Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Justice’ for Najib is just political farce

Datuk Seri Najib Razak, fresh from being declared innocent a day earlier in the RM2.6 billion 'donation' saga, leaves the Parliament building today. Former leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has described the decision by the A-G yesterday as a 'judgment'. – AFP pic, January 27, 2016.

Mohamed Apandi Ali should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape of Najib Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”?  Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos.  Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the secular right of an elected Parliament.A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. When Najib was smuggled out to safety, the authority of  abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted Mohamed Apandi Ali Unsurprisingly, Najib sneered at the establishment that knelt before him; contempt is the umbilical chord of Mohamed Apandi Ali. Najib publicly, even proudly, contemptuous of those who did not have the courage to interrupt his freedom  had twigged on to a basic truth that the law is a malleable reality for those who are “well-connected” in Malaysia.  How could Najib have respect for Malaysia’s law when those entrusted with its sanctity had defiled it?

When clever people come to power they often make a simple mistake. They think the rest of us are fools.Our Federal Constitution envisages that the Attorney-General will always be a man or woman of unquestionable integrity.  A fearless person who is honest and will uphold the Constitution (please stop laughing – this is a serious matter).

an indelible stain on Malaysia's political and legal systems Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity;

Why didn’t the new A-G advise the PM to go on leave pending the outcome of the investigations?  Surely justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done as well. So as the Legal Advisor to the government, why didnt the new A’-G tell the PM who is under investigations to go on leave?
Looking at all these strange omissions and commissions in such a short space of time (in just about three months) by this brand new, crawled-out-of-the-darkness A-G,  it is no surprise then that the public has little faith in him. 

 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?
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

Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi has has strongly denied  all the WSJ charges  
The brand new A-G has been revived and brought to life again at the age of 65 when most retirees begin to forget the details of their past careers.The new A-G was brought in after the incumbent Tan Sri Gani Patail was unceremoniously removed  under the most suspicious circumstances and without following normal procedures. The smoke screen thought up in July was that Gani Patail was too sick to perform his duties. Well they forgot to ask Gani Patail about how sick he was because Gani is still walking, talking and doing all the usual things.
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:
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 1MDBHere 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 Continue reading below

No comments:

Post a Comment