Najib Razak / Tun Dr Mahathir / Umno & Barisan Nasional

Why the public do not believe the Prime Minister’s denial


Should have resigned from his Finance portfolio few months ago. Now he has to take leave from all his posts.

In the previous article we have shown why people are finding it hard to believe the Prime Minister. Too many flip flopping and lies he made in the past proved that the trust deficit is already as huge and as deep as the Grand Canyon.

This can all be seen in the response he received in his Facebook page.

In the morning of previous Friday, Wall Street Journal published an explosive story detailing how huge sums of money had been transferred into the personal account of the Prime Minister via multi level transactions. The money originated from 1MDB or to be precise, money from debts issued.

Only on late Friday night the Prime Minister issued a denial which most people believe are actually not denying anything, but just an attempt to divert the issue altogether.

He said:

“In recent months, various allegations – all unsubstantiated, and many simply outrageous – have been directed against me and my family.‎ These attacks began when I refused to implement Tun Mahathir’s personal demands. I refused, because I do not believe it is right for Malaysia to be ruled by proxy.

If his personal demands are only regarding the crooked bridge (you stated this in your TV interview back in April) which you yourself promised to build back in 2009, then the rakyat will only be too happy if you had really built the bridge which will signify our sovereign right to build whatever we want to within our own territory. Rule by proxy doesn’t come to play. This is just a red herring. Furthermore, the various allegations did not arise only in recent months, it has been around for years – 1MDB wrongdoings, PM’s wealth, stupid policies etc., did not start by Tun Dr Mahathir.

Tun then created a crisis when he recklessly claimed that RM42 billion was missing from 1MDB, when in fact these are audited debts backed by RM51 billion audited assets.

The crisis was actually created by you when 1MDB failed to meet its debt obligations without the help of outsiders and public money. Last year 1MDB even asked for few extensions on the debt repayment deadline. If that is not a sure indication of a troubled company, then surely the lovers of 1MDB are living in a deluded fantasy world. Plus, if the RM51 billion assets were acquired by the RM42 billion loans and currently in order to pay those loans, 1MDB now had to sell those RM51 billion assets back, it is safe to say that 1MDB business model is just reckless and stupid. 

The latest allegation is that I have taken state-linked funds for personal gain. I believe Tun, working hand in glove with foreign nationals, including the now discredited political attack blog Sarawak Report, is behind this latest lie.

In the first paragraph you lamented the fact that all allegations are unsubstantiated, yet without any qualms you accused (without any proof) that Tun Dr Mahathir is working with foreigners. A picture of Tun with Clare Rewcastle does not constitute a proof. When Tun Mahathir met Mahfuz Omar early this year, it does not mean he is working with PAS now. Tun is a statesman, not a politician. He meets whoever requested to meet him. Moreover, WSJ did not allege you have taken the money for personal gain. It just said the money flowed into your personal bank account. What you did with the money is unclear. It was your own PMO who initially stated “the prime minister has not taken any funds for personal use”. What you should have said is to deny money ever credited into those personal bank accounts. What you used it for; for personal gain or otherwise is a moot point. 

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

You reinforced the public’s perception that funds were never used for personal gain. But there could be funds indeed. You did not deny this.

It is now clear that false allegations such as these are part of a concerted campaign of political sabotage to topple a democratically elected Prime Minister.

It does not clear anything. In fact, a democratically elected Prime Minister is not immune to criticisms and questions by the people, to think otherwise is clearly a pompous and arrogant remark coming from you. It is also hypocritical. Hypocritical because it was you who led the rebellion to topple the previous democratically elected Prime Minister. Or at least, you gained the most benefit out of it.

At no point have those making these allegations offered any evidence. All we have heard is that these allegations are based on leaked documents and unnamed investigators. Not once has the source of these documents ever been shown, neither have the documents themselves been provided for verification by lawful authorities.

With the admission from the Attorney General that he too had sighted the documents mentioned by WSJ, the public can then conclude that the evidence really do exist. The AG did not expose WSJ as liars (which would be logical if the whole allegations were untrue), but proceeded to set up a task force to investigate it further.

