It aint over til the Fat Lady Sings

you can scroll down while listening.....


Many people became angry, when we say the RM2.6 billon donation issue is not finished. How can we be so presumptuous, these people shot back, when the highest legal officer of the government, our AG has said case closed?

It appears there is a simple reason why no one believes the 1MDB and the RM2.6 billion ‘najibah’ issues are resolved. In the case of the RM2.6 billion issue, the reason is no one believes what the AG said.

In the case of the 1MDB fiasco, many questions remained un-answered. Why is no one punished for the fraud, embezzlement and other indeterminate wrongdoings?

The fraudulent transfer of more than USD 1 billion into the account of Mr Jho Low for instance, remains a fraud. It is so even after the embezzled money is made good. A fraudulent act remains a fraud even after recompense.

Suppose the invalid person who stole coins from a car, returned the money and made good the damage he did to the car, would he be absolved? Would he have escaped imprisonment? The crime of breaking in, causing damage to property and theft remain even after the invalid person does all we say above.

The same, it seems would apply to 1MDB.

If what the AG declared, applies against the whole world, then investigations in other countries would have all stopped. Instead they have gained momentum.

The Malaysian public has instinctively chosen to not believe the case of the RM2.6 donation is over.  They don’t have to be given 1001 lies. I am afraid, there is no one else left to lie.

From the government side, its responses were that of haughty belligerence. Everyone from the government insists that everyone else must believe the AG. You can’t force the rakyat to believe you can you? What can you do if people prefer to believe a news making institution that has been around for 130 years than the conflicting stories coming from Saudi Arabia? The people who write for WSJ stand by what they write. They are prepared to be proven wrong in court.

This is what the government and in particular, the PM must do. Take legal action against WSJ in the place where a plaintiff’s actions are more sympathised. The latest being the interview with Ken brown, in Australia.

Ministers like Rahman Dahalan and Saleh Said keruak relying on the mere assurance of the AG, accused everyone else of lying. The AWSJ declared Rahman Dahalan, has been proven wrong yet again. When was it proven wrong previously?

The much ballyhooed threat to take legal action previously has petered out and drowned out by legal dig hole-fill-hole responses. Yes we would rather believe a paper with a 130 year history of reporting with substance than anyone else.

Salleh Said keruak declared AWSJ of making baseless accusations. Azalina Said alluded to a ghostly spectre of external forces ganging up to destroy Najib. 1MDB berated WSJ as serving the agenda of an ati -Najib group. 

‘Najibah’ has entered into the lexicon of Islamic financial terms. You have terms such as ajr, mudarabah, akad, murabaha, takafful, Al-Ghurm bil Ghunm (earning commissions or payments) and now Najibah.

Najibah is the unique contribution of Malaysia to the Islamic world. It refers to a financial transaction where one receives a certain sum of money- termed loosely as donation. When part of the donation is returned to the donor, that act is called Najibah. But the sum returned must be greater. If the sum retained is larger than the returned, then the conduct is called Najibahan.

Then there are many technicalities eating into the credibility of the returned money story. How was it done? Did Najib order the private jet belonging to the government but used by Najib, to ferry the money? This is because no authorities have come out to tell yes, they transmitted the money by wire.

That story line would offer us scenes of vehicles carrying one ton bags containing US Dollars unloading their cargo onto the plane. Then there will be records by the airport authorities that such activities took place.

If the money had been transferred by local banks, then BNM ought to know. Why don’t we ask the outgoing BNM governor or an officer in charge of monitoring out flows of money, whether they have cited and have in their possession, documentation from the remitting bank or banks?

If it has, they would be wise to make several copies and don’t hand over the only copy to the police or MACC or other authorities for safe keeping. Not that we don’t trust our men in blue, but we must take precautions against the place of safekeeping catching fire and getting burnt down. The wirings may be faulty and all that. Rats may have gnawed at the wires. Who knows?

If the money was transferred out from Singapore Banks, then the Singapore MAS will have to corroborate the story telling by our AG with the same evidence. Otherwise, Singapore will be viewed as a haven to park and then remit illicit money.

And as soon as our AG announced, the case is closed, authorities in at least six countries launched their own investigations into the transactions involving 1MDB. These authorities cannot be stopped by the Malaysian government nor will their AG can unilaterally decide there is no case to answer.

Worse, the Swiss AG declared that as much as RM4 billion (not RM2.6) billion is missing from 1MDB. Unless 1MDB can prove where the money went, then people will continue to thump their noses at the AG and the government.

The whole saga does not end until the fat lady sings. I hope people understand the concept of this colloquialism.