A crime is a crime. If we are required to ‘close one eye’ or ‘close both eyes’ towards crime, then why have laws in the first place? Why do we need the Police, the Courts or the AG? Just disband the Police, the Courts and let the AG go back to being in goodly spirits Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar (pic, left), the portal reportedthat an article published in Malaysia Today last week, contained serious allegations against prominent personalitiese alleged by extension, on the ebullient , irrepressible, irreverent the focus back on the autonomy,functioning and on legal structure of Police and other investigative agencies and even government’s prosecuting institutions. As is usual in such instances, the hapless investigating agency will be painted as the hand maiden of the ruling party, even when in reality that may not be the case, by those politicians who are the targets of its investigation., while we all know of big-ticket corruption We have finally figured that politics is far too important to be left to thugs, scoundrels, scamps and scallywags.If all else fails, UMNO has one last option. said Mahathir you’ve underestimated the power of our enforcement bodies like Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar to milk any order to their advantage, enforcement agencies who have the confidence of the people and are not seen as purchasable commodity
No one can challenge the attorney-general’s (A-G) decision that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had not committed any wrongdoing in the RM2.6 billion donation and SRC International Sdn Bhd cases, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said todayPrime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak may have stayed on the right side of the law over his RM2.6 billion donation but he is unlikely to win over the court of public opinion, political analysts said, as his exoneration is tainted with signs of political interference.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali’s (pic, left) announcement
that Najib was free of criminal wrongdoing in receiving funds to his private bank accounts and over a RM4 billion loan to Finance Ministry-owned SRC International Sdn Bhd will not help the prime minister regain public trust, they said.
Further, the A-G’s explanation yesterday that Najib had returned the money given to him before the 13th general election in May 2013, does not add up as US$61 million has still not been accounted for, one analyst, Dr Lim Teck Ghee said.
The trust deficit would also likely carry on till the next general election slated in 2018 but by then it could also be a non-issue due to the short memories of Malaysian voters, analysts added. Incredulity and interference One of the main problems with making sense of the two scandals, especially the RM2.6 billion donation, was how “unbelievable” it all was from the very beginning, political scientist Dr James Chin (pic, below-right), of Tasmania University in Australia, said. .
The incredulity stems from how the Najib administration responded to the allegation that RM2.6 billion flowed into Najib’s personal bank accounts.
“The majority of the people don’t believe how anyone could have given him RM2.6 billion. (If it were RM2.6 million) we can still give him the benefit of the doubt, but who in their right mind would just donate RM2.6 billion?” Chin told The Malaysian Insider.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had confirmed on August 3 that the money was a political donation from the Middle East.
But this admission was only made almost one month after The Wall Street Journal first reported
on July 2 last year about the flow of funds into Najib’s personal accounts.
The WSJ’s report was based on documents leaked by Malaysian investigators probing Najib’s brainchild, state-owned investment firm 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
And only yesterday – six months down the road – Apandi identified the donor
as “the Saudi royal family” and said that Najib had returned US$620 million, out of the US$681 million given, in August 2013.
This raises the question of where US$61 million had gone to.
“It is difficult to accept this or any other explanation. The whole story does not make sense. Neither do the details add up,” Lim said.
Even if people were to buy Apandi’s explanation, there is still the question as to whether Malaysians would be comfortable with a foreign power being involved in domestic politics, he added.
Another main problem was the credibility of the investigation itself.
Worse still, MACC officers
were transferred and investigated by police supposedly for leaking information. These transfers were later rescinded
due to public pressure.
“We have had so many unanswered questions as well as attempts to kill off the investigation rather than prompt the full disclosure right from the beginning.
“The public will view the A-G’s decision as another cover up effort,” Lim said.
Will voters remember?
Last night, hours after Apandi’s announcement, Najib called the whole saga
an “unnecessary distraction” and urged Malaysians to “move on”.
This leads to the ultimate question – whether the trust deficit will in the end, sink him and the ruling Barisan Nasional in 2018.
Tasmania University’s Chin does not believe that the trust deficit will lead to political consequences nor will it affect support for the ruling coalition in the next general election.
“If Najib can clear away these legal allegations and shut down 1MDB, all these scandals would be a non-issue by 2018,” Chin said.
Lim agrees that the public has a short term memory but argued that support among the urban electorate was still lost.
Wan Saiful Wan Jan (pic, left) of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) thinks the public’s short-term memory is arguable as the issue cannot be so easily pushed away.
This is because if Najib admitted getting RM2.6 billion in donations in 2013, the question in 2018 will be how much he received for the 14th general election, said Wan Saiful.
“This decision (by the AG) is a no-win situation for Najib. The case may be closed but to the public, it is not.”
The new Attorney General (AG)Mohamed Apandi may by now be wishing he had not taken the job.It is entirely within the logic of turbulent that a dream run should be interrupted by a wake-up call. It might be pertinent to note, in this context, that dreams are best shaped into reality with the help of daylight. Among the dangers of darkness is that it obscures the bumps on that twisting road to power misuse regeneration.
Najib said to be negotiating for safe passage and stolen loot
Since his appointment, the new A-G has omitted and committed many things, almost all of which appear more and more strange to the Malaysian public. Note the following: Just like MACC will submit their investigation papers to the new A-G soon, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) also submitted their investigation papers to the new AG with a very strong and made-known-to-the-public recommendation that the A-G should prosecute 1MDB for certain crimes. The A-G acted quite predictably. The Governor of BNM made appeals that the case be prosecuted and yet the answer was the same.
The new A-G then held an unprecedented Press ‘conference’ where he read a prepared statement (he did not say prepared by whom) then promptly left the room without taking any questions from the Press whom he had summoned.The A-G did charge Khairuddin and his lawyer, Matthias Chang under the SOSMA for lodging police reports against 1MDB. Here the new A-G again bungled because there is a proviso under the Penal Code to deal with the crime of making of “false Police Reports”. Perhaps to avoid exactly that, Khairudin employed the services of a lawyer to make sure his Police report was not a false report. But Khairudin’s lawyer was also arrested and charged. Strangely (this is where the new AG bungled). Khairudin and his lawyer were never charged with making a false Police report. Instead the new AG charged them with ‘economic sabotage’ under SOSMA. Then the Court threw out their 28 day remand and Khairuddin and his lawyer have been freed.
The new A-G then withdrew the case against that NFC fellow (the husband of the Wanita leader who has pledged her support to the PM) while his trial was already being conducted in Court. The A-G withdrew the case based on a letter written to him by the defense counsel.
.Back to the 1MDB matter, the new A-G did say that he had advised the PM to give a statement to the MACC. Then he said that he also told the MACC to “complete their investigations by December 2015″. Isn’t this considered interfering with the investigations? Isn”t it an offence to interfere with an official investigation? The MACC is an independent body. If the AG gave instructions to the MACC to wrap up their investigations by December 2015, the public will question if he also gave the MACC other instructions?
When aftershocks trembled through after No charges against PM, SRC and RM2.6b cases closed with vested interest split opens up a Pandora’s box Complacency is a criminal offence in public life these cases are not tried in a court of law, they will instead be tried in instead was tried in the court of Apandi Ali politically ambitious attorneys general has a power to defend the prime minister Apandi cleared Najib of any criminal wrongdoing, into the RM2.6 billion channelled into the prime minister’s bank accounts and into the Finance Ministry-owned firm SRC International Sdn Bhd.The A-G said that after six months of investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), he found there was “insufficient evidence” to implicate the prime minister.“Based on facts and evidence, no criminal offences have been committed by the PM in relation to three investigation papers.The three papers are one on the RM2.6 billion donation and two on SRC International which had taken a RM4 billion loan from the Retirement Fund Inc or KWAP.
