YOURSAY 'Khairy Jamaluddin, we want facts, not your opinion. Once we have the facts, we can form our own opinion.'

KJ: Danaharta didn't lose money in Tajudin affair

Unspin: PKR director of strategy Rafizi Ramli thrashed Rembau MP Khairy Jamaluddin (KJ) in the debate because he was better prepared.

Khairy, just like in his debate with Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga, was too confident, relying on his undeniable oratory ability to wriggle and waffle himself out of any sticky situation, but he was clearly short on facts.

Moderator Dr Maszlee Malik was brilliant throughout the debate.

Regardless of the outcome of the debate, I feel proud to be Malaysian because in Rafizi and Khairy, we have indeed matured and smart politicians on both sides of the fence.

Rakyat 1st: How does the rakyat know for a fact what Khairy claims? Could we have a full detailed account of this Tajudin episode in ringgit terms and audited by two independent auditors together with a representative from Bar Council?

Then only can we tell whether we the taxpayers funded this rescue of Tajudin and/or Umno cronies.

KJ, we only ask for transparency, you think we are idiots?

Garrulous Gary: If Danaharta did not lose money from the former MAS chief Tajuddin Ramli affair, then the government should trumpet this great legal victory and inform the people how much money it has saved.

Cala: MP Khairy's claim that Danaharta did not incur losses in the out-of-court settlement with the disgraced Tajudin Ramli is highly irresponsible, preposterous and creative.

Look, would there be a court case if Tajudin had been behaving from the start?

Second, as a Third World state, contracts entered between selected few and the regime has seldom been transparent.

Look at how contracts entered into between independent power plants (IPPs) and TNB (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) that resulted in the former pocketing an annual pre-tax profit of RM400 million each.

Hence, it is too late for KJ to come to Tajudin's rescue. The acknowledged high transaction costs for doing business in Malaysia, as in Tajudin-MAS-Danaharta's case, were deliberate.

It was another public- private initiative undertaken by selected few based on private interests.

Cloudnine: As an MP, Khairy is entitled to ask for answers in Parliament rather than indulging in the 'I think' kind of guessing game. KJ, we want facts, not your opinion. Once we have the facts we can form our own opinion.

So coming to a debate unprepared is a no-no. What value can we get out of your answers? Zero, just plain zero.

Onyourtoes: KJ, is this how a modern government is run? You ‘understand', you ‘believe', and you ‘think' that the loan owed by Tajudin was paid.

Where is the disclosure, whether or not it is an out-of-court settlement or otherwise. This is all public money, so it is only proper that the settlement is disclosed.

Let the rakyat decide whether the settlement was fair or not. Don't forget there was cost of money, and MAS shares were bought back by the government at a price way above the market value at that time.

If Tajudin ran MAS to the ground, why must the government buy back at the price the government sold to him?

See, same moral problem everywhere, be it MAS, NFC (National Feedlot Corporation), PKFZ (Port Klang Free Zone), whatever.

This is the mother of all problems - profit belongs to the individuals, liability and losses belong to the government.

Jean Pierre: We may have paid more than we owe for the unsinkable submarines. We may have released more than necessary for that cow project. We may have paid more than billed to Kuala Dimensi. I see ‘may' in a new light.

Yellow Bird: Which stupid idiot would favour an out-of-court settlement that makes him pay back more than the original court settlement?

Stories: What a load of crap from KJ. Why would Tajudin pay more than he should and where's the proof if he even paid anything?

Such baseless claims are most unbecoming of a man who's gone to a fine UK university. You should be ashamed, KJ. How dare you to take us for fools.

Anonymous #10199081: As public body, Danaharta does not have the privilege of not disclosing the terms of settlement it entered into with Tajudin, unlike a private company.

Court proceedings are meant to be public hearings in the first place. The court as guardian of justice should have refused to make the order unless the terms were disclosed.

It follows therefore, the claim by Khairy that Tajudin may have paid more to Danaharta or that Danaharta may have received more should not have been raised before an educated audience without verification.

Without facts and figures, the debate would be relegated to a mere coffee shop argument in rural Rembau.

Flamescanner: I'm hoping this air of openness in debate will continue. All of us will have our opinions regarding the rights and wrongs of the arguments. But the starting point is to be able to debate it.

I loved it when Khairy and Rafizi shook hands with each other at the end. Well done, boys.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .