Tun’s take on Najib ‘case closed’

January 27, 2016 at 9:19 am 94 comments

Tun Mahathir is not surprised as he had predicted previously that the Attorney-General would “tolak bulat-bulat” the MACC report.

“Saya tak akan rasa pelik kalau AG tak tolak. Saya ingat dia akan tolak juga,” was Tun’s forecast as early as three weeks ago.

Tun had cast doubt on Apandi Ali’s integrity in anticipating how the AG would decide.

“Saya fikir dia tak akan bawa ke mahkamah kerana sebab-sebab tertentu”, said Tun in an exclusive interview with FMT on Jan 5.

Ever since Tun took up the 1MDB issue, he has been badmouthing almost every public institution connected to investigations on the matter.

In this respect, Tun has usurped Kit Siang’s life-long role as the government’s chief critic and detractor.

BELOW: Tun’s reaction to Apandi mirrors the opposition

Mahathir reacts to Apandi

Great Flood in Malaysia yesterday

Yesterday, water levels rose three metres in KL streets after it was announced ‘case closed’ on the investigations into Najib Razak.

All the foaming at the mouth by Dapsters and frothing by the Protuns caused a massive flooding.

wave

Protuns on the side of Dapsters now

Mama Dapster was gripped by hysteria over the Projib positive reaction to news on PM’s all clear, and started cackling uncontrollably – see her tweet below.

Dapsters and Protuns have one main thing in common — their negativity. Semuanya mesti tak betul. Keputusan Peguam Negara ni pun salah juga di kaca mata mereka.

Both camps want a regime change and work towards it by constantly fanning hatred for the government.

Of course they refuse to heed Najib’s appeal for our country to “unite and move on“. It is only through divisiveness and hate that their objective of toppling BN can be achieved.

Expect an orgy of berserkfest from them.

Entry filed under: DAJJAL. Tags: .

Kit Siang: “Mat Sabu never an agent, stooge or puppet of DAP” Time now for Najib to make Umno renegades toe the line

94 Comments Add your own

  • 1. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Of course, they are already decided that Najib is guilty and expect no other judgment so it is no surprise that these Dapsters and Protuns are deflated. The End Game is coming and Najib is now moving in for the kill.

    Our alternative media has the habit of picking up any foreign media coverage on Malaysia and give it a prominent spin. Funnily when BBC carried the confirmation by the Saudis that it was indeed a donation, none of our on-line and even MSMs deemed it was important enough to report it though it was one of the highlights on BBC.

    Reply
    • 2. one kill too many  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:35 am

      The due process of law has been demonstratively obstructed – guilty or otherwise.

      Reply
      • 3. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:38 am

        You use the moniker “one kill too many”.

        It is Tun that cast aspersions on AG Apandi’s professionalism.

        It it Protuns and Dapsters who commit character assassination and trying to destroy the credibility of public institutions, the latest victim being Tabung Haji.

        Reply
        • 4. drinho  |  January 27, 2016 at 12:20 pm

          re: It is Tun that cast aspersions on AG Apandi’s professionalism.

          Tun was right. AG exonerated Najib with lack of explanation. People are now asking:-

          1. what happened to the $61 mil?

          2. what about the RM42 mil from SRC?

          3. donation was given so that Najib can win the election to curb the rising influence of Muslim Brotherhood or Pas. Hence, donation is now bribery as the giver is demanding consideration from the recipient. How can the AG arrive at the conclusion of ‘Evidence obtained from the investigation does not show that the donation was given as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do anything in relation to his capacity as a prime minister’?

          Reply
          • 5. ismailhjjaafar  |  January 27, 2016 at 2:06 pm

            It’s was never a surprise ,the public too has expected it, syabas PM.

            Reply
          • 6. Keris  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:00 pm

            “The goal of religion is to establish peace based on universal human rights, rule of law, and high human values. Any interpretations to the contrary, including the abuse of religion to fuel conflicts, is either false or deceitful. In true Islamic thought based on its core principles, every means to a legitimate end must itself be legitimate. To believe or act otherwise is nothing but Machiavellism.”

            – Fethullah Gulen in his statement on ISIS

            Reply
          • 7. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:22 pm

            Are you saying that donation received for election is bribery? In that case, all politicians in the US, the UK, etc should be in jail.

            Are you also implying that DAP did not receive any donation? I am 100% sure that DAP received massive “donations” from both Big Business as well as other medium and small businessmen. Shall we also charge LGE, LKS and the rest of the gang with bribery too ?

            Reply
            • 8. Kineas1067  |  January 27, 2016 at 6:02 pm

              Donations from “foreigners” as opposed to “locals”?

              Are you privy to the Oppo’s bank accounts & transactions? Or to their offshore accounts in Switzerland, BVI, Caymans, Jersey etc?

              Do tell….

              Reply
              • 9. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:56 pm

                Does it make any difference if the source is from Middle East royalty or some local billionaire ? Do you think those towkays who donated to PH are driven by goodness of heart and fear of god ?

                Reply
    • 10. kuatbaca  |  January 27, 2016 at 8:20 pm

      calvinsankaran, The BBC quoted an unnamed source. Not a confirmation by Saudi govt/royal family (or are they one and the same thing?). Until then I can hold on to my scepticism. Thank you

      Reply
      • 11. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:57 pm

        So did the WSJ, SR, etc. But most Malaysians believed them 100%. Do I detect a little bit of hypocrisy here….

        Reply
      • 12. Zack  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:19 pm

        The BBC quoted well-placed source while WSJ quoted unnamed Saudi official. The BBC well-placed source expanded a bit more about the reasons while WSJ unnamed official was clueless.

        Reply
  • 13. siri  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Re: All the foaming at the mouth by Dapsters and frothing by the Protuns caused a massive flooding.
    Has Najib cleared himself of that kind of gossiping nature including you Helen and the crux of the story Tun himself add that he don’t have that much monies in his own account whilst as PM.

    Reply
    • 14. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:17 am

      And don’t forget Mirzan. Mukhriz ain’t a pauper either.