As we now know, a number of the documents on which recent allegations have been based were reportedly doctored. The person who was leaking these documents is under investigation by authorities overseas for attempting to extort and blackmail his former employer. This says a lot about the reliability of the documents, and those who are using them to damage our government and our country.

This is another red herring. The documents did not come from Sarawak Report, it came from a government probe. Justo did not give the documents to the AG. It was the investigators in a government probe who had found them and gave it to the AG. The documents are reliable enough for the AG to start investigations, instead of issuing statement to debunk WSJ. Justo had nothing to do with this exposé. The PM now is grasping at straws over unrelated issue.

Those who continue to mount these attacks should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. These gutter tactics – in some cases criminal tactics – to overthrow the government will fail. Where appropriate, they will be met with the full force of the law.

Another blatant arrogance by the PM, issuing statements befitting a dictator. Instead of facing the public’s criticisms and questions, he is now threatening them with government apparatus. He did not realise that it is him who are verging on criminality.

It’s a shame that these false attacks motivated by self interest come at a time of unique opportunity for Malaysia – with our Chairmanship of ASEAN this year, and the prize of developed nation status around the corner. I will stay focused on the work of nation building for the people.”

Unrelated gibberish to the matter at hand. Note that not once the PM has mentioned WSJ in this press release.

All the above had shown that the Prime Minister have not taken any real step to allay the people suspicions over what has been reported by WSJ. The people preparing the press release above should have done a better job. But they have the IQ of a wombat.

In fact, in his press conference made right before a break fasting even yesterday, the befuddled PM even made absurd steps in trying to project himself as innocent. First, relying on Haron Din’s word as the truth that WSJ could be wrong. The PM is so desperate that even Haron Din has become the authority in what is the truth and what is not.

And secondly, cryptically saying that if he was a thief, he wouldn’t steal the money and parked it locally. This freudian slip is normal when people are backed against the wall with nothing to show but trying to give a clever wordplay.

And still the press conference did not bring any confidence to the people. In fact his dithering and floundering action to sue or not to sue WSJ compounded the matter even more.

Only time will tell on his fate. He could have resigned gracefully and respectfully last May. But now he is following closely the playbook of Ferdinand Marcos, the Filipino president renowned for kleptocracy.  If that happens, it would be really sad.

You might also want to read:

1) Where is the denial afrom AMBank and BNM?

2) The mystery of the disappearing jew

3) Scandal in Malaysia

4) A government that betrays trust must prove its innocence

5) UIA students made more sense than all the ministers in the cabinet


11 thoughts on “Why the public do not believe the Prime Minister’s denial

  1. JMD,

    Let me show you example of right answer or response in this type of situation…

    Look no other than the respond given by Dr M when he and his family was accused to have hundred of millions stash in Singapore – Israel Bank…(the case is almost the same as the one now face by Ah Jib Gor complete with account number details given).. see the accusation here:

    Dr M responded:


    Bank Account

    1. Several blogs have given space to a scurrilous statement that I, my wife and my children, have USD 199.45 million and S $ 42,000,000 in fixed deposit in the Israeli National Bank in Singapore.

    2. The scum who alleges this does not have the guts to give his name.

    3. UMNO can make a statement about the money I gave to Dato Abdullah when I stepped down. Better still Dato Abdullah can explain how much of the 1.4 billion Ringgit in cash, shares and property that my staff and one of his Ministers handed over to him is still with him.

    4. I give full permission for the Israeli National Bank to make public these accounts so that I can claim the money said to belong to me and my family.

    6. As for the anonymous scum, give your true name, I/C and address so that I can sue you.


    See…straight to the point…tak ada berbelit belit macam Ah Jib Gor dancing around the subject 2-3 hari without ever actually addressing the subject!

    I recommend Najib to emulate Point number 4 above…..Ada berani ke Najib???


  2. Salam,

    Utk kekawan semua, cuba kita tanya diri sendiri apa akan kita buat atau strategi kita untuk ‘MENGHILANGKAN DUIT?’ (Put yourself in his shoe) Tanya dan jawab secara jujur dan anda akan dapat jawapannya samada alasan2 yg diberi pee em logik atau tak.

