Monday, February 8, 2016

Case closed does justice matter

A message went out from  Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali office: you provoke us at your peril, no matter what the collateral damage. We play piped music before one trapped cobra and call it an opera. Then we fall asleep at our own show.It is both easy and pointless to blame the government. Every government keeps a thermometer in its holster and calibrates its decibel levels according to ground temperature. If it’s warm, it will blow hot,Our Malaysian response to a scandalous mess is neat and categorised. Cash and sex are the north and south pole of mass interest, each with a sprawling magnetic field. We divide the hemispheres with the equator of logic. Cash and corruption are the preserve of politics. Sex is the province of glamour. We refuse to recognise any cross-over evidence
Image result for Rosmah and Taek Jho Low

Why we Malaysians are such suckers for all sorts of conmen Is Malaysia going to pieces?
 a trauma turns into a struggle between anger and amnesia. It is a no-contest. Amnesia wins every time.explains the callous indifference to the perpetrators of crime evasion was prelude to escape local wrath. Over time, even the noise has become a passing perfunctoryThe ebb from outrage to rage, its decline to umbrage, and then a drift to amnesia is the narrative of the 12 months Our unstated reason has been that action against Najib,  new media. has done some moving reportage of in the last few days. It would be interesting to find out, possibly through market research, whether the readers of the nation’s most powerful newspaper have been moved at all.

the Swiss also tell us that there is misappropriation of money. All of these are linked with 1MDB and invariable to one man, the chief fundraiser, and with his private bank accounts. The PM has a credibility deficit as do you, Mr AG.there is a deficiency in our law.disputed that might argue that there is no law that says that the receipt of a donation from a foreign source is illegal. The motive of the “donation” is definitely important if the recipient is the PM.By receiving such a huge sum will certainly make the PM feel obliged to the donor, and what the donor wants in return can be detrimental to the interest of the country.No one gives such huge sum for nothing and this is the reason why the people want to know the motive of the “donation”.Apandi, your answer is naive. If a person has billions, certainly there is no problem for him to give away RM2.6 billion, but it is certainly a big problem if the recipient is a PM, regardless of its purpose
 have to accept that Arabia is the source of various fables, from Ali Baba and quite deservedly the Forty Thieves to Sinbad the Sailor to The Arabian Nights.

But now,Malaysin will be impressed and no doubt titillated to learn that you, without the least shame, guilt, and self-respect, are the author of the latest tale of wonder.under that Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act “gratification” means “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”.It is clear that donation comes under the meaning of gratification as defined by the Act. To dismiss it as easily as you did makes you look incompetent.

 ALSO READ THIS Apandi, harsher laws will protect me from journalists

When Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali determine the state of law the real cost of a bribe
 a traffic cop in the fairy-tale town of Swat had booked a car speeding through its bazaar, NATO troops could have left Pakistan by 2003, Iraq might have escaped NATO’s invasion, Barack Obama would probably be an unknown Senator from Chicago and George Bush Junior’s presidential library in Texas would certainly have something to cheer about. But, according to Maryam, her husband Ibrahim al-Kuwaiti “quickly settled the matter”, and the bribed Swat cop never realized he had just let Osama bin Laden escape. Maryam was giving evidence before the Justice Javed Iqbal commission, set up to enquire into the events of 2 May 2011, when US Navy Seals flew three hours into Pak territory, found and killed Osama. Nothing works on our great subcontinent better than instant cash. Al-Kuwati, Osama’s most trust aide, knew that. This is the kind of authentic detail which makes a fabulous story so entirely believable.
Who’s the RM2.6b Saudi prince?
In the great toss-up between perception and evidence, the former generally wins. Conventional wisdom, for instance,Apandi says donations are not illegal under Malaysian law. Corruption is better understood with a scan below the surface. Tilt the perspective on what seems an obvious fact, and the picture changes to startling effect.  has made a dream debut as Najib's sidekick  think back to the start of much play of an opinion poll, done by his associate in the open. His message was unambiguous — he is in the game for governance, not maverick thrills, and he was taken seriously by voters.

“Under Article 145 (3) of the Federal constitution, the A-G has power only to institute, conduct and discontinue any (criminal) proceedings, but has no authority to order any investigation agency to close its investigation papers.

“This is a case of public importance that has attracted worldwide attention. The AG must help the MACC to collect evidence as the source of the fund is outside Malaysia,” said Abu Talib.
 request Swiss AG to close 1MDB case

between March and April 2013, RM2.6 billion was wired into PM Najib Razak's personal account.

That is considered an income and not a political donation as political donations have to go through a registered political party and not under anyone's personal account.

Secondly, between March/April 2013 and the time that the bulk of the money was supposedly returned in August 2013, Najib would have earned interest. That is an income that could be taxable.

Thirdly, as US$61 million (RM186 million) is still not returned, this again is an income that Najib could have to pay tax on.

Fourthly, is there no law in this country that prohibits foreigners transmitting absurd amounts of money into the personal account of the sitting PM of Malaysia? Isn't this a subject of national security?

Fifthly, what on earth was Bank Negara and its governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz doing in this period?

And if money had entered into Najib's personal account, that money is officially considered Najib's and will no longer be the property of the late Saudi king's son (unless he has any legal document to prove it was a loan and needs to be returned).

