Perception is everything for Pakatan, even if it means flogging a dead horse. From recycling of issues to spinning crimes committed into acts of chivalry.
When Teoh Beng Hock died while in a MACC building, it was the BN’s fault although Beng Hock was being interviewed for things DAP office-holders were being investigated for. No matter that the BN loses out for not getting juicy stories of Pakatan corruption with the death of Beng Hock, BN is responsible although it sounds very illogical.
When Tokong Lim Guan Eng and when his henchman Phee Boon Poh were hauled up, again BN got the blame for politically-motivated acts. The same goes to the time the MACC raided Selangor’s Menteri Besar Incorporated for its fishy deals with UNISEL, BN was blamed.
It seems that the Pakatan is above the law. They get away with murder by blaming the BN for their failures. When Pulau Pinang gets inundated by countless flash floods, the BN gets blamed. When it is pointed that they should not blame the BN after being in power for two terms, they put the blame on God.
Yesterday, it was announced that the brother of a prominent Pakatan Member of Parliament was arrested together with two other staff of the said MP’s office for graft, the MP was quick to say that the arrests are politically-motivated.
This is the same MP who was recently implied by rabbit-toothed MP Pony Tua for being submissive to thugs.
Even someone implied by a fellow Pakatan member as allowing thugs to flourish blames the MACC for the wrongdoings of his own brother and staff members.
Chief Commissioner of the MACC Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad chided the MP, Sivarasa Rasiah, for making such claims. He said the action against the three individuals was conducted professionally in line with the efforts of the commission to rid the country of corruption.
“We stress that the arrest of the individuals is not related to politics. We are doing it professionally and not due to politics as the MACC has no time to be involved in politics,” he said to reporters in Terengganu yesterday.
When things don’t go their way, blame others. When it is members of the BN that get arrested, they would be quick to announce that the BN is corrupted.
When Najib Razak was investigated for the 1MDB fiasco, Pakatan was quick to ask Najib Razak to go on leave. No such calls have been made even when Pakatan criminals were being charged or found guilty on countless times by the courts.
Such is the impish behaviour of the goons from Pakatan. Yet, unbelievable as it may seem, there still are retards who continue to support and vote in these obstreperous clowns.
In 1982, 25 A-4C and 63 A-4L Skyhawks which were US Vietnam-era surplus were contracted for purchase costing less than USD 1 million each by the Malaysian government for the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s use. Of the 88 airframes, 54 were to be converted to single-seater fighter-bombers while 14 were to be converted to two-seater versions for training and conversions. The rest would be cannibalised for spare parts.
However, the cost for re-engine, new avionics and stretching of some of the airframes made the cost of each airframe balloon FOUR TIMES the purchase price. The final cost of the programme for these second-hand aircraft was USD320 million (purchase cost was less than USD88 million).
The RMAF Skyhawks were designated the A-4PTM/TA-4PTM (PTM: Peculiar-To-Malaysia). Delivery of 40 airframes began on 23 February 1985, the then-Prime Minister took delivery of ten A-4PTMs and launched No.6 Squadron for the new used aircraft. The delivery was completed a year later.
Not many below 50 would remember that 1985 was a year of bad recession in Malaysia. This was admitted by the then Auditor-General Tan Sri Ahmad Noordin Zakaria who said that apart from the BMF financial scandal (that caused the live of Jalil Ibrahim), the recession also caused budgetary problems and affected the country’s balance pf payments.
But that did not stop the government from buying two more aircraft in 1985 namely the Grumman HU-16B Albatross which are seaplanes for use by the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Coincidentally, Grumman was the contractor that refurbished the A-4PTMs for Malaysia.
Interestingly, the Albatrosses were placed under No.2 Squadron which is a VIP communications squadron. The USAF’s last flight of the Albatross was in 1973, the last flight of the USN was in 1976 while the USCG last flew the Albatross in 1976. We bought the pair in 1985 but by 1987 I never saw them fly ever again. 466 were built since 1949 and the last airframe was buit in 1961. There is no way we had bought two new aircraft.
Only 40 Skyhawks were delivered to Malaysia between – 34 single seater A-4PTMs and six two-seater TA-4PTMs. The rest remained in the desert and some at the Marana Regional Airport in Arizona.
The A-4PTMs and TA-4PTMs started dropping out of the sky as soon as they entered service. One developed engine trouble in September 1985 while landing and exploded at the Kuantan airbase. The pilot managed to eject.
Three years later, four Skyhawks went down including one piloted by the current Chief of the Royal Malaysian Air Force, General Tan Sri Haji Affendi bin Buang RMAF, while one pilot, Lieutenant Wahi Anuar RMAF remains missing until today after crashing into the South China Sea. I still remember how the annual exercise was put on hold in 1988 because of this incident.
Five more Skyhawks crashed in the following years. Four years after entering service, the RMAF announced that the Skyhawks will be replaced by the BAe Hawks 108/208 in 1994 making the Skyhawks the shortest-lived combat aircraft in the RMAF’s inventory. Six Skyhawks were retained as aerial tankers using Douglas D-704 external buddy tanks. They were taken completely out of service in 1999.
I wonder whose decision it was for second-hand Skyhawks and Albatrosses to be purchased by Malaysia. The Minister of Defence from 1981 to 1986 was Mahathir himself, who was replaced by Tun Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi in 1986. Was the RMAF being used as a dumping ground for used goods while people made money out of the RMAF and the lives of its pilots?
Mahathir added, “In fact, if you were to ask me what is it I would want the United States to do with regard to economic policy, my honest and simple response is for the U.S. economy to get ahead and regain its strength, for the healthier and more vibrant the U.S. economy becomes, the better it will be, not only for the United States and Malaysia but all the developing countries in the world.”
So, it is wrong for Najib Razak to want to help improve the economy of the United States but not wrong for Mahathir to have done the same in 1984. I wonder whose individual economy also improved with the purchase of those second-hand aircraft?
If you think it was bad enough that we had paid USD232 million more for 88 Skyhawks that cost less than USD88 million but brought back only 40 which served the RMAF effectively for only nine years, you have not heared the full story.
In 2003, the RMAF decided to sell off the Skyhawks including the 48 airframes that were never brought back to Malaysia. To their horror, they were asked for a proof of purchase of the 48 that were left there! While the RMAF had the 40 they received in their inventory, the rest that were paid for never had any receipt produced – that is USD174.72 million worth of airframes that had no proof of purchase.
Even if the 48 were not upgraded, this still means USD48 million worth of defence assets procured using the RAKYAT’s money (to borrow a favourite Pakatan catchphrase) did not come with a receipt saying they are ours.
This also means that the cost of ugrading, which amounted to USD232 million, was only for 40 aircraft. That makes USD6.8 million the cost for each of the 40 Skyhawks that were sold to us for less than USD1 million each. Amazingly disgusting amount of money paid. Each upgraded Skyhawk could have given us three F-5Es and the total we paid for upgrading the Skyhawks alone could have gotten us 110 combat-ready Northrop F-5E Tiger IIs (combat-ready F-5Es were selling for USD2.1 million each) which still have operational status worldwide even now. We were already operating 14 F5-Es and two F-5Fs.
We purchased aircraft that were dangerous for our men and women to fly, for a price tag that defeats logic. What promise did Mahathir make to Ronald Reagan then?
And why are we not owning the remaining 48 Skyhawks that we have bought in 1982?
Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, the 10th Inspector-General of Police has retired after an illustrious four decades with the Police force.
Detractors remember him as thr IGP that had clamped down on illegal assemblies, arrested agent provocateurs and the one who has stood up when certain parties defied the law.
I choose to remember him as the IGP who, with budget constraints and constant trial by opposition media, managed to halve the crime rate in 2016 compared to the previous year, and brought down the crime index in the same period.
We should not also forget that under his leadership the men and women of the Royal Malaysian Police had thwarted countless potential terrorist attacks although one grenade managed to be lobbed at the Movida bar in Puchong.
With his retirement, Khalid has been appointed the Chairman of Prasarana Berhad as well as a special envoy for anti-terrorism/extremism and human trafficking.
Many question his appointment as the Chairman of Prasarana. Among them is DAP’s Ong Kian Ming who, being a twit, posted this question on Twitter:
I don’t blame Ong Kian Ming for displaying such stupidty. Why else do you think that he chose the DAP to be his political platform?
For those who asked the same question, Prasarana’s Chairman post is a non-executive post. Khalid does not need to get involved in the day-to-day running of the GLC. Have you heard of a Chief Executive Officer? Yes, that is the guy who runs the show.