    Sebenarnya da banyak alasan/jawapan dari pengomen di blog ni dan blog2 yg lain yg menjawap kemungkinan2 kpd soalan ini tapi tiada lagi yg nampak bercakap berkenaan “apa yg patut dilakukan utk menyonglap!!!’

    Di mana?

    Ini semua adalah soalan asas utk melakukan sesuatu perkara agar ianya berjaya.

    Cuba selami apa yg anon dibawah katakan…

    Salam semua,

    Ada ustad dan lain2 ragu2 kata kenapa x pakai secret account?

    Saya ada beberapa soalan untuk ditanyakan:-

    No.1…ustad percaya ke kalau buka akaun atas nama org lain mahupun keluarga sendiri? Ada kemungkinan tak kalau pakai nama org lain duit boleh lesap? Penat2 buat keje pastu org lain sapu…
    No.2…sykt kewangan mana nak bagi buka akaun “tak bernama” atau atas nama “secret”?
    No.3…adakah tarikh2 pemindahan tu berjarak jauh antara 1 sama lain? Apa jenis bisnes yg buat pemindahan begitu cepat diantara mereka dan kenapa?
    No.4…Kenapa perlu bberapa syarikat untuk pemindahan itu kalau hujung2nya berhenti di 1 akaun? Kenapa tidak terus kpd penerima?
    No.5…Perlu atau tidak mengikut akta BAFIA pemindahan wang sebegini banyak harus di maklumkan kepada pihak berkenaan? Jika ya apa yg pihak berkenaan sudah buat utk pastikan kesahihan transaksi tersebut? Jika tidak kenapa pihak berkenaan mendiamkan diri? Patutkah soalan ini ditanya juga kpd pemilik sykt kewangan berkenaan serta pihak yg ditugaskan memantau keseluruhan sistem kewangan?
    No.6…Adakah kemungkinan pihak yg ingin menyiasat akan mengalami kesukaran kerana banyak syarikat perlu di teliti maklumatnya berbanding dgn hanya 1 sykt (maknanya dari a pembayar terus ke b penerima)? Adakah ini strategi yg baik utk mengelirukan mereka?
    No.7…Kenapa tidak 1 pun pihak terlibat mengeluarkan kenyataan bertulis bersama bukti dalam masa 24jam memandangkan ia melibatkan integriti beliau, institusi kewangan, negara dan seluruh rakyatnya?
    No.8…Patut ke ustad buang masa utk bincang2 dgn peguam bilamana ustad sendiri tahu yg dokumen tersebut memang palsu?
    No.9…Adakah ustad dlm keadaan tertekan skrg akan cuba memohon bantuan walaupun dr negara yahudi? Adakah ustad akan terima shj apa syarat2 mereka utk bantuan yg akan mereka berikan?



  3. In his denial, Najib comes across as being petty.

    Accusing Tun Mahathir is a knee-jerk reaction. He really projected himself as a small-minded person, definitely lacking the PM calibre.


  4. We are seeing a repeat of the Musa Aman-Michael Chia RM40 million “for UMNO use” scandal in Sabah.
    But on a bigger scale.
    This is not RM40,000,000.
    This is RM2,600,000,000.
    Let’s say he used 2 bil for buying GE13.
    You think we will see an audited balance sheet for the remainder RM600 million? Ha ha.
    Releasing the documents to WSJ was a stroke of genius, because now there are two sets that can be cross-checked. It makes the upcoming cover-up a bit harder.
    Lying and shady practices come naturally to the A-G and PDRM, and forget about the MACC.
    But BNM?
    Et tu, Zeti?


  5. On Haron Din, I have written the below

    Would I steal and put money in my account?
    Posted on July 6, 2015 by mrcukup
    The Prime Minister – Datuk Seri Najib bin Tun Razak posed 2 questions

    Quoting PAS spiritual leader Haron Din, who expressed caution against jumping to conclusions on the WSJ’s allegations, Najib said he would not be silly enough to use his own accounts.
    2. “If I wanted to steal, it wouldn’t make sense that I would place that money into accounts in Malaysia.”

    On 1. it is interesting he is quoting Haron Din and using that as a defence rather than an original point he has made himself. It gives the impression he is clutching at straws. On the question he posed on why he would use his own accounts, I hope my answer to question 2 may shed some light.

