Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

As we peer into the haze of information that is currently in the public domain, some things are coming clear. The amount of RM2.6 billion is no longer in doubt. The fact that this was in an account under the name of the prime minister seems to be an accepted fact. Despite its circuitous route, the debt or donation was eventually credited into that account.

This also confirms many of the facts that the Sarawak Report and The Edge published, not to speak about international publications like The Wall Street Journal. If it was a donation why is there a need for all this camouflage? Was it because siphoned-off debt money from 1MDB, the nation’s sovereign fund, would have been viewed as a greater crime?

The alleged culprit needed time to assess what could be the best story in the context of damage control. There was a long silence before Najib Abdul Razak came out with any answers. Finally we are told that it is a donation. Now there are many who echo that it is not wrong to receive political donations.

While this may be a view, these politicians cannot explain away an amount as staggering as RM2.6 billion. There are limits to common sense being violated and explained away.

Let us call a spade a spade. Who, if any, will give away such an amount in donations? I tend to agree with Dr Mahathir Mohamad that all this is ‘bulls**t’. Secondly and more importantly, is there a ‘quid pro quo’ attached to this donation? Who is this ‘Santa Claus’ and what has motivated him to give money to Malaysia when he could have helped millions of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Libya and Sudan.

The citizens want to know and an explanation must be forthcoming. Other moves in the last weeks reveal that there is much more to all these shady deals than first meets the eye. This is akin to saying that the debt repayment that was advanced by Ananda Krishnan to 1MDB was out of love and affection for the chairperson of the advisory board of 1MDB.

Surely there is a ‘quid pro quo’ that will be collected at an appropriate time or an understanding that already exists. Genting Bhd benefitted immensely from the sale of their power business only to divert some money, as has been rumoured, to interested parties during the general election.

Why were four members of the parliamentary accounts committee (PAC) elevated to the executive? This raises serious questions as in one decisive move the work of this committee came to an end. Who was buying time? Was this a ‘quid pro quo’ for subservience or for information shared or disclosed? The citizen must ask these difficult questions because the perception of distrust is so strong and many an ordinary Malaysian feels cheated.

Those who left the PAC to join the executive did a service for themselves. They chose self-interest and perhaps party interest above national interest. These four could have redeemed so much for Umno but at the critical moment they failed and got sucked into the system. The general perception about their action is at best negative. Have they sold their souls at a time when many looked up to them for clarity?  

The same cannot be said for the so called independent task force. Sadly their independence was short-lived. As soon as their investigations revealed something ‘hot’, efforts were undertaken to block them.

Were they under surveillance?

How did the executive under Najib come to know what this task force was doing? Despite their so-called independence, were they under surveillance for otherwise leaks could not have taken place and alerted the police and others to take action against them. Sabotaging the work of the task force is not viewed as wrong by the police. They want us to believe that they took independent action.

The police seem interested only in catching those who exposed information in the first place that showed the executive in a bad light. Why do they not go after those who exposed information of national interest that prompted a strong reaction from the government? The police seem uninterested in this regard.

How come the attorney-general (AG) was neutralised? He is perhaps so fearful that he is now ‘missing in action’. Then there is the whole question of the AG’s draft charge. Can there be smoke without fire? All the denials do not cut any ice.

In a situation where the credibility of the local media is so low and there is little or no investigative journalism, one is not surprised by the credibility that foreign media and those who are ready to give information backed by facts and figures receive. In the main, several of the issues alluded to under the 1MDB fiasco cannot be simply dismissed. The facts stand out though the interpretation may differ in terms of debts or donations.

Further, with the credibility of the government and the PM hitting very low levels, there are civil servants who are ready to expose what should be exposed. They know how to subvert the Official Secrets Act. The fact that the government had to rescind and retract the transfer orders shows the disgust for high-handed actions.

What does it say when the deputy chief commissioner (operations) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) indicates on arrival back to Malaysia that it is not safe at the moment? There is a lot that can be deduced from this single statement. The governor of Bank Negara meanwhile epitomises the reality that ‘silence is golden’.

Surely if the government was interested in credibility they would have released the auditor-general’s report and the PAC’s initial findings. They would have called an emergency sitting of Parliament to nominate a new chair for the PAC and debate the above.

The reality seems otherwise. They seem to be interested in perpetuating themselves and protecting their positions. They are least interested in disclosing the facts or getting our institutions of governance to release their findings.

It takes great courage to stand up amidst the force and power of an executive that feels greatly threatened. Yet if we want things to be different there is a turning point that comes after the tipping point is reached. The challenge for leaders is whether they want to sacrifice and be honest or take the country to a boiling point as did Marcos in the Philippines.

Who will advise Najib at this crucial juncture? The nation stands to lose much and the party he leads loses all credibility when ultimately the truth is fully out. The vibrancy and ethics of the party is now tested. Crying Islam while there are allegations of defrauding the nation or even lying is a great sin.

Najib’s role through silence at the outset and then crying donations comes a bit too late. Come clean and let the nation know all the details. Only in this way can he cleanse himself of all the allegations, suspicions and perceptions that surround him, his leadership and the cabinet.

Whether it is 1MDB debt or it is donation, in the final analysis it is a question of serious moral, ethical and credibility deficit. The longer this continues the longer will be any recovery. Without a truth commission we will not uncover the deals and dealings that make all this so very questionable.

Donations, debts, taxes, regulatory requirements, MACC clauses and definitions have all been violated if one were to consider the letter of the law. Without truth, speculations drive perceptions and you cannot state claims that challenge the common sense of the ordinary Malaysian.

ADS