      Reply
      • 15. siri  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:15 am

        So why join the crowd you too got inflicted as gossip monger perpetrators of gosipers ha..ha..

        Reply
        • 16. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:26 am

          I have not been blogging on 1MDB.

          My stand is simple enough.

          It’s true that BN is losing popularity (fact: BN lost the popular vote in GE13) and this 1MDB controversy as well as the ‘donation’ are among major factors exacerbating the BN’s loss of popularity.

          DAP has capitalized and exploited issues – mixing their manipulation with huge doses of fitnah – to fan public hatred for the establishment.

          All that the DAP success has brought is negativity. They’ve destroyed ‘trust’, e.g. the do not trust the AG’s decision on this. The DAP’s politics of hate has destroyed our goodwill (bersangka baik).

          I do not want the DAP to be sitting in Putrajaya post-2018 like they’re doing in my state, Selangor.

          Out of all the states in Malaysia, we in Selangor (and the Malays in Penang) yang paling terkesan. We are the ones who have seen first-hand what they do to people, such as their fitnah campaign against Khalid Samad.

          DAP is dajjal.

          You weaken Najib, you weaken Umno. When Umno is weak, BN is weak. By default, this empowers the DAP.

          At the end of the day, Protuns are (indirectly) picking the option of ceding Putrajaya to an opposition led by DAP.

          Reply
          • 17. islam1st  |  January 28, 2016 at 1:34 pm

            ‘When Umno is weak, BN is weak. By default, this empowers the DAP.’

            Agree.

            ‘You weaken Najib, you weaken Umno.’

            He brought it upon himself. Yet again.

            Reply
          • 18. Setem  |  February 1, 2016 at 11:16 pm

            If Najib were to fall into a deep ravine and died, Zahid would easily step in his shoes as UMNO President and PM.

            It is superfluous to predict that UMNO would be dead if Najib were not around.

            UMNO is so much bigger than Najib, Helen.

            You are just not comfortable if Zahid is the PM.

            I think you don’t think highly of Najib; you want him to stay as PM due to his “moderate” ways towards Chinese, which did not get the appropriate responses from Chinese voters. Other than that, he has nothing to shout about leading the country.

            Zahid would not tolerate any nonsense from non Malays, and the Dapsters. Hope be brings back ISA.

            Reply
            • 19. Helen Ang  |  February 1, 2016 at 11:51 pm

              re: “You are just not comfortable if Zahid is the PM.”

              True. I’m uneasy with the idea.

              re: “you want him to stay as PM due to his ‘moderate’ ways towards Chinese”

              Yes, there’s some degree of comfort level with Najib. Also because he was open minded to Hindraf and behaved in a gentlemanly manner when Waytha pulled out of PMO as Deputy Minister.

              re: “Zahid would not tolerate any nonsense from non Malays, and the Dapsters.”

              Najib is subtle. Zahid is a sledgehammer.

              BN is already losing the perception war badly. Zahid’s approach would lend more credence to the oppo agitprop that BN is authoritarian.

              Reply
              • 20. Spectre  |  February 2, 2016 at 7:56 am

                Unfortunately for you, Najib is too scandal tainted. Even after the AG cleared him of wrongdoing, now he has to face this http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35459529 The man and those connected to him whether individuals and entities are being investigated that sooner or later he’s going to realize there is no place for him to hide. Since you defend him to the hilt, I don’t think you’re going to publish this comment of mine, well, good luck then and keep defending that duck.

                Reply
                • 21. calvinsankaran  |  February 2, 2016 at 1:56 pm

                  I thought Najib was the subject of any investigation as confirmed by the Swiss AG. You are confused.. probably reading too much pro-PH media and mixing news with fantasy and fiction.

                  Reply
                  • 22. Helen Ang  |  February 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm

                    re: “the subject of any investigation”

                    You mean ‘NOT’ the subject of any investigation, as clarified by the Swiss.

                    Reply
                    • 23. calvinsankaran  |  February 2, 2016 at 2:03 pm

                      Yes, that’s correct…Thanks for correcting the “typo” Helen.

                    • 24. drinho  |  February 3, 2016 at 8:45 am

                      Swiss AG has clarified that Najib is not the subject of investigation. However, Najib is the Chairman for the advisory board of 1MDB. If 1MDB committed any wrongdoing, Najib cannot absolve himself. Apart from being the Chairman, he is also the Finance Minister. 1MDB is owned by the Finance Ministry.

              • 25. drinho  |  February 2, 2016 at 8:59 am

                re: Also because he was open minded to Hindraf and behaved in a gentlemanly manner when Waytha pulled out of PMO as Deputy Minister.

                Really? Thought he broke the promises made in the Hindraf MOU that ultimately forced Waytha to quit the Cabinet post. Is this ‘gentlemanly’ for you.

                re: Najib is subtle.

                He sure is. Taking in $680 mil into personal account and refunded $602 mil thereafter without being exposed. If not for the exposure of WSJ, he will continue to hide it from the rakyat.

                Reply
                • 26. Helen Ang  |  February 2, 2016 at 10:18 am

                  re: “Thought he broke the promises made in the Hindraf MOU”

                  He did not fulfil the BN’s promise on the MoU by the time that Waytha quit. It was a deep disappointment.

                  re: “that ultimately forced Waytha to quit the Cabinet post”

                  Technically, only full ministers are considered to be members of the Cabinet.

                  re: “Is this ‘gentlemanly’ for you.”

                  Najib wished Waytha well on his future endeavours. He did not fling mud or try to character assassinate Waytha.

                  Note also that while the Protuns have been rabidly attacking Najib since the 1MDB got traction, Hindraf has not.

                  Reply
                  • 27. drinho  |  February 2, 2016 at 10:59 am

                    re: Technically, only full ministers are considered to be members of the Cabinet.

                    I stand corrected.

                    re: He did not fling mud or try to character assassinate Waytha.

                    Why would an incumbent PM (influential and powerful) would want to mudsling a quitter Deputy Minister from a small NGO of Hindraf? After all, BN has lots of friendly Indian parties like MIC, PPP, IPF etc to count on.

