Who is really threatening public order?

The ownership of the accounts, the money that ended up in the accounts, compliance with rules/regulations that govern personal accounts are all questions that must be resolved if there truly is interest in maintaining public order

COMMENT

By P Ramakrishnan

The Home Ministry has been busy.

Travel bans were recently imposed on certain Malaysians. The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily were suspended for three months starting from 27 July.

In all these grave actions, the Home Ministry has contended rather unconvincingly that these individuals subject to the travel ban and the reporting by the Edge “are prejudicial or may be prejudicial to public order, or may alarm public opinion or jeopardise public order and national interest”.

But there is no iota of evidence to suggest that these claims of likely disorder, jeopardy and unrest are true. Nothing has happened even to remotely suggest that this may come to being. If anything, it has been business as usual.

On the other hand there seems to be a reluctance to attribute the potential for chaos to the PM’s conduct and his refusal to deny or admit what has been written about the RM2.6bn that has allegedly found its way, very mysteriously, into his private accounts.

The PM’s stand is that he did not use the 1MDB money for his personal profit. But who even accused him of that? As far as it can be ascertained, no one had ever implied or suggested that the PM had indeed used the money for his personal profit. Then, why does he bring this up? It does not make sense!

If the PM can either confirm or deny the two points that have actually been written concerning him, we may be able to bring to a close the controversy that is presently raging.

1. The private accounts that have been attributed to the PM in AmIslamic Bank – are they the PM’s personal accounts?

2. The alleged RM2.6bn that found its way into these accounts – is this indeed true?

The PM so far has not answered these questions.

If he can do these, we need not go after those who are only acting in the interest of the nation. We need not continue to hound these innocent people and make their lives difficult.

Additionally, since such a colossal amount of  money is involved isn’t it the responsibility of the Governor of Bank Negara given her pecuniary duties and responsibilities, to make a declaration on this issue. Because there are also fears of the funds being completely lost to the nation, isn’t it her moral responsibility to make a declaration on this issue?

When Malaysian societies receive funding from overseas, they are obliged to disclose details of such funding. If they don’t Bank Negara goes after them wanting to know where the money came from, for what purpose and who the donor is.

It seems reasonable to ask then what role did Bank Negara play when the RM2.6bn went into some private accounts? Did it write to the account holder(s)? What questions were posed to this person(s)? And what explanation was received?

We were told that the money from the Cayman Islands, “the balance” of 1MDB’s US$1.103bn funds had been deposited in US dollars with BSI Bank Limited Singapore (BSI Singapore), the local branch of a Swiss bank.

“The decision to use BSI Singapore was to facilitate withdrawals since regulations set by Bank Negara Malaysia needed its approval for transactions over RM50m,” said Najib in his written reply to Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua.

If that was the case, how could the private accounts of the PM have been closed and the huge sum of money allowed to be withdrawn without any special permission or provision?

Now we are compelled to ask whose actions can be truly considered as being “prejudicial or may be prejudicial to public order, or may alarm public opinion or jeopardise public order and national interest”?

P Ramakrishnan is an Aliran Exco Member.