So save some of your stupidity for later. You still have decades ahead of you.
The other person who asked the same question unfortunately is PPP’s Vice President Andrew Tiong Yap Choon who asked the following in a reply to a Facebook posting:
Perhaps he should have asked around about Khalid’s appointment. He would have easily gotten the answer as his party’s President, M Kayveas, is currently the Special Advisor to the Minister of Transport.
If he does not have direct access to Kayveas then maybe he should have asked Anthony Francis Fernandes what did he know of the airline business having jumped straight into it from the music industry?
Or just ask Benta Estate boy, Kayveas, what does he know about transportation that he got picked to advise the Minister of Transport since he is not from that background?
Clever is knowing what to ask. Wise is knowing if it should be asked. Sadly, many are neither.
Before I continue, please let me congratulate a few people here. This Merdeka spirit is certainly in the air now.
I would like to congratulate the Malaysian SEA Games 2017 team for the highest Gold medal tally thus far. 145 Gold medals bagged out of 404 out for grabs. That accounts for 35.9 percent of Gold medals for this Games. The last time we had SEA Games here in Kuala Lumpur we could only manage 111 out of 391, and that made only 28.4 percent. If anyone were to put a “Rindu Zaman Mahathir” hashtag to KL2017, this would be the best time to do so.
Quick to claim credit for Malaysia’s victory is Azmin Ali who said that it was Selangor’s policies that had helped Malaysia achieve this victory. Someone should remind that this is not SUKMA or MSSM. This was a national effort and many Gold medals also came from people who are not part of Selangor.
Secondly, I would like to congratulate Mr Sotong himself. Yes, today the Appellate Court awarded him with RM10,000 which Pemuda UMNO’s Azwan Bro has to pay on top of the RM1.5 million he managed to squeeze out of 7,000 odd “donors” who believe in his dysfunctional NGO, that had gotten fellow party member Latheefa Koya’s boxers in knots, accusing Rafizi of getting help from the Deputy Prime Minister. Maybe Latheefa has realised that not once has Rafizi ever attacked the DPM openly, not after 21 August 2013. But with Najib Razak, no matter how many times he’s found guilty for telling lies, he keeps up his attacks. Maybe Rafizi is an UMNO agent as claimed. It does make you wonder doesn’t it? Only Rafizi can answer this.
My final congratulation goes out to the Judiciary system for proving time and time again that it is free from political influence. The same Court that gave Mr Sotong RM10,000 also found U-Turn Mahathir’s claim and insistence that Najib Razak is a ‘public officer‘ is a total FARCE. The verdict could have gone the other way round had this taken place before 2003, and those who love the “Rindu Zaman Mahathir” hashtag should again apply the hashtag to this event.
Now, back to the main story. Today, two people attacked the MACC using the same points. They are R Nadeswaran, a former journalist last seen wth the Sun Daily, and Eric Paulsen the lawyer who is never seen upholding the law and is always challenging the spirit of the Federal Constitution.
Nades in his piece said that a lot have been said in criticising the MACC previously but the MACC has never reacted in the same manner as it has reacted towards the Phee Boon Poh case. Back in those days he wrote, people used to ask why hadn’t the MACC gone for the “sharks” and the “whales” but instead get all the “small fries.”
But back in those days the MACC was the darling of the Opposition too. I am sure you would all remember how glory-hunter Lim Kit Siang told the world that the MACC’s crusade must be supported.
Let us not talk about the “back in those days”
stuff now shall we? Else we could also use the “Rindu Zaman Mahathir” hashtag here too and do comparisons on how many whales and sharks have been arrested by the MACC’s predecessors.
Lim Kit Siang et al stopped supporting the MACC’s crusade when several of theirs have been found to be whales and sharks too! Where is the consistency in fighting corruption here?
Eric Paulsen even added why must MACC take such an intolerant and extreme view when the issue being commented upon is of public interest?
For Eric Paulsen MACC is being intolerant as, as put by Nades, in the past there had been lots of opportunities for the MACC to sue people but never did.
Again, that’s in the past. I wonder if either Nades or Eric Paulsen realised that none of those making noise in the World Wide Web over MACC’s catching of small fries were under investigation, as Phee Boon Poh still is. He was released from remand and is still under investigation. He has not been exonerated from any offence nor has he had any charge dropped.
