YOURSAY | ‘A failure to sue WSJ now can only be taken to be an admission of guilt.’
Odin Tajué: The US$681 million found in PM Najib Abdul Razak’s bank accounts was in all likelihood only part of the - ahem! - doh-nay-shun, as there were several different possible, shall we say, sources, given that the amounts of money involved were colossal.
The possible sources could be from the 1MDB-PetroSaudi International joint venture (US$1.83 billion); loan secured from the KWAP (Retirement Fund Incorporated) for SRC International (RM4 billion); payments supposed to have been made to Abu Dhabi-based investment fund Aabar, but which the company did not seem to have received (US$2.33 billion); US$2.7 billion paid into ADMIC (Abu Dhabi Malaysia Investment Company); the bonds raised by Goldman Sachs (US$6.5 billion); purchase of independent power producers (RM18 billion); purchase of overpriced, encumbered land (RM1.7 billion); payment made to Aabar Investments PJS Ltd, a company that seemed to be like Aabar Investments PJS (US$850+ million); and others, a few of which are unknown for now.
The payment made for the acquisition of the IPPs alone right away suggests impropriety may have occurred. Earlier during the matter of 1MDB's debts raised, only the sum of RM12 billion was mentioned. This was said to be the price paid for the IPPs.
Much later, after having been pressured to explain how the RM42 billion in debts had been accumulated, 1MDB added RM6 billion to the cost, claiming that it was debts incurred by the last owners and which it took over.
I have also made a separate comment saying that since the present government leaders had always accused former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad of having produced agreements that ensured guaranteed profits for the IPPs, how could there have been RM6 billion in losses incurred?
Add up all the above figures, and I think it is safe to assume that the person who has had a possible cut from all these deals would have been enriched by a lot more than US$1 billion.
FellowMalaysian: This is yet another damning and confounded revelation by The Wall Street Journal ( WSJ ) as more money has been allegedly discovered to have moved into Najib's personal account - this time during 2011 and 2012.
What was more damaging to the prime minister is WSJ 's repudiation of attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali's claim that the US$681 million banked into Najib's account was a donation from the Saudi Arabian royalty.
The use of another similarly-named Aabar Investments PJS, redolent of a ruse company, was a direct tell-tale to the hideous subterfuge involved in the web of transactions.
Apandi will invariably refute WSJ 's latest assertion and once again, will allege complicity in WSJ 's action in an attempt to bring down Najib's rule. At the same instance, 1MDB's denial will also be expected shortly .
Najib seems to be snugly protected by the civil institutions that he had so emasculated and manipulated which have now become his tools and shield.
Bystander: Indeed, how coincidental that there is another company by the same name (minus ‘Ltd’) of the original Aabar PJS Investments in British Virgin Island that showed massive monetary transaction!
Doesn't it smell fishy?
Speaking Sense: A failure to sue WSJ now can only be taken to be an admission of guilt.
Chester King: I think Najib may be getting approval from the Saudi counterparts first as he probably does not want to unilaterally reveal all these details involving foreign countries in court when challenged.
But we will not know unless Najib's lawyers give us the reasons. For me, I would wait for Switzerland, Hong Kong or Singapore to complete their investigations first.
If and when cleared by those foreign countries, suing WSJ would be very much easier and there is thus no need to reveal too much details since other countries agencies have already done the investigations and can then submit to the court as evidence that WSJ is wrong.
Mafeeah: I can only assume that WSJ has the information with them but does not want to reveal it at this stage.
Before WSJ comes to a conclusion of saying US$1 billion, they must have seen the money trail from investigators. It will be just a matter of time before the exact amounts are revealed.
An MLA (mutual legal assistance) would have provided the information these investigators have to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Malaysians can now fully understand why this request has been blocked by Apandi .
I say folks, you can trust WSJ on this one.
Negarawan: Why don't the majority race feel embarrassed and insulted about this?
If they have any dignity left, they should get rid of him and all his accomplices, and try to regain some honour for their ‘bangsa, agama dan negara’.
The longer they stay silent and indifferent; the more respect they will lose. Perhaps Mahathir is right that Umno has ceased to exist and what is left now is Parti Najib.
RM2.6 Billion Turkey Haram: If what WSJ claim is true, we could be witnessing the making of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos unravelling in front of our nose.
Umno members, especially the ministers and division leaders, cannot just deny and ignore these allegations just because they are living comfortably and would not be affected if the country's economy goes bad.
They must spare a thought for the poor Umno members who have been blindly supporting them thus far.
And Najib, too, cannot remain silent hoping his henchmen would come to his aid. By now, the people are no longer fooled by this donation tale, which is too unbelievable.
HaveAGreatDay: Thank you, WSJ for continuing to expose the financial details of Najib.
Until and unless he can prove rightful ownership of those funds, the rakyat will be justified to suspect corrupt practice on his part.
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.