1MDB – Page 3 – SeaDemon Says

October 10, 2016

Constitutionally Speaking

The Opposition (DAP, BERSIH, Pribumi) is just recycling old issues. No matter if the issue raised had been clarified or debunked countless times before. I did not include PAN in the parentheses because it would be ridiculous in my opinion to even consider it a political party given the cartoon characters that fills its ranks. Not even BERSIH’s convoy in Penang could garner more than 50 supporters to join its convoy in that staunch Opposition state! A sign of times, perhaps? Issues like 1MDB is being played over and over again, especially by Mahathir’s Das Schwarze Korps but hardly gained any traction as people are bored of the same story being played repeatedly with goalposts changed to suit the message they try to send.

So, what should they do next?

Enter His Majesty Yang DiPertuan Agong.

Mahathir's Das Schwarze Korps creating a perception that the YDP Agong has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister — Mahathir’s Das Schwarze Korps creating a perception that the YDP Agong has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister

Before the independence of Malaya in August 1957, there were three parties to the discussion on the subject of the independence. They were the Malay Rulers of the Federated and Unfederated Malay States; the British who, by virtue of treaties signed with the Malay Rulers, helped administer their respective state; and the Alliance party (UMNO, MCA and MIC) who, by virtue of winning all but one seat in the 1955 General Elections was the de facto voice of the people of Malaya. Save for Pulau Pinang and Melaka, the rest of the states in Malaya were NOT colonies of Great Britain. Therefore, the discussion was about the transfer of administrative powers from the representatives of the Malay Rulers (the British) to a government formed through the elections by the people of Malaya. 31st August 1957 was an independence from feudalism, not colonialism. (Read SeaDemon: The Road to Merdeka – Whom Did the British Prefer?, 17 September 2011)

You must understand that while the Rulers retain some of their functions, the government is run by those elected by the rakyat. This was done to ensure that democracy in then-Malaya was not to do away with the Malay Rulers. Therefore, Mahathir’s attempt to get the Rulers Institution to dismiss Najib Razak for someone else as the Prime Minister, there is nothing that any of the Rulers could democratically do. The Rulers, although above the law, are not above the Federal Constitution. Like with the British advisors, there is virtually nothing that the Rulers could do without the advise of the Prime Minister or the Menteris Besar to affect the state or Federal administration except in a few circumstances.

Article 43(2) of the Federal Constitution states that:

2) The Cabinet shall be appointed as follows, that is to say:

(a) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri (Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House; and

(b) He shall on the advice of the Prime Minister appoint other Menteri (Ministers) from among the members of either House of Parliament

What it says here is in order to have a functioning government, the Yang DiPertuan Agong would have to first appoint a Prime Minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Dewan Rakyat members. The term ‘who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House‘ here is critically important and we shall visit this aspect later. This term and Article must be read together with Article 40(2) of the Federal Constitution that says:

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions, that is to say:

(a) the appointment of a Prime Minister;

(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament;

What it means according to Article 40(2) of the Federal Constitution is that the Yang DiPertuan Agong has the discretionary power to appoint the Prime Minister subject to his own discretion but limited to the ambit of Article 43(2) of the same. In Article 43(5) states that only Ministers can be dismissed by the Yang DiPertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister:

Subject to Clause (4), Ministers other than the Prime Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, unless the appointment of any Minister shall have been revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister but any Minister may resign his office.

In Teh Chang Poh vs PP (1979 – 1 MLJ 50) William John Kenneth Diplock (Lord Diplock) opined the following:

Although this, like other powers under the Constitution, is conferred nominally upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of his office as the Supreme Head of the Federation and is expressed to be exercisable if he is satisfied of a particular matter, his functions are those of a constitutional monarch and except on matters that do not concern the instant appeal, he does not exercise any of his functions under the Constitution on his own initiative but is required by Article 40(1) to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. So when one finds in the Constitution itself or in a Federal law powers conferred upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that are expressed to be exercisable if he is of opinion or is satisfied that a particular state of affair exists or that particular action is necessary, the reference to his opinion or satisfaction is in reality a reference to the collective opinion or satisfaction of the members of the Cabinet, or the opinion or satisfaction of a particular Minister to whom the Cabinet have delegated their authority to give advice upon the matter in question.

Therefore, Constitutionally-speaking, the Prime Minister can only be replaced in only two circumstances:

when the Prime Minister loses the majority of support of the members of the Dewan Rakyat (therefore the appointment of a new one would have to be based on the judgment of His Majesty the Yang DiPertuan Agong that has the most majority support of the Dewan, or,
A General Election causes the Prime Minister to lose his parliamentary seat, and His Majesty would have to appoint one before appointing a Cabinet as prescribed in Article 43(2)(a).

The Yang DiPertuan Agong therefore cannot act ultra vires.

So, why is Mahathir’s Schwarze Korps so eager in pushing the idea of the Rulers Institution being able to remove a Prime Minister?

The answer is: propaganda that only zombies would accept at face value.

Just like the 1MDB issue where Schwarze Dummkopf A Kadir Jasin et al are saying that the investigation into the case has stopped altogether, whereas the Inspector-General of Police had announced on 19 August 2016 that the investigation into the 1MDB issue has entered its second phase!

I guess Mahathir’s interest in ousting Najib Razak is just so one of his Pribumis could be appointed as the Prime Minister. For that reason he is trying to make a pact with Anwar Ibrahim’s PKR. He knows that his lie about the powers of the Agong to remove Najib Razak will soon be debunked, and that it is just noise – no substance. Therefore, he would need to work with PKR, DAP and jumpers from the BN to oust Najib Razak in accordance with Article 43(2)(a).

However, despite declaring that Muhyiddin would become the Prime Minister if the Opposition wins, we all know that the protem President of Parti Pribumi would never make it as the Prime Minister. Muhyiddin has far too many baggages that would be easy to pick on. His son Mukhriz is the favourite contender. He said so HERE.

Mahathir's confession that he wants his son Mukhriz to become the PM instead of Muhyiddin — Mahathir’s confession that he wants his son Mukhriz to become the PM instead of Muhyiddin

Well Muhyiddin, you have been had!

August 24, 2016

Sarawak Repost

Give enough rope and he will hang himself

That is how the idiom goes. Muhyiddin was the first one to admit that there was a conspiracy to topple Najib Razak. Then recently Mahathir himself named the conspirators as former Governor of Bank Negara Zeti Aktar Aziz, former Attorney-General Gani Patail, and former head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Abu Kassim. Mahathir’s favourite news portal Sarawak Report has now joined in and underscored the role of the three in trying to bring down Najib Razak. This time around, the Sarawak Report (SR) has gone overboard by including His Majesty The Yang DiPertuan Agong into the conspiracy.

The SR claims that by middle of 2015, all three conspirators agreed that Najib Razak had embezzled billions from public funds “not only to fund lavish frivolities for the PM and his wife and family, but also influence the outcome of a very tight election.”

First and foremost, the investigation into the 1MDB was far from over in the middle of 2015. A quick check of SPRM’s press statements archive found no such announcement being made. Furthermore, Najib Razak as the accused had not been called to give his statement regarding the 1MDB, and it was only in December 2015 that Najib Razak was summoned to do so. How a charge sheet was drafted before investigation was completed is beyond me. When investigations were completed and submitted to the 20-member Public Accounts Committee, the PAC released its findings on 7th April 2016 that there is absolutely no truth in billions having gone missing, and that the 1MDB issue is solely governance in nature. This findings was also agreed and signed by six Opposition members of the PAC including Tony Pua himself.

As for influencing a very tight election, the SR’s myopic reporting means that nothing is ever mentioned about journalist Nile Bowie’s report on the millions of USD channeled to the Opposition and/or Opposition-friendly organisations annually to fund activities that would destabilise the ruling government.The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has channeled millions to beneficiaries such as SUARAM, BERSIH, Merdeka Center for Opinion Research through the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The IRI, said Nile Bowie, received $802,122 in 2010 to work with “state leaders in Penang and Selangor to provide them with public opinion research, training and other resources to enable them to be more effective representatives of their constituents”. IRI claims that it “does not provide direct funding to political parties” in Malaysia, but their lack of transparency, significant budget and emphasis on helping broaden the appeal of political parties in opposition-held states suggests at the very minimum that funding is taking place indirectly.

The SR also claims that Najib Razak is the sole shareholder and decision-maker in the 1MDB and the only man able to sign off investment decisions such as the Joint Ventures with Petrosaudi and Aabar,

Perhaps, the SR does not know that the Minister of Finance (Incorporated) was passed in an Act of law in 1957 through the Minister of Finance (Incorporation) Act, 1957 that was revised under Mahathir Mohamad’s tenure in September 1987. Its objectives are to ensure sustained and continuous economic growth; to strengthen national competitiveness and economic resilience; to ensure effective and prudent financial management; to pursue a more equitable sharing of national wealth; and to improve quality of life and well being of society. It is headed by one Encik Asri of Bahagian Menteri Kewangan (Diperbadankan). And mind you, Najib Razak is not the only Minister of Finance. There is a dedicated Minister of Finance whose time is 100 percent there unlike Najib Razak. He is NOT a Deputy Minister, he is a FULL Finance Minister.

Of course, according to the SR, the conspirators then had no choice but to bring the matters to His Majesty Yang DiPertuan Agong, and the Yang DiPertuan Agong agreed that Najib Razak should step down “while prosecution took its course.” Like I mentioned above, how was it possible for prosecution to proceed when Najib Razak himself had not been questioned on his involvement by the very agencies claimed by SR to have decided to prosecute? Furthermore, what Constitutional powers does the Yang DiPertuan Agong have to tell Najib Razak to step down? Even Lim Guan Eng, already investigated and charged in court on two counts of corruption, has not left office to let prosecution take its course!

On the 28th July 2015, Gani Patail was removed as the Attorney-General and was replaced by Mohamed Apandi Ali. SR pointed that the act of removing the AG was unconstitutional. Allow me to go slightly deep into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to comment on this claim.

The Federation of Malaya was born on 31st August 1957, adopting a new Constitution that replaced the Federated Malay States Constitution of 1948. During that time, the Attorney-General was Cecil Majella Sheridan, a practicing solicitor who joined the Colonial Legal Service to help reopen the courts in 1946 after World War Two. He was posted to Kelantan and Terengganu to become the States’ Legal Adviser and Deputy Public Prosecutor. In 1955, he became the Legal Draftsman for the Federation. Upon Indepence, Sheridan was made the Solicitor-General and subsequently the Attorney-General in 1959. Sheridan then began to prepare for the enlargement of Malaya into Malaysia (with the accession in 1963 of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak). In the process, he worked closely with Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, and Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore.

During this time, Article 145 of the Federal Constitution was limited to five clauses only. Article 145(5) then provided that “the Attorney-General shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.” This Article was drafted by the Reid Commission and subsequently passed to be included in the Federal Constitution of 1957. A Government White Paper explained the need for Article 145(5):

“It is essential that , in discharging his duties, the Attorney-General should act in an impartial and quasi-judicial spirit. A clause has therefore been included to safeguard the Attorney-General’s position by providing that he shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court.”

This is still maintained in Articles 105(3) for the Auditor-General and 125(3) for the Judges.

