Happy Independence Day, Malaysia!

Get Well Soon, Malaysia

It is amazing how the Prime Minister of Malaysia can unite thousands of people in order to free themselves from his leadership. It seems these people, some said close to 150,000 in the course of two days, had chosen to brave the hot sun and the rain just to show their displeasure towards him.

And this is all because of the problems which had arisen from the issues pertaining the RM2,600 million found in his personal bank accounts, the failures of 1MDB, the lethargic economy and his increasingly dictatorial leadership pathetically masked under the ‘moderate movement’ pretenses.

It is fortunate that no violent episode which frequently marred the previous three demonstrations had occurred. This is probably due to the absence of the chief provocateur who is currently languishing in jail. Nevertheless, a peaceful gathering of thousands should not be looked upon as inconsequential by the ruling coalition.

In fact, we can safely assume that the coalition has definitely lost the urban votes. And how about the grassroot support? Undeniably, they had lost about half the rural votes in the previous by-election which was held in a malay-majority constituency last May. Things are not doing well indeed. Especially since personal issues that dogged the prime minister have become more and more untenable.

The prime minister have cocooned himself within a wall of false comfort; choosing not to face the media since early July. Q & A sessions are no longer tolerated. The last he had was probably in that tiny mosque on the 5th of July 2015 telling the reporters that he might sue a foreign news agency for publishing lies about him receiving billions into his bank accounts. Since then, he had chosen to speak only on rostrums, to a captive audience, who are unable to ask questions, but to simply listen.

To the audience, he preached, he harangued, and he desperately want people to believe his plea of innocence and his self entitled proclamation that only he can lead Malaysia.

There were no more answering tough questions from the media regarding his personal issues. That task have been given to his many henchmen, who know next to nothing themselves.

If the prime minister is bent to keep on hiding behind the machinations that is frequently used to conceal his accountability to be answerable to the rakyat; where he is unable to bravely stand and tested under the rigorous laws that could be applicable to him, then surely there are no more moral grounds to stay in power.

It is sad that he has to drag the whole coalition just to defend his personal errors; deflecting the call for his resignation as an attack to the government. His own party is besieged with problems and support is quickly dwindling away due to the disappearing of integrity and the respect towards it.

It is even sadder that after 69 years in existence, his own party have lost the huge goodwill it had painfully obtained from the rakyat all through the decades just because he is too stubborn to see the problem.

The problem is him, yet he thinks he can provide solution to overcome this. He and his advisers think that through silencing his critics, sacking innocent people, crippling the institutions and appointing only loyal, unquestioning stooges, the problems will go away and support from the masses will miraculously re-appear.

Perhaps this is the burden the people will have to bear for the next 3 years. Unless of course, the people who can actually make a change will re-discover their principles and fortitude to actually do something about it.

Yes, get well soon Malaysia. Selamat Hari Merdeka.

Stay strong, with pride

Stay strong, with pride

You might also want to read:

  1. MERDEKA! Apa makna ‘MERDEKA’ pada anda?
  2. The darker the night, the nearer we are to the dawn
  3. KALAU SUDAH BEGINI KEBENCIAN RAKYAT, APA LAGI….”UNDURLAH NAJIB”
  4. Tun Mahathir – Apa Lagi Cara/Pilihan Yang Ada Untuk Rakyat Dapatkan Kebenaran?
  5. Muhyiddin: We need integrity and principles
  6. PM Is Reduced to Haranguing the Rakyat

Umno, politik wang dan undang-undang SPRM

Setiap sumbangan yang ingin diberikan kepada mana-mana parti politik samaada di peringkat pusat mahupun negeri, hendaklah disalurkan melalui akaun rasmi parti. Ini bagi mengelakkan ahli-ahli politik menyalahgunakan nama parti untuk meminta atau menerima apa-apa sumbangan yang kemudiannya diselewengkan untuk kepentingan persendirian. Setiap sumbangan yang dihulurkan perlulah dikemukakan resit penerimaan dan dimasukkan dalam akaun parti. Menerusi rekod penerimaan yang teratur ia boleh diaudit pada tiap-tiap akhir tahun kewangan. Kerajaan percaya inisiatif seumpama ini akan mengelakkan sebarang bentuk perbuatan rasuah dan penyelewengan..” – Najib Razak, 27 February 2012

“Do not resort to money or abuse of power, launch personal attacks and so on..” – Najib Razak, 21 September 2013

Dalam bahasa pasar, hampir pasti orang yang mendengar kata-kata di atas akan menjawab dengan – “Perdana Menteri bercakap tak serupa bikin”. Ini kerana di dalam tahun 2013 juga, beliau telah menerima wang sebanyak RM2,600 juta di dalam akaun peribadinya. Umum disogokkan dengan cerita bahawa ianya digunakan untuk tujuan pilihanraya 2013.

Jika guru kencing berdiri, maka murid kencing berlari. Akhir akhir ini media disogokkan dengan keterangan dari pemimpin pemimpin Umno yang tidak segan silu menerima wang untuk hal-ehwal kepentingan politik mereka.

Contohnya pengakuan dari Pengerusi Majlis Ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BNBBC) Tan Sri Shahrir Samad yang mengatakan penerimaan wang sebanyak RM1 juta dari akaun peribadi Perdana Menteri adalah perkara biasa, kerana itu adalah untuk menguruskan kawasan parlimen dan hal ehwal politik beliau!

Patutlah beliau beria-ia mempertahankan kemasukan RM2.6 billion ke dalam akaun peribadi Najib Razak hingga sempat untuk menjawab kritikan mengenainya.

Bagaimana mungkin seseorang terpelajar seperti Shahrir Samad dan Najib Razak tidak tahu akan undang undang negara Malaysia, terutamanya undang-undang pencegahan rasuah seperti tertera di bawah:

Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009

Seksyen 16: Kesalahan menerima suapan

16. Mana-mana orang yang sendiri atau melalui atau bersama dengan mana-mana orang lain:-

(a) secara rasuah meminta atau menerima atau bersetuju untuk menerima bagi dirinya atau bagi mana-mana orang lain; atau

(b) secara rasuah memberikan, menjanjikan atau menawarkan kepada mana-mana orang sama ada bagi faedah orang itu atau bagi faedah orang lain

Seksyen 17: kesalahan memberi atau menerima suapan oleh ejen

17. Seseorang melakukan kesalahan jika:-

(a) sebagai seorang ejen, dia secara rasuah menyetuju terima atau memperoleh, atau bersetuju untuk menyetuju terima atau cuba untuk memperoleh, daripada mana-mana orang, untuk dirinya sendiri atau untuk mana-mana orang lain, apa-apa suapan sebagai suatu dorongan atau upah bagi melakukan atau tidak melakukan, atau kerana telah melakukan atau tidak melakukan, apa-apa perbuatan berhubungan dengan hal ehwal atau perniagaan prinsipalnya, atau kerana memberikan atau tidak memberikan sokongan atau tentangan kepada mana-mana orang berhubungan dengan hal ehwal atau perniagaan prinsipalnya; atau

(b) dia memberikan atau bersetuju untuk memberikan atau menawarkan apa-apa suapan kepada mana-mana ejen sebagai dorongan atau upah bagi melakukan atau tidak melakukan, atau kerana telah melakukan atau tidak melakukan apa-apa perbuatan berhubungan dengan hal ehwal atau perniagaan prinsipalnya, atau bagi memberikan atau tidak memberikan sokongan atau tentangan kepada mana-mana orang berhubungan dengan hal ehwal atau perniagaan prinsipalnya

“Suapan” ertinya –

wang, derma, alang, pinjaman, fi, hadiah, cagaran berharga, harta atau kepentingan mengenai harta, iaitu apa-apa jenis harta, sama ada alih atau tak alih, faedah kewangan, atau apa-apa manfaat seumpama itu yang lain

“ejen” ertinya –

mana-mana orang yang diambil kerja oleh atau bertindak bagi seorang lain, dan termasuklah pegawai badan awam atau yang berkhidmat dalam atau di bawah mana-mana badan awam, pemegang amanah, pentadbir atau wasi pusaka seseorang yang sudah mati, subkontraktor, dan mana-mana orang yang diambil kerja oleh atau yang bertindak bagi pemegang amanah, pentadbir atau wasi, atau subkontraktor itu

“pegawai badan awam” ertinya –

mana-mana orang yang menjadi anggota, pegawai, pekerja atau pekhidmat sesuatu badan awam, dan termasuklah anggota pentadbiran, ahli Parlimen, ahli sesuatu Dewan Undangan Negeri, hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Rayuan atau Mahkamah Persekutuan, dan mana-mana orang yang menerima apa-apa saraan daripada wang awam, dan, jika badan awam itu ialah suatu perbadanan seorang, termasuklah orang yang diperbadankan sebagai perbadanan itu

Ada yang mengatakan bahawa Najib Razak tidak bersalah kerana menerima derma tersebut kerana ianya adalah sedekah sumbangan dari Arab Saudi kepada beliau. Soalan yang patut ditanya adalah, jika Najib Razak bukan perdana menteri Malaysia, adakah beliau boleh mendapat hadiah wang sebanyak itu? Akta SPRM cukup jelas mengenai persoalan tersebut.

Seksyen 23: Kesalahan menggunakan jawatan atau kedudukan untuk suapan

23 (1) Mana mana pegawai badan awam yang menggunakan jawatan atau kedudukannya untuk apa apa suapan, sama ada bagi dirinya sendiri, saudaranya atau sekutunya, melakukan suatu kesalahan

Ada juga mengatakan bahawa Najib Razak tidak boleh dihukum sebagai menerima rasuah kerana ianya belum dibuktikan lagi (innocent until proven guilty). Walaubagaimanapun, Akta SPRM berpendapat seseorang itu telah melakukan rasuah jika menerima suapan (legal presumption) melainkan beliau membuktikan ianya bukan rasuah. Setakat menafikannya sahaja tidak mencukupi.

Seksyen 50: Anggapan dalam kesalahan tertentu

50 (1) Jika dalam mana-mana prosiding terhadap mana-mana orang atas kesalahan di bawah seksyen 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 atau 23 adalah dibuktikan bahawa apa-apa suapan telah diterima…., suapan itu hendaklah dianggap telah diterima…. secara rasuah melainkan jika akasnya dibuktikan

Apakah hukuman penalti bagi kesalahan kesalahan di atas?

Ianya berbentuk seperti:

Seksyen 24 (1) Mana mana orang yang melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 dan 23 apabila disabitkan boleh –

a) dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua puluh tahun; dan

b) didenda tidak kurang daripada lima kali ganda jumlah atau nilai suapan yang menjadi hal perkara kesalahan itu jika suapan itu dapat dinilai atau berbentuk wang atau sepuluh ribu ringgit, mengikut mana mana yang lebih tinggi.

