Haul up 'cari makan' PAC chief for editing report

YOURSAY | ‘Shouldn't Hasan be charged with concealing important evidence?’

Pua: Lines deleted by PAC chief from 1MDB report are crucial

Monty: PAC chairperson Hasan Arifin seems to be under the impression that 1MDB is a domestic matter and so long as PM Najib Razak is around, he can edit or amend the committee’s investigation report without any consequences.

Hasan should know that all aspects of 1MDB will soon be under the international spotlight where many questions will be asked. And he, the PAC chief, will be held to account.

Actually I think he is being very foolish because when Najib leaves the stage, he will be left to explain why he fudged the report. He could even lose his MP’s pension if he is jailed.

Mushiro: Hasan owned up to editing the 1MDB report because he was caught with his pants down.

Imagine the head of PAC editing the report without getting the approval of the other members. It might as well be a one-man committee so that Hasan can go ahead and clear his boss.

The irony here is that the PAC chief was picked by Najib, and the main part of the committee’s investigation is on Najib.

FellowMalaysian: Any deletion, alteration or revision to the PAC's 1MDB report must only be done in the presence of the committee.

As the PAC chief, Hasan has single-handedly made a crucial deletion to the statements in the report and having done so, he has abrogated his obligations and responsibilities to the committee as its chairperson.

Hasan’s conduct and action showed he is not fit to be the head of PAC.

Tpn: Shouldn't the PAC chief be charged with concealing important evidence?

Odin Tajué: I refer to DAP MP Tony Pua's statement contained in the fourth paragraph of the Malaysiakini news report.

It says, "This finding is crucial to the entire investigations of 1MDB because the company and its executives have testified to PAC that Good Star is a subsidiary of PetroSaudi."

To my mind, Pua has erred in language and, therefore, that leaves him open to being attacked or rebutted. I will explain.

When in being questioned by the PAC and the 1MDB officials said that “Good Star is a subsidiary of PetroSaudi”, the said officials were probably right. Good Star might indeed be a subsidiary of PetroSaudi at the material time.

That is to say, Good Star was a subsidiary of PetroSaudi at that time when those 1MDB officials were questioned by the PAC. But it does not necessarily mean that Good Star was a subsidiary of PetroSaudi when the US$1.03 billion was paid to it.

Therefore, the important question one should ask is, was Good Star a subsidiary of PetroSaudi when the US$1.03 billion was paid to it? Subsidiary question - what of the US$700 million that was also paid to it?

It is possible that before the PAC met to question those various parties, moves were made to change ownership of Good Star to make it appear a subsidiary of PetroSaudi.

One also need to look at who actually owns Good Star, or both Good Star and PetroSaudi, since the joint venture was established until the present.

The implication imparted by the lines removed by Hasan does point to the high probability of a grave wrongdoing having been committed, and the removal of same does indicate an attempt at covering up the wrongdoing.

Anonymous 29051438068738: When a finance minister allegedly puts his hand in the till with no regard for the consequences, it follows that his henchman-appointee will have no fear altering an official parliamentary document with no regard for the Agong in whose royal name the proceedings are conducted.

Anonymous #21828131: I am sure Hasan would have been told or informed by someone to delete the important lines in the report.

By deleting it unilaterally under the guise of the PAC is being dishonest and the word for it is cheating. He only owned up after it was discovered. Why does he go to that extent to change such an an important finding?

With his admission, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should swing into action and call him up for questioning to find out if there had been elements of abuse of power.

Ipohcrite: Could Hasan's action be construed as obstruction of justice? If so, he should be charged for betraying the trust of Parliament and, by extension, an entire nation.

Hasan's hands are now, figuratively speaking, dripping with blood as his unilateral deletion of Bank Negara's finding on the ownership of Good Star has removed the smoking gun out of the PAC report.

Anonymous 2206401436324129: Indeed, a police report must be made, even if no action is taken, at least to show the PAC chief’s motives of unauthorised deleting the PAS report.

Wira: Those who think that Hasan can be charged are dreaming. The House regulates the conduct of its own members, which may not be challenged in a court of law.

The speaker will find an excuse to exonerate the ‘cari makan’ fellow. Cash is king. I help you, you help me. -Mkini