Dr Tan Seng Giaw has accused WSJ making wild and baseless allegations

1Malaysia a cheap publicity and propaganda."

Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi has has strongly denied  all the WSJ charges  and Najib taking money from 1MDB for personal gain -A large portion of the funds – US$681 million – were transferred into Najib’s accounts ahead of the general election in May 2013, leading to claims of election buying. Opposition party PKR has since filed a suit against Najib for breach of election law. -
The alleged draft charge sheet against Najib was reported by whistle-blower website Sarawak Report and Malaysiakini and was in relation to a former 1MDB subsidiary, SRC International, which is now owned by the Finance Ministry
Apandi should also be asked to explain why he rejected Bank Negara’s recommendations for prosecution against 1MDB for alleged breach of financial laws.
The bipartisan PAC should also uncover the identity of the donor or donors of the RM2.6 billion to Najib, as well as how the funds were spent.

The Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) investigation on 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) will be temporarily suspended as Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed is stepping down as chairman after his appointment as deputy home minister.probe panel head is 'drama at behest of Najib little desire or ability on the part of anyone to change things dramatically. Power is still used essentially an extractive instrument, whoever might be in power. Corruption has reduced at the top, but in an everyday sense, little has changed. administratively, some bureaucrats come on time, but structurally the trade-off between transparency and efficiency has not been resolved.

Is change of a meaningful kind at all possible in Malaysia, or can only such one-off gestures, more spectacular than substantive, be pulled off? Is the gravitational force exerted by the scale and complexity of the Malaysia's reality such that it resists change at an institutional level? Is there something inexorable and deep in the way the polity functions, that makes change a virtual impossibility? Are the dysfunctions that we see across the political ecology a necessary part of its construction and do they help bind it together?

PAC deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw  has accused WSJ of making wild and baseless allegations without any proof. had been told to submit the evidence on 1MDB to Public Accounts Committee (PAC) so it could follow up with the relevant parties at the hearing of the state-owned strategic fund.

Is change of a meaningful kind at all possible in Malaysia, or can only such one-off gestures, more spectacular than substantive, be pulled off? Is the gravitational force exerted by the scale and complexity of theMalaysia's reality such that it resists change at an institutional level? Is there something inexorable and deep in the way the polity functions, that makes change a virtual impossibility? Are the dysfunctions that we see across the political ecology a necessary part of its construction and do they help bind it together?

The moment an investigation file is opened, investigations are completed and the MACC hands the file over to the A-G, then their recommendation will be to pursue the case in court. ONLY then is it up to the A-G to decide whether to prosecute  the case or not. Yes the A-G has the final say whether to charge the person in Court or to declare an NFA (No further action).

There aren’t many winners in the political landscape.Najib is going slowly over a cliff carrying with it any hope that Malaysia can ever rely on the Parliament for anything again in the future. The party has nothing to offer either by way of new ideas nor does it have a leadership that can connect to the mood of the day.  outweighed its long-term interests.

1Malaysia Development Bhd has criticised the Wall Street Journal for using confidential information from a parliamentary committee probe, which is yet to be presented to Parliament.

1MDB has been the subject of investigation by, among others, the police, Bank Negara, the Auditor-General's Office, and the Public Accounts Committee, as well as several other agencies abroad.

1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), the panel’s new chief said.

Datuk Hasan Arifin did not, however, explain the reason for the decision.

“It’s not necessary… not necessary,” he told reporters today when asked when Najib would be called.

“Janganlah… saya pun mahu cari makan juga,” he then said when repeatedly asked for answer.

[Translation: Don’t la.. I need to make a living too]

"We are shocked that a reputable publisher such as the Wall Street Journal would make use of clearly confidential information in its reporting.

The principal Najib's achievement ,  if you can call it that, of 2015, is to make us realistic about what kind of change is possible in Malaysia. Through the year, the hope of transformational change, be it from any quarter, has been systematically downsized. Most key players on the national political scene have witnessed a diminution of his ability to bring about any significant change. There has been a grand canceling out of ambition, as we crawl back into the familiar cloistered space where every bit of change has to be eked out of a diabolically recalcitrant system.For the ruling government, the hope of sweeping change has gone on a crash diet, and now appears in a svelte avatar, where grand slogans like ‘acche din’ have been resized to fit the current reality. The combination of its own timidity and the stubborn stonewalling also read this themalaybusinesstribune: Why (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali ..

Reporters had earlier askepossibility.d Hasan to confirm if the prime minister would be called in for questioning in the committee’s probe on the state-owned firm, pointing out that his predecessor Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed had previously not ruled out the 

We refer specifically to the WSJ confirming it has reviewed a 'transcript of the proceedings', from a parliamentary committee probing 1MDB, of which the only possible source is the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearings on 1MDB.

.Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd had told the board that it has received e-mails and letters alleging "financial reporting fraud" in the fund's joint venture with PetroSaudi International, the changing of its previous auditors, and the overpayment for 1MDB's power assets.

Nur Jazlan appointmemt of minister is bribe

 Nur Jazlan said the RM2.4bil in equity is a result of total revaluation of RM5bil on the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) and Bandar Malaysia land parcels, which is now carried at RM7.1bil on the balance sheet. He pointed out that previous accounts had shown revaluation gains of RM897mil in 2014, RM2.74bil in 2013, RM570mil in 2012 and RM827mil in 2011.

Nur Jazlan, a trained accountant who had raised concerns over the1MDB, had raised a number of issues surrounding the 2014 audited accounts of 1MDB. The accounts were audited by Deloitte.

The audited accounts of 1MDB had raised a number of questions. Resignations by KPMG and Ernst & Young as auditors had compounded the intrigue over the state of accounts of the strategic investment company.

“This shows that had it not had substantial revaluations of these two tracts of land that were injected at attractive valuations, it would be carrying a negative equity of RM2.6bil as of March 31, 2014,” he said.

He said the financial state of 1MDB was also a major concern, as the net cash from operating activities was RM69mil and finance costs paid was RM2.3bil.

Another issue from the 2014 accounts was the available for sale investments that total RM13.38bil of the RM51.4bil of total assets.

“This is a very large number if reduced/impaired with no corresponding reduction in debt or liabilities. By its own admission, RM4.03bil had been redeemed and utilised during the course of 2014 post-accounts for interest payment, working capital and payments to Aabar Investments PJSC as refundable deposits to extinguish an options agreement,” he said.

He said there have been a number of articles expressing concern on the value of the Penang and Klang tracts of land and any impairment on the land would impact on the balance sheet of 1MDB.

“In summary, the company will only remain in positive equity if it continues to revalue or generate profit from the sale of tracts of land in TRX and Bandar Malaysia,” he said, adding that there was no doubt that those tracts of land were attractive and would generate gains.

“But it doesn’t detract from all other business lines and investments being significantly negative or questionable as to their strength and valuation,” he said.

“Whilst no investment company can have a 100% gain record, an investment company that’s solely relying on these two prime properties gifted to it at a cheap cost to plug the hole from high interest expense due to excessive or reckless leverage, questionable fees and funky guarantee/options structures with Middle East entities that reduce net proceeds in every funding exercise, and over RM13bil of available for sale investments of questionable quality needs a detailed forensic probe,” he said.

The report added that based on the minutes of an earlier meeting on February that year, 1MDB's auditor Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd had told the board that it has received e-mails and letters alleging "financial reporting fraud" in the fund's joint venture with PetroSaudi International, the changing of its previous auditors  previous auditors KPMG and Ernst & Young, and the overpayment for 1MDB's power assets.The fund reported a net loss of around US$200 million (RM859 million) in the year to March 31, 2014, the last available results. Deloitte declined to comment,

“Why did the management and the board, in its wisdom, allow an investment holding company with no access to free cashflows service its debt?”

• 
  
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

1MDB further stated that WSJ, in the article relating to US$1.4bil (S$1.98bil) of payments made by 1MDB, made no mention of its source or provide any proof of the unproven allegations it is making, thereby seriously discrediting its sensationalist story.

"1MDB cannot speak on behalf of Aabar or IPIC nor can we comment on the accounting arrangements of third parties.

"What we can confirm is that the 1MDB audited financial statements clearly describe the amount and purpose of the payments, which for the avoidance of doubt, is structured as a deposit (i.e. a financial asset belonging to 1MDB and not an expense to 1MDB).

"Secondly, based on those payments, we can confirm that IPIC did provide and continues to provide, guarantees for the principal and interest of 2 x US$1.75bil bonds issued by 1MDB, with a total principal and interest amount of approximately US$5.5bil.

"Thirdly, we can confirm that 1MDB auditors, Deloitte, made specific and detailed enquiries on these payments prior to signing off on the 1MDB audited accounts.

"Fourthly, Deloitte has strongly defended its methodology and audit process of 1MDB at the PAC hearings, a bipartisan select committee of the Malaysian Parliament. Accordingly, the Wall Street Journal is wrong to state "it isn't clear what happened to the funds", at least not from a 1MDB perspective," it said.

WSJ reported that the US$1.4bil (RM6.03bil) that 1MDB claimed to have paid to a United Arab Emirates state investment vehicle had allegedly gone missing.

It was reported that sources said UAE are asking questions on the US$1.4bil which is said to have never reached their investment fund, the IPIC.

-