    “If I wanted to steal, it wouldn’t make sense that I would place that money into accounts in Malaysia.”

    It is actually very difficult to open bank accounts these days post 9-11 from a KYC (Know your Customer) perspective.

    There are a number of AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and CFT (Combating the Financing of Terrorism) requirements that have only increased in recent years. Most government have specific Anti-Money Laundering legislation which follow international requirements.

    The basic requirements if you are opening for a company (to give an example) is that all beneficial owners of 25% need to be identified. In some cases this can go to 10% of all beneficial holders. If you are an individual then I.D. and proof of address.

    There are more stringent requirements for a PEP (Politically Exposed Person), these are politicians, and those connected to them, in particular their immediate family. There is a database which banks use to check each client. Proof of wealth is also required i.e. if you transfer funds, you need to prove how you made that money.

    Who is a PEP?

    A PEP is a person who has been entrusted within the last year by:

    a state
    a community institution, or
    an international body
    and who fulfils one of the following public roles:

    heads of state, heads of government, ministers and deputy or assistant ministers
    Members of Parliament
    members of supreme courts, or constitutional courts or of other high-level judicial bodies whose decisions are not generally subject to further appeal, except in exceptional circumstances
    members of courts of auditors or of the boards of central banks
    ambassadors, chargés d’affairs and high ranking officers in the armed forces
    members of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of state-owned enterprises.
    PEPs will also include this person’s family members and known close associates

    Banking has changed from 15 years ago, having secret accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere is no longer as feasible, just see the press articles below

    Because of this, most banks have clamped down on opening accounts if they believe it is for tax dodging purposes. PEP are generally a big no no. Think about it from a banks perspective, why would a politician need an overseas account?

    There are work around in this, i.e. nominees and proxies, so the real ownership is not distinguished. For bank KYC purposes you are obliged to tell them who is the Beneficial owner, so not telling them is a breach of their terms and condition. The danger in proxies and nominees is that technically they are the operators of the bank account and therefore can do anything with the money in that account.

    If you have cash in an overseas and want to transfer to a Ringgit Malaysian bank account, you can but the ringgit is not fungible, you can’t have a ringgit account overseas, the only ringgit accounts are by Malaysian banks in Malaysia. It would make sense from an operational point to transfer the cash into a single RM account in Malaysia from say USD as that would make subsequent RM transfers to other RM accounts easier.

    So to summarise, it is not easy anymore to open bank accounts especially for Politically Exposed Person and therefore Datuk Seri Najib bin Tun Razak may have found it much easier (allegedly) to open a bank account in Malaysia, especially if he needed further transfers to occur.

    Anybody in the banking industry would be able to tell the PM that, obviously he did not refer to them before posing the rhetorical answer but it deserved an answer. In the age we live in, trying to launder money is increasingly difficult.Not impossible, definitely doable, still banks out there keen to earn fees and comissions from anything you do with them but increasingly difficult.


  6. Pingback: Why the public do not believe the Prime Minister’s denial | ajai62

  7. This is not something that you expects our PM to say, quoting influential figurehead in this country to garner supports as well as non-relented attacks on former PM of Malaysia, discreetly accusing him of foreign collaboration to bid his time up. Najib is playing a dangerous game to stay in power, he has been seen doing “anything will do” as long as he stay up in power, worst off even selling these strategics (IPP and TRX) assets into the hands of foreigners (1MDB rationalization plan with IPIC).

    The problems now lie in the next 5 years. It’s not hard to predict that we will see higher living cost couple with stagnant income. This will happens when government losses its strategics assets especially to foreign COs, depriving itself from good source of government revenue stream thus making himself as unattractive economic investment destination for its sovereign bond or sukuk.

    Fitch has helped Najib this time around, although its not hard to see that Fitch and Moody also gave high favorable rating to Greece well years before the anticipated economic collapse.


  8. What, there are people still believing every single word this scoundrel has to say? Jailterm is his only choice now. In fact all of his lackeys and writers will go to courts soon.


  9. Pingback: 10 Reasons Why Najib Razak And His Regime Is The Worst | Malaysia LAH

Astound us with your intelligence!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s