Pada awal Ogos yang lepas, SPRM telah mengesahkan bahawa wang RM2,600 juta tersebut adalah sesuatu derma. SPRM tidak pernah mengesahkan bahawa ianya bukan rasuah. Oleh sebab itu, siasatan masih dijalankan terhadap penerimaan derma tersebut.

Sudah sampai masanya untuk ahli-ahli politik di Malaysia untuk mengambil kursus mengenai rasuah kerana rata-rata dari mereka yang tidak tahu apa sebenarnya rasuah dan politik wang.

Selama ini mereka hidup disulami mimpi indah bermandikan wang ringgit, melakukan sesuatu perkara tanpa mengetahui apa itu yang boleh dianggap rasuah. Malah, mereka menganggap tidak mengapa jika berbillion wang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadi seorang ahli Parlimen. Betullah kata kata Tun Dr. Mahathir bahawa undang undang Malaysia sudah terbalik. Yang haram telah dihalalkan.

Kata kata Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam amat bermakna jika dilihat melalui perspektif ini:

Money politics is the “mother of all corruption”. When practised, money politics leads to vote buying and the abuse of power and the trust of the rakyat as well as supporters of all political parties. In short, money politics brings destruction and decadence to the country’s transparency, accountability, integrity and even democracy itself.

Tidak pernah dalam sejarah dunia, seorang ketua negara itu boleh menjadi ‘billionaire’ dengan sekelip mata hanya kerana telah mendapat ‘hadiah’ atau sumbangan ke dalam akaun peribadi dari orang yang umum tidak mengetahui.

Malah di dalam tahun 2012, Najib Razak telah pun berkata bahawa menerima sumbangan yang tidak dimasukkan ke dalam akaun parti, boleh dianggap rasuah dan penyelewengan.

Adakah ini juga bermakna, di dalam tahun 2013, Perdana Menteri Malaysia telah sepatutnya tersenarai di dalam 20 billionaire terkaya di Malaysia? Hanya kerana beliau seorang Perdana Menteri?

Dan adakah di dalam tahun 2013, Shahrir Samad telah menjadi jutawan segera? Adakah beliau sebagai ahli parlimen yang menerima wang tersebut telah membayar cukai pendapatan? Apakah bukti yang beliau tidak menggunakan wang tersebut untuk tujuan peribadi? Adakah terdapat resit penerimaan dan penyata perbelanjaan yang boleh diaudit oleh pihak ketiga?

Rakyat Malaysia perlu diberitahu perkara yang sebenar. Najib Razak perlu membuktikan bahawa beliau tidak bersalah dan perlu meletakkan jawatan dari menjadi Perdana Menteri sementara siasatan terhadap beliau sedang dilakukan. Ini penting untuk membersihkan nama beliau tanpa ada anggapan beliau mencampuri urusan penyiasatan.

Masyarakat dunia perlu melihat bahawa Malaysia menghormati keluhuran undang undang dan mempunyai integriti yang tinggi dalam menangani gejala rasuah dan salahguna kuasa.

Jika Malaysia mahu berperangai seperti negara yang tidak endah kepada undang-undang dan bermoral rendah, maka mereka akan menganggap bahawa kita dan ekonomi kita patut dikategorikan sama taraf dengan republik pisang atau ‘failed state’.

Cukup-cukuplah berkelakuan seperti orang yang buta hati.

Anda juga pasti ingin membaca:

  1. MALU WEHH…ORANG ASLI PUN TAK PERCAYA DUIT RM2,600 JUTA SEBAGAI DERMA…

  2. Memperjuangkan kepentingan rakyat lebih mulia dari memperjuangkan kepentingan Najib.

  3. ADUYAI…DULU HARAM JADAH DAN BANGANG, KINI BANGSAT PULAK!!

  4. Menjawab LSS
  5. THE 2.6 BILLION DONATION?
  6. Harimau depan mata senang dihadapi, yang menghendap itu yang merbahaya

  7. Rafidah: What deal was struck for RM2.6b?
  8. New 1MDB fears whack the ringgitUPSIDE DOWN LAW

 

 

Isu derma RM2,600 juta makin lama makin merepek

Ya, sememangnya makin lama makin merepek alasan alasan yang diberi oleh mereka yang bertungkus lumus untuk mempertahankan kewajaran Najib Tun Razak menerima RM2,600 juta ke dalam akaun peribadi beliau di dalam tahun 2013.

Ada yang berkata ianya untuk keperluan pilihanraya, ada yang berkata ianya adalah derma dari penyokong Umno, ada yang berkata ianya derma dari negara yang dianggap sebagai abang angkat (brotherly nation), ada yang berkata ianya duit sebagai tanda terima kasih kerana melawan ISIS (pertubuhan pengganas dari Timur Tengah) dan ada yang berkata ianya untuk melawan pengaruh Yahudi dan DAP.

Saksikanlah betapa berubah-ubahnya cerita mereka dari permulaan kisah di mana pada mulanya mereka tidak mengaku ada wang yang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadi perdana menteri! Inilah padah jika bercakap tidak berdasarkan fakta dan kebenaran.

Hanya yang tertelan pil bodoh sahaja yang akan mempercayai alasan alasan tersebut.

Dan yang terkini, ianya adalah kerana rakyat Malaysia mengamalkan mazhab Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah!

Timbalan Perdana Menteri berkata:

“Saya sahkan derma itu dari Asia Barat sebab saya lihat dokumen itu dan berjumpa ketua pegawai pelaburan kepada penderma dan trustee (pemegang amanah) kewangan keluarga penderma itu. Saya tanya kenapa AS$700 juta didermakan kepada Malaysia.

Perlu diingatkan kepada beliau bahawa Malaysia tidak mendapat satu sen pun dari derma tersebut. Najib Tun Razak yang terima di dalam akaun peribadi. Adakah akaun perbendaharaan Malaysia yang mendapat RM2,600 juta tersebut atau pun akaun peribadi perdana menteri?

“Saya tanya kenapa perlu dibantu UMNO dan Barisan Nasional (BN). Dia bagi tiga alasan iaitu pertama, kerana Malaysia cukup komited dalam operasi anti keganasan dan jelas Malaysia ada Undang-undang Pencegahan Keganasan (POTA), Kanun Keseksaan, Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012 (SOSMA), kerana kita tidak mahu ada pengganas yang ganggu,” katanya.

Lagi sekali suka diingatkan Umno dan Barisan Nasional tidak mendapat satu sen pun dari derma tersebut. Adakah wang ribuan juta tersebut disalurkan ke dalam akaun parti Umno dan BN atau pun telah disalurkan ke dalam akaun peribadi presiden parti?

POTA, SOSMA dan ancaman pengganas adalah di dalam bidang kuasa polis dan kerajaan. Sememangnya ianya adalah tugas kerajaan dan perdana menteri. Adakah berbillion bajet yang diperuntukkan untuk keselamatan negara setiap tahun tidak mencukupi? Adakah kita perlu menagih dan menerima bantuan dari negara luar untuk tujuan tersebut?

Dan apakah yang diperkatakan oleh undang undang negara apabila seseorang penjawat kerajaan menerima wang dengan banyaknya hanya untuk melaksanakan tugas? Ianya dianggap rasuah.

Definisi rasuah mengikut Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia:

Corruption is the act of giving or receiving of any gratification or reward in the form of cash or in-kind of high value for performing a task in relation to his/her job description.

Apakah yang cuba disampaikan oleh Zahid Hamidi sebenarnya? Amat pelik apabila terdapat penjawat kerajaan menerima wang begitu banyak di dalam akaun peribadi, ini dipandang mudah oleh menteri menteri kabinet yang lain.

Ahmad Zahid berkata, perkara kedua menurut penderma berkenaan adalah kerana Malaysia mengamalkan pegangan Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah dan penderma berkenaan tidak mahu terdapat mazhab lain yang menyeleweng daripada sunah Rasullullah. Menurut Ahmad Zahid, perkara ketiga adalah kerana komitmen yang jelas iaitu biarpun Malaysia adalah negara majmuk dan sederhana, namun, negara-negara Islam tetap mengiktiraf komitmen Malaysia yang memegang Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

Perkara kedua dan ketiga adalah perihal yang sama iaitu penderma telah menderma ke dalam akaun Najib Tun Razak kerana rakyat Malaysia yang sudah berkurun lama mengamal pegangan Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah dan cukup berterima kasih kerana rakyat Malaysia tidak lari dari komitmen untuk terus memegang pegangan tersebut.

Persoalannya, mengapa diberi kepada Najib Tun Razak duit tersebut? Adakah di dalam tahun 2013 setiap rakyat Malaysia yang memegang pegangan tersebut telah mendapat sebahagian dari derma secara langsung dari akaun peribadi perdana menteri? 

Di mana logik bagi seseorang perdana menteri mendapat kredit untuk kepercayaan agama rakyat Malaysia apabila beliau hanya menjawat jawatan tertinggi negara hanya sejak tahun 2009 manakala rakyat Malaysia semua sememangnya sejak dahulu kala lagi telah menganut pegangan Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah? Adakah perdana-perdana menteri Malaysia sebelum ini tidak komited untuk mempastikan rakyat Islam Malaysia memegang pegangan tersebut? Mengapa begitu merepek sangat cerita dongeng ini?

“Saya melihat dokumen yang original (asal) bukan fotostat. Saya lihat juga dari segi pemindahan kewangan,” tegas beliau.

Setakat melihat dokumen asal dari segi pemindahan kewangan sememangnya rakyat Malaysia sudahpun melihatnya kerana laporan Wall Street Journal telah pun membuktikan bahawa wang tersebut memang wujud di dalam akaun peribadi Najib Razak.

Walaubagaimanapun, rakyat Malaysia ingin melihat penyata perbelanjaan yang telah dibelanjakan untuk ketiga-tiga tujuan di atas. Di mana buktinya? Bagaimana kami semua ingin mempercayai bahawa setiap sen dari RM2,600 juta tersebut bukan untuk tujuan peribadi jika tidak ada bukti disertakan?

Rakyat Malaysia hanya mahukan kebenaran dan keikhlasan dari pemimpin mereka berdasarkan fakta yang ada.

Terima kasih.

Anda juga pasti ingin membaca:

  1. SETELAH TERPEDAYA, KINI GILIRAN PAS ‘MENGAJAR’ NAJIB…
  2. Terima RM1 Juta Dari Najib Satu Perkara Biasa – Siapa Lagi Yang Pernah Terima Duit Dari Najib Sila Tampil!
  3. The Ringgit’s problem is Najib. Najib’s problem is the ringgit
  4. Frequently Asked Questions on Corruption – MACC
  5. WHAT YOU CAN DO TO MAKE NAJIB TO STEP DOWN AS PM

Tun Abdul Razak was a man of integrity, frugal and living a simple lifestyle

It’s Monday. Let’s start the week with something light.