                    Reply
                    • 28. Helen Ang  |  February 2, 2016 at 11:02 am

                      re: “mudsling a quitter Deputy Minister from a small NGO of Hindraf”

                      KJ did.

                      KJ is not PM material.

  • 29. Mulan  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:48 am

    “It is only through divisiveness and hate that their objective of toppling BN can be achieved.”

    Hannah can pray for a miracle. Like all the evangelistas would get pregnant and give birth to 20 babies with super fast growth. These babies would mature to 21 in days. Then they all vote and down goes BN.

    Let us pray Hannah gets pregnant with multiplets soon.

    Wishful thinking.
    Even Wong Chun Wai says so.
    http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/on-the-beat/2016/01/17/winning-not-one-but-all-the-races/
    “It is wishful thinking that is based on an unrealistic dream. No matter how many planeloads of Chinese voters return from overseas to support the opposition, there can be no change unless the predominant Malay electorate goes along.”

    Reply
    • 30. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:03 am

      Mulan,

      A more realistic proposal is to open our doors to immigrants from China (when DAP comes to power).

      Our motherland has 1,300,000,000 Chinese. China is the most populous country in the world. It can easily spare a handful to augment the diaspora.

      For the moment and as a start, since DAP is not yet in control of the Home Ministry, they can bring in more mainlanders to work in the massage parlours of Subang Jaya.

      Reply
      • 31. Zack  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:11 am

        This is what Singaporean government is doing right now. Bring more mainland Chinese to Singapore.

        Reply
        • 32. Mulan  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:18 am

          Another wishful thinking. First implement the proposal to bring in maids from China.
          http://www.thesundaily.my/node/153958
          “Section head Tan Guek Eng said bringing in Chinese maids to work in the country is akin to the proverbial Chinese saying of “leading a wolf into one’s living room”, as it spells trouble.

          Tan pointed out that even without having them in the house, Malaysian men are already falling for women from China, what more allowing them into the house.”

          Sure they will be more LOVE LOVE LOVE in Chinese home. There will be love of food and love on the Chinese dinner table.

          Reply
      • 33. Mulan  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:14 am

        Another wishful thinking anecdote for the Protuns.

        Would the Protuns work with Wan Azizah to release Anwar to fight Ajib-ko?
        Would Anwar forgive Tun for the “good” of the nation?

        I don’t think so. Both will lose their credibility if they gang up against Ajib-ko.

        Reply
  • 34. Zack  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:55 am

    This is the BBC news story that confirms money came from Saudi.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35409424

    Reply
    • 35. Mulan  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:26 am

      I am sure the Pakatoons, Evangelistas, DAPsters and Protuns will find ways to refute the story. Sampai kiamat they will not change their stand.

      Reply
    • 37. Chris  |  January 27, 2016 at 1:08 pm

      So according to BBCs investigation, the Saudi royals gave Mr. Najib money to fight the 2013 elections against the Islamist PAS. Now, who’s Wahhabi and who’s Muslim Brotherhood?

      Reply
      • 38. Zack  |  January 27, 2016 at 1:39 pm

        There could be many interpretations.
        1. Saudi does not believe in Pas ideology to implement Islamic law but prefer UMNO’s version of Islam.
        2. Saudi does not believe in Anwar’s interpretation either.
        3. Saudi does not want DAP-led coalition to win the 2013 election.

        It does not matter that Saudi is wahhabi. Saudi also supports many Muslim regimes in the world that are friendly to them and their cause.

        Reply
        • 39. Chris  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:12 pm

          But Zack, Nik Aziz and Hadi Awang were attempting to down the BN govt. of Dr.Mahathir during the 80s-90s era to install their version of Saudi-Wahhabi Islamism over Malaysia. We all know that!

          Reply
        • 40. Mulan Malaysia  |  January 27, 2016 at 7:03 pm

          This revelation would certainly bring a wedge between UMNO and PAS. One up for the Evangelistas.

          Reply
          • 41. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:00 pm

            Actually the one who has the real Brotherhood connection is Anwar Ibrahim and not PAS. Actually the real story is a little bit more complicated. Watch out for my letter on this issue in the FMT soon.

            Reply
  • 42. siri  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Mulan understand in politics no kawan kekal no musuh kekal and politics is the art of possible

    Reply
    • 43. Mulan Malaysia  |  January 27, 2016 at 7:02 pm

      Another hypothetical scenario.
      Peace between ProTun and Pakatan.
      Will Anwar give way to Mukriz to become PM, Anwar becomes DPM and LKS/LGE will be kind enough to give way for the 2 Malays to be PM/DPM?
      LKS/LGE would taken token positions like Sports Minister as I am sure Wan Azizah would want either Finance, Trade, or perhaps Foreign Ministry? And Mat Sabu taking Education?
      “Mulan understand in politics no kawan kekal no musuh kekal and politics is the art of possible”
      Tengoklah berapa lama sampai talak 3 +?

      Reply
  • 44. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has lent his voice to the chorus disapproving the decision not to prosecute Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

    “The whole world says (Najib) is wrong, but Malaysia says he is not,” he said when commenting on Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali’s exoneration of the prime minister.
    —————————————————————————-

    Look at the way a Chief Executive Officer of one of the most developed states in Malaysia and the leader of the party that supposedly champions human rights, democracy, justice, rule of law, etc.

    What he means is that Najib is guilty not because the due process of law found him so but on public perception. So what he’s propagating is mob justice.

    Reply
    • 45. What Is This  |  January 27, 2016 at 2:55 pm

      ‘The whole world’ = His world that is. In his twisted world everyone is wrong. Only he is right. No wonder the Aussies dumped him.

      Reply
      • 46. Mulan Malaysia  |  January 27, 2016 at 7:07 pm

        “No wonder the Aussies dumped him.”
        Correction: that one is for momma DAPster

        Reply
  • 47. onsleuth  |  January 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    It’s about mama DAP trooper. When it’s wrong, never admit it. https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1362620480432708&id=100000543084712&set=a.930841183610642.1073741832.100000543084712&source=48&ref=bookmarks

    Reply
  • 49. Shahrizal Kamal  |  January 27, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    Dear Madam,

    I have to concede the AG’s discretion to clear DSN’s name based on the report provided by MACC. He knows more than us, I should add.

    Hopefully, he himself including DSN have already contemplated on the impact of this educated conclusion.

    From now on, any civil servant who receives any form of “gift”, either monetary or non-monetary, from another party rather than his/her employer and being questioned or investigated or made to go through the process of law will justify the receipt as “private donation for noble cause”. DSN’s case is a very dangerous precedent to be referred to by all advocates/solicitors defending their clients should they are to be summoned to the court.

    As such, we can safely now abolish or made to defunct the so called independent body, MACC, as bribery or corruption cases are relatively non-existent in the future.

    The above is just my simple conclusion from the perspective of law. Feel free to disprove my hypothesis.

    Thank you.

    regards,
    Shahrizal Kamal

    Reply
    • 50. Zack  |  January 27, 2016 at 2:31 pm

      The way I see it is to legalize political donation. Let not kid ourselves, DAP, PKR, PAS, NGOs also receive donation for their political cause. DAP conducts majlis makan, PAS with their Milo tin can after each ceramah. Do you categorize donation of that kind as bribing? NGOs like Bersih and the like receive fund from overseas.

      Reply
      • 51. siri  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:34 pm

        Zack tolong…lah fahammm the yeast of these meaningful casting iaitu PM and the rest of his ministers tu adalah public servant what about to happen jika the futuristic of the higher decision maker from the rest of the senior public servant macam mana nak jadi leadership by example ni tuan sheh mak ooi

        Reply
    • 52. drinho  |  January 27, 2016 at 2:54 pm

      Dear Sir,

      I absolutely agree with you. Precedent is already set as what Najib did. Malaysia is now corruption free. Any illegal form of bribery, inducement, corruption etc can be ‘transformed’ into perfectly legal donation.

      Reply
      • 53. Zack  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:08 pm

        Would you call political donations to US presidential candidates as bribery?
        Granted they have laws that allow individuals, corporations, organizations to make political contributions.
        We don’t have such law here. But it is not illegal too. Just not as transparent as the US.
        You are too naive to think that DAP, PAS, PKR leaders do not receive political donations.

        Reply
        • 54. What Is This  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:20 pm

          He is not naive. He is just mendacious.

          Reply
        • 55. drinho  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:34 pm

          re: You are too naive to think that DAP, PAS, PKR leaders do not receive political donations.

          Let me be clear. Political donation is not illegal. Anyone can solicit for political donation. What we are lacking is the law to regulate it. Lots of issues such as disclosure, transfer, handling etc are not regulated. Earlier you used the example of donation during majlis makan and milo tin. Can these examples be compared with Najib’s $680 mil donation. Let us do some comparisons:-

          1. Donor identity (majlis makan & milo tin vs Najib)
          Identity known at the point of donation, i.e. the attendees vs Identity unknown at the point of donation

          2. Records of donation
          Accounted in the books as party donation vs Unaccounted in the books of Umno

          3. Recipient of donation
          Credited into party account vs Credited into Najib’s personal account

          4. Refund of donation
          No refund vs Najib refunded unutilised donation with no details given

          5. Usage of donation
          Election purpose (accounted in the books of party) vs Unaccounted in the books of Umno

          6. Disclosure
          Made when collecting donation vs No disclosure until revealed by WSJ

          Malaysians will be kept in the dark if not for the WSJ revelation. Even Muhyiddin being the incumbent Umno deputy president was unaware of such donation when it was made.

          Lastly, how do we distinguish political donation from bribery?

          Reply
          • 56. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:12 pm

            I think as usual you are confused. There no law which regulates political donation so there is nothing in the law says what Najib did was illegal. All the political parties do it as well, it is just that they never got caught.

            So whether it was credited into Najib’s personal account or party’s account, if his DPM knows about it, etc,etc is immaterial.

            As I mentioned before, if you consider a political donation is bribe then every politician in Malaysia would be a criminal. The same goes to most politicians around the world.

            There is no such as setting a precedent as political donation has been rife in Malaysia for decades.

            The manner the donation was handled and later returned back to Saudi shows that Najib did not solicit the money but rather given to him by the Arabs.

            What most commentators conveniently fail to mention is that before this Tun, PH and their attack dog SR had accused the money was siphoned from 1MDB. This means all these people had been lying all the time. I don’t see anyone apologising for their lies and accusations.

            Reply
            • 57. drinho  |  February 1, 2016 at 9:11 am

              I am not confused. I state my understanding below:-

              1. There is no law to regulate political donation in Malaysia.

              2. Hence, it is not illegal to solicit and accept political donation.

              3. Due to No. 2 above, any bribe giver/recipient can claim that the money is meant for political donation to escape corruption charges.

              Try to look at the donation issue from a different legal point of view, i.e. criminal misappropriation.After all, the recommendation by MACC was to prosecute Najib for misappropriation, not for accepting political donation.

              To recap, the donation was given by the Saudi royal family so that “BN can win the election”.

              Questions for you:-

              1. Why the donation was deposited into Najib’s personal bank account but not into Umno or BN’s party bank account?

              2. Is there an agreement by the supreme council of Umno and BN to accept the donation?

              3. Is there an agreement by the supreme council of Umno and BN to return the unused portion of the donation?

              4. Was the unreturned portion of the donation duly reflected/accounted in the books or financial statement of Umno or BN?

              5. Was the unreturned portion of the donation wholly used for election purpose, no misappropriation for non-election purpose?

              The AG failed to address such questions. He merely cleared Najib citing the lack of law to regulate political donation in Malaysia.

              Lastly, what about the RM42 mil? It was established that the sum was deposited from SRC into Najib’s personal bank account. Is this also political donation?

              re: So whether it was credited into Najib’s personal account or party’s account, if his DPM knows about it, etc,etc is immaterial.

              How foolish of you to make such statement. You are saying Najib is above Umno and free from scrutiny by his own party leadership. As if the RM2.6 bil is intended for Najib’s personal use.

              Reply
              • 58. Helen Ang  |  February 1, 2016 at 10:27 am

                Dear drinho & Calvin,

                re: “any bribe giver/recipient can claim that the money is meant for political donation to escape corruption charges”

                In the example you give, the recipient would have to be a politician, wouldn’t he, in order to claim that it is a “political donation”? If Kit Siang was the recipient, how?

                re: “Try to look at the donation issue from a different legal point of view, i.e. criminal misappropriation.”

                The oppo have been claiming that the money was gotten from 1MDB, i.e. criminal misappropriation. The AG has stated that the money came from a Saudi royal, i.e. donation.

                I can’t see how the oppo is more credible than the AG.

                re: “After all, the recommendation by MACC was to prosecute Najib for misappropriation, not for accepting political donation.”

                How do you know what the MACC recommended? Their investigation paper is OSA.

                re: “Why the donation was deposited into Najib’s personal bank account but not into Umno or BN’s party bank account?”

                It’s not illegal.

                re: “Is there an agreement by the supreme council of Umno and BN to accept the donation?”

                You’ve raised a gray area. You will have to read the Umno constitution.

                re: “Is there an agreement by the supreme council of Umno and BN to return the unused portion of the donation?”

                The hypothetical scenario you conjure is an Umno internal matter. There’s no law governing this aspect and the party is not accountable to the public.

                re: “Was the unreturned portion of the donation duly reflected/accounted in the books or financial statement of Umno or BN?”

                Tun Mahathir claims not, and for this very reason, he hinted that ROS should de-register Umno.

                re: “Was the unreturned portion of the donation wholly used for election purpose, no misappropriation for non-election purpose?”

                Considering the timing at which the money was reportedly pumped in, it coincided with the eve of GE13. AG Apandi said the unused portion was returned in August 2013.

                According to one version of the story, the donor was King Abdullah. I can only suppose that at that level of VVIP and with their unimaginably super great fortunes, they function quite unlike us mere mortals.

                Reply
                • 59. drinho  |  February 1, 2016 at 11:01 am

                  re: If Kit Siang was the recipient, how?

                  IMO, if the recipient is a politician (whether elected MP or elected party official) that would amount to political donation. Same case for aide/assistant or party workers asking donation on behalf of the party or the politician.

                  re: The oppo have been claiming that the money was gotten from 1MDB, i.e. criminal misappropriation.

                  No proof on that. Anyway, misappropriation is not limited to the source. It covers handling.

                  Eg. you were tasked to deposit company’s cash of RM10k into the company’s bank account. You didn’t. You used the money for personal purpose. One week later, you fully reimburse the RM10k into the company’s bank account. No doubt the company suffered no loss, you have actually committed criminal misappropriation for your mishandling and dishonesty.

                  re: The AG has stated that the money came from a Saudi royal, i.e. donation.

                  However, the MACC didn’t check the money trail beyond the Saudi royal. Eg. A gave RM10 mil to B. B gave it to C. C gave it to D. D gave it to Saudi royal. Saudi royal gave it to Najib.

                  http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/apandi-cant-close-investigations-should-assist-macc-says-former-a-g

                  MACC requested to trace the money trail internationally via Mutual Legal Assistance, i.e. the seek help from authorities in foreign countries. AG Apandi rejected such request and put a fullstop to MACC’s effort to pursue further. Now even the Swiss AG is requesting such assistance. Zahid already poured cold water on such request.

                  re: Their investigation paper is OSA.

                  My hunch. Since there is no law on political funding, looking at the manner the donation was handled I would guess that any wrongdoing is under misappropriation.

                  Put it this way, if the RM2.6 bil donation was above-board it would not have attracted such negative publicity and controversy whether locally or internationally.

                  Lastly, what about the RM42 mil? It was established that the sum was deposited from SRC into Najib’s personal bank account. Is this also political donation?

                  Reply
                  • 60. Helen Ang  |  February 1, 2016 at 11:29 am

                    re: “IMO, if the recipient is a politician (whether elected MP or elected party official) that would amount to political donation. Same case for aide/assistant or party workers asking donation on behalf of the party or the politician.”

                    IMO, both sides are dua kali lima. The church (or at least its people) pumped money into DAP’s Subang Jaya campaign too. A political campaign can’t run on fresh air. Even the bottles of mineral water for the workers have to be paid for.

                    I’m more curious about the DAP’s tycoon funding for the tsunami.

                    re: “Anyway, misappropriation is not limited to the source. It covers handling.”

                    The oppo (Dapsters and Protuns) didn’t say anything about that. They just accused Najib of stealing the money from 1MDB.

                    re: “However, the MACC didn’t check the money trail beyond the Saudi royal.”

                    With the Saudi’s famed fabulous wealth, it was probably in chests of gold bullion.

                    re: “Put it this way, if the RM2.6 bil donation was above-board it would not have attracted such negative publicity and controversy whether locally or internationally.”

                    Najib and his wife had dinner, and they were falsely accused of dining on wagyu at the cost of RM20k. The negative publicity and controversy was viraled.

                    DAP are dajjal. They make white black, and black white in a twisted Orwellian doublethink. I’m very, very, very sure of the nature of the beast in the DAP.

                    re: “Lastly, what about the RM42 mil? It was established that the sum was deposited from SRC into Najib’s personal bank account. Is this also political donation?”

                    Apandi’s formal statement had addressed several paragraphs to the SRC element.

                    Reply
                    • 61. drinho  |  February 1, 2016 at 1:40 pm

                      re: Apandi’s formal statement had addressed several paragraphs to the SRC element.

                      WSJ first exposed that RM42 mil from SRC International was deposited into Najib’s private bank accounts.

                      http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/07/04/wsj-claims-rm267bil-deposited-into-pms-accounts/

                      Here is the AG’s official statement (refer para 7):-

                      http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/Press/Press%20Release%20ENG%20IN%20RELATION%20TO%20THE%20INVESTIGATION%20PAPERS%20RETURNED%20BY%20MACC%20ON%20SRC%20INTERNATIONAL%20AND%20RM2_6%20BILLION.pdf

                      With regards to SRC, the AG didn’t address the issue of RM42 mil at all. He explained on the issue of government guarantee of RM4 bil loan from KWAP to SRC.

                    • 62. Helen Ang  |  February 1, 2016 at 7:49 pm

                      He didn’t mention the “RM42m” figure specifically but said in several paras that Najib is cleared.

                    • 63. drinho  |  February 2, 2016 at 8:51 am

                      re: He didn’t mention the “RM42m” figure specifically but said in several paras that Najib is cleared.

                      Cleared huh? How easy.

                      Some facts. Correct me if wrong.

                      1. MACC submitted 3 investigation papers to AG.

                      2. 1st paper is on RM2.6 bil donation. AG cleared Najib. Let us just accept the decision of the AG on this paper.

                      3. 2nd and 3rd papers on SRC. I can’t find any specific news on the content of these 2 papers.

                      4. One could be RM42 mil deposited into Najib’s personal bank account. AG said Najib was unaware of the amount and thought that it was part of the RM2.6 bil donation from the Saudi royal. What happened to this RM42 mil?

        • 64. Harlequin  |  January 27, 2016 at 5:26 pm

          Zack

          Are you sure it is legal for non-US citizens to donate to the US elections?

          Quote: Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.

          If you are interested in the US election practices, feel free to read up here.

          http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml

          Commentator Sharizat Kamal is right to point out the slippery slope we are heading with such precedent in place.

          Reply
          • 65. Spectre  |  January 27, 2016 at 5:45 pm

            By the way, Syed’s blog is now blocked in Malaysia. I may not agree with him on many issues but blocking his blog will only raise more questions.

            Reply
            • 66. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2016 at 5:55 pm

              I can access.

              Reply
              • 67. Spectre  |  January 27, 2016 at 6:57 pm

                You have Tor eh ? :) The anti blocking software.

                Reply
                • 68. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2016 at 7:10 pm

                  Perhaps the blocking is through the service provider, so some readers can access and some can’t.

                  Reply
                  • 69. Zack  |  January 27, 2016 at 7:20 pm

                    I just access the blog, Syed. I think he just creates a drama.

                    Reply
                    • 70. Spectre  |  January 27, 2016 at 7:55 pm

                      I just signed in using my Google account but his original blog is blocked with a caption that the blog violates the national law.

      • 71. Mulan  |  January 27, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        Australia pun tak bersih sangat. Sampai paper for complain.
        http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-flawed-political-donations-laws-20150724-gijlll.html

        Reply
    • 72. shamshul anuar  |  January 27, 2016 at 5:35 pm

      Shahrizal,

      DAP achieved great success in last election. It has Chinese votes behind it solidly. and DAP tastes limited power in the form of Pulau Pinang.

      Now it focus on Putrajaya. And to get Putrajaya, it has to dislodge the only party that is standing on its way: UMNO. What better way to succeed than slandering.

      Those who are anti Najib will never accept any explanation. Even news from BBC will not satisfy them. To them a fair verdict is Najib must be guilty because he is Najib. TO them Najib must resign . then everything ranging from oil price , ringgit will stabilize.

      AND IF NAJIB falls into their trap by resigning, they will say “look Najib is guilty. Itu sebab dia resign”.

      I bet that the attack will only be more ruthless if Najib resign.

      What Najib must do is to show firm hand. Send the message to UMNO leaders that if they want to be part of his “kerajaan” they must be with him. Though I am not that excited with possibility of Kedah getting a New MB, I understand that Najib must show he is in control by getting a new MB.

      Only by being firm, Najib can win an election. Only by behaving like a Supremo Najib will be treated like one. UMNO is the dominant party on this land.

      act like one.

      Reply
      • 73. Devolution  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:49 pm

        UMNO was good guys.

        JIBNO guys?

        Reply
      • 74. islam1st  |  January 28, 2016 at 1:42 pm

        ‘Only by being firm, Najib can win an election.’

        Ngan DAP, bukan dengan fellow UMNO members. How la perpaduan ummah when jemaah sendiri pun berpecah-belah?

        Reply
        • 75. drinho  |  February 2, 2016 at 9:05 am

          Looks like the Malays are now more separated and divisive than ever:-

          1. Umno Najib camp;
          2. Umno Muhyiddin/Tun M camp;
          3. PKR;
          4. Pas Hadi camp (UG with Umno);
          5. Pas non-Hadi camp (non-UG with Umno);
          6. Amanah

          Reply
  • 76. siri  |  January 27, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Shah says betul nak katakan telan mati emak luah mati bapak itu lah hakikat dan habitat politik di Malaysia ku terkenang-kenang the reality statesman of Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra I left when rakyat masih ingatkan saya begitu juga YB Tun M emak saya pesan kalau makan dah sedap cepat-cepat berhenti

    Reply
  • 77. truth  |  January 27, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    Quran : 3 : 25-27

    So how will it be when We assemble them for a Day about which there is no doubt? And each soul will be compensated [in full for] what it earned, and they will not be wronged.

    Say, “O Allah , Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.

    You cause the night to enter the day, and You cause the day to enter the night; and You bring the living out of the dead, and You bring the dead out of the living. And You give provision to whom You will without account.”
    …………………………………………………………

    O Allah, none can prevent what You have willed to bestow and none can bestow what You have willed to prevent and no wealth or majesty can benefit anyone, as from You is all wealth and majesty.
    (Bukhari & Muslim)

    May Allah protect this country from the enemies. Ameen.

    Reply
  • 78. calvinsankaran  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    Helen, now you are not just a magnet for Dapsters, these days the Protuns crawling all over your blog.

    Reply
    • 79. Pros and Cons  |  January 27, 2016 at 11:55 pm

      Lighten up Calvin, not everyone with an honest opinion has a stake in one camp or the other. Truth logic of the excluded-middle, brother.

      Reply
      • 80. Orang Perlis  |  January 28, 2016 at 1:06 am

        Again Mr Calvin..what makes you think those who are questioning Najib are pro tun? jangan la simplistic sgt brother..kita pun tak suka DAP…tapi for YOU dear sir, are acting as if Najib is a saint.

        those in the middle can give a middle finger (pun very well intended) to either camp.

        Reply
        • 81. Spectre  |  January 28, 2016 at 11:12 am

          My friends and I subscribe to what is generally known as realism+pragmatism and we simply do not trust both DAP and Najib. Najib has done it, he will sign the TPPA next week in NZ and the first ISDS will descent on Malaysia in 2 years’ time l o l with foreign investors calling policies favoring the Malays as a form of discrimination that disadvantaged their businesses. What is ironic is that it won’t be the Chinese dismantling Malay special privileges but a Malay led gov doing it l o l Nancy was being mendacious by saying that foreign interests cannot abuse ISDS because safeguards are in place when in fact the ISDS was instituted in the first place for foreign interests to prey on governments. Now you see for yourself your Malay champions Umno stabbing you Malays and you still go brouhaha thinking you’re under the protection of this Umno led gov l o l

          Reply
          • 82. Helen Ang  |  January 28, 2016 at 11:42 am

            re: “Nancy was being mendacious by saying that foreign interests cannot abuse ISDS because safeguards are in place when in fact the ISDS was instituted in the first place for foreign interests to prey on governments.”

            Can you show us an example of ISDS being abused?

            Even without TPPA or ISDS, there is nothing to stop foreign companies from suing sovereign governments.

            Take this case: The Canaf Group, which is a company registered in Canada, had sued the Attorney-General of Uganda.

            Canaf, formerly known as Uganda Gold Mining, had filed a case in 2013 against the Uganda government to stop Kilembe Copper Mines from being privatised.

            Reply
            • 83. Spectre  |  January 28, 2016 at 12:14 pm

              The ISDS is not there for foreign interests to abuse. It is there to make it legal for foreign interests to use against governments when their interests are under threat.

              Still not loving ISDS: 10 reasons to oppose investors’ super-rights in EU trade deals.

              http://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2014/04/still-not-loving-isds-10-reasons-oppose-investors-super-rights-eu-trade

              ISDS: The devil in the trade deal.

              http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/isds-the-devil-in-the-trade-deal/5734490

              The thing with the ISDS is that foreign interests get to decide who sits on arbitral tribunals, the body responsible for deciding the outcome in investors vs state disputes. With this lopsided arrangement, the gov is bust. If it’s some court in a foreign country at the very least investor vs state is 50-50 but these arbitral tribunals, the gov is in big trouble.

              And I m going to make this very clear. It’s not the lawsuits that concern me, it’s the lopsided arbitral tribunals that’s the biggest threat to our national interests.

              Reply
              • 84. Helen Ang  |  January 28, 2016 at 12:45 pm

                re: “it’s the lopsided arbitral tribunals that’s the biggest threat to our national interests”

                Why don’t you first copypaste for us the relevant section in Malaysia’s TPPA pertaining to this, then we can look-see?

                Secondly, there’s the passage (reproduced below) from the article link you provided:

                “Canadian company Lone Pine, for example, has routed its investments in Canada via a mailbox company in the US tax haven Delaware. That enables Lone Pine to sue its own government over a fracking moratorium in Quebec – on the basis of the greater private property rights in NAFTA, which are only available to ‘US’ and ‘Mexican’ companies.”

                In a nutshell, the Lone Pine case refers to a Canadian company suing the Canadian government but taking advantage of Nafta by pretending’ to be an American company in order to be able to file the lawsuit.

                That’s so sneaky! It’s like something the Dapster (or a certain Protun) would do.

                Perhaps there is something after all in Hadi Awang’s allegation that Chinese businesses might be in favour of the TPPA.

                Reply
  • 85. Spectre  |  January 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Re Why don’t you first copypaste for us the relevant section in Malaysia’s TPPA pertaining to this, then we can look-see?

    The TPPA is a text specifying what governments are entering into. The full text you can get at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-full-text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/5486887

    NAFTA is a free trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico. The Canadian company was not sneaky at all. It merely made use of legal provisions under NAFTA allowing it to get what it wanted. In this case using a shell company in the US, which is a subsidiary. In business parlance, it didn’t actually initiated the suit, it’s shell company initiated it so therefore the Canadian company absolves itself of any blame whatsoever. It just made clever use of the provisions. You can’t say they did something illegal.

    As for what Hadi said, he was making what I would say is an assumption. I wonder how many Chinese companies know what ISDS is. I don’t have the numbers so I would appreciate it if someone does a survey on Chinese companies’ view of the TPPA. So far it’s just the big Chinese conglomerates that are aware of the TPPA and their numbers are far and few. Saying ‘might’ is not saying Chinese companies favor the TPPA. If he can prove that Chinese companies do indeed favor the TPPA as in “Chinese companies favor TPPA” instead of inserting ‘might’ that is another story altogether.

    The law do not say you are sneaky. It merely says that you play the game according to the rules. If you cannot read the ‘law’ that’s too bad for you. And looking at the ‘law’ it looks like a lot of people are really clueless. I don’t blame the DAP for playing the game so well, it’s their opponents who are too stupid when it comes to understanding what the ‘law’ can do for them.

    Reply
    • 86. Helen Ang  |  January 28, 2016 at 2:25 pm

      re: TPPA agreement

      Since it’s thousands of pages, you need to point us to the ISDS bits. You can’t expect us to look for it when you’re the one bringing up this topic.

      re: “shell company”, “made clever use of the provisions”, “DAP for playing the game so well”, etc

      All the dirty tactics, sneaky insinuations, sly innuendos … yup, DAP plays the game too well.

      Melayu terlalu bersangka baik. They cannot comprehend that the dajjal in the flesh (The Great Deceiver) does not bat an eyelid when telling lies.

      Reply
      • 87. I Am Woman  |  January 28, 2016 at 7:51 pm

        Here’s one NZ interpretation of the ISDS in the TPPA. It is a simple explanation of the provision and also highlights the concerns for this provision.

        When it comes to money and politics, yes, you can call the DAP sneaky. However, even they can’t beat Those big corporations when it comes to protecting their investments and profits. And this is where the concerns are. How many SMEs do you think can take on the likes of Walmart, J&J, and the like?

        The concerns as outlined by spectre are real. And the PM has used the law to his advantage recently, so he should be aware that loopholes in laws and regulations exist.

        Reply
        • 88. Helen Ang  |  January 28, 2016 at 8:45 pm

          re: “How many SMEs do you think can take on the likes of Walmart, J&J, and the like?”

          Can you be more specific, pls? Which MNCs like the Walmart do you reckon will be trying to muscle into Malaysia, and in what way do you think an investor like Walmart or others can potentially sue the state, i.e. government of Malaysia?

          Reply
      • 89. I Am Woman  |  January 28, 2016 at 7:53 pm

        Here’s the link
        http://itsourfuture.org.nz/the-devil-in-the-tppa-investor-state-dispute-settlement/

        Reply
      • 90. Spectre  |  January 28, 2016 at 8:05 pm

        Investment Chapter TPP for Malaysia.

        http://fta.miti.gov.my/miti-fta/resources/Text%20Of%20TPPA/9._Investment_Chapter_.pdf

        Investor State Dispute Settlement Section B Article 9 – 17

        Both parties consent to arbitration Article 9 – 19, meaning both sides are confident both have a chance of winning, which is subjective, that both sides could lose at the same time, resulting in one part winning.

        Article 9 – 20 the claimant, shall file for arbitration within 3 years from the date of the said breach, meaning that the claimant(s) would have known of the of the said policy, policies resulting in the claimant(s) interests breached. So the policy, policies favoring Malays would have been closely scrutinized before initiating ISDS mechanism.

        Appointment of arbitrators to the tribunals, if both sides fail to agree on the specific appointments, either party shall have the right to appoint the arbitrators of it’s choosing, under Article 9 – 21. Do you actually think the party filing such a case will let our gov appoint the arbitrators ? Of course not. They will appoint the arbitrators themselves.

        Article 9 – 28 Awards. Monetary damages and any applicable interest, applicable interest is vague meaning that it constitute non monetary damages subject to interpretation. So in other words the award to the claimant(s) could involve legal amendments or reviews.

        The wording in the text is so vague that any party entering into such an agreement without a clear understanding of the provisions risks exposing itself to ‘unlimited’ damages.

        On the DAP playing dirty, if that is how they conduct themselves, then it is up to their opponents to step up their game. And their opponents are still clueless to this very day.

        Reply
        • 91. Helen Ang  |  January 28, 2016 at 9:45 pm

          re: “ADo you actually think the party filing such a case will let our gov appoint the arbitrators ? Of course not. They will appoint the arbitrators themselves.”

          The two sides to the disputes would be MNC vs state (govt of M’sia).

          The dispute would be brought to an arbitration tribunal.

          The panel of arbitrators may consist 3 individuals. What makes you think that one side of the dispute will get to pick all the members of the panel?

          And in any case, even without TPPA and its mechanisms, Malaysia lost a recent dispute. This is not a trade dispute but I’m referring to the Batu Putih case – when Gani Patail was AG.

          re: “So in other words the award to the claimant(s) could involve legal amendments or reviews.”

          Again you’re extrapolating and extending your suppositions rather far. Are you saying that a TPPA dispute could lead to the government having to amend our Constitution wrt – as one example – Article 153 and Malay quota?

          re: “The wording in the text is so vague that any party entering into such an agreement without a clear understanding of the provisions risks exposing itself to ‘unlimited’ damages.”

          You should compare with the other trade agreements that Malaysia is already a signatory to.

          TPPA detractors make it sound as if Uncle Sam is all out to cheat us. I’m wary of the USA, esp. since Malaysia’s evangelistas are trained by the Bible Belter but still, you need to concretize your fear and reservations.

          Japan and Vietnam are both engaged in the TPPA and these two countries had previously fought a war with Amerika. Surely Japan and Vietnam would be even more wary of Uncle Sam given their countries’ history of conflict with the US.

          re: “On the DAP playing dirty, if that is how they conduct themselves, then it is up to their opponents to step up their game. And their opponents are still clueless to this very day.”

          Melayu dididik untuk bersangka baik. Mereka tidak dapat membayangkan bahawa darah dan daging si Dapster-evangelista itu berDNA sel pembohongan dan kromosom penipuan.

          Reply
  • 92. Idrus abu bakar  |  January 28, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Most of the Malays now are in a delima. They love UmNO buat do not want Najib but that does not mean they support DAP . Come election we will vote PAS or abstain which will be good for opposition. But you see they do not care anymore. They want Najib and geng gone. Very very dangerous situation but the Umno leaders seem not to care or they are blind . There is another option that the Malays have.

    We can open a new Malay parti with TM As the patron and all UMNO veteran-veteran , who are against whats happenings in UMNO now. Maybe Perkasa can take the lead as it already has the network.

    Reply
    • 93. Helen Ang  |  January 28, 2016 at 3:42 pm

      re: “They want Najib and geng gone.”

      The DAP and Protun politics of hate has been successful.

      re: “open a new Malay parti with TM As the patron”

      He is/was already the patron of Perkasa. Good luck to you in trying to make Perkasa a political party.

      Reply
      • 94. Setem  |  February 1, 2016 at 11:07 pm

        ProNajib politics of love? Lambat lagi. More like politics of “Cash is King”, Helen.

        Reply

Dijemput memberi komen anda

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


My blog, my like

Helen Ang

Recent Posts

Kalender

January 2016
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Pengunjung

  • 7,406,782 hits

Archives

Feeds


%d bloggers like this: