YOURSAY | ‘That would not by any chance be Prince Turki Abdullah, would it?’

Late Saudi king's son is RM2.6b donor, says Apandi

Anticommunalist : Firstly, between March and April 2013, RM2.6 billion was wired into PM Najib Razak's personal account.

That is considered an income and not a political donation as political donations have to go through a registered political party and not under anyone's personal account.

Secondly, between March/April 2013 and the time that the bulk of the money was supposedly returned in August 2013, Najib would have earned interest. That is an income that could be taxable.

Thirdly, as US$61 million (RM186 million) is still not returned, this again is an income that Najib could have to pay tax on.

Fourthly, is there no law in this country that prohibits foreigners transmitting absurd amounts of money into the personal account of the sitting PM of Malaysia? Isn't this a subject of national security?

Fifthly, what on earth was Bank Negara and its governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz doing in this period?

And if money had entered into Najib's personal account, that money is officially considered Najib's and will no longer be the property of the late Saudi king's son (unless he has any legal document to prove it was a loan and needs to be returned).

So Najib cannot be considered to be 'returning' the money to him. As a matter of fact, Najib can be questioned for making a payment to a foreigner (altogether another matter of national security concern).

Was the amount wired officially? Does Bank Negara have a legal account of it being wired? Was bank charges made by Najib to wire this money across?

For us, just to transmit a measly RM1,000 to Indonesia for our maids, we are instructed to fill up details of our address, occupation, MyKad number, contact number, etc, etc.

Can the banks/Bank Negara provide us these details of how Najib made the payment to this Saudi prince in August 2013?

Kim Quek : Since attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali has claimed that it is one of Saudi king’s son who ‘donated’ the RM2.6 billion to Najib, Apandi is now duty-bound to tell the nation:

a) Name of the donor;

b) Evidence that the money belonged to him; and

c) Purpose of donation

Contrary to Apandi’s assertion, the purpose of donation is of vital importance in deliberating Najib’s guilt or innocence.

In fact, with such massive sum in his possession, the onus now is on Najib to prove that he is not culpable of a whole range of crimes ranging from corruption to treason, for which Najib must now come clean on the basic details outlined above to avert criminal charges against him.

John Malott : Apandi's statement raised even more questions. Forbes magazine said in 2011 that the late King Abdullah was worth US$21 billion.

When I checked on Saudi inheritance law, it said that syariah law applies. The king had nine sons and 10 daughters. The daughters get only half of what a son gets. So nine parts for the sons and five parts for the daughters, altogether 14 parts.

Divide US$21 billion by 14 and each son gets US$1.5 billion. Would one of the sons actually give away half of his wealth to Najib?

Rick Teo : There is no need to tell us. Everyone knows that the seventh son of the late Saudi king, Prince Turki Abdullah, is the man Apandi could be referring to.

He is not that rich and wealthy. In fact, he was allegedly paid US$77 million by 1MDB. Clearly, he does not have that kind of money to donate RM2.6 billion to Najib.

Odin Tajué : So, from the king of Saudi Arabia, now it is a son of the king of Saudi Arabia and who is still living? Never mind that, though.

That would not by any chance be Prince Turki Abdullah, would it? – a prince, no doubt, but a minor one and who has been sidelined by the present king?

Why, he hasn't got two riyals to rub together and never mind 2,553,920,250 (at US$1=3.75025 riyals exchange rates in 2013) or US$681 million to donate to Najib.

Anyway, the next time around, it will not be a son of the late king of Saudi Arabia but one of the servants who clean their camels, right?

Anonymous_4056 : Apandi, why must you insist on new evidence from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Bank Negara before you agree to reopen their cases?

Clearly, on the strength of the existing evidence produced, there is already enough to charge a certain someone for alleged crimes.

MACC and Bank Negara had both reportedly recommended charges, but it’s only you alone who claimed the PM and 1MDB had committed no wrongdoings.

Anonymous_1371477558 : AG, is the donor supposed to be a state secret that you have been so kind to leak to the rakyat?

Beware, you might be caned and imprisoned for the rest of your life. But then maybe not, since you’re the law.

Vent: Just when we thought that the only magician in town was Zam Zam Alakazam and the MIC the only circus, here comes an august judge with his retinue of servile servants on a flying carpet.

This is the stuff of a thousand and one nights of transformations (not of the mundane economic kind) but of mind-altering phantasmagoria that can change a father to the son and probably to father again as and whenever it is expedient to hold court.

He cannot explain these mystical transformations, however, except to say that it must be a God-given gift as he is wont to invoke God in everything he says and does.

Vijay47 : Apandi, we all know that Arabia is the source of various fables, from Ali Baba and quite deservedly the Forty Thieves to Sinbad the Sailor to The Arabian Nights.

But now, historians will be impressed and no doubt titillated to learn that you, without the least shame, guilt, and self-respect, are the author of the latest tale of wonder.

Just like DPM Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's donor mysteriously becoming donors, the late Saudi king has now evolved into his son.

And you, Apandi, are a former judge and present attorney-general of a sovereign country? How in heaven's name did you achieve this mean feat? It surely must be attributable to the divine intervention that equally surely embraces much beyond your renowned "absolute discretion".

To reduce things to basics, I am curious - were a person to have been charged before you for murder and it was discovered that the actual murderer was his father, you would still find the son guilty?

Malaysians have much to be grateful for. Then again, maybe not.

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.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.