Back in February, New York Times ran an article questioning the incredible wealth of the Malaysian Prime Minister. Among the snippets that can be read:

Much of the concern, even in Mr. Najib’s own long-ruling party, involves questions about the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund. More broadly, though, the prime minister’s trappings of wealth and the widely broadcast tales of his wife’s outsize spending — the diamond jewelry, the collection of extravagantly costly Hermès Birkin bags — have become a focus of Malaysians’ rising unease with their government’s institutionalized culture of patronage and graft.

“We are very concerned,” Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, a member of Malaysian royalty and an independent-minded elder statesman of Mr. Najib’s party, said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur last summer. “We want people of integrity to be up there.”

Mr. Najib, who earns an annual salary of about $100,000 as prime minister, has been battered by news media reports of his wife’s lavish spending. A notable episode involved the Birkin bags: A series of photos that went viral on social media in Malaysia showed Ms. Rosmah holding at least nine of the purses. They typically cost between $9,000 and $150,000 apiece.

Ariff Sabri, an aide to Mr. Najib from 2000 to 2004 who joined the opposition in 2012, said the prime minister kept “piles and piles” of ringgit bills stacked in his safe. And invoices and other documents obtained by The Times show millions of dollars in jewelry ordered for Ms. Rosmah in Hong Kong in 2008 and 2009 — diamond and emerald rings, and diamond, emerald and ruby bracelets.

Contacted by NYT, the Prime Minister’s Office issued an explanation regarding the matter. Basically the PMO said nothing is unusual with all the travel, jewellery purchases or the piles of money in any safes because those came from his position and inheritance money. In their own words:

“..neither any money spent on travel, nor any jewelry purchases, nor the alleged contents of any safes are unusual for a person of the prime minister’s position, responsibilities and legacy family assets.”

Since legacy family assets were mentioned, people were questioning if the late Tun Razak had left tremendous amount of wealth to his sons. That explanation had caused much uneasiness and a few days later, the Prime Minister’s siblings issued a brief declaration to dispute the statement made by the PMO. They are saying:

“We wish to put on record that Tun Abdul Razak was a highly principled man, well-known to all who knew him for his frugality and utmost integrity and any statement or inference to the contrary would be totally false and misleading to his memory and to his service and sacrifices for the nation.  We take issue with anyone who taints his memory, whatever the motive. We would also like to add that our whole family is united on this issue.”

Surprisingly, the Prime Minister himself agreed with his brothers in that Tun Abdul Razak was a frugal man, living a simple lifestyle. The 180 degree turn sounded like this:

“Throughout his career, Tun Abdul Razak was never involved in corruption or wrongdoings. He placed the country’s needs above his own and this can be seen in his engagement with the people and also contribution to the country, which has become his legacy. Since his involvement in politics till his last days in office, Tun Abdul Razak was always known to practise a simple lifestyle and was frugal as well”

This then raised further questions, as to why PMO made that misleading statement, and as asked by the Opposition – what exactly is the source of his ‘outsized’ wealth?

“I am certain that Najib will agree with me that his lack of transparency and the exposé of his family’s hidden and not-so-hidden wealth will only encourage more unhealthy speculations on the origins of his family’s outsized wealth,” said Tony Pua who is also DAP National Publicity Secretary.

“Regardless of the drama behind the relationship between Jho Low, Riza, Najib and his wife Rosmah, which may be worthy of a Hollywood script, the fact of the matter from the various reports is that the Prime Minister’s family has been able to spend and acquire assets globally worth hundreds of millions of ringgit,” said Pua.

Therefore, he added, if Najib believes that his source of unusual wealth and a lifestyle of exuberant luxury is all acquired scrupulously, then he must explain how he obtained them when his only occupation was as the Pahang Menteri Besar (1982-1986), Cabinet Minister (1986-2004), and Deputy Prime Minister (2004-2009) before assuming the Prime Ministership since 2009.

Until today these questions were never answered. Maybe it never will.

You might also want to read:

  1. Isu RM2.6 Billion – Dari Awal Lagi Rakyat Telah DiPerbodohkan

  2. Siapa sebenarnya yang hilang akal?

  3. UMNO Bahagian Langkawi Usul Percepatkan/Batalkan Penundaan Pemilihan Parti

  4. Warkah buat Ahli UMNO: The One Step Guide on How to Remove PahlaWANG BooGees and HUsNit Ulam Jawa

  5. A Dungu Plan
  6. HOT! 1MDB’s debt exceeds RM 50 billion?

RM2,600 juta: Mana bukti perbelanjaan untuk Umno?

Semalam di mesyuarat Umno bahagian Semporna, Tan Sri Muhyiddin telah bersuara mengenai khabar angin di mana ucapan ahli ahli Umno akan dipantau oleh ibu pejabat Umno. Beliau berkata:

“Saya terbaca dalam suratkhabar, saya harap tidak betul dan dinafikan oleh Setiausaha Agung Umno. Bila persidangan perwakilan sedang berjalan sekarang ni, maka akan dipantau nak mengetahui apa cakap apa, siapa cakap apa. Nak tengok apa. Sejak bila kita Umno nak mengawal ahli ahli kita daripada bercakap apa hal yang kita nak cakap? Jangan ugut. Kalau benar berita itu saya fikir luarbiasa. Timbalan Presiden nak cakap tak boleh, naib nak cakap dan perwakilan nak cakap apa, soal dia lah. Nak usul apa, biar dia cakap lah. Ini saja ada platform setahun sekali kenapa nak disekat nak dihalang?”

Sekali lagi persoalan yang ditimbulkan oleh ahli ahli Umno berkenaan 1MDB dan duit berbillion yang diterima oleh Presiden Umno merangkap Perdana Menteri menjadi topik hangat di kalangan orang ramai di mesyuarat tahunan Umno.

Rata-rata ahli Umno merasa gusar dan keliru berkenaan isu isu tersebut kerana permasalahan yang ditimbulkan oleh Presiden parti mereka sendiri ini amat sukar dihadam dan diterima bulat bulat.

Apatah lagi bila Presiden mereka tidak menjawab persoalan dengan cepat, tangkas dan telus. Tidak cepat dan tangkas kerana apabila pada mulanya muncul isu RM2.6 billion di dalam akaun peribadi beliau, jawapan yang diberikan amat kabur. “Tidak menggunakan wang untuk tujuan peribadi” tidak sama sekali menjawab persoalan jika benar wang sejumlah itu telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaunnya.

Tidak telus kerana sesudah sebulan berlalu, barulah pihak lain (SPRM) mengiakan andaian bahawa memang benar duit sebanyak itu berada di dalam akaun beliau. Kenapa tidak ada pengakuan dari Presiden mereka sendiri selama sebulan rakyat Malaysia terkucar kacir diketawakan masyarakat dunia?

Persoalan apakah tujuan wang sebanyak itu dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadi pada mulanya dijawab dengan mengatakan ianya adalah untuk tujuan pilihanraya 2013. Bagaimanapun, ianya ditukar menjadi derma kepada Umno sejurus sebelum SPRM mengumumkan kewujudan wang tersebut.

Apabila ahli ahli Umno bertanya ke mana wang itu diagihkan, sekali lagi bukan Presiden yang menjawab, tetapi para jemuan dan tukang kipas yang heboh mengatakan bahawa ianya dibelanjakan untuk tujuan tanggungjawab sosial, untuk membina rumah dan segalanya.

Mereka ini bercakap tanpa fakta dan bukti yang kukuh. Wang RM2.6 billion bukan sedikit nilainya. Apabila mereka cuba menerangkan kepada umum mengenai penggunaan wang tersebut, adakah mereka sudah melihat penyata kira kira atau senarai perbelanjaan yang telah diaudit oleh pihak ketiga?

Bagaimana mereka mengetahui tentang cara dan dimana wang tersebut telah digunakan apabila mereka sendiri tidak tahu menahu mengenainya sebelum berita RM2.6 billion ini muncul?

Sepanjang pengetahuan ahli ahli Umno, wang RM2.6 billion tersebut tidak pula muncul di dalam penyata kira kira parti Umno di dalam mesyuarat agung tahunan 2013. Jika ianya telah terpampang di dalam penyata kira kira pada tahun tersebut, maka tidaklah ianya menjadi satu perkara yang memeranjatkan apabila Wall Street Journal mendedahkan perkara tersebut bulan lepas.

Akan tetapi sememangnya logik wang derma untuk Umno tersebut tidak terpampang di dalam penyata kira kira dan tidak diketahui oleh sesiapa (termasuklah timbalan presiden sendiri) kerana ianya telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadi tuan Presiden.

Oleh itu, jika wang berbillion tersebut telah diwar-warkan oleh pasukan propaganda Perdana Menteri sebagai wang derma untuk Umno, maka wajarlah para ahli Umno untuk bertanya butiran terperinci dari tuan Presiden mereka sendiri akan penggunaan wang tersebut. Siapa dapat berapa banyak, senarai aktiviti-aktiviti yang mendapat sebanyak mana peruntukkan, Ketua Umno bahagian mana dapat berapa banyak dan lain lain soalan yang berkaitan.

Walaupun Dr. Mashitah Ibrahim berkata Perdana Menteri sekarang ini memimpin mengikut sunnah Nabi, tidak bermakna beliau itu maksum seperti Rasulullah sendiri.

Ahli ahli Umno berhak menanyakan bukti akan penggunaan wang tersebut kerana ianya adalah wang Umno. Bagaimana ahli ahli Umno hendak percaya bahawa wang tersbut “tidak digunakan untuk tujuan peribadi” jika tidak disediakan bukti? Tunjukkanlah resit-resit, invois-invois, baucar-baucar bayaran, buku-buku cek, penyata-penyata bank, senarai penerima; secara telus, ikhlas dan secepat mungkin.

Tidak cukup untuk Presiden sekadar berkata “saya tidak akan khianati amanah rakyat” dan kita rakyat Malaysia harus percaya bulat bulat pada kata-kata tersebut tanpa diberikan bukti yang jelas.

Ini adalah amanah, dan ahli ahli Umno tidak mahu melihat Presiden mereka sendiri pecah amanah sebanyak RM2.6 billion. Sebab itu mereka berhak bertanya dan mendapat bukti.

Tuan Presiden merangkap Perdana Menteri bukannya maksum untuk kita perlu mempercayai seratus peratus.