So Najib cannot be considered to be 'returning' the money to him. As a matter of fact, Najib can be questioned for making a payment to a foreigner (altogether another matter of national security concern).

Was the amount wired officially? Does Bank Negara have a legal account of it being wired? Was bank charges made by Najib to wire this money across?

For us, just to transmit a measly RM1,000 to Indonesia for our maids, we are instructed to fill up details of our address, occupation, MyKad number, contact number, etc, etc.

Can the banks/Bank Negara provide us these details of how Najib made the payment to this Saudi prince in August 2013?

Since attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali has claimed that it is one of Saudi king’s son who ‘donated’ the RM2.6 billion to Najib, Apandi is now duty-bound to tell the nation:

a) Name of the donor;Everyone knows that the seventh son of the late Saudi king, Prince Turki Abdullah, is the man Apandi could be referring to.

He is not that rich and wealthy. In fact, he was allegedly paid US$77 million by 1MDB. Clearly, he does not have that kind of money to donate RM2.6 billion to Najib

MACC and Bank Negara had both reportedly recommended charges, but it’s only you alone who claimed the PM and 1MDB had committed no wrongdoings

Apandi, why must you insist on new evidence from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Bank Negara before you agree to reopen their cases?
on the strength of the existing evidence produced, there is already enough to charge a certain someone for alleged crimes.

b) Evidence that the money belonged to him; and

c) Purpose of donation

Contrary to Apandi’s assertion, the purpose of donation is of vital importance in deliberating Najib’s guilt or innocence.

In fact, with such massive sum in his possession, the onus now is on Najib to prove that he is not culpable of a whole range of crimes ranging from corruption to treason, for which Najib must now come clean on the basic details outlined above to avert criminal charges against him.

Apandi's statement raised even more questions. Forbes magazine said in 2011 that the late King Abdullah was worth US$21 billion.

When I checked on Saudi inheritance law, it said that syariah law applies. The king had nine sons and 10 daughters. The daughters get only half of what a son gets. So nine parts for the sons and five parts for the daughters, altogether 14 parts.

Divide US$21 billion by 14 and each son gets US$1.5 billion. Would one of the sons actually give away half of his wealth to Najib?

source:Mohamed Apandi Ali request Swiss AG to close 1MDB case
Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali dismissed his predecessor Abu Talib Othman’s opinion that he did not have authority to close the RM2.6 billion case, adding that all he did was based on what he had learnt from the former A-G.

“I am just following my master’s footstep. Now he said I couldn’t do that. I am confused.I hope he can come to see me so that I can offer my explanation,” he was quoted as saying by Sin Chew Daily in an exclusive interview.

Last week, Abu Talib slammed Apandi alleging that the AG had no authority to order the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close its investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation deposited into Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s personal accounts.“Under Article 145 (3) of the Federal constitution, the A-G has power only to institute, conduct and discontinue any (criminal) proceedings, but has no authority to order any investigation agency to close its investigation papers.

“This is a case of public importance that has attracted worldwide attention. The AG must help the MACC to collect evidence as the source of the fund is outside Malaysia,” said Abu Talib.
 request Swiss AG to close 1MDB case

Former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman believes the proposed sentence for whistleblowers under the Official Secrets Act 1972 ran counter towards transparency and openness. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, February 9, 2016.
The proposed sentence of life imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane for those who leak state secrets under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA) is "disproportionate" to the offence, says former attorney-general (A-G) Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman.

The proposed amendments also ran counter to the rest of the world's march towards transparency and openness, said Abu Talib.

While he believed that some restrictions should be placed on such, in the country's interest, Abu Talib urged current A-G Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali to reconsider the amendments.

“That is out of proportion. What an impression it will have on the world. I think he should review this proposal in the interest of the nation and people.
“The sentence is disproportionate to the nature of the offence,” Abu Talib told The Malaysian Insider.

He said it was also inconsistent with the fact that everyone had the right to know.

“All over the world, they are all moving towards more transparency. And the public should be given the right to know what's happening.

“So his proposal, I think, would have to be considered carefully in the context of the right of the people to know.”

But he urged the people not to take Apandi's proposal “so seriously”, as it would still have to be submitted to the Cabinet for review before being brought to Parliament.

Meanwhile, Datuk Paul Low (pic) echoed Abu Talib's opinion that life imprisonment for leaking secrets under OSA was excessive.

“You cannot put it (leaking state secrets) in the same category as murder. The only exception may be if it has to do with espionage or leaking secrets that actually endanger other people's lives and national security.

“Otherwise, people who leak information under OSA to expose wrongdoing should actually be protected,” said Low, minister in the prime minister's department.

He added that the government should not impose just one form of sentencing for the leakage of secrets, as some secrets may pose less of a danger to national security than others if made public.

“So the government must weigh how detrimental it is if certain information is leaked out. We cannot move to a mode that everything is secret.

“When you do that, you are moving backwards and away from being accountable and transparent.”

But Datuk Seri Azalina Said Othman, another minister in the prime minister’s department, said Apandi's proposal was timely as civil servants were leaking too much information to the public

No comments:

Post a Comment