1. Will The PAC Hearings Be Compromised? 2. Singapore still playing a game? 3. Question for Apandi remains unanswered.

Yes they will be if they DO NOT do a few things. Do read on.

Before that I want to reiterate a few points. The first one is addressed to the Malaysian media, especially the Online media. If they cannot take this up, then I hope the foreign media who read this will perhaps take it up. It has to do with the AG Apandi Ali.

1. AG Apandi Ali's reference to Najib returning RM2.03 Billion to the Saudi donor in Aug 2013.  Question remains unanswered

This was the main line of argument used by Apandi to dismiss the MACC report which has reccomended that charges be prosecuted against the Prime Minister. The fact that the MACC wants to appeal the AG's decision NOT to charge Najib is evidence enough that the MACC has reccomended that Najib be charged with crimes. Although I have not seen the report myself but this is what we can gather from the media reports.

The question is where did Apandi get the information that Najib had returned the RM2.03 billion back to the Saudi donor? Because certainly if this information was specifically mentioned in the MACC's investigation papers then surely the MACC would have said so too. Just like the MACC did say in public that the money was a donation from someone in Saudi Arabia.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that the MACC DID NOT say in their investigation papers that the RM2.03 billion was returned to the Saudis in Aug. 2013. So how did Apandi come to make exactly the same statement?

I hope the AG can confirm or deny this question. 

I hope the Press will take it up as well.  

If the MACC DID NOT say so in their investigation report, then how did the AG get the information that RM2.03 billion was returned to the Saudis in Aug. 2013? 

Under the law the Public Prosecutor cannot conduct his own investigation.

The Public Prosecutor also cannot introduce any evidence outside the legally determined process.  It goes without saying that introducing evidence outside the legally accepted process can be deemed as 'fabricating evidence'. 

2.   Is Singapore still playing a game?

Singapore is still playing a wait and see game. I must apologise for incorrect wording the other day. It is that Yak fellow (the former BSI Bank and Coutts Bank manager in Singapore who handled Jho Low and 1MDB accounts) who has filed affidavits at the S'pore High Courts to unfreeze his bank accounts in Singapore which have about S10 million  (RM 30 million).  But his case has stopped or slowed down. After filing his affidavits things have gone quiet.

In his affidavits he has mentioned Jho Low and 1MDb among others. So both these names are now in the public record in the Court.  Then stopped. It is as if it was scripted.

His accounts remain frozen and Singapore has not announced any prosecution against Yak.  So accounts frozen, but no prosecution.

The Singaporeans  are likely waiting for the others like the Swiss, the Feds in the US and maybe even Hong Kong to begin prosecution or other legal action in this case. Perhaps then they may take action too. Until then it looks like the "do nothing" option in Singapore. 

Ganesh Sahathevan has made rather direct warnings against Singapore for their inaction which I dont wish to repeat here. But the people of Malaysia should and will remember. 

The Swiss have a strange predicament. They say they have discovered US4 billion (about RM17 billion) stolen from a company owned by the Malaysian gomen.  But what if the Malaysian gomen says, 'No, there is no such thing.  None of our money has been stolen by anyone.'    Wouldnt that make the Swiss look foolish?  How can you prosecute a theft if the victim refuses to acknowledge their money has been stolen?

It would appear that the Swiss who are world famous for their engineering, for Rolex,  Breitling and Patek Phillippe (also for cuckoo clocks and Swiss cheese) and over 200 years of international banking suddenly do not know how to detect  stolen money, hot money or money laundering through their banking system.

Would a rather dim witted retired judge from Kelantan in a country with hardly 60 years of managing its own financial system  know better than the Swiss about  illegal money flows?  In this case they may think they do. Jaguh kampong has become jaguh dunia, but only via email.  

3.   Will The PAC Hearings Be Compromised?

Can anyone recall the name of the PAC  chairman? Its that fellow who replaced JJ in Rompin. JJ was a crony of the PM.  Also a bag carrier and b*ll carrier. 

Anyway what is happening to the PAC?

The PAC's hearings will be disastrously incomplete if they did not call :

1. the 1st Chairman of 1MDB Bakke Salleh  to give evidence. This is the guy who protested the payment of those funds by the 1MDB and asked for the funds to be recovered. Then when that did not happen he resigned from his post.  

If Bakke Salleh is not called then dont blame the people if they say the PAC has been compromised.  (Update : Tan Sri Bakke Salleh has appeared at the PAC last week. he said he resigned twice.)

2. Jho Low - in everyone's perception this guy is the crook who stole the money.  Surely he must be called to testify. Plus they must prepare the right questions to ask him. "Where were you born?" is not enough.  

If Jho Low is not called then dont blame the people if they say the PAC has been compromised.

3.  Former AG Tan Sri Ghani Patail must be called to the PAC. He should be the Number 1 Star Witness. Because it must be determined if he did indeed prepare charge sheets to charge Najib in Court, just a few days before he was summarily removed from his post.    Plus he must be asked if during the course of his investigations whether the AG's Chambers requested MLA (Mutual Legal Assistance) from any foreign countries like Singapore? Because the present AG has said that he does not see the requirement for any Mutual Legal Assistance requests over these cases to any foreign countries. This is simply not an acceptable answer. 

If Tan Sri Ghani Patail is not called then dont blame the people if they say the PAC has been compromised.

4. The MACC must be called to testify at the PAC.  And the PAC must call Dato Shukri Abdul, Dato Bahari Zin, Dato Rohaizad something as well as the Commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim to testify.  These guys were all under serious pressure and two of them were also transferred to the PM's Office as a disciplinary measure because they were doing their job too well. 

If the MACC guys Dato Shukri Abdul, Dato Bahari Zin, Dato Rohaizad something and the Commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim are not called to testify at the PAC then dont blame the people if they say the PAC has been compromised.

5.  The ex Deputy Chief of the Special Branch Dato Hamid Bador must also be called to the PAC.  Hamid Bador was also involved as an investigator in the special Task Force that was investigating 1MDB, SRC, Najib etc. This guy came out strongly against the Prime Minister's involvement in the 1MDB and its related cases. He too was stripped of his post and transferred to the PMO as a disciplinary action for being so frank and truthful about what he had found out from investigating the corruption scandal involving 1MDB.

If Dato Hamid Bador is not called then dont blame the people if they say the PAC has been compromised.

6. Tan Seri Zeti the Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia must be called to testify at the PAC.  Tan Sri Zeti made strong recommendations to the AG that charges be filed against 1MDB. Bank Negara made public their reasons for recommending that the AG prosecute their investigations in Court. Instead the AG dismissed Bank Negara's investigations, just like the AG dismissed the MACC's investigations. 


If Tan Sri Zeti Aziz is not called then dont blame the people if they say the PAC has been compromised.


7. Finally  Najib Razak (and Rosmah Mansor) must be called to testify at the PAC. Because these two people are in the middle of all the allegations over the 1MDB scandal, SRC,  the flow of funds, money going to make Hollywood movies etc. 

If this were a Court case then Rosmah Mansor need not be called because there may not be a strict, legal connection between her and any of these allegations.

But this is NOT a Court hearing. It is a Parliamentary committee. A Public Accounts Committee which is NOT a Court but a public body representing the public interest. Surely the public's interest must be protected from all people who may have done things that are not right.  

Plus, the IGP Khalid Abu Bakar has acknowledged that he will not investigate reports of RM2 million found in a bank account belonging to Rosmah Mansor. The IGP said point blank that shall be the responsibility of the Task Force. 

This should be sufficient grounds for the PAC to call Rosmah Mansor also to testify. The PAC should not be frightened of a house wife. Rosmah Mansor has already said that she is just a housewife who depends on her husband to give her RM1200 to pay her hairdresser.   (Still looks terrible).  

If the PAC does not call :

1.  Najib and Rosmah
2.  Zeti Aziz of BNM
3. Hamid Bador ex SB
3. the MACC guys Dato Shukri Abdul, Dato Bahari Zin, Dato Rohaizad something and Commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim    
4. former AG Tan Sri Ghani Patail
5. chief crook Jho Low
6. former 1MDB Chairman Bakke Salleh (appeared at PAC last week)

then who else are they going to call? Dont waste time calling the office boy, the janitor, the clerk, the unrelated people, the junior grade officers etc who  will not add much value to the investigation.

If the PAc invites all the unrelated, inconsequential people then dont blame the public if the public feels that the PAC is just a rubber stamp for you know what and you know who.  This is what the public will say.

Without calling those people listed above, the PAC might as well NOT waste public money and waste the public's time.  Just stop the investigation and say 'No case.'  

During the Al Maunah incident, UMNO's new found ally Hadi Bawang said  'Ini semua lakonan saja'. 

So the same applies to the PAC.   Jangan pura-pura ok.  Tak payah berlakon.