People have right to know the contents of govt deals

 

Transparency and accountability are the backbones of good governance. That is why the finance minister annually presents the income and expenditure for the incoming year, which is often referred to as the Budget Speech.

In between, the government enters into agreements for the procurement of goods or services or the disposal of assets, details of which are supposed to be put in the public domain for the benefit of taxpayers.

The absence of such information gives detractors and critics the grounds to make all kinds of claims, accusations and allegations that there had been malpractices. Unless these charges are substantiated or proven, they remain so until proven otherwise.

Over the years, the government has been accused of hanky-panky in government purchases and the biggest of them has been the expenditure incurred in the purchase of two submarines for the Royal Malaysian Navy.

The government has yet to be cleared of questionable conduct in this and the case is still before the French courts.

The latest transaction to make the headlines was the government’s settlement agreement with Goldman Sachs on the 1MDB debacle. (Bloomberg reported that the government agreed to accept US$2.5 billion (RM10.6 billion) in cash, and a guarantee to recover US$1.4 billion (RM5.94 billion) in assets supposedly linked to 1MDB.)

Questions were asked as to how the figure was agreed upon - and one sentence prevented further demands and shut the mouths of those who sought transparency: We are bound by a non-disclosure clause in the settlement agreement and details cannot be made available.

(A settlement agreement is an enforceable contract that almost always contains a clause that the terms of the settlement will remain confidential, barring parties and their lawyers from publicly discussing or making public the facts or terms of the settlement.)

After a four-month hiatus, the rumour mills swirled again. A week ago, there were claims (it must be reiterated that they remain mere allegations) - that the ruling party received RM500 million and the lawyer who negotiated the deal pocketed RM17 million in fees.

Two weeks ago, yet another deal was made with AMMB Holdings Bhd which agreed to pay RM2.83 billion to the government as a settlement on all outstanding claims and actions in relation to the AmBank Group’s involvement in the 1MDB corruption scandal.

What are all these “outstanding claims”? No one knows and what were the terms of the settlement? Yet again, the “non-disclosure” clause has been cited.

Last Friday, the office of a Selangor assemblyperson lodged a police report, urging authorities to investigate the claim that RM500 million had been paid “to a political party through a high-profile lawyer”.

Kuang assemblyperson Sallehudin Amiruddin claimed the money was a commission for helping Putrajaya reach a settlement with Goldman Sachs.

Wan Saiful: I vehemently deny this slander

It was immediately dismissed by Bersatu information chief Wan Saiful Wan Jan, who said: “I vehemently deny this slander. No agents were appointed. No commissions were received. This is not the culture in Bersatu.”

Of course, Wan Saiful and many other Malaysians will remember the chest-thumping words of Najib Abdul Razak who had previously (in)famously declared: “I did not steal 1MDB money.”

We are also reminded by Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who had claimed that the Yayasan Akal Budi paymaster had made “an honest mistake” in using its funds instead of his personal cheque to pay RM800,000 in credit card bills.

Many such incredible tales have been heard before and perhaps Wan Saiful can persuade his political colleagues to lay everything on the table. They should honour his claim that "the party was formed to fight for integrity and transparent governance.”

It is significant to note that officers from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), who claimed to have been demeaned by ex-AG Tommy Thomas in his book, have remained silent despite having been sidelined in favour of lawyers in private practice to undertake the settlement agreements.

In his book “My Story: Justice in the Wilderness” published last month, Thomas had made remarks on the capabilities or the lack of them in AGC officers handling high-profile cases. Hence his decision to rope lawyers, including Gopal Sri Ram and V Sithamparam, who are doing it on a pro bono basis.

Thomas’ predecessor Mohamed Apandi Ali and former solicitor general III Mohd Hanafiah Zakaria lodged police reports over the contents of the book.

Thomas wrote: “Mistakes and errors had to be eliminated (in the trial)... I expected a world-class performance, and nothing else would have been acceptable. In short, I could not find an AGC officer of sufficient experience, expertise, with the ability to work independently and to lead the preparation in my absence.”

Apandi claimed that Thomas had “looked down” on officers of the AGC while Zakaria said that parts of the contents were untrue and claimed they have tarnished his image as a deputy public prosecutor of 33 years standing.

“As a former attorney-general, I sympathise with the officers who have been looked down on in a condescending manner by Tommy Thomas. This is very unbecoming of him as he should realise that the officers are the backbone of the legal service. I can vouch that the officers are dedicated, and I could not find fault with their service during my tenure,” Apandi said.

Thomas may have been right after all. The negotiations according to news reports were carried out by lawyers representing the various parties, with no involvement of the AGC. It is pertinent to think aloud if competency or secrecy compelled the exclusion of government lawyers.

Wouldn’t the AGC officers want to know why they were sidelined? - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN has been following the 1MDB scandal since it was exposed in 2014 and has written several commentaries on the issues, Comments: citizen.nades@gmail.com

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.