YOURSAY | ‘Is there a difference between our courts and Singapore's?’
Anonymous 2436471476414726: Singapore's Straits Times has reported that former BSI Singapore wealth planner Yeo Jiawei was sentenced to 54 months in jail after he pleaded guilty to money laundering and cheating charges linked to Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB.
Yet Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy, attorney-general (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali and those officials in the Special Affairs Department (Jasa) have said no money is missing from 1MDB and that no crime has committed.
If the authorities in Malaysia are to be believed, then the Singapore court must have found Yeo guilty on trumped-up charges.
The least Malaysia should do is send a protest note to Singapore for linking the crime to 1MDB. After all, going by a statement Najib made on Tuesday against unnamed 1MDB critics, Singapore is also "tidak boleh pakai".
However, if Malaysia fails to protest, then this is an admission that the Singapore courts indeed "boleh pakai" and that money has gone missing from 1MDB. Over to you Arul Kanda, Jasa and company.
Apa Ini: Bizarre! Our AG says "no case", Najib says "no loss" - plenty of money even to hand out to thousands of pilgrims.
And yet, in Singapore these bankers are getting jailed (seriously, 54 months, that’s four and a half years) for money laundering involving 1MDB funds. Did Singapore just make up a case to show up Malaysia's AG and Najib?
Voice: Indeed, since the main actor of 1MDB said no money was siphoned out from the company and the AG has cleared him of any wrongdoing, what is this money laundering and sentencing related to 1MDB in Singapore is all about?
How can Yeo be sentenced when there is no money siphoned out and laundered?
Mushiro: Is there a difference between our courts and Singapore's? Is there a difference between our AG, police, anti-corruption commission and Singapore's?
It looks like it is safer to commit a crime in Malaysia than Singapore. It is strange that 1MDB, a Malaysian company, lost RM42 billion, but that it is Singapore courts which have punished four people including shutting two banks for the same crime.
Bornean: Yeo, why did you plead guilty? Get our AG and cabinets ministers to write letters of support or as witnesses saying that there is nothing wrong in 1MDB.
Worldly Wise: Poor man. The person who carried out the actual misappropriation, which is the source of the criminality, is still at large.
Kim Quek: The judicial appointment process of chief justice Md Raus Sharif and Court of Appeal president Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as additional judges was in accordance with the Federal Constitution, former chief justice Arifin Zakaria said.
Arifin also confirmed that he made the recommendation on their appointments to the king on March 30 (on the eve of his retirement).
Arifin’s claim that his recommendation is constitutional means nothing when he fails to advance even an iota of supporting argument against the myriad of categorical grounds elaborated by critics arguing to the contrary.
His attribution for his failure to rebut critics to the grounds of possible future litigation on the subject is equally unacceptable.
In fact, just to the contrary, it is of vital importance that Arifin enlightens the nation now with his legal rationale, if he has one, since the constitutionality of the extension of services of these top two judges hinges upon the legality of his recommendation.
And an unconstitutionally appointed chief justice and president of the Court of Appeal will have devastating consequences on the image and public trust of the of the entire judiciary. As henceforth, all judicial judgments will be tainted by such collapse of public confidence.
The truth remains that no one has presented any tangible legal ground to support the constitutionality of these top two appointments to date, and Arifin’s latest rejoinder has only reinforced this sad reality.
Gaji Buta: So you proposed additional judges for a period which would start when you were no longer chief justice. Is that your job? Is that not the responsibility of the chief justice who is in office during that time?
To me, the bigger question is - why did you do it? I also can live my life by doing things which I am allowed to do, but that will not make me a decent human.
On top of that, who determined that an “additional” judge can become the chief justice, when the additional judge is meant to be recommended by the chief justice, who logically should be the one who is in office at the pertinent time?
Ipohcrite: There you have it, straight from Arifin, who being the then chief justice, admitted making the recommendations to extend the judicial appointments of the next chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal.
Sadly, we have an ex-chief justice who is making it known to the entire world that he does not know the law and the constitution, and yet talks proudly about his actions. Sigh!
Bluemountains: The constitution does not provide for the CJ to recommend someone to be appointed as additional judge after his tenure of office. The CJ has no say in any appointment after his time.
Worldly Wise: When one CJ disagrees with another CJ, the rakyat can use common sense. The Federal Constitution ought not to be flouted.
JD Lovrenciear: When judicial matters of a nation are in "dispute", it translates to or implies that the judicial system of that nation is divided.
This is what happens when one of the three pillars of nationhood in twirled between the fingers of the executive. You cannot build nationhood when the judiciary is divided. When the judiciary is compromised, truth battles.- Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.