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Yak, along with his former subordinate Yvonne Seah Yew Foong, were charged last month for their roles in forging bank reference letters and not reporting suspicious banking activities allegedly involving Low. Yak, 57, was also a banker for 1MDB and related entities, his lawyer had said previously. Another of Yak’s former colleagues, Yeo Jiawei, is currently on trial for obstructing justice by attempting to tamper with witnesses in the probe.

The judge sentenced Yak to 18 weeks in jail and a S$24,000 fine.

“It is imperative that the public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s banking and financial industry is zealously protected,” Judge Jennifer Marie said in handing down the sentence. “Bank officers should be seeking to safeguard the public trust and confidence in the financial industry and not succumb to the greed and the lure of huge bonuses or the treachery of ‘important’ clients.”

Yak was remorseful and took his cue from the top management at BSI in his dealings with Low, his lawyer Lee Teck Leng said. Yak will voluntarily disgorge S$7.5 million and agree to cooperate with prosecutors, Lee said. The convicted banker through his lawyer pleaded for leniency for his long-time colleague Seah, who hasn’t pleaded on her charges.

Yak “had no reasonable grounds to believe that Low was involved in criminal conduct,” or that there was something amiss with the purported 1MDB investments, Lee said. “Low very frequently declined to provide further details or explanation on the ground that the deals were government to government and hence state secret.”

Singapore regulators have ordered BSI and Falcon Private Bank to stop operations for money laundering breaches related to moving funds associated with 1MDB.

The case is Public Prosecutor v Yak Yew Chee, Singapore State Courts.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 November 2016, 5:15 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia rebuffs Swiss inquiries into 1MDB

Ralph Atkins in Bern and Jeevan Vasagar in Singapore

Financial Times

10th Nov 2016

Refusal adds to concerns about Kuala Lumpur’s response to multiple investigations

Malaysia has rebuffed Swiss efforts to investigate multibillion-dollar corruption allegations surrounding the 1MDB state investment fund.

Officials in Kuala Lumpur refused an appeal from Swiss authorities for help in gathering evidence into claims that up to $4.8bn was diverted from companies linked to 1MDB, a fund set up by Najib Razak, Malaysia’s prime minister.

The refusal will add to questions about the adequacy of Malaysia’s apparent response to an affair that is the subject of multiple international inquiries.

Switzerland had twice asked Malaysia for mutual legal assistance, Michael Lauber, the Swiss attorney-general, said in an interview.

“Very recently we have had the response that the Malaysian authorities will not reply to our request,” he said. “They just said that under their legal framework, they can’t reply.”

Mr Lauber insisted that the Swiss criminal investigations would not be derailed, citing help from Singapore as well as US and European authorities.

“We will protect the integrity of our financial centre as others protect theirs. For that we need international co-operation and if, for whatever reason, there is none — as is the case here with Malaysia — we will find other ways, and we have great co-operation with several other jurisdictions,” he said.

“At the moment, I do not see any harm or direct impact on our investigations. That might change — but it is too early to say.”

The scale of the alleged misappropriation of funds could expand beyond the $4.8bn announced this year, he hinted. “Where does it end? I don’t know,” he said.

Mr Lauber refused to be drawn on reasons for Malaysia’s refusal to co-operate. “As a prosecutor, I am not the one to speculate about the reasons behind it,” he said.

The Malaysian attorney-general’s chambers said it was unable to accede to Switzerland’s requests because of a continuing criminal investigation by Malaysian police in relation to matters concerning 1MDB. “The attorney-general is of the opinion that these requests could prejudice a criminal matter in Malaysia,” it said.

Malaysia was committed to co-operating with international partners and there was “no issue of Malaysia blocking the Swiss criminal inquiry”, it added.

As international pressure on Malaysia’s rulers has mounted, Mr Najib has tightened his grip on power at home, replacing the attorney-general and sacking a critical deputy prime minister. The new attorney-general ruled in January that Mr Najib, who denies any wrongdoing, has no case to answer over $681m transferred into his personal bank account.

Mohamed Apandi Ali, the attorney-general, ordered Malaysia’s anti-corruption agency to close down its investigation into the transfers into Mr Najib’s account and shut a separate inquiry into SRC International, a 1MDB subsidiary.

Two Swiss banks, four people and “unknown persons” are under investigation in Swiss criminal proceedings related to 1MDB.