Apandi also cleared Najib of any wrongdoing in relation to SRC International. whether there had been a conflict of interest That decision is in fact a judgment. The A-G is both judge and prosecutor That in itself is an injustice. these cases are not tried in a court of law, instead be tried in the court of Apandi Ali the roles of judge and prosecutor when the attorney-general cleared the prime minister of wrongdoing after huge sums of money was found in his personal bank accounts.Dr Mahathir also questioned how the balance of US$620 million or RM2.03 billion was returned to the Saudis. “How and when was this done? We are told the balance is frozen by Singapore. Can Singapore explain the unfreezing and the delivery back to the Saudis? Or does Singapore also believe in the free gift story, the letter and the Saudi admission?” “Singapore is a financial centre. Can it be so gullible?”
According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) today, the two ministries have declined to comment on attorney-general Mohd Apandi Ali’s statement yesterday, but said they have no information about such a donation, which would have been unprecedented.Saudi Arabia’s finance and foreign affairs ministries are in the dark about the supposed donation from the Saudi royal family to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.However, an unnamed source reportedly claimed that the money came from the late Saudi King Abdullah (photo), who reigned until he passed away last year.According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) today, the two ministries have declined to comment on attorney-general Mohd Apandi Ali’s statement yesterday, but said they have no information about such a donation, which would have been unprecedented.
“A Saudi government official, while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor’s statement, said the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented.“Representatives of the royal family couldn’t be reached for comment,” the WSJ report says.A spokesperson for the Saudi government told the Sydney Morning Herald that the government is investigating the matter.Separately, the BBC quoted an unnamed source claiming that the money came from Abdullah, to help Najib win the 2013 general election.It said the source, who is reportedly well-placed and has requested anonymity, claimed that the money was drawn from Abdullah’s personal finances, as well as state coffers.“The purpose of the donation was simple, said the Saudi source – it was to help Mr Najib and his coalition win the election, employing a strategic communications team with international experience, focusing on the province of Sarawak, and funding social programmes through party campaigning.“But why should the Saudis care about an election in a non-Arab country more than 6,000km (3,700 miles) away? The answer, the source said, lay in their concerns over the rising power of the Muslim Brotherhood, which they consider a terrorist organisation.“The Saudis were already upset at events in Egypt, where President Mohammed Morsi was busy consolidating the Brotherhood’s hold on the country,” the report said.
The report explained that the opposition alliance at the time, Pakatan Rakyat, included PAS, whose founders were inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood.It noted that this was despite there is little evidence that the brotherhood has much support in Malaysia.’International investigators don’t believe’Yesterday, Apandi cleared Najib of corruption, basing his decision on the investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).Among others, Apandi (photo) said Najib’s RM2.6 billion donation in 2013 came from the Saudi royal family, and of this sum, RM2.03 billion was not used and had been returned.The timing of the donation was just ahead of the 13th general election, and was during Abdullah’s reign.However, WSJ in its report said some international investigators do not believe this to be the case.
“The US Federal Bureau of Investigation and other government agencies from outside Malaysia continue to investigate the transfer.“Some international investigators don’t believe the nearly US$700 million came from Saudi Arabia, according to a person familiar with the inquiries,” the report says.The report also quoted a former political analyst at the Saudi Embassy in Washington as saying that the idea that the Saudi royalty would donate the vast sum to a personal bank account, instead of a government institution, is “suspect”.“The notion that the Saudi ‘royals’ would ‘donate’ hundreds of millions of dollars to a foreign leader, as opposed to a government institution, struck me as suspect, to say the least,” the analyst, Fahad Nazer, is reported as saying.
However, the BBC’s Saudi source reportedly said there is nothing unusual about the donation.He said Jordan, Morocco, Egypt and Sudan have all been multi-hundred-million dollar beneficiaries of Saudi royal funds.”There is nothing unusual about this donation to Malaysia. It is very similar to how the Saudis operate in a number of countries,” he was quoted as saying