With the imminent formtion of the Federation of Malaysia, Sheridan amended Clause 5 of Article 145 and added Clause 6 to facilitate his eventual removal from the AG’s position. Article 145(6) of the Federation of Malaysia Constitution, 1963 reads:

“The person holding the office of the Attorney-General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article (note: specific reference to Sheridan) shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.”

And Clause 5 of the Article was changed to the following:

“Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang DiPertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang DiPertuan Agong may determine.”

Article 145 was amended for two reasons according to Sheridan’s successor, Abdul Cadir Yusoff: one is the desire to have “the most suitable person available for the performance of the onerous tasks” of the AG’s office regardless whether the person was from the pubic service or not, and secondly the impartiality of a political appointee could be assured by conferring on him “untrammelled constitutional discretion.” Bear in mind that Abdul Cadir was both a lawyer and a politician and could not have been appointed under the previous version of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution, in its present form, requires for the formation of a tribunal to remove or replace an Attorney-General as applicable to the Auditor-General and Judges via Articles 105(3) and 125(3).

Therefore, Gani Patail’s removal was not unconstitutional.

I refuse to comment on the rest of the fairy tale that Clare Rewcastle Brown had conjured because she seemed excited plucking these stories from a very low sky that her nipples probably scrape the ground giving her that pleasure. Like the story about the fire that had occured at the Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters in Bukit Aman, as she claimed “destroyed evidence of money laundering” when the division that was investigating the 1MDB issue is housed in a different building in a different part of the Bukit Aman complex. Also on the murder of DPP Kevin Morais whom she said was the one who had drafted the charge against Najib Razak when the poor sod was confirmed by his own brother and by authorities not investigating 1MDB.

You can choose to believe Sarawak Report if you wish to. All Clare Rewcastle Brown does is to repost trash and expands on it, grabbing more invisible low hanging fruits while her nipples harden at being scraped against the asphalt. Must make her wet teling lies. But it’s funny how the white trash seem to have conveniently omitted Justo from the equation.

Nothing to hide? I don’t think so.

July 22, 2016

Comprehension Needed

Malaysians hardly read. Nor do they have the brain capacity to either process information or store information. This is why Malaysians have a very short attention span, memory retaining problem and are also gullible.

Example 1

When Malaysians read they have this superb speed-reading capability that they have used during their schooldays especially during last minute slogging sessions days before the SPM examinations. They will pick up key words, process these words in a crude manner that would make sense to only them and that forms their understanding.

So when the Attorney-General of the US Loretta Lynch conducted the press conference on the misappropriation of 1MDB sovereign funds, Malaysians pick up certain keywords, and they are:

Riza Aziz
Stepson
1MDB
Stolen
People of Malaysia
Malaysian Official 1

Simpletons put these six words together and they have a conjuncture that says “Malaysian Official 1 and stepson Riza Aziz together with 1MDB stole from the people of Malaysia.”

I would have termed them as nincompoops or morons but for the purpose of this article I’d like to make them sound like a bunch of professional morons – hence the use of the term simpletons.

The DoJ are applying for the seizure of assets “associated with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated” from 1MDB.

This is about people who took money from funds meant for 1MDB to profiteer and for their personal consumption.

There are four people named in this civil forfeiture lawsuit and they are Riza Aziz who is the stepson of Najib Razak, Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, and Abu Dhabi government officials Khadem al-Qubaisi and Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny.

The four named above would now have to respond to the complaints filed in the lawsuit (show cause if you must, for the simpletons) to say to the DoJ that they purchased assets through legal means. This lawsuit can take up to seven years before it would come to a conclusion.

My point here is, dear simpletons, Najib Razak whom you have linked Malaysian Official 1 to be, is not named in this lawsuit. He is not a party to this process. Neither are 1MDB Official 1, 1MDB Official 2, and 1MDB Official 3.

Neither is anything missing or seized from 1MDB as 1MDB is also NOT a party to this civil lawsuit. In a larger scheme of things, it is 1MDB that is the victim of misappropriation and not a collusion partner to the four mentioned above.

(Note for Simpletons: please read this paragraph 50 times). As Malaysians also have problems retaining memory, it is important to remember that the criminal investigation by the Royal Malaysian Police into the administration and governance of the 1MDB based on the PAC report is still ongoing. This is the same PAC report that has cleared Najib Razak from any wrongdoing and was signed in absolute agreement by its members which includes DAP lawbreaker Tony Pua. To add to that, Najib Razak is not being subjected to any investigation as announced not only in Malaysia and the US, but also in Singapore and Switzerland and a couple other countries. (Simpletons now go back to the beginning of this paragraph).

Oh! Talk about having short memory:

Example 2

Fatigue, mood swings, absent-mindedness all come with that dreadful word MENOPAUSE. It also comes with age. So if you are 64 and menopausal absent-mindedness probably comes as a double-whammy. That is why I can forgive Wan Azizah for her episodes of absent-mindedness.

She forgot that Najib Razak is not under any form of investigation or lawsuit, yet calls for Najib Razak to go on leave. Her absent-mindedness has made her forgot about one person whom have abused his position (much like her husband did prior to 1998) for personal gains and has actually been charged in a court of law! Did Wan Azizah call for this person to go on leave?

So, Wan Azizah is menopausal. But what has Tony Pua got to say for himself?

I don’t hear any call from Tony Pua asking Lim Guan Eng after the latter was charged in court. He can’t claim to be menopausal as he was born in Batu Pahat 44 years ago as was Guan Eng’s father, Lim Kit Siang. Furthermore, Tony is a man.

Or maybe not.

Lim Guan Eng had personally benefitted from the purchase of the bungalow on Jalan Pinhorn at a much lower price than its actual value. Using his position to interfere or influence the price of the bungalow. If he sells this bungalow tomorrow, then he would big making a huge some of money, thanks to his position as the Chief Minister of Penang that he has thus far been very reluctant to let go.