Mr Najib is not involved in the Swiss inquiries, Mr Lauber confirmed. “Our goal is not to go against any foreign, politically-exposed persons so long as there is no direct impact on our investigations, which are clearly focused on the Swiss financial centre and maintaining its integrity,” Mr Lauber said.

The 1MDB affair is also being investigated in Singapore, where two Swiss banks have been shut down over money-laundering lapses, and the US, where prosecutors have moved to seize property and fine art allegedly acquired with money siphoned off from the economic development fund.

Malaysia’s premier warmly welcomed the election of Donald Trump, a result he said was a sign that Americans wanted their country “less embroiled in foreign interventions”. The US civil forfeiture claim said that $681m had been transferred to the account of a Malaysian public official, whose biography matches that of Mr Najib.

Mr Lauber did not expect the US election to lead to diminished co-operation. “Until now, our co-operation with our US Department of Justice partners and in particular with Loretta Lynch [US attorney-general] has been excellent — whether in fighting terrorism, organised crime, economic crime or money laundering,” he said. “I am confident that we can continue our co-operation because there is always a mutual interest in assisting each other on huge cases like this one.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 November 2016, 3:18 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The four weeks “horribilis”  that reinforce world perceptions that Malaysia has become a global kleptocracy

Parliament reconvened on Oct. 17 for a 25-day budget meeting, and Malaysia has gone through probably the worst four weeks of the nation’s six decades of history which strengthened world perceptions that Malaysia has become a global kleptocracy.

There were no efforts whatsoever to rebut and refute Malaysia’s infamy and ignominy of being regarded world-wide as a “global kleptocracy”, or to zero in on the international multi-billion ringgit kleptocratic 1MDB  embezzlement and money-laundering scandal which caused Malaysia to be regarded worldwide as a “global kleptocracy” with (as I said in Parliament)  Malaysia ruled by PPP – Pencuri, Perompak dan Penyamun.

These four weeks horribilis started with the ruling by the Speaker of Parliament making the unprecedented ruling anywhere in the world applying the sub judice rule arising from lawsuits in foreign countries to censor and outlaw question, debate and discussion not only about the US Department of Justice (DOJ) largest kleptocratic action for the forfeiture of US$1 billion 1MDB-linked assets in the United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland, but anything concerning the 1MDB scandal.

Even three former Cabinet Ministers who spoke in Parliament on 1MDB in the 2017 Budget debate are being hauled up by the police for investigation  (at the instigation of the Speaker) – contrary to Constitutional guarantees on  parliamentary privileges and immunities except in clear-cut cases of violation of the four constitutionally-entrenched sensitive issues under the Sedition Act  which do not apply in the present cases.

All over the world, the reverberations from Malaysia being regarded world-wide as a global kleptocracy as a result of the 1MDB global financial scandal continues unabated in the past four weeks, but in the Malaysian Parliament there is the great pretence that Malaysia’s infamy being regarded world-wide as a global kleptocracy as a result of the 1MDB global financial scandal does not exist and had become a “sensitive” subject which could not be raised in Parliament.

I have so far boycotted the half-hour Minister’s Question Time (MQT) touted as the most significant of the Speaker’s parliamentary reforms, as the Speaker in his various media conferences have so far failed to convince Malaysians that he is not the only one  Speaker in the world who is “mis-applying” the sub judice rule with regard in litigation in foreign countries to save the Prime Minister from full accountability for the kleptocratic 1MDB scandal in Parliament.

Malaysian Parliament does not become a first-world Parliament just because of MQT or power-point budget presentation by Najib, if MPs are not allowed to raise grave and burning issues in the country in Parliament.

I fully agree with  jurists and legal authorities like the former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Hishammuddin Mohd Yunus who asked what “sub judice” was the Speaker talking about, as Ministers should not be “barred” from answering questions in Parliament on the US DOJ civil suit involving the alleged misappropriation of 1MDB funds for the reason of sub judice.

Hishamudin Mohd Yunus is right when he said the question of sub judice does not arise at all.

He said: “This is because it is a foreign hearing. The sub judice rule applies in relation to hearing in Malaysian courts.”

Four days ago, the veteran UMNO/BN MP, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who had been an MP for over four decades, said that parliamentarians should not be barred from discussing active cases in other countries as the sub judice rule only applied locally.

As he said:

“If the matter is before our courts, yeah then of course (it is sub judice).