A Magistrate acts within the ambits of the law. He interpreted the law in his learned capacity. It was the High Court that had a different interpretation. And now the MACC is asking the Appellate Court (yes the one that made Sotong a victor and Mr U-Turn a loser) for its interpretation of the same.
And again, a reminder, Phee Boon Poh is still being investigated. He has not been charged and then found not guilty.
The remand would only have been illegal only if the MACC refuses to release Phee after the remand order was set aside.
As for Nades, a big fish such as a whale or a shark would be nothing less than having Najib Razak in the accused dock. Such view is already biased and myopic. Which is the reason I do not refer to him according to his nom de plume CITIZEN Nades, as I too, am a CITIZEN and he does not speak on behalf of me.
Nades asked why has the MACC not said anything about the SRC International which, accroding to Nades, was investigated by the MACC but they had nothing to show, implying that the investigation has already been concluded.
This is the peeve that I and a few defence bloggers have about the quality f our journalists – they don’t read. They often wait to be spoonfed with press releases and type away so that the agency they represent would be the first to publish it.
Back in early last year, the MACC had investigated the so-called involvement of Najib Razak in SRC International and had found nothing that could incriminate the Prime Minister. So on the road leading to Najib Razak it was ‘No Further Action.’
However, investigation papers have been opened for the people who actually ran SRC International and that is still in the investigation process. Must MACC tell everything about the case to the whole world?
So, there have you. Phee Boon Poh is being investigated so he should not make any statement trying to influence a court of public opinion. And neither Lim Guan Eng, nor Nades, nor Eric Paulsen should also try to unfluence a court of public opinion by saying that Phee Boon Poh was illegally detained.
Have we actually chosen the same people again and again and again for the past 60 years? Really?
As a law teacher he ought to know that we have not voted the same people. Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Dr Ismail, Tun HS Lee, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun Sambanthan, Tun Manickavasagam, Tun Omar Ong, Tun Ghafar to name a few stalwarts from the Alliance and BN have stood down from elections.
I know for sure that for the past 48 years Lim Kit Siang has been an election candidate, from Kota Melaka to Gelang Patah, and now is planning to move to Pulau Pinang and/or Kedah. We also have a 92-year old dictator who has also offered to contest for Pakatan Harapan.
And as for popular vote, is that the legal voting system that we are practising here in this country? If so, why should we vote by constituency? I personally opine that Azmi Sharom is either one stupid person, or is maliciously misleading the people of Malaysia with his lies, and The Star, for publishing such claim, is equally guilty for abetting to the offence no matter the disclaimer.
Do you know really want to know what freedom is? Freedom is being free from ignorance, free from being stupid. And especially free from coordinated stupidity.
Keep Malaysia stupid-free for the next 60 years and more please!
In a somewhat anticipated move, Emperor Lim Kit Siang has come to the defence of his breadwinner, Tokong Lim Guan Eng.
In an article published by left-leaning Malaysiakini Kit Siang, in a reaction to MACC’s Datuk Dzulkifli Ahmad’s ultimatum to Guan Eng, said that Dzulkifli should not fall victim to hubris and power, quoting Lord Acton’s axiom “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Quoting the US Department of Justice (DoJ) suit Kit Siang said that from page 339 to page 348 of the DoJ document that it traced the RM2.6 billion that made its way to Najib Razak’s account from 1MDB.
Pony Tua may have said something to reporters after signing the report but he should have resigned from the PAC and refused to sign should he have had any doubt or disagreement with the findings of the PAC.
He did not.
So why is Kit Siang contradicting his own people in the PAC that includes Pony Tua?
As for the axiom “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely“, Kit Siang should first and foremost look into the mirror and tell that to himself.
What about the gag order issued on DAP vice chairman M Kulasegaran after he gave the party’s Perak secretary Nga Kor Ming a dressing down over his alleged abuse of power? Did M Kula not dress down Nga Kor Ming because of the latter’s wife’s company, Ethan and Elton Sdn Bhd, was awarded the tender to tailor lounge suits for Ipoh city councillors when Pakatan Rakyat was in power in Perak?
The award was given despite the company having charged the highest price for the suits. Rivals also pointed to the fact that the company was registered with the Companies Commission Malaysia barely 42 days after Pakatan formed the state government.