We are also still waiting for the documents pertaining to the proposed third Penang bridge that the Works Ministry has asked for. Let us also not forget about the RM305 million paid for a feasibility study for a RM6.3 billion tunnel linking Georgetown and Butterworth! RM305 million could have gotten the marginalised Chinese, Indian and Malay people of Penang 7,625 low cost affordable homes that would house at least 45,750 marginalised Penangites if they are priced at RM40,000 per unit!

So let us not digress from the main attention here which is the corrupted State Government of Pulau Pinang that is led by its Corrupted Minister Mr Lim Guan Eng who has been charged in court!

Najib Razak? Najib Razak has not done anything wrong as far as at least four nations are concerned and should just go about his business of developing the country as usual.

July 21, 2016

Ejakulasi Pramatang

Saya tergelak besar apabila membaca cerita-cerita awal yang keluar di media massa dan elektronik berkenaan “rampasan harta milik 1MDB” yang kini digembar-gemburkan oleh mereka-mereka yang:

Tidak gemar membaca isi kandungan sesuatu penulisan, hanya tajuk utama,
Suka berkongsi pautan URL tanpa mengetahui isi kandungan, dan,
Membaca hanya kata kunci seperti rampasan, 1MDB, Malaysian Official 1, WSJ, dan terus membuat rumusan bahawa Najib Razak telah mencuri wang rakyat dari 1MDB.

Kepada yang ada masalah ejakulasi awal, wang yang telah disalahgunakan datangnya dari IPIC dan bukannya 1MDB. Wang yang diperolehi oleh Red Granite adalah dari IPIC.

Belum ada sesiapa yang didakwa di mahkamah, jauh sekali telah berlakunya rampasan harta milik Red Granite.

Mari kita membuat sedikit pentelaahan:

MEMAHAMI SAMAN SIVIL YANG DIFAILKAN JABATAN KEADILAN AMERIKA SYARIKAT:
Dokumen Jabatan Keadilan Amerika Syarikat memerlukan masa untuk membaca sepenuhnya namun berikut adalah ringkasan daripada dokumen itu dan sidang media yang dibuat oleh Peguam Negara Amerika Syarikat:
Jabatan Keadilan Amerika Syarikat (DOJ) telah memfailkan saman sivil bagi menyita aset yang mereka percaya ada kaitan dengan 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) daripada empat individu di bawah Inisiatif Pengambilan Semula Aset Kleptocracy.
S1: Siapakah empat individu itu?
Mereka ialah anak tiri Perdana Menteri, Riza Aziz; ahli perniagaan rakyat Malaysia, Jho Low; bekas pengarah urusan IPIC- syarikat milik kerajaan Abu Dhabi, Khadem Al Qubaisi yang juga bekas Pengerusi Aabar Investments PJS dan Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny yang bertanggungjawab menjalankan urusan dengan 1MDB pada masa itu.
S2: Apakah itu Inisiatif Pengambilan Semula Aset Kleptocracy?
Ia adalah satu inisiatif yang dimulakan pada tahun 2010 oleh Kerajaan Amerika Syarikat melalui Jabatan Keadilan negara itu bertujuan untuk menyita dan mengambil semula aset di dalam negara itu yang disyaki Jabatan Keadilan mempunyai kaitan kepada kegiatan rasuah daripada negara asing dan mengembalikannya kepada negara asal.
S3: Mengapa DOJ menyiasat kes ini?
Pada Mac 2015, DOJ menerima aduan daripada Sarawak Report. Lanjutan daripada itu, mereka turut menerima aduan daripada penyokong setia Tun Mahathir, Khairuddin Abu Hassan.
S4: Apa sebenarnya yang difailkan DOJ terhadap empat individu terbabit dan apa akan terjadi selepas ini?
DOJ telah memfailkan kes sivil bagi memohon mahkamah menyita aset 3 individu. Mahkamah kemudian akan memeriksa jika aset terbabit turut dituntut oleh pihak lain. Jika tiada pihak lain menuntut aset terbabit, maka mahkamah akan meminta
DOJ membuktikan aset terbabit sama ada dicuri atau diperolehi dengan cara jenayah.
S5: Adakah Perdana Menteri turut didakwa?
Tidak. Perdana Menteri tidak didakwa malah tidak dinamakan dalam kes ini disebalik dakwaan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pada September 2015 kononnya Najib bimbang untuk ke luar negara kerana mungkin ditangkap Biro Siasatan Persekutuan (FBI). Ini adalah tidak benar bukan sahaja kes ini adalah kes sivil malah Najib turut tidak disebut dalam saman ini.