“(But) if it is somewhere in Timbuktu, I don’t think you can stop (MPs) from raising (it) because it doesn’t interfere.”

But how to get the Speaker to see reason, common sense and the imperative national necessity to rebut and refute the epithet of a global kleptocracy or to cleanse and purge the epithet by removing the root cause of such national infamy and ignominy?

DAP MP for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo had filed  a substantive motion under Standing Order 43 to review the Speaker’s ruling barring all questions on US DOJ forfeiture action on the ground of “sub judice”, but although “First-World Parliaments” would have debated  and voted on such substantive motions within 48 hours, Gobind’s motion is likely to perish without debate despite appearing on the Order Paper daily for the rest of the parliamentary meeting until Nov. 24.

Would the Speaker have the humility and love of the nation to voluntarily admit that he was wrong to make the sub judice ruling barring questions and debate on the US DOJ kleptocratic action and make the necessary amends?

That would be the day for all patriotic Malaysians who love the country deeply and passionately to cherish and remember  – all Malaysians who feel ashamed and outraged that since the May meeting of Parliament, Malaysia had acquired the international infamy of being a “global kleptocracy”, with no effort by Parliament or any other institution to rebut and refute or cleanse and purge the country of such infamy and ignominy.

Another notable “highlight” of these past four weeks horribilis was the presentation of the 2017 Budget by the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, which was more an exhibition of political showmanship instead of a proper and frank budget presentation highlighting the woes and challenges confronting Malaysia in the coming year.

Najib demonstrated a classic case of  denial syndrome when he failed to  acknowledge the “elephant in the room” in his budget speech – Malaysia regarded world-wide as a “global kleptocarcy” as a result of the kleptocratic 1MDB scandal – and there  was not even a word about fighting  corruption in Najib’s 2017 Budget Speech!

Another “highlight” in the past four weeks horribilis was the 100-day “Open Warkah” by the MACC Chief Commissioner Dzulkifli Ahmad who asked politicians, including Ministers and Members of Parliament, when he told YBs, to “stop fooling the people” with fairy tales while at the same time engaging in corruption.

Dzulkifli’s warkah exposed not only the hypocrisy of political leaders who denounce while being  engaged in corruption, but the hypocrisy of the MACC  of staying clear of the 1MDB kleptocratic scandal when some 10 other countries are investigating not only the single largest case of kleptocracy in Malaysia, but probably of the world.

What has  Dzulkifli got to say about “MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL 1” (“MO1”) in the US DOJ case, and why China is catching “tigers” and Indonesia “crocodiles”, but Malaysia is not able to catch a single “shark” in the war against grand corruption?

The 2016 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) will be made public in a month’s time.

What is Dzulkifi’s expectation: Will Malaysia’s ranking improve or deteriorate?

The four weeks “horribilis” ended dismally with a triple 1MDB disaster which can only reinforce world-wide perception of Malaysia as a global kleptocracy, viz:

1.	Malaysia’s rejection of Switzerland’s request for mutual legal assistance (MLA) in the 1MDB international kleptocratic  embezzlement and money-laundering despite Najib’s  “surprising” statement in Germany in September that Malaysia would co-operate with US and other international authorities investigating the embezzlement, misappropriation and money-laundering of 1MDB funds.

2.	Jho Low’s former banker, former BSI Singapore managing director Yak Yew Chee sentenced to an 18-week jail term and a fine of S$24,000 after pleading guilty to four criminal charges in Singapore, committed at the behest of Low –  not just Yak’s biggest customer but in fact BSI’s “biggest customer”. Low was confirmed as a “person of interest” in the Singapore police probe into the multi-billion dollar 1MDB money-laundering scheme.

Yak, who  became the first banker to be convicted in the global corruption and money laundering probes surrounding 1MDB, agreed to voluntarily disgorge S$7.5 million and to co-operate with the Singapore prosecutors.

3.	The ongoing trial in Singapore of another former BSI banker.Yeo Jiawei, in connection with four counts of witness tampering in Singapore probe into the 1MDB kleptocracy case. He will face another seven charges of money-laundering in April.

The whole world is agog, not only at the magnitude of the 1MDB kleptocratic scandal, but at the parliamentary and national charade  that the 1MDB kleptocratic scandal does not exist at all!

Is there any light for Malaysia at the end of the 1MDB  kleptocratic tunnel?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 12 November 2016, 8:25 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1MDB probe: Singapore banker Yak Yew Chee gets 18 weeks’ jail, S$24,000 fine

By Vanessa Paige Chelvan

Channel News Asia

11 Nov 2016

SINGAPORE: Former private banker Yak Yew Chee, whose clients included Malaysian tycoon Jho Low and subsidiaries of Malaysia’s scandal-hit state fund 1MDB has been jailed 18 weeks and fined S$24,000.

Yak, 57, pleaded guilty on Friday (Nov 11) afternoon to four of seven charges: Two for forging reference letters vouching for the Low family and two for failing to report suspicious transactions involving tens of millions of dollars coursing through BSI bank in Singapore.

Mr Low was named on Thursday as a person of interest in Singapore’s ongoing probe into illicit transactions involving 1MDB, amid allegations he embezzled billions from the state fund.

2 WEEKS, 6 BANKS, 9 TRANSACTIONS AND US$110 MILLION

A district court heard that over two weeks in 2012, using nine bank accounts across six banks locally and overseas, Mr Low moved US$790.35 million (S$1.11 billion) out of 1MDB Energy (Langat), out of which US$110 million eventually made its way into a Swiss bank account in the name of Selune, a firm owned by Mr Low.

The influx of US$110 million into Selune’s account raised the suspicion of Swiss authorities. To head off further enquiries, Mr Low sought Yak’s help to send a referral letter to Swiss bank Rothschild in Zurich to vouch for the legitimacy of the transaction, shielding the true source of the funds – 1MDB Energy (Langat).

“(Yak) did so notwithstanding that it would have already dawned on him that the circular flow of funds … served an ulterior and sinister purpose,” Deputy Public Prosecutor Leong Weng Tat said.

Despite his suspicions that the millions may have been the proceeds of criminal conduct, Yak bypassed the bank’s internal controls to forge and issue the letter to Rothschild, eager to please his biggest client.

He also did not raise the alarm to a Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officer.

NOT AN INNOCENT LAMB, MOTIVATED BY GREED: PROSECUTION

Two years later, Mr Low again asked Yak for a reference letter, this time pertaining to his net worth – US$1.63 billion, or so Mr Low claimed.

Yak again bypassed the bank’s internal controls to issue the letter to BNP Paribas in Switzerland, signed by him and fellow private banker Yvonne Seah Yew Foong.

Prosecutors said Yak was motivated by greed, as he benefitted financially from Mr Low’s transactions. “He was not an innocent lamb,” DPP Leong said. Yak knew the funds had been routed through multiple accounts to mask its true source.

They urged the court to sentence Yak to 20 to 24 weeks’ jail and a fine of S$24,000 to S$30,000.

YAK TO SURRENDER MILLIONS IN PROFIT, SIGN OF “GENUINE CONTRITION”: LAWYER

Yak’s lawyer Lee Teck Leng said his client will surrender S$7.5 million to the State “to demonstrate his genuine contrition”.

He also agreed to assist the Commercial Affairs Department in their ongoing investigation, and to testify against his former colleagues and business associates in future criminal trials.

Yak had “no idea” Mr Low was involved in crime, as the businessman regularly showed up to meetings accompanied by top management of 1MDB. Yak “did not have grounds to believe anything was amiss with purported 1MDB investments”, Mr Lee argued.

He said Yak’s desire to please Mr Low stemmed from the fact that he was BSI’s “most important customer” and the bank’s leaders urged Yak to “keep (Mr Low) happy”.

Mr Lee urged the court to impose a jail term of 12 to 16 weeks and a fine of not more than S$20,000.

BANKERS SHOULD PROTECT TRUST IN THE INDUSTRY: JUDGE

In sentencing Yak, Deputy Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie said she had considered Yak’s contriteness, his willingness to surrender S$7.5 million of his bonuses and his “forthright acceptance of his criminal culpability”.

Yak’s plea of guilt came just a month after he was charged.

“It is imperative the public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s banking and financial industry is zealously protected,” DPJ Jennifer said.

“Bank officers should be seeking to safeguard (trust in the financial industry) and not succumb to greed and the lure of huge bonuses of the treachery of ‘important’ clients.”

Yak is the first of four individuals charged in connection with Singapore’s 1MDB probe to be convicted.

For forgery, Yak could have been jailed up for four years and fined, and for failing to report suspicious transactions to the authorities, Yak could have been fined up to S$20,000 per charge.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 13 November 2016, 6:40 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.