Akan tetapi apabila pertanyaan dibuat, ungkapan yang diterima adalah – Pertama, “kita sedia bentang akaun Umno jika DAP membentang akaun mereka juga“.

Kedua, ‘Tun Mahathir juga terima dana dari negara-negara Arab untuk membina Universiti Islam Antarabangsa“.

Cubaan untuk mengelak dari memberi jawapan yang ikhlas amat ketara sekali. Ahli-ahli Umno sebenarnya tidak peduli mengenai biji butir  akaun parti DAP. Yang mereka hendak tahu ialah butiran dari akaun peribadi Presiden mereka kerana duit tersebut adalah hak Umno. Bukankah sudah berbuih mulut pasukan propaganda mengatakan bahawa ianya adalah derma dari penderma budiman untuk parti Umno?

Oleh itu, mengapa perlu diseret DAP ke dalam persoalan tersebut?

Keduanya, jika betul lah negara-negara arab telah memberi dana di zaman Tun Mahathir menjadi Perdana Menteri, adakah mereka memasukkan dana tersebut ke dalam akaun peribadi beliau sendiri? Semestinya tidak. Kerana itu adalah prosedur yang salah. Mengapa ada menteri-menteri di dalam kabinet tidak boleh berfikir bahawa prosedur tersebut adalah tidak betul?

Bekas Menteri Besar Terengganu sendiri membidas cara tersebut. Beliau berkata: “tiba-tiba, ada menteri yang kata, derma politik adalah normal. Selepas itu, ada menteri kata, lebih selamat masuk akaun peribadi daripada akaun lain. Lepas ni kaya-raya wakil rakyat apabila derma politik dimasukkan ke dalam akaun sendiri. Selepas SPRM siasat, baru kata wang ini wang parti.”

Nampaknya sesuai dengan hasrat Perdana Menteri yang mementingkan orang yang setia dari yang pandai sebagai pengikutnya, jawapan jawapan yang diberikan oleh pihak beliau amat dangkal dan kurang cerdik.

Seorang ketua bahagian secara yakin mengatakan wang RM2.6 billion telah dibelanjakan sepenuhnya oleh Presiden mereka untuk Umno. Samaada ketua bahagian tersebut telah melihat bukti yang beliau seorang sahaja telah melihatnya, ataupun beliau telah bercakap semberono tanpa mendapat bukti yang sah, kita tidak akan tahu. Kerana seorang yang setia tetapi tidak pandai mungkin akan memberi jawapan diluar tabii jika kita bertanyakan bukti apa yang dipakainya.

Dengan menggunakan ilmu hisab, jika semasa pilihanraya umum tahun 2013 kesemua 13 Ketua Perhubungan mendapat RM50 juta seorang sekalipun, ianya baru berjumlah RM650 juta. Dan jika Umno Pusat mendapat RM500 juta sekalipun jumlah perbelanjaan adalah hanya RM1.15 billion. Di mana baki lebih kurang RM1.5 billion lagi?

Ahli ahli Umno perlu sebulat suara untuk meminta Presiden mereka membentangkan akaun peribadi beliau kerana duit tersebut adalah hak Umno. Adakah wang kepunyaan parti tersebut telah dilaporkan kepada ROS? Apakah peranan Bendahari Umno di dalam penerimaan dan penggunaan wang ‘derma’ ini? Mengapa beliau tidak memberitahu Umno mengenai kewujudan wang tersebut di dalam tahun 2013?

Adakah salah untuk timbalan presiden bertanya ke mana baki wang yang telah dibelanjakan? Nampaknya untuk bertanyakan hal inipun telah diherdik oleh Menteri Komukasi dan Multimedia apabila beliau mempersoalkan motif soalan tersebut. Untuk makluman menteri kabinet setahun jagung tersebut, platform mesyuarat bahagian bukanlah platform umum. Ianya platform parti Umno.

Seperti mana naib presiden Umno sendiri telah bersuara: “Kami bertanya kerana kita ingin tahu. Rakyat yang kita wakili ingin tahu. Kami, sehingga bila-bila adalah wakil kepada rakyat.”

Untuk perhatian menteri kabinet tersebut, apabila beliau dilantik menjadi menteri maka secara otomatik beliau digaji oleh wang cukai rakyat. Oleh itu bekerjalah untuk menjaga rakyat. Bukan bekerja untuk menjaga Presiden parti.

Seperti kata-kata timbalan presiden beliau sendiri di permulaan artikel ini, ahli ahli Umno berhak bercakap apa saja tanpa disekat atau dihalang. Siapakah beliau untuk menghalang seseorang dari berkomunikasi di tempat mereka sendiri? Jika tidak di mesyuarat Umno, di mana lagi?

Terima kasih.

Anda mungkin juga ingin membaca:

  1. 1MDB dan RM2.6 Bil Bukan Soal Politik Tapi Soal Integriti Kepimpinan – TERBAIK Dari MatSaid!
  2. BETUL KATA WANITA UMNO LANGKAWI, NAJIB PERLU PERGI BERUBAT…
  3. Usul Tidak Percaya Kepada PM…. Adakah SAMA Dengan Usaha Menjatuhkan Kerajaan?
  4. Where is the balance of RM2.6 billion donation, Muhyiddin asks Najib
  5. Kadir: Ku Li could very well be ahead to replace Najib

#malaysian-ge-2013

Fact checking the 1MDB and ‘donation’ debacle

On 1MDB

Ever wonder why the exercise to save 1MDB is called a ‘Rationalisation Plan‘?

Because 1MDB had an irrational business model from the beginning..

Step 1: Acquire massive loans

Step 2: Buy assets. Can’t pay loans.

Step 3: Sell assets to pay the loans

But now they are congratulating themselves by saying that 1MDB had made a success in that rationalisation plan.

Not sure which success they are talking about. Is it their success in getting IPIC to help pay the loans they unable pay by themselves?

Is it the staggering loss of RM665 million in their 2014 financial year?

Is it the begging request of loan repayment extensions they made so many times in 2014?

Is it the delays in listing of their power assets due to their own shortcomings? (the government’s propaganda team had the cheek to say this was caused by Tun Mahathir when the fact is, the delays occurred way before Tun’s first article on 1MDB).

Is it the success in getting taxpayers to fork out RM950,000,000 as a standby credit to help 1MDB pay their financial obligation?

Lastly, probably the success is due to the fact that the had needlessly amassed debts to the tune of billions and now need to ‘rationalise’ this by selling off their assets. Some to TNB, some to foreign interests, etc., so that they can pay their debts.

Fun fact – when 1MDB bought the prized land in Sungai Besi and TRX at really low prices, the government and the taxpayers were shortchanged. Some nonsensical people said that that is just left pocket entering the right pocket. This could be true if 1MDB is acting as part of the government. But then again, even the cabinet was not privy to its dealings and operations (at least not until recently).

So when 1MDB could not pay their humongous loan debts and interests, they had to sell these crown jewels of Kuala Lumpur. They are selling them at market price. This would be partially good if all the monies from the sale is returned to the government. It is only partially good because the lands would now be in private hands, not the government (ie., the people).

But the reality is worse. The monies from the sale will almost definitely be used by 1MDB to settle ‘rationalise’ their debts. Which means, the only people who are laughing at the end will be the bankers (for getting their money back), and the new owners of the land once gazetted for bumiputra development.

Double loss for the people and the government. We lose when the land was sold at below market value, and we lose again when the land was sold just to pay off debts.

Now would there be anyone accountable for the irrational behaviour of 1MDB all these while? Shouldn’t there be anyone responsible for this mess? Besides the Deputy Prime Minister, was there anybody in 1MDB that was sacked for this debacle?

It is always funny the way 1MDB responded to questions about their business operations. The usual recycled excuse they give would be – “we have answered the questions”.

But all sundry knows they have not even tried to clear the air over anything.

For instance, when questions were asked as to why they pumped in USD1.83 billion worth of cash into PetroSaudi and yet this obscure middle east company did not pump in a single cent, they went on to give the process on how it happened, instead of why. In the end, it was indeed true that PetroSaudi did not pump in a single cent for the joint venture.

Why did 1MDB terminate the joint venture just after 6 months?

Why did they continue to pump in cash to a JV they had terminated, amounting to USD1.83 billion by 2011?

Why was the joint venture sealed and signed in lightning-quick time? Why was the decision taken in a private meeting in a yacht between the Prime Minister and PetroSaudi without any government officials and 1MDB top management present?

These are just some questions left unanswered by 1MDB. There are a lot more, but we are told not to raise any noise against 1MDB.

Donation

“Malaysians are not stupid” – this is what the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had said prior to his sacking two weeks ago.

We had written before that the donation story concocted by the propaganda team was just an afterthought. The reason why this was an afterthought because nobody knew about the money (not even the propaganda team) when the WSJ article appeared.

The Deputy President of Umno did not know about it. The head of Barisan Nasional backbenchers did not know about it. Even the whole Supreme Council did not know about it.

The principle matter is this – why did the money deposited in a personal bank account of a public servant?

That is the main issue. Doesn’t matter if the spin is that the donor wanted it that way, or the money comes from a ‘brotherly nation’, or the money is used for elections, or that RM2.6 billion is used to repair houses and roads in rural areas. Why wasn’t it credited into Umno’s own party accounts? This in turn had raised a lot of questions and dented the credibility of a prime minister.

Some delusional sycophants had the audacity to say it was a trust account when they also do not have the proof it was indeed a trust account. Be it as it may, a trust account would then be transparent and known to all parties in Umno, but it wasn’t transparent therefore it couldn’t be a trust account.

Some even said it is better for the Prime Minister to put that donation money meant for Umno in his personal bank account rather than with proxies. This will surely create a bigger mess if the Prime Minister, god forbid, dies and the billions of money is stuck in that account and legally it will then belonged to his family as inheritance.

Ultimately, if there is an aspiration to say that all the money ‘donated’ have been used for Umno to face the general elections of 2013, then the public, especially Umno members would want to know how the money was spent. Where is the detailed expenditure list for all the RM2.6 billion spent on Umno? How else can the public be assured that the money was not used for personal gain?

But of course, the reply to the public is, we shall do it if the opposition parties show their party accounts too. There is no urgency to show accountability at all.

Firstly, just like Barisan Nasional’s own MCA had said – “party funds never put in private accounts”.

Secondly, if Umno cares about leadership by example and setting the bar high, the people involved in that RM2.6 billion must take the lead in exposing how it was spent, to who and to where and what are they for.

Thirdly, and this is why the afterthought wasn’t thoroughly vetted, a donation is deemed breaking the MACC law if it is deposited in a personal bank account of a public official.