Namun terdapat rujukan dibuat kepada Malaysia Official 1 di mana DOJ mendakwa individu ini telah menerima dana yang berkait dengan 1MDB.
S6: Adakah sesiapa akan dipenjarakan jika aset dapat disita?
Tidak. Ini adalah kes sivil dan bukannya kes jenayah. Jika mahkamah menyebelahi DOJ, aset akan disita. Tiada pemenjaraan atau pertuduhan jenayah.
S7: Jika mahkamah membenarkan aset disita, apakah akan terjadi kepada aset terbabit?
DOJ akan mengembalikan aset terbabit kepada pihak yang dipercayai pemilik asal, dan dalam kes ini, 1MDB.
S7: Adakah aset yang dibeli itu adalah daripada wang yang dicuri daripada 1MDB?
1MDB telah dan secara konsisten menegaskan tiada wang dicuri dan dapat memperincikan ke mana wang disalurkan. Namun demikian, 1MDB kini dalam pertikaian dengan IPIC di mana 1MDB tetap dengan pendirian yang mereka telah membayar atau mendepostikan atau menjamin sehingga USD6 bilion oleh sebuah syarikat bernama Aabar Investments PJS BVI selepas menerima arahan daripada Pengerusi Aabar ketika itu, Khadem Al Qubaisi dan juga bekas Pengarah Urusan.
IPIC mempertikaikan ia memiliki Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) seterusnya menafikan ia meneria dana terbabit daripada 1MDB. Pertikaian ini kini dibawa ke Pusat Arbitrasi London dan akan mengambil masa berbulan. Apapun, 1MDB sangat yakin mereka akan memenangi kes ini dan akan dapat memperoleh semula wang terbabit, dan sebab itulah 1MDB sebelum ini enggan membayar faedah bagi bon USD3.5 bilion biarpun berupaya berbuat demikian serta membolehkan penjaminan bon berkenaan oleh IPIC dan kini dalam proses arbitrasi.
S8: Jika wang itu tidak dicuri, jadi mengapa DOJ bertindak ke atas aduan dibuat?
Adalah tidak mustahil wang yang dibayar 1MDB kepada Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) yang dikawal Khadem dan turut dinafikan IPIC memilikinya, telah digunakan untuk membiayai pelbagai pelaburan di Amerika Syarikat termasuk hartanah, perfileman, karya seni dan syarikat.
S9: Berapa nilai aset yang terlibat dalam kes DOJ ini?

Tiada jumlah spesifik yang disahkan namun laporan daripada New York Times dan WSJ mendakwa ia bernilai hingga USD1 bilion.
S10: Mengapa anak tiri Perdana Menteri, Riza Aziz terlibat?

WSJ sebelum ini melaporkan yang penyiasat percaya syarikat perfileman RIza Aziz, Red Granite menerima USD155 juta dalam bentuk pinjaman daripada Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) di mana kebanyakkannya disalurkan bagi membiayai filem yang diterbitkan pada 2013, ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ dan bagi membeli hartanah.
WSJ mendakwa dokumen menunjukkan tiga pindahan wang dibuat kepada Red Granite Capital pada 2012, USD60 juta, USD45 juta dan USD50 juta.
Daripada jumlah itu, USD105 juta telah digunakan Red Granite sebagai pinjaman manakala USD50 juta dipindahkan kepada syarikat melalui pihak ketiga.
“Menurut mereka yang mengetahui mengenai siasatan dan 1MDB, antara pihak ketiga itu ialah Telina Holdings Inc, sebuah syarikat yang ditubuhkan di British Virgin Islands oleh Al Husseiny dan bosnya, Khadem Al Qubaisi.” (Kedua penama ini disebut sebagai antara individu disaman DOJ).
Menurut WSJ, pinjaman USD50 juta daripada Telina Holdings sudahpun dibayar semula, memetik mereka yang mengetahui mengenai siasatan itu.
Seorang jurucakap Red Granite memberitahu WSJ, syarikat itu sudah membayar pinjaman dan akan terus membuat pembayaran kepada semua pinjaman mereka.
“Red Granite tidak mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai dana daripada Aabar adalah mencurigakan dan yakin dana pinjaman itu adalah sah.
“Apa yang Red Granite sudah lakukan dan akan meneruskan usaha menerbitkan filem yang berjaya yang pernah memperolehi lebih daripada USD825 juta pulangan daripada tayangan seluruh dunia.
S11: Jika ia adalah satu pinjaman atau pelaburan ke dalam Red Granite di mana sebahagian atau sepenuhnya sudah dibayar daripada sebuah filem yang berjaya, mengapa pula Riza Aziz dijadikan sasaran kepada saman sivil ini?
Di Amerika Syarikat, jika anda memperoleh keuntungan daripada dana yang DOJ syaki disalurkan daripada sumber tidak sah, ia dipanggil ‘pengambilan untung / pencatutan, maka keuntungan yang diperolehi juga adalah tidak sah dan boleh disita, iaitu menjana pendapatan daripada dana haram. Ini berbeza daripada mencuri wang.
DOJ kemudian perlu membuktikan Red Granite menyedari dana atau pinjaman yang diterima adalah tidak sah.
S12: Bagaimana pun dengan pelaburan Jho Low?
Tidak banyak didedahkan apakah aset atau nilai pelaburan yang dimiliki Jho Low, seorang pengurus dana di Amerika Syarikat namun Jho Low sebelum ini pernah mengesahkan dia memiliki sebuah hartanah di Amerika Syarikat dan mungkin turut membuat pelaburan di dalam syarikat berpengkalan di negara yang sama.
S13: Berapa lama kes sivil ini akan mengambil masa sebelum penghakiman dibuat?
Kes seumpamanya telah mengambil masa bertahun lamanya di mana kedua pihak mengemukakan pertikaian mereka di mahkamah Amerika Syarikat bagi membolehkan hakim membuat keputusannya.
S14: Adakah apa apa yang ganjil mengenai kes ini?

Ada. Secara tipikalnya, pihak yang kononnya menjadi mangsa kepada kecurian wang ini iaitu 1MDB perlu membuat aduan kepada DOJ bagi memohon jabatan itu menyita sebarang aset yang mereka percaya dibeli daripada wang yang dicuri. Dalam kes ini, 1MDB secara konsisten menyatakan tiada wang yang dicuri dan mereka dapat memperincikan setiap pelaburan atau pindahan wang namun DOJ tetap memfailkan saman sivil kononnya bagi mendapatkan kembali ‘wang yang dicuri’ biarpun ‘mangsa’ (1MDB) sudah menjelaskan tiada wang dicuri daripadanya.
S15: Macam mana pula 1MDB mengatakan tiada wang dicuri dan dapat diperincikan walhal DOJ mendakwa ia dibelanjakan dengan mewah sekali?
1MDB berurusan dengan rakan kongsi yang dimiliki kerajaan negara asing dan dana pelaburan yang sah serta diperakui bank antarabangsa. 1MDB memindahkan wang kepada mereka. Apa yang mereka lakukan selepas wang dipindahkan bukanlah di bawah kawalan atau pengetahuan 1MDB. Ia adalah tanggungjawab pihak yang menerima.

1MDB sudah memulakan proses mendapatkan semula aset daripada pihak terbabit, di mana ia melibatkan kerjasama dengan syarikat dipertikai Aabar Investment PJS Ltd yang kini sedang melalui proses arbitrasi. 1MDB yakin ia akan memberikan keputusan positif.
S16: Bagaimana pula dengan deposit yang dibuat ke dalam akaun Malaysia Official 1 sebagaimana disebutkan dalam laporan FBI?
Adalah penting untuk kita tahu, akaun ini biarpun dibuka atas nama peribadi, ia bukan untuk kegunaan peribadi di mana ia adalah satu akaun khas presiden untuk kegunaan parti dan dibenarkan oleh perlembagaan parti. Amalan ini turut diperakui Muhyiddin Yassin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnI_5pbkqs0
Malah, WSJ turut mengakui dana dalam akaun ini digunakan bagi tujuan politik dan bukannya untuk kegunaan peribadi.
TIdak pernah pada bila-bila masa, Malaysia Official 1 menerima wang daripada akaun 1MDB untuk dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadinya. DOJ mendakwa Malaysia Official 1 mengekalkan jumlah RM210 juta daripada tiga pindahan yang boleh dikaitkan dengan 1MDB.
Tiga pemindahan wang itu ialah:

1. RM60 juta (USD20 juta pada masa itu) dibayar pada 2011 (kerjasama perkongsian antara 1MDB dan PetroSaudi bermula pada 2009) daripada akaun Gabenor Riyadh ketika itu, Prince Turki Al Saud. DOJ mendakwa pembayaran RM60 juta ini pada tahun 2011 datang daripada pelaburan USD1.83 bilion yang dibuat 1MDB bagi perkongsian kerjasama dengan PetroSaudi pada 2009.
2. RM100 juta (USD30 juta pada masa itu) – dibayar pada lewat 2012 daripada akaun BlackStone Asia. DOJ mendakwa wang RM100 juta ini pada Nov 2012 adalah daripada bon USD3.5 bilion yang dikeluarkan 1MDB dan IPIC pada April 2012. Namun demikian, pemindahan ini turut disokong oleh sekeping surat setahun sebelum itu iaitu pada 2011 di mana pengirimnya menjelaskan akan memindahkan wang sehingga USD375 juta daripada beberapa akaun termasuk BlackStone Asia. Lihat https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2777406/375m-pledge-letter-to-Najib-Razak-from-HRH.pdf
3. RM50 juta – yang datang daripada RM2.08 bilion (atau terkenal dengan jumlah USD681 juta pada kadar tukaran ketika itu USD1 = RM3.05) dipindahkan pada Mac 2013, iaitu sebelum PRU13 sebelum dikembalikan pada Ogos 2013, melalui akaun Tanore. Pemindahan ini turut disokong surat daripada penderma kerabat diraja Arab Saudi di mana SPRM turut menemuramah keluarga kerabat diraja itu dan Menteri Luar Arab Saudi turut menyatakan ia adalah dana mereka.
Saya pasti tidak pada bila-bila masa Malaysia Official 1 mengetahui asal usul sebenar dana yang dipindahkan ke dalam akaunnya. Pengetahuannya adalah berdasarkan kepada aturan tahun-tahun sebelum itu yang dibuat dengan kerajaan Arab Saudi di mana derma politik disalurkan ke akaunnya untuk kegunaan parti. Adalah penting untuk kita fahami, setiap pemindahan itu akan turut dilampirkan dengan surat daripada kerabat diraja Arab Saudi.

Ikuti perkembangan isu ini di MyNation

June 21, 2016

The Never-Ending ProTun Saga

This was written by Ms Lim Sian See:

The PakaTun Chief Dedak Blogger, OutSyed the Box who deletes his posts within one or two days because he is scared of saman fitnah, has just written an article saying that MOF will be made bankrupt by a UK court in London on 11 JULAI 2016 (Raya Ke 5).
This view is of course shared by the Pentaksub Tuns such as my FB friend Blue Ocean Mohd Hanizam Bin Yunus’s post which has got many shares and likes.
But of course these are all tipu by the above people unable to accept defeat in the recent by-elections.
Firstly, this is related to an arbitration request made by Aabar to 1MDB to decide who is right or wrong in the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).
The LCIA is not actually a real court but non-for-profit company that is used as a service to solve disputes – normally between companies in different countries or between countries themselves.
This LCIA has NO jurisdictions and the result is NON-BINDING and the court CANNOT ENFORCE its decisions.
So, how does LCIA have the authority to declare the ministry of Finance as “bankrupt”?
This is not the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which doesn;t hear business disputes anyway. But the penipu PakaTuns probably confused this with the LCIA.

Secondly, this is USD6.5b or RM26b. Our current govt debt and GDP is certainly bigger than that. It is just 2.6% of our GDP, so how can MOF be made bankrupt?
Another way to look at this is that your annual salary is RM100,000 every year, does it make sense that you get declared bankrupt over a dispute involving RM2,600?

Thirdly, the July 11 date is the date for 1MDB to file it’s reply. It is not even decision date. Arbitration can take years and 1MDB believes it has a solid case – which is why it refuses to pay the interest on the bonds which led to this arbitration even though it had the money to do so.
So, how can July 11 be the date when MOF is declared bankrupt when it is just the date to file its response before the case actually starts being heard – which could take years?
Fourthly. this amount of RM26b or USD6.5b is made out of:

– USD3.5b (being the bonds in dispute – which is already part of the very misleading RM42b or RM55b that PakaTUN people like to use.),

– USD1.5b is for future interest of these bonds

– USD500m for the remainder of the Aabar options that 1MDB said it has paid but IPIC said no.

– USD1 billion, which is for the return of the money already paid by IPIC to 1MDB last June.

Therefore, the above amount is nothing new and with this dispute, 1MDB also does not need to pass over the financial assets that it intended to swap with IPIC and can thus liquidate or redeem them later.
Again, it is clear that the PakaTun penipus continue to take advantage of their followers ignorance with propaganda lies such as this – despite knowing that majority of Malaysians already reject your much repeated fairy-tales as shown in the recent Sarawak elections and the two by-elections.
I have full confidence that Arul Kanda, our MOF and 1MDB knows what they are doing and will resolve this irritation soon.

In the meantime, I challenge Hanizam, OutSyed and the rest of the PakaTun this:
If MOF is not declared Bankrupt by 11 July 2016 or even 11 Aug 2016, you must all make a public apology for your fitnah during Ramadan and quit writing forever.
In return, if MOF is indeed declared bankrupt on those two days, I will reveal my public ID, make a public apology and kow-tow to both of you and quit writing forever.
Do we have a deal?

—

http://www.lcia.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions.aspx#_Court_

April 7, 2016

Pathetic Puaka

Guess what?

Tony Puaka has just been labelled “PATHETIC” by Ambiga and Maria Chin.

Also labelled as pathetic are other members of the Public Accounts Committee from Pakatan namely its Deputy Chairman, Tan Seng Giaw, Kamarul Baharin Abbas, William Leong Jee Ken, and Takiyuddin Hassan.

You can read more here.
I’m just trying to imagine Tony Puaka’s reaction to the statement. I can actually imagine it already.

April 7, 2016April 7, 2016

Grotesque Bastard

YAB PM NAJIB RAZAK :-

7 April 2016

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REPORT ON 1MDB

Following multiple grave allegations made against 1MDB, such as Tun Mahathir’s claim that 42 billion had gone missing, the Cabinet under my instruction asked the Auditor General in March 2015 to conduct an independent investigation into 1MDB’s financial accounts.

To ensure that this was a transparent process, we also instructed that the findings be passed for review to the Public Accounts Committee – a bi-partisan body that includes opposition parliamentarians.

After an exhaustive process, the PAC has today released a report with its findings to Parliament. This report represents a consensus by the PAC members, and its findings are based on facts and hundreds of hours of reviews and investigations.

I would like to thank the National Audit Department and PAC for producing a comprehensive, conclusive and definitive report.

Having reviewed it, I note that the PAC’s report shows that 42 billion is not missing from 1MDB, as had been alleged by Tun Mahathir.

However, the report has identified weaknesses in 1MDB’s capital structure and management. We will study and act on the report’s recommendations. We must ensure that lessons are learned, and action will be taken if any evidence of wrongdoing is found.

Equally, it is now clear that Tun Mahathir’s allegations against 1MDB have been false. He was motivated by personal interest, not the national interest, and a desire to unseat the government.

We will continue to focus on our economic plan and strengthening the economy – which has continued to show resilience in the face of global challenges.

1) NR FACEBOOK

https://www.facebook.com/najibrazak/posts/10153437268835952

2) NR Twitter

https://twitter.com/najibrazak/status/717967890666770432

3)NAJIBRAZAK.COM

https://www.najibrazak.com/en/blog/public-accounts-committee-report-on-1mdb/

The PAC has cleared the Prime Minister of any involvement in the 1MDB issues and has clearly stated that it was a governance issue where a former CEO needs further probe done on him.

The PAC also includes Tony Pua, the incorrigible and habitual liar, much like his Squidward friend who was arrested by the police yesterday. Tiny Pee or Little Wee as I would like to call him based on his name Tony Pua Kiam Wee, who is part of the PAC and also signed and agreed to the report, is still trying to hoodwink the public. He is not interested in the truth, he is just bent on destroying the BN through manipulating the public’s perception on the issue.

If I were 1MDB, because the PAC report is already out in the open and is no longer subjected to the OSA, I would start suing big time liars such as Mahathir, Rafizi and Tiny Pee. Then we will see this big liar with Little Wee.

February 25, 2016February 25, 2016

Najib Should Face Charges

Should he?

So said the Oversight Review Panel of the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission that met for the last time on the 24th February 2016 at 10am. The meeting lasted three hours and they concluded the meeting at 1pm.

Look at the time the above was released by The Malaysian Inciter – 7am! Now how did the ORP issue a statement before it even convened?
Suddenly, The Malaysian Inciter got blocked by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission! That’s another big lie up there that they published!

Didn’t the ORP agreed to a statement saying Najib should face the music? The Star came out with this:

There is a straight denial by the Chairman of the ORP on the “statement” released to The Malaysan Inciter. The Chairman issued the following statement:

Therefore, not only did the ORP not issue such statement, it has also denied requesting the MACC to issue a public statement on the issues.

I have a word of advice for Rohaizat, who is the Director of Strategic Communications and Media for the MACC. The MACC is a body that is supposed to be the epitome of the word integrity. Rohaizat has none and he should just resign, discard his uniform and join the line of ladies who have nothing better to do with their mouth.

In the meantime the police should investigate the “ORP statement”, The Malaysian Inciter, and grill Rohaizat to see who is paying him to be such a girl.

January 30, 2016January 30, 2016

Mr Lauber Lauber

When the statement above came out, I was like “Whoa! What’s this all about?” I wasn’t caught surprised by the statement, I was more surprised that a press statement was made by the Attorney-General of Switzerland, Michael Lauber, when all he could have done was to call up his Malaysian counterpart and seek help.

So, what’s with the drama, Michael Lauber?

Geneva MP, Carlo Sommaruga has been trying for years to get the Michael Lauber to declare Sarawak governor Taib Mahmud’s family a criminal organisation for the alleged timber-riches gained by the Taib family. The main complain comes from the Bruno Manser Foundation. Manser, a Swiss-national cum activist went missing on 15 February 2000. A lot of theories have been offered on his disappearance, much like the disappearance of Jim Thompson on 26 March 1967. Theories were in abundance but as the saying goes, it’s a jungle out there, literally. And to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, murder isn’t the only reason a person could disappear in the jungle.

What is the connection here? The report that prompted the statement above was made by the Bruno Manser Foundation. The Foundation also finances Sarawak Report. Both Bruno Manser and Claire Rewcastle Brown are the apparent gwei los who have been chosen to save Malaysia. Lauber, although is an Attorney-General, was not appointed as one, but was elected by the United Federal Assembly of Switzerland. I will leave this portion at that for the moment.

Now, if you notice, there is always a pattern of attacks. Everytime the Ringgit strengthens, outlooks start to look positive and our stock market jumps, these gwei lo organisations will issue statements or get someone to issue a statement like the above. We see this occurring many times especially when the attacks on the 1MDB peaked last year.

Back to Michael Lauber. Being the elected Attorney-General, his office comes under the Federal Department of Justice and Police which is headed by Simonetta Sommaruga, who was also the President of Switzerland until 31 December 2015. If you notice the surname, yes, she is a relative of Carlo Sommaruga mentioned in the early part of this post. Perhaps an election for the Attorney-General’s post is near!

Hence you get the very unprofessional conduct of issuing a press statement instead of making a call to his counterpart, a very unethical and unbecoming conduct of an Attorney-General and sure does not reflect mature professionalism of the civil servants of this well-respected country.

And for this unprofessional conduct by the Swiss AG, our AG has issued the following statement:

‎STATEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

30 January 2016

‎

1. I note the statement issued by the Office of the Attorney-General of Switzerland, and further remarks attributed to the Swiss Attorney-General by an American newspaper, concerning an investigation into two former officials of 1MDB.

2. I and the relevant Malaysian authorities are keen to establish all the facts about 1MDB that have led to recent allegations against the company. That is why a number of investigations – including by the Public Affairs Committee, the Royal Malaysian Police, and the Auditor General’s Department – are currently on-going.

3. The Malaysian authorities, including the Attorney-General’s Chambers, are committed to working with all relevant foreign law enforcement entities through the applicable international conventions and agreements. Similarly, 1MDB has from the outset cooperated with the enquiries.

4. Regarding the recent public statement by the Office of the Attorney-General of Switzerland, my office intends to take all possible steps to follow up and collaborate with our Swiss counterparts, and we look forward to receiving the findings of their investigations and materials through the normal channels. These materials will then be reviewed, alongside the findings of other relevant authorities and our own investigations, to determine the appropriate course of action.‎

5. Contrary to recent media reports, the investigations into donations that were made to the Prime Minister are entirely separate to those into 1MDB. The Attorney-General’s Chambers exhaustively reviewed the report provided by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and, as has been announced, found no evidence of wrong-doing and hence have instructed for the cases to be closed.‎

‎

6. Any attempt by media organisations to conflate the two sets of investigations is irresponsible and prejudicial‎.

‎

‎TAN SRI MOHAMED APANDI ALI

ATTORNEY-GENERAL‎

MALAYSIA‎

The Bruno Manser Foundation must be desperate to damage the reputation of the government of Malaysia in the run up to the Sarawak State Election.

But I’ll write on that one day…

January 28, 2016

Pillow Talk

The Attorney-General has decided not to proceed with the case of the RM2.6 billion donated into a special account bearing the Prime Minister’s name as the account holder with two persons nominated to administer the account on Najib’s behalf.

That has prompted the Director for Special Operations of the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission, Datuk Bahari Md Zin stating to the press that he will appeal on the AG’s decision. MACC also issued a press statement saying that it will forward the AG’s decision for a review by the commission’s Operations Assessment Panel (PPO).

As a layman, I now feel that the MACC is being run and managed by amateurs. They should first and foremost know that the Attorney-General has the final say whether or not a case should be instituted, conducted or discontinued, other than cases that come under the Syariah Law, the native court, or a court-martial. This is specified in Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

MACC’s PPO does not have the jurisdiction nor authority to review the decision of the Attorney-General. It only acts as a “check and balance” mechanism for cases that are being investigated as well as cases that have been acknowledged by the commission for prosecution or cases that the commission has recommended to be closed. You can read further the terms of reference of the MACC’s PPO here.
How is it that such a body that is supposed to be run by professionals who uphold the law and theintegrity of the commisssion not know of its own limits and boundaries that it starts to act ultra vires?

There is a saying in the military that if one is a Corporal, the wife is a Sergeant. In the case of Datuk Bahri, his wife must be the Head of MACC.

The question is, how much does Datuk Bahri’s wife know of the investigation into the RM2.6 billion donation, or of any other investigation? What kind of pillow talk have this couple been having?

Perhaps the police should investigate Datuk Bahri under Section 8(1)(d)(iv) and (e)(iv) of the Official Secrets Act, 1972, and investigate the wife under Section 8(2) of the same Act. If this is how a senior ranking officer of the MACC behaves, I wouldn’t be surprised if in wartime, he would spill everything to the enemy.

Talking about the police, the MACC has a lot to learn from this organisation from where the MACC once came from. The police has had thousands of cases deemed as “No Further Action” and you don’t see them whining on the Internet like spoilt brats or like undergraduates with alleged perforated stomach. The integrity of the MACC is virtually ZERO!

They should have their feet firmly planted on terra firma. This is not Bollywood! So start behaving professionally!