And now that his son has been charged on two accounts of corrupt practices, why is he not giving the MACC the same support he accorded when the MACC was investigating Najib Razak? Ask Guan Eng to also look into the mirror and tell himself that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
When the MACC arrested and charged BN’s exco members in Johor and recently one of its powerful veterans, did BN cry like the DAP does? When Khir Toyo was charged in court and subsequently jailed for the same offence your son has committed, did BN cry like you?
So, remember what you said to the rakyat in 2015, Kit Siang? “This situation of police harassing MACC must stop!”
So now stop harrassing the MACC and let them do their work. What is it that you are so afraid of?
In another blatant attempt to paint a bad picture on the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commision (MACC), lawyer and also DAP Member of Parliament Ramkarpal Singh agreed with Tokong Lim Guan Eng that the detention of Mr So-What Phee Boon Poh was illegal and said such remark is justified.
He said the MACC’s statement asking Lim Guan Eng to apologise for calling it an ‘illegal detention’ within 48 hours is ill-advised “as there can be no doubt that the said statement was made having regard to the prevailing circumstances.”
‘Detention’ here is referred to the detention made after the remand order was received from the Magistrate. This remand order was then set aside by the High Court as it contravened Section 117 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In his ruling, High Court judicial commissioner (JC) Abdul Wahab Mohamed found that the word ‘shall’ in subsection 5 is mandatory, and the respondent has not submitted literature to the contrary.
The subsection says the magistrate deciding the period of detention of the accused shall allow representations to be made either by the accused himself or through a counsel of his choice.
Phee’s lawyers, Ramkarpal Singh and RSN Rayer, had argued that they were not given a chance by the senior assistant registrar of the Magistrate’s Court on Saturday to air their submissions.
Ramkarpal argued that the Magistrate’s Court senior assistant registrar had been prejudiced by allowing the five-day remand without hearing the defence of the accused lawyers.
“Wahab’s decision on 14 August 2017, which ruled that the detention of the trio was illegal since it was based on an invalid order, meant that MACC had detained them illegally after the first 24 hours of their initial arrest on 11 August 2017 passed,” Ramkarpal said.
“In the circumstances, there can be no doubt that the chief minister was justified in describing the said detention as illegal,” he added.
MACC also contended that any remark made by anyone pertaining to the issue is subjudicial and is in contempt of court as the appeal against the quashing of the remand order is already in process.
Ramkarpal said neither himself nor Phee had received a copy of the notice, and were not aware that such a notice had been filed, therefore the issue of sub judice should not arise.
My question is, how can a remand order made and signed by a Magistrate be illegal? Just because the Magistrate erred in his issuing the remand order does not make the detention illegal. It only means that the remand order has an error, but the detention was made in pursuant of the remand order issued by a Court of law.
When filing the notice of appeal with the Registrar of Court, the MACC does not need send a notice of appeal to Phee Boon Poh or his counsel. It is only later when the appeal is not rejected that the Court of Appeal shall notify the parties involved of the time and place for the hearing of the appeal. This is provided for in the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964.
And as Phee Boon Poh is still under investigation and was released only from remand and not freed from a prison sentence, any statement made pertaining to his detention is sub judice in nature.
This is something Ramkarpal who is an officer of the Court by virtue that he is a legal practitioner ought to know and uphold.
But of course, he is also a DAP Member of Parliament. People from the DAP do not abide by laws of the land and behave like outlaws.
And it is because of this behaviour that Sungai Lembu has cancer occurrences that are 2,343 percent higher than the national average, and this is what the DAP is trying to stop the MACC from investigating, and trying to stop the MACC from protecting the lives of the people who had voted for Pakatan.
Sudah menjadi kelaziman ahli politik masa kini terutamanya di kalangan pembangkang untuk membuat kenyataan kepada umum kononnya mereka bersih dan tidak bersalah setelah pihak berkuasa menangkap atau menggeledah premis mereka.
Tujuan kenyataan tersebut dibuat tidak lain tidak bukan tetapi untuk membina persepsi umum bahawa mereka menjadi mangsa kezaliman politik dan agensi-agensi penguatkuasaan adalah alat bagi pemerintah untuk menindas pihak pembangkang.
Setelah Lim Guan Eng dihadapkan ke mahkamah atas pertuduhan rasuah dan salahguna kuasa tahun lepas, beliau dengan segera mengadakan satu sidang akhbar yang digunakan secukupnya untuk membidas pihak kerajaan terutamanya SPRM yang didakwanya telah sengaja cuba untuk menghalang beliau dari bersuara.