This is succinctly put by a legal practitioner (truncated for clarity):

It doesn’t matter whether the 2.6 billion in the prime minister’s personal bank account was a donation or whether it was held on trust for UMNO. It does not matter, because the law on corruption is very clear.

Let me spell it out for you the provisions of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) (for brevity, “MACC Act”), despite (the) ignorance and arrogance in insisting that it is okay for Najib to receive funds from ‘donor(s)’.

Section 16 of the MACC Act provides that it is an offence for any person to accept gratification.

Now, what is gratification?

Section 3 of the MACC Act defines gratification as to include “money, DONATION, gift, loan, fee, reward, valuable security, property or interest in property being property of any description whether movable or immovable, financial benefit, or any other similar advantage.”

So, clearly, DONATION equals GRATIFICATION.

And then there is section 50 of the MACC Act, which provides for the LEGAL PRESUMPTION that “gratification shall be presumed to have been CORRUPTLY received … unless the contrary is proved.”

What this mean in simple layman term is that the very fact there was an amount donated into the prime minister’s personal bank account (and Najib was aware of it) is more than enough evidence of corruption in the eyes of the law. If the prime minister so insists that he is not corrupt, then it is his duty to adduce cogent evidence to rebut the LEGAL PRESUMPTION that he is guilty (and in so rebutting it is not sufficient to merely provide unsubstantiated denial).

Bear in mind, the MACC Act is an Act of Parliament, which simply means that the provisions of the Act bind the whole nation — i.e. the government as well as all citizens — unlike the UMNO constitution which is not even a law and as such inferior in nature, and applicable only to UMNO members. As such whether or not UMNO Constitution allows its funds to be held on trust by its president, is immaterial and wholly irrelevant, when it comes to the presumption of corruption against Najib.

Be that as it may, if Najib so insists that the alleged donation was received on trust, then the burden lies on him to provide the trust documentations. Even so, it is important to note — in the unlikely scenario that he could adduce such documentations — that does not ipso facto clear him of the offences under the MACC Act. Instead, the very fact that he held the money on trust would actually by extension, make UMNO possibly liable to be charged for corruption as well, because the legal definition of ‘persons’ that could be guilty under the MACC Act, as per spelled out in the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) “includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate”.

Even the Prime Minister himself had said in 2012 that putting political fund in personal bank account is a form of corruption. Is this a case of not walking the talk?

As the result, today the opposition is suing the Prime Minister for breaking the election law. They may or may not have a case, unless of course the propaganda team creates another new story to defend this ‘donation’ story.

We shall wait for more ‘facts’ to be thrown at us by the minions desperately trying to disseminate their version of the truth.

You might also want to read:

  1. Good governance means walking the talk
  2. SOALAN MUDAH UNTUK NAJIB – MANA BAKI RM2,600 JUTA, MASIH ADA ATAU SUDAH HABIS?

  3. Quotable quotes on 1MDB and ‘donations’ to Umno
  4. Malaysia’s Prime Minister: A Dead Man Walking? – Forbes

#1mdb, #malaysian-corporate-matters

Afterthoughts on 1MDB and donations

Some reading materials for the weekend by avid observers of the current socio-political issues in Malaysia.

1MDB: The story so far

by TK Chua

I put in abridged form what we have gathered so far on 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). There is nothing new here, just a catalogue to help us to stay on track. With new events emerging every day, it is easy to lose sight that the messes in 1MDB are actually much bigger than the huge sum of money going in and out of the prime minister’s personal account. We must not lose focus on all the big issues.

  1. There were questions asked if some of 1MDB’s excessive borrowings were sovereign guaranteed. The answer given was that the borrowing was used to buy assets and for strategic investments, including parking some money in Caymans temporarily to earn higher returns. Till today, we are not sure how “strategic” the investments have been and whether the returns earned were in US dollars or in “units”.
  2. When asked why 1MDB faced problems servicing these loans, the answer given was that it was a temporary cash flow hiccup. 1MDB has “assets more than liabilities” was the oft-repeated mantra and the mother of all explanations. But do the problems in 1MDB look like temporary cash flow setbacks? If they have to par down assets to reduce debts, I think the problem is more about assets not generating sufficient income to sustain their own upkeep.
  3. Questions were asked of the high fees and commissions incurred and why discounts were generously given when issuing 1MDB bonds. The answer given was that it was a normal practice to pay high fees and to give discounts in order to entice lenders. However they conveniently failed to explain why the desperate need to borrow.
  4. We asked why 1MDB bought overpriced assets. The answer was that the IPO was supposed to solve this problem, ignoring the fact that IPOs are about value, not about solving overpriced assets, unless they believe future IPO investors are nincompoops.
  5. We asked why government land was sold to 1MDB for a song. The answer was that 1MDB was a government strategic company, so it was just from the right pocket to the left pocket. When the government sells lands and other assets, the money goes into the Consolidated Fund of the Treasury. When 1MDB sells government lands and other assets, where does the money go?
  6. We asked why Tabung Haji was asked to buy a small piece of land from 1MDB at many times more than what was paid for it initially. The answer was that it was a good investment for Tabung Haji; many other investors were willing to buy over the land from Tabung Haji at an even higher price. However till today, Tabung Haji is still holding on to the land, as far as we know.
  7. The Auditor-General and his team were asked to do a comprehensive audit on 1MDB since there were so many unanswered questions. So far the interim report has been completed, but it was made confidential. When the final report will be ready and made public is anyone’s guess.
  8. We asked whether or not the accusations and allegations in Sarawak Report (SR) were true. The answer was to shut down SR and accuse white men of interfering with the leadership of this country. But are Tan Sri Muhyiddin, Tun Mahathir, Rafizi Ramli, Lim Kit Siang and Tony Pua white? Now a warrant of arrest has been issued against SR’s editor.
  9. When The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) claimed that there were massive amounts of money going in and out of the PM’s personal bank accounts, the answer given was that the money was not for personal use. Since then, they have written to WSJ seeking clarification about the article and threatening to sue. But till today there has been no lawsuit filed although no further clarification from WSJ was forthcoming. I am not sure if the PM’s lawyers are still in the midst of seeking consultation.
  10. We asked what happened to the task force (consisting of Bank Negara Malaysia, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Police and the Attorney-General) formed to investigate 1MDB. The answer was “no status”. Thus far, we only know one of the members of the task force, the AG, was “retired”. The rest of the investigators are currently being investigated for “leaking” information, whatever this means. The latest news report said the task force was no longer needed. All the agencies are now supposed to investigate and act on their own.
  11. The Edge Weekly published an incriminating story on 1MDB based on information given to it by a “blackmailer”. So far, no clear denial or confirmation was established based on the report. However we know the former deputy prime minister who depended on that very paper for news was sacked and the paper itself suspended for three months. Gradually, some of us might have forgotten Xavier Andre Justo is still languishing in a Bangkok prison.
  12. The bipartisan Public Accounts Committee too wanted to ask many questions. However so far the committee has gathered very few answers. First they said the relevant people from 1MDB were busy and therefore unable to attend the hearing. Then they said some of the witnesses could not be traced. Now the entire PAC investigation is in limbo after many members were suddenly appointed to the executive branch. PAC hearings have now been postponed indefinitely.
  13. We asked why the draft “charge sheets” against the PM and others were circulating. The answer was that those charge sheets were fake but strangely enough, the authorities are questioning and investigating those who might have leaked the information, including the charge sheets.
  14. We asked whose money it was moving in and out of the PM’s personal bank accounts, which till today no one has denied or confirmed. First they answered that the money was not for personal use which by implication meant it must be for official/party/societal use then. They then implied the money was not from 1MDB. Now they have openly declared it was from a donation.
  15. So far they have not shed light on how the huge donation was used; what has happened to the balance, if any; who donated the bulk of it (did part of it come from SRC?); and whether or not there were any strings attached or if national interests were compromised. I guess any person with some common sense will be able to ask even more questions about this, except perhaps talented ministers from Sabah.

However do not be too optimistic that you will receive an answer. Most probably, they will insist that political donations require reform and all political parties, especially the DAP and PKR, must agree first.

I write this piece based on memory alone. You are most welcome to add if you remember anything else.

Thank you TK Chua. Next is an article which asked very pertinent questions for us to ponder.

SOALAN KEPADA TUKANG JAWAB

oleh Mat Rodi

Dalam cubaan membela PM Najib Razak, YB Rahman Dahlan telah mengesahkan bahawa wang derma USD700 juta telah masuk ke akaun peribadi Presiden parti.

Maknanya, ini bukannya akaun parti yang dibuka dan didaftarkan di atas nama tiga pemegang amanah sebagaimana amalan parti dahulunya.

Sebaliknya- ini adalah akaun peribadi.

Menerima derma sebanyak itu dan dimasukkan ke akaun parti politik tidak ada salahnya. Parti boleh menerima 2.6 billion mahupun 260 billion wang derma. Malah bukan isunya. Hatta NGO yang kononnya ‘Bersih’ juga diberikan ‘derma’ dari pihak luar untuk kegiatan mereka.

Tetapi menerima derma sejumlah wang tersebut dan dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadi presiden boleh menimbulkan persoalan.

Persoalan pertama adalah adakah ahli Majlis Tertinggi telah berbincang dan bersetuju menjadikan akaun peribadi Presiden parti bagi tujuan menerima derma?

Jika sudah berbincang dan sepakat, mengapa terdapat ahli Majlis Tertinggi merangkap Menteri Penerangan ketika itu (Shabery Cheek) berkata “tidak logik PM ambil wang sebanyak itu masuk ke akaun peribadi.”

Bahkan, Ketua Penerangan UMNO Ahmad Maslan berkeras “Perdana Menteri bodoh mana yang akan mengambil RM2.67 bilion untuk dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadinya. Jika benar, ia adalah kebebalan yang terlalu amat sangat,”

Adakah ini cubaan mereka untuk menggulingkan presiden parti yang dipilih secara demokratik?

Tetapi mereka tidak pula digugurkan daripada jemaah kabinet sebagaimana nasib Timbalan dan Naib Presiden.Tidak juga mereka disoal siasat polis.

Sama ada PM Najib telah melakukan kebebalan yang teramat sangat ataupun tidak tidaklah penting.

Persoalannya yang kedua adalah, jika perkara ini tidak pernah dibincangkan di dalam mesyuarat Majlis Tertinggi, siapa pula yang memberikan kebenaran untuk menjadikan akaun peribadi beliau sebagai akaun amanah?

Tidak logik Presiden melantik diri sendiri tanpa berbincang. Perlembagaan UMNO juga tidak mempunyai peruntukan tersebut.

Persoalan ketiga- jika ahli MT UMNO tidak tahu mengenai wang derma ini dan sememangnya derma tersebut digunakan untuk tujuan politik, tujuan politik siapa?

Politik parti ataupun politik Presiden parti?

Jika politik parti, masakan ahli MT UMNO tidak tahu?

Jika politik presiden parti, tidakkah ini bermakna beliau telah menggunakan wang tersebut bagi tujuan peribadi?

Ini bercanggah dengan kenyataan beliau yang menafikan penggunaan sebarang wang bagi keuntungan peribadi. Sesungguhnya memenangi pilihanraya akan mengekalkan beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri dan ini adalah keuntungan bagi dirinya.

Pengarah Komunikasi Barisan Nasional serta barisan menteri yang baru dilantik boleh berkata apa sahaja mengenai derma politik. Mereka boleh berkata seperti adalah lebih selamat wang derma masuk ke akaun peribadi PM dan parti memerlukan lebih banyak wang.

Tetapi ini bukanlah kebenaran sebaliknya skrip/jawapan yang dibuat ‘after thought’.

Hakikat perkara ini baru disebut berminggu-minggu selepas pendedahan awal dibuat membuktikan mereka juga seperti kita semua yang tidak tahu apa-apa.

Isu mengapa wang derma ke akaun peribadi presiden penting bukan kerana kita tidak mahu wang derma bagi perjuangan parti. Ramai yang faham keperluan dana yang banyak untuk kerja-kerja politik.

Sebaliknya, kita tidak mahu ‘rasuah jadi budaya, amanah dikhianati dan parti membisu hanya untuk membela golongan tertentu atas nama kesetiaan pada parti. Atau disiplin kepartian mentaati pemimpin’ – sebagaimana yang disebut oleh MB Johor.


Let’s wait for more ridiculous statements by the powers that be in the next few days.

In the mean time, you might also want to read:

2. A New Strain of STD- Mandatephilis

3. Kantoi Lagi : Maka Makin Susahlah Memanda Menteri Mencari Pelakon Arab Main Watak Penderma

4. Commit A Wrong Unto Others and Therefore Unto Yourself

5. Kes Derma RM2.6 Bil Najib – Rakyat Memerhati…..

 

#1mdb, #malaysian-corporate-matters

The absurdity continues…

The shifting of goalpost in the RM2.6 billion defence:

  1. WSJ created a lie. There is no way a Prime Minister could accept that much money into his personal bank account. He is not stupid.
  2. The propaganda team rebuked WSJ for not supplying any proof, therefore the newspaper is lying. They also bent over backwards to say that the PM’s name was misspelled in a diagram of the money trail therefore, it is all a lie.
  3. The PM mulls to sue WSJ over this apparent political sabotage. He also accused Tun Mahathir for working with foreign nationals over that RM2.6 billion article.
  4. The lawyers sent clarification letter but the mainstream media declares the PM has sued WSJ.
  5. WSJ published the documented proof of the banking transactions. The propaganda team, working on a narrative, zoomed in on the swift codes. Gleefully claiming the swift codes are wrong, summarily claiming that there are no such account exist. WSJ had lied. The documents were tampered.
  6. The Task Force issued a statement that the accounts did exist but has been closed. The narrative began to change to ‘political fund’. Obviously by this time, the propaganda team did not know anything unless they were told how to think.
  7. Propaganda team bending over backwards to justify that political fund is legal and can be done through trustee accounts. Their past excuses and defence that the accounts did not exist and no money was transferred were shamelessly forgotten.
  8. Believing in their own hype they created, propaganda team began to float the trust account story, saying that Umno Constitution provides for trustee accounts. But nobody, including Deputy President of Umno did not know it existed.
  9. 5 weeks have past, lawyers still have not made any action towards WSJ.
  10. And the latest shifting of goalpost came out today whereby the account was indeed not a trustee account but actually a personal bank account, possibly contravening with Umno Constitution and MACC Act.

Better for Umno president to hold money rather than proxies

It is better for the Umno president to hold the party’s assets and monies in his own account rather than parking them under proxies, Barisan Nasional (BN) strategic communications chief Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan said today.

The Housing, Local Government and Urban Well-Being Minister said that he “preferred” Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak to be holding the money in his personal accounts as this provided more security than the proxies.

“Even when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad resigned as Umno president, he had to look for the proxies to reclaim a lot of Umno’s assets and shares.

“I would be a lot more worried if these individuals were holding the accounts instead of the president,” he said during an interview with TV1 tonight.

Abdul Rahman said that the current controversy has sparked off a discussion that is “good” for future regulations of political funding.

“I am relieved and happy that the money is from donations. Now the goalposts for the discussions have shifted,” he said.

He said that he was “thankful” to have a president who was able to source funds from the party, insisting that the donors made the donation without expecting anything in return.

Reading this at first glance, the first question people asked is – Is Umno, the oldest and the biggest political party is Malaysia do not have its own banking accounts?

Why did it have to be a personal bank account?

Secondly, the issue is not whether proxies should be used. Tun Mahathir himself declared when he was the prime minister, this kind of money was never credited into a personal bank account.

The real matter is about RM2.6 billion being secretly deposited back in 2013. It was a secret because nobody knows about it. Including the people in the propaganda team. Yet they now claim that Umno members have agreed that political donations can be deposited into the personal bank account of the party president! (source).

When was this asked? Did they make a referendum among party members in 2013 for this decision to be made?

If indeed Umno members knew about it, why did Umno leaders and their propaganda team made gibberish arguments to discredit WSJ and tried to prove that the accounts never existed? All this had destroyed their credibility in the end.

Umno members must thank WSJ for exposing about this mystery money. If it wasn’t disclosed, they will not know about this. The price for the truth is hefty, especially if it wasn’t revealed much earlier. A deputy president and vice president lost their jobs because of this.

Now people are asking, who are the donors? Public servants and officials are beholden to the truth and accountable to the public. It took a month for the confirmation of truth to come out; that there was indeed RM2.6 billion worth of money held by the prime minister. Even then, it wasn’t the prime minister who confessed about it.

Will it take another month of silence for the prime minister to reveal who the donor and how the money was spent?

But instead of revealing to the public to end all speculation, the propaganda team asked the opposition to declare their political funding first.

Leadership by example is surely not being applied here. They now are saying all sorts of nonsense:

a) in Islam, a donor must not reveal himself as a sign of piety,

b) the money is a private matter because it was in a personal account,

c) if donor wanted to publicly announced his donation, he would have done it much earlier

d) it is safer for the money to be in a personal account of the party president than any other accounts (but they also do not know how the billions were spent)

e) please add some other nonsense

Is Umno afraid that speculation would end up as the truth? A leader needs to be honest. A political party needs to have integrity. They must lead the way in finding the truth for the public. Not, trying to spew nonsense which ultimately secures nothing but disdain and disgust from the people.

Yes, you want the opposition to be accountable too in revealing about their political funding. But the correct question Umno leaders should ask, which will compare apple to apple with the situation at hand is:

Did DAP’s political funding and donation receive through Lim Kit Siang’s personal bank account?

Only then, the propaganda team can move forward with whatever strategy they have to discredit the opposition. Otherwise, the effort to make opposition parties to reveal their political funding is moot, and ridiculous.

The diversion is unnecessary. Please do not accuse other people of moving goalposts when your own flip flopping attempt to defend is nothing short of absurd. And for brevity purposes, we have not touched on the lame excuses made on 1MDB.

The truth should be a friend, not something you spin just to fit your selected narrative.

Do they know why Anwar Ibrahim can never capture the hearts and minds of the people at large? Because he is surrounded by loyal but dumb followers who could never criticise or pin point anything wrong that he is doing.

For instance, his followers concocted all sorts of nonsense just to defend their leader was not the man in that video which rocked the nation a few years ago.

If Umno wants to emulate this kind of leadership where smart and critical followers are thrown out but loyal yet deaf mute ones are retained, then there can never be any improvement.

The voters are now smart. They are informed via many sources of information and can make up their own minds.

There is a running joke being bandied around which goes like this:

What is the difference between Anwar’s supporters and Najib’s supporters? Nothing. They just like to make fools out of themselves.

It is always better for a leader to speak of truth. The sooner the better. Many scandals have erupted which turned leaders into a laughing stock just because they tried to lie their way out, and their followers did not point out what was wrong.

No wonder people are disgusted.

You might also want to read:

  1. Now I know, a Mandate is a license to do as we please, to Loot and Pillage.
  2. Membalas Rahman Dahlan

#1mdb, #malaysian-corporate-matters

Endless absurdities

We would like to record our appreciation towards Datuk Kadir Jasin and his readers for their concerns and well wishes. We would like to give assurances that everything is alright.

Looking at the current situation and the leadership crisis happening in this country, there is now a general feeling that Malaysians are no longer confident with the leadership in Umno.

We termed it as a leadership crisis because top bosses in Umno were sacked from their jobs just for asking questions and expressing their anxieties.

The justification for the sacking is that criticisms, even to the point of beating tables must be made at the right platform and not in public. But it is ironic indeed to know that the purported speech that caused the sacking was made in an Umno private function – a divisional meeting. The excuse is even more chaotic when the Supreme Council meeting, the most appropriate platform to discuss these concerns was cancelled at the last minute “in order to avoid heated debates”.

Maybe “sweeping everything under the carpet” is Umno’s new de riguer.

We also call it loss of confidence because people who are investigating a crime were also sacked from their jobs and some were arrested for doing their jobs. Furthermore, those heading a parliamentary investigation team were conveniently promoted; resulting in a delay.

Nevermind the fact that a week before the promotion, the former PAC chief said 1MDB probe is much more important and that “he would prefer to stay as the PAC chief and oversee the investigation to its conclusion.

But that was then.

This blog had criticised and highlighted the problems surrounding 1MDB and allegations of billions of money transfered into the personal bank account of the prime minister.

When we asked for accountability and corrective measures to be taken, the opposite seemed to be taken place.

When we suggested that an acting prime minister should have instructed for an independent investigation, the loyalists deemed it as an attempt to overthrow the government. Maybe Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is from the DAP party because should he stepped is as the acting PM, the Barisan Nasional government will fall.

The hogwash that came after just to defend the indefensible were utterly mindblowing. The last straw was when a couple of bankrupts were used to prop up the argument that all problems surrounding 1MDB and personal bank accounts in Ambank rest heavily on what these bankrupts had to say.

When their credibility were tested, the best they could come out with is to look at the message, not the messenger. Basically, they beg the public not to shoot the disgraced messengers.

But all these time, the government had killed off messengers with such glee and impunity. They attacked Tun Dr Mahathir for raising questions, tried to discredit his past tenureship as the prime minister, they killed off the careers of the deputy prime minister and an umno vice president for raising questions and they tried to arrest whistleblowers, investigators and critics.

The highest levels of hypocrisy have been reached.

When WSJ broke the story that billions were credited into personal bank accounts of the prime minister, most cabinet ministers bent over backwards stating that WSJ had made accusations over something that did not exist. They claimed there were no such accounts and no money were banked in.

Their mission to cover up changed from day to day. First the swift codes were wrong, because no PM would be so stupid to get billions of money in his own accounts. Then they say the allegations were just foreigners’ attempt of political sabotage, and lastly, they claim that political funding is legit because past prime ministers have done the same way; vaguely admitting that WSJ’s allegations could be true.

Of course the legality of the political funding was crushed by a former prime minister in his blog today.

If we close our eyes, maybe the problems will go away. Endless possibilities.

If we close our eyes, maybe the problems will go away. Endless possibilities.

And it was indeed revealed by the MACC that there were billions of money in the prime minister’s personal account. Some even went to great lengths that Umno constitution provides the prime minister to have a trustee account under his name. We are not sure which clause they are talking about; when no other members of the supreme council even knew about the existence of that account. Was the opening and closing of the accounts minuted in the meetings? Obviously not. Otherwise the deputy president wouldn’t have been so shocked to hear about the accounts and the amount of money that went in.

Everyday, the justification made have become more and more ridiculous. Some even say the way the prime minister leads the country is similar to the Prophet.

Recently, an Umno supreme council member just declared that if we attack Najib, then that is akin to attacking all muslims in Malaysia. The absurdity is endless.

We are entertained by it all.

This blog has been criticising Malaysian leaders since its first article. We stopped blogging for awhile because people without moral compass will never listen to reason and criticisms. They have charted their own doomed course and the direction of this country. There is nothing more to say to save them.

You might also want to read:

1) RM2.6 billion in Najib’s personal accounts is corrupt money – Din Merican

2) The UMNO mad dogs are out walking under the scorching sun

3) Sah Najib Terima RM2.6 Billion Ke Dalam Akaun Peribadi !! Persoalan Sekarang Salah Atau Tidak?

4) MAKNANYA BENARLAH LAPORAN WSJ, SARAWAK REPORT DAN THE EDGE SELAMA INI…

5) Hooray! MACC Confirms RM2.6 Billion In Personal Accounts

6) Benarkah Deposit RM2.6 Billion Itu Dana Politik ? Jika Benar, Najib Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin

#1mdb, #malaysian-corporate-matters

Selamat Hari Raya Aidifitri 2015

  
Wishing a wonderful Eid Mubarak and a very pleasant Syawal to all Malaysians. 

Take care and be safe during the holidays!

Thank you.

1MDB and the shifting of goalposts

There were many instances when 1MDB and the people involved in it were caught shifting the goalpost. When people argued on a particular issue, their immediate response is to argue on a different issue to defend the original matter which was brought up.

This can be seen when Wall Street Journal showed an alleged evidence that billions of ringgit were credited into the Prime Minister’s private accounts, the immediate response to it is, “the PM have never taken 1MDB fund for personal gain“, instead of issuing a more doubt removal reply of “the PM did not receive such money”.

The early signs of trouble within 1MDB can be traced when it requested a second extension to a loan repayment deadline in early 2014. Imagine a company that could not repay loans in the billions on time. This had caused some noise in the banking system.

The people had been writing about it and raised concerns. But the concerns were not heeded. The more prominent opposition members and a few bloggers had been telling the government for months that there is something seriously wrong with how 1MDB operates. Some even highlighted the problems since 2012.

In late 2014, Tun Dr Mahathir began to write a note of concern on 1MDB in his blog.

Yet for the whole of 2014, the government was saying there is nothing wrong with that company; despite the changing of CEOs, the resignation of directors, the change of auditors, the inability to pay loans on time and the acute cashflow problems.

1MDB even had the audacity to seek another extension back in January 2015, and yet nobody in the government bat an eyelid. In February, the CEO of 1MDB began to reassure the public that there is some cash in their bank statements. But matters went up to a whole new level when it was discovered that the MOF had given 1MDB RM950 million of standby credit to alleviate its financial burden.

The goalpost moved again when in May it was discovered that there weren’t any cash as stated in February, but it was actually paper assets. The poor reporting by 1MDB and MOF about its own cash assets had caused the public to question the government in anger.

In the end, the paper assets were classified as units. What exactly are these units, nobody could answer till now, not even 1MDB.

In May, the whole of Malaysia really began to know the existence of 1MDB when it was exposed that Tabung Haji had bought a land from 1MDB at a price hundreds of times more than 1MDB originally had paid for it.

The furore it caused had received a knee-jerk reaction from the top advisor of 1MDB when he ordered Tabung Haji to resell the land immediately. Tabung Haji’s chairman proudly claimed that they can sell the land within a few week’s time to a ready buyer with an astronomical profit of RM5 million.

But until July, the land has yet to be sold.

1MDB began to be bombarded with all sorts of questions regarding its business model. The apparent lack of governance in its business venture, the sheer inability in servicing their loans, the net loss of approximately RM665 million in their financial year 2014 accounts, and the total absence of common sense in piling up massive debts to buy assets which ultimately had to be paid by selling off those same assets.

In the end, MOF announced debt rationalisation plan for 1MDB which made the public even more confused. 

When investigations kickstarted a few months earlier, 1MDB made a promise that they have been cooperating and had given documents to the authorities but recently when the PAC and the auditor general revealed that 1MDB had not been submitting crucial documents, 1MDB could only defend themselves by saying that they will continue cooperating with the auditors.

Never mind the fact that they had wasted a lot of other people’s time.

The public had a shock of their lives when Wall Street Journal began a series of expose into the Prime Minister’s private accounts. If whistleblowers had not exposed these shenanigans, the public would not have known about it. Transparency was not the order of the day. The government only talked about its virtues when matters were made public.

To digress, in the old days, whistleblowers brought forward confidential information to the media in order to expose any wrongdoing so that when it is made public, the government must order an investigation and there will be no cover ups.

The media will protect the identity of the whistleblowers and stand by the stories they publish by staking their reputation, credibility and liability to prove the authenticity of the information they have obtained.

If at anytime the media feel that the information is suspect, they will not publish them as their credibility will be in ruins. Revealing who the whistleblower is will not make the expose any more credible, otherwise nobody will come out to give any information. And no wrongdoings will ever be made public.

The Watergate scandal was an example where the whistleblowers were not revealed until decades later.

Back to the issue at hand, some of the media in Malaysia seems to be in total opposite of what journalism should be doing when it comes to 1MDB.

For instance, when the wife of the Prime Minister was revealed to allegedly have millions of ringgit in her private accounts, some members of the media began to question the documents exposed. Some even went on a wild goose chase of showing the public that the IC number could be wrong or there is no way the account would have been opened in 1984 as the bank did not exist at that time.

WSJ-NAJIBThe issue was laid to rest when her lawyers themselves admitted that the account belongs to her.

Same goes to the issue of the Prime Minister’s private accounts. Instead of trying to figure out the truth, the media went on a rampage of trying to discredit whether the Prime Minister’s accounts did exist.

In the end, after such useless acts of defending the indefensible, the Attorney General himself confirmed what Wall Street Journal had been stating, that the accounts did exist.

People should not fall prey to the shifting of goalposts. Every statement made must be dissected and read between the lines.

Thank you and Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri, maaf zahir dan batin.

You might also want to read:

1) Nazri defends Rosmah over RM2 million cash deposits

2) How can a ‘housewife’ earn RM2m in cash?

3) Bila 1MDB Tuduh TheStar Sloppy, Tapi Jawapan Yang DiBeri Lebih Sloppiest!

4) How it will all end

5) Going on leave best of 3 options for Najib, says Musa Hitam

#1mdb, #malaysian-corporate-matters

Adakah Perdana Menteri mengubah fokus siasatan?

TERKINI (5:55pm):

Kenyataan muktahir dari Peguam Negara telah menunjukkan bahawa Perdana Menteri sememangnya mempunyai akaun-akaun bank peribadi di dalam AmBank.

SPECIAL TASK FORCE INVESTIGATION RELATING TO ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDS TRANSMITTED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PRIME MINISTER
On 8 July 2015 at 9.40am, the Special Task Force investigating the allegations of funds transmitted to the accounts of the Prime Minister raided the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) office at Menara IMC in Kuala Lumpur. The search of the premises was completed at 6.45 pm.
The Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, informed that the Special Task Force team obtained the materials required for its investigation including the minutes of meetings of the 1MDB Board of Directors, the Minute Book, bank statements and other bank details, reconciliation statements, ledger books, agreements of business and investment dealings, and files on 1MDB’s corporate social responsibility activities. The team also seized several notebook computers.
Regarding the freeze orders issued on 6 July 2015 against six bank accounts,  no bank accounts at AmBank Islamic held by the Prime Minister on that date were frozen because the bank accounts had already been closed on 30 August 2013 and 9 March 2015 respectively. The Special Task Force has obtained bank documents related to these accounts.
The Attorney General emphasized that all investigation documents received by the Attorney General are provided by the Special Task Force. Therefore, there is no issue of the Attorney General using documents published in the Wall Street Journal or elsewhere.
Artikel asal (3.55pm) ———————————

Pada hari Sabtu yang lepas kita telah digemparkan dengan berita bahawa satu pasukan penyiasat telah diarah oleh Peguam Negara untuk menyiasat dakwaan penyaluran dana ke akaun milik YAB Perdana Menteri. Ini berikutan laporan artikel dari Wall Street Journal sehari sebelumnya.

vfd

Kenyataan media dari Peguam Negara

Rakyat semua faham intipati siasatan tersebut kerana Wall Street Journal telah mengatakan bahawa sejumlah wang telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadi milik Perdana Menteri. Wall Street Journal tidak pernah mengatakan bagaimana Perdana Menteri telah menggunakan wang tersebut ataupun telah menyalahgunakannya.

Siasatan Peguam Negara juga menjerumus kepada samada wang tersebut ada disalurkan.

Akan tetapi, setelah beberapa hari, rakyat di sajikan dengan kenyataan Perdana Menteri yang tidak menafikan bahawa ada sejumlah wang telah disalurkan, malah beliau menafikan perkara yang berlainan.

Kenyataan Perdana Menteri adalah seperti berikut: 

1. Saya telah mengarahkan pihak peguam saya menghantar surat kepada Wall Street Journal hari ini bagi meminta pengesahan mengenai laporan surat akhbar tersebut sebelum mengambil tindakan undang-undang (surat tuntutan).

2. Sebagaimana arahan saya, surat peguam tersebut meminta Wall Street Journal mengesahkan pendirian akhbar tersebut berikutan laporan yang telah dibuat menuduh saya menyalahgunakan dana USD700 juta milik 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

3. Peguam saya akan mengambil tindakan selanjutnya selepas mendapat pengesahan dari akhbar tersebut.

4. Siasatan sedang dilakukan oleh Pasukan Petugas Khas untuk menentukan sama ada tuduhan yang dibuat oleh Wall Street Journal bahawa saya telah mengambil dana 1 MDB untuk kepentingan diri sendiri berasas atau tidak. Siasatan mesti mengambil kira kesahihan dokumen yang telah disiarkan bagi menyokong tindakan akhbar tersebut.

5. Meskipun begitu, saya ingin menegaskan sekali lagi bahawa saya tidak pernah mengambil dana 1MDB untuk kepentingan diri sendiri. Tuduhan Wall Street Journal merupakan satu niat jahat yang didokong dan disokong oleh pihak tertentu dalam negara yang bertujuan memaksa saya melepaskan jawatan Perdana Menteri dan Presiden Umno.

Kenyataan di atas telah memperkuatkan lagi tanggapan bahawa wang tersebut sememangnya sudah disalurkan ke dalam akaun beliau, akan tetapi wang tersebut tidak pernah disalah gunakan.

Dan siasatan Pasukan Petugas Khas akan menentukan sama ada tuduhan yang dibuat oleh Wall Street Journal bahawa terdapat wang telah disalurkan dan bukannya menyiasat samada dana 1MDB untuk kepentingan diri sendiri adalah betul atau tidak.

Seperti Peguam Negara sebut di dalam kenyataan beliau di atas, penyiasat cuma akan menyiasat samada terdapat penyaluran wang di dalam akaun Perdana Menteri.

Perdana Menteri secara langsungnya mengatakan bahawa beliau tidak menyalah gunakan wang tersebut dan secara tidak langsung mengiakan kewujudan penyaluran wang ke dalam akaun beliau.

Orang ramai yang membaca kenyataan Perdana Menteri di atas berasa amat pelik. Ini boleh dibaca di laman laman sosial sejurus selepas kenyataan di atas dimuat naik ke dalam blog Perdana Menteri.

Mengapa Perdana Menteri tidak menafikan kewujudan wang tersebut? Mengapa tidak terus berkata: “Saya tidak menerima sebarang wang.” Noktah.

Tindakan Perdana Menteri menafikan perkara yang berlainan juga mendapat perhatian Timbalan Presiden PAS di mana ia mengundang lebih banyak pertanyaan.

Oleh itu, sebarang penafian bahawa WSJ sudah menyiarkan dokumen palsu dan penafian bahawa tidak mungkin Perdana Menteri menerima wang ke dalam akaun peribadinya adalah tidak betul! Dan nampaknya ini diakui oleh Perdana Menteri sendiri.

yes

yes2

Amat malang sekali apabila kenyataan Perdana Menteri tidak menenangkan sebarang syak wasangka dari masyarakat. Malah, menimbulkan lagi banyak persoalan.

Soalan sebenar, adakah betul Perdana Menteri menerima sejumlah wang yang banyak di dalam akaun peribadi beliau seperti yang di dakwa oleh WSJ? Ya atau tidak.

#1mdb

Did Najib’s lawyers send the most pathetic legal letter to WSJ?

We came across this news from an unverified source. But for the sake of entertainment, let’s just humour this piece of news and see what it entails.

It seems that the Prime Minister last night had instructed his lawyers to send a letter of demand to Wall Street Journal.

But it was preceded by a press release by the lawyers which basically detailing out the difficulty of this legal matter. They ironed out a couple of problems before they will decide what kind of action they will take.

What this means, the press release is begging the public to understand that this matter takes time, and the exercise could possibly be a waste of time. Political-wise, they just want to buy some time for their client. To show that some action is being taken, despite some allegations that their client do not have the courage to actually do anything.

Below is the press release:

PRESS RELEASE

A Wall street Journal had published an article dated 3rd July 2015, implicating our client Datuk Seri Najib. Immediately, our client had instructed us, Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak, to scrutinize the said article. The article is tainted with numerous allegations against our client which involved several companies and transactions.

Combing through the said article, we have concluded that the language is intentionally or otherwise has made reference to several facts and companies which are vaguely described. Reference is made to the said article wherein it has been stated that our client had been directly probed into 1MDB, however contents of the article refers to indirect transactions where our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companies. A clear contradiction which requires further clarification.

This article by WSJ was issued, published and circulated through WSJ web portal www.wsj.com . Firstly, we have been instructed to identify the parties involved in the authorship, distribution and publishing, for the purpose of naming the appropriate parties in any potential actions which requires deliberation and research as the article does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents.

Secondly, another issue of concern is, jurisdictional issues of which the publication originates from United States of America and accessible worldwide. We have been also instructed that a local presence of WSJ is also available and we are pursuing further clarification and details on this matter.

Since the article involves several parties, we have also been instructed to consider a joint action or an action against, in the event evidence shows a conspiracy against our client. Kindly note that the companies named as conspirators with our client, in the article are; International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd.

They actually want to know if WSJ is saying that IPIC, Tanore, SRC and Ihsan Perdana are conspiring against Najib Razak. Well, if money went through those companies’ accounts before it end up in the PM’s bank accounts, then will the lawyers sue those companies? Maybe they should just personally ask those companies since the PM are friends with the people in those companies! Mind-boggling.

Several names of companies or organizations had only been referred to as the related companies or companies belonging to certain organizations or companies, and also the sources or destinations or the alleged transactions has not been disclosedThis in itself either intentionally or otherwise has caused further identification of facts been required.

Once we have identified the parties, the jurisdiction, and the involvement of conspirators or are they merely parties which also had been innocently imputed in the article, we can then proceed to address the third issue.

Can’t the lawyers just ask those companies if they really conspired against the PM? This press release is getting ridiculous. By the way, in the actual letter to WSJ below, the lawyers did not even ask WSJ about this. Maybe they forgot to put it in.

The third issue is to tackle all possible or plausible legal remedies of which our client shall be given advise on an action of defamation, further tortuous actions and remedies including any statutory violations by WSJ and related companies and (if any) conspirers.

This is not a straightforward legal action due to the national and international imputations. We have been instructed to identify facts and lay full facts, before our client, is able to proceed with further instructions.

The purpose of clear explanation is to avoid unnecessary objections by WSJ on the imputations that are made. Once our client has obtained all necessary facts and the position of WSJ is ascertained, we have strict instructions to immediately exhaust legal avenues and remedies.

Yours faithfully,

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & AISHA MUBARAK 

WAN AZMIR BIN WAN MAJID

We are actually amazed that the lawyers would even issue such press release. It really reflects on their incompetency of the whole matter. But of course, incompetency breeds more incompetencies as the letter of demand below shows:

The letter from Najib’s lawyers to Wall Street Journal:

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC

ARTICLES WRITTEN BY SIMON CLARK AND TOM WRIGHT IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL CONCERNING YAB DATO’ SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAK ENTITLED “MALAYSIA LEADER’S ACCOUNTS PROBED” PUBLISHED ON 2ND JULY 2015 AND “SCANDAL IN MALAYSIA” PUBLISHED ON 6TH JULY 2015  (“ THE ARTICLES”)

We act for the Right Honourable Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his personal capacity.

We refer to the Articles dated 2nd July 2015 and 6th July 2015 in your Wall Street Journal which, we state, contains a plethora of convoluted, scurrilous and vague allegations against our client.

What exactly are vague allegations? Is it an allegation or not? Would it be the same with a little bit pregnant but not pregnant? An allegation is an allegation. You cannot sue someone with a vague allegation. How could a vague allegation be scurrilous?

In the circumstances, we are instructed by our Client to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position as taken in the Articles that our Client misappropriated nearly USD 700 million from 1Malaysia Development Berhad?

Now they want WSJ to confirm if the USD700 million was misappropriated by Najib Razak. WSJ can just easily tell them to just ask their Client since the money was banked in into his account. The WSJ article did state that money was channeled into his bank accounts but they do not know what happened to it, or how it was used. It’s laughable to ask for confirmation because it shows that the lawyers did not read those articles thoroughly. 

We are instructed to procure your position because the Articles collectively suggest that you are unsure of “the original source of the money and what happened to the money” whilst on the other hand, the general gist of the Articles create a clear impression that our Client has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Precisely as their article had said, that WSJ is unsure as to where the money came from and what happened to it. We can predict what WSJ would have replied regarding their position; that they have sighted the documents and that huge sums of money have been transferred into the PM’s personal bank accounts (which the PM never denied). The lawyers just wanted WSJ to confirm and say that Najib had swindled the money, which WSJ definitely will reply – “Go ask your client if indeed he misappropriated it, the money wasn’t transferred into our accounts!”. The lawyers really do not have anything more concrete than this to go by.

In the circumstance and in the interests of our Client, we would expect a Newspaper of your international standing and reputation to state unequivocally and with clarity as to whether it is your contention that our Client misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad. You will no doubt appreciate the seriousness of the allegations made against our Client in the said Articles and this confirmation is sought to enable us to advise our Client on the appropriate legal recourse he can take to seek redress in relation to the publication of these Articles.

Why should WSJ state anything other than what they had published in their articles? Only when WSJ chose to state that yes, Najib misappropriated the money, they will take legal action.

Maybe the lawyers need to discern that the allegations WSJ made is – nearly USD700 million was pumped in into Najib Razak’s accounts. That is all. The most ironic thing  is, the lawyers did not demand WSJ to explain this, because by now all sundry know that the PM never deny that the money was definitely in his accounts.

We demand a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof and please let us know whether you have appointed solicitors in Malaysia to accept service of legal proceedings on your behalf and on behalf of the reporters who wrote the Articles in the event that legal proceeding become necessary.

Basically the lawyers demand WSJ to confess something they never alleged so that Najib Razak can show the world he is doing something. This letter is a farce, made by a farcical team of lawyers who could only concoct a lousy, pathetic letter just to get some laughs from the whole world. WSJ does not even have to reply, because Najib’s lawyers really have nothing to sue them about. 

We hereby reserve all our Client’s rights in this matter.

If this is the gold standard in the administration, no wonder there is not much hope for an intelligent leadership. Please tell us this letter wasn’t actually sent to WSJ. It will really be embarrassing for the country if it did. Thank you.

 
WSJ1

WSJ2

facepalm

You might also want to read:

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

2) Did Petrosaudi swindle 1MDB and steal our money?

3) The chronology of 1MDB’s suspicious joint venture

4) Bekerja keras melindungi penyelewengan 1MDB

5) Penyelewengan ketara 1MDB

#1mdb