Tanpa menunggu perbicaraan dilangsungkan dan tanpa menunggu bahan bukti serta keterangan para saksi, Azmin Ali (yang pentadbirannya juga kini disiasat SPRM) dengan pantas mengisytiharkan beliau yakin Lim Guan Eng bersih dari perlakuan rasuah.
Baru-baru ini, Mr “So What?” Pulau Pinang, Phee Boon Poh, telah ditahan oleh SPRM kerana terlibat dalam isu salahguna kuasa berkaitan dengan kebenaran beroperasi sebuah kiang haram di Sungai Lembu.
Apabila dibebaskan dari tahanan reman, Phee Boon Poh dengan segera membuat sidang media dan membuat kenyataan bahawa beliau tidak bersalah salaupun kes masih lagi dalam siasatan.
Malah semasa Phee Boon Poh ditangkap, Lim Kit Siang sendiri telah membuat kenyataan bahawa tangkapan itu adalah untuk mengaburi mata rakyat terhadap gejala rasuah yang berlaku di dalam negara ini. Apa yang sebenarnya berlaku ialah percubaan DAP untuk mengaburi mata rakyat terhadap kepincangan pentadbiran mereka sendiri.
Apa yang dilakukan oleh mereka di atas adalah bertentangan dengan Seksyen 48(h) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah, 2009. Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM Datuk Dzulkifli Ahmad telah mengeluarkan satu kenyataan media seperti berikut:
KENYATAAN MEDIA SPRM
SPRM BERI AMARAN TIDAK KELUARKAN KENYATAAN MEDIA BERHUBUNG SIASATAN KES
Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) memberi amaran tegas kepada mana-mana pihak atau individu agar tidak mengeluarkan sebarang kenyataan media berhubung kes yang sedang disiasat.
SPRM mendapati perkara tersebut telah menjadi satu trend atau amalan ketika ini dan menasihati mereka yang berkenaan supaya memberhentikan perbuatan tersebut kerana ia boleh mengganggu dan menjejaskan perjalanan siasatan.
SPRM memandang serius perkara ini kerana perbuatan tersebut merupakan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 48(h) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (ASPRM) 2009 yang menjelaskan bahawa “mana-mana orang yang mengganggu, menakutkan, mengancam atau melarikan atau cuba untuk mengganggu, menakutkan, mengancam atau melarikan mana-mana orang yang terlibat dalam penyiasatan di bawah Akta ini telah melakukan satu kesalahan.”
Mana-mana individu atau pihak yang mempunyai sebarang keterangan yang boleh membantu siasatan diminta tampil kepada SPRM untuk dirakam percakapan dan bukan membuat kenyataan media.
Justeru, SPRM tidak akan teragak-agak untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap mana-mana individu yang melakukan perbuatan tersebut mengikut Seksyen 48(h) ASPRM yang mana seseorang yang didapati bersalah boleh dikenakan denda tidak melebihi RM10,000 dan penjara dua tahun.
Selain itu, SPRM juga memandang serius perbuatan segelintir pihak yang mengeluarkan kenyataan berbaur fitnah terhadap tindakan-tindakan yang diambil oleh SPRM dengan tujuan untuk mencemarkan dan menjejaskan reputasi SPRM.
Oleh yang demikian, SPRM tidak akan sama sekali bertolak ansur dengan perbuatan sedemikian dan bersedia untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap mereka yang didapati menyebarkan fitnah tersebut sama ada berbentuk sivil atau jenayah.
DATUK DZULKIFLI AHMAD KETUA PESURUHJAYA SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA PUTRAJAYA
24 OGOS 2017
Eloklah pihak pembangkang berpegang kepada slogan mereka iaitu “Lawan Tetap Lawan“, “Berani Kerana Benar” dan lain-lain lagi yang menunjukkan yang kononnya mereka tidak bersalah, dan lawan serta tunjukkan kebenaran di dalam mahkamah dan bukannya cuba mempengaruhi persepsi rakyat supaya menghakimi SPRM dan bukannya mereka yang disyakki bersalah.
Dan rakyat, terutamanya para penyokong pembangkang pula sepatutnya mengikut saranan Lim Kit Siang dua tahun lepas bulan ini yang telah dilupai beliau sendiri semasa kehangatan kes 1MDB berada di kemuncak: