This is not the time to express views, however personal and truthful they can be. The trial is on, and the former attorney-general has already been read the “Riot Act” over his comments on another ongoing trial.
What I intend to do is to take readers back to the time immediately after the Barisan Nasional was unseated in May 2018. There’s plenty of stuff in the archives, and Google provides plenty of anecdotes and quotes from the past.
The issues raised here are not aimed at influencing the judges, and if it is said that the intention is to encourage and cajole Malaysians to engage in some form of critical thinking and compare the news reports of the past and the current, I have to put up my hands and say “yes”.
Several statements, announcements and justifications which were made in the past are for the discerning reader to make their own conclusions. For further reading, it is suggested that you use a search engine on the same subject.
After reading and digesting excerpts, the reader will have a clearer view of the events and the issues which will enable them to separate the wheat from the chaff.
In July, 2018, Malaysiakini reported the following in an exclusive interview: “Former premier Najib Abdul Razak continues to insist that the US$681 million (commonly referred to as RM2.6 billion) in his bank accounts prior to the 2013 general election was a donation from a member of the Saudi royal family.
“This is despite the US Department of Justice, in its civil forfeiture suits, and his critics alleging that the colossal sum was siphoned from 1MDB.
“Noting that US$620 million of the US$681 million was returned to the “donor” in the same year, Najib said the donation came about following his meeting with the late Saudi ruler King Abdullah Abdulaziz Al Saud.
“The genesis was when I met with King Abdullah. I asked him to support the (Malaysian) government because I thought their government has a record of supporting governments which are somewhat friendly with them.”
Two months later, on July 20, Najib posted on Facebook several documents which he claimed would clear his name amid allegations against him.
He posted a copy of a letter that purportedly came from Prince Saud Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia on his Facebook account, along with several messages between banks.
Other documents posted were four Swift messages, each detailing transactions to Najib’s AmPrivate Banking account in 2011, totalling almost US$100 million.
Two of the documents named “Prince Faisal bin Turkey Bandar Alsaud” as the remitter of the funds, totalling US$20 million. These transactions were made on Feb 23, 2011, and June 10, 2011, for US$10 million each.
Malaysiakini reported: “Najib said the late Saudi King Abdullah Abdulaziz Al-Saud had provided him and Malaysia with various assistance, including financial donations, but had asked for the matter to be kept under wraps.
“Since I am no longer prime minister and King Abdullah is dead, I feel it is fitting that I reveal the following documents to clear my name of various accusations and slander.
“I, with my lawyers, have taken some time to get these documents from banks, but we have succeeded in getting most of them. The documents are for contributions in 2011 only. The authorities and banks have the same documents,” he wrote.
“Pakatan Harapan tells the people that I took ‘RM2.6 billion’, but they never tell that the money was also returned by me to the same source. That is not fair.
“Does it smack of somebody who was trying to cheat or steal? If the intention was to steal, why would I use a local bank account in my own name?
“I used the money for the election (GE13) and after the election, the (balance) money was returned. As far as I was concerned, that was the responsible thing to do,” he added.
But the letter was similar in style and wording to the letter revealed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in 2016, but the ABC letter was dated Nov 1, 2011, instead and pledged US$375 million.
Long before that, on Jan 20, 2016, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who was then deputy prime minister, said he had met the wealthy Arab family who had donated the US$700 million that was channelled into Najib’s personal account.
He was quoted as saying that the “king and prince”, whom he did not name, had donated the money because of Malaysia’s commitment to fighting terrorism and being a moderate Muslim country with a plural society.
The family, he said, was impressed by how Malaysia, with its plural society, still managed to remain moderate without side-lining any other religions.
On Jan 26, 2016, CNBC reported: “Saudi Arabia’s royal family gave Najib Razak a US$681 million, Malaysia’s attorney general has revealed, ending months of speculation about the source of the huge personal donation.”
It said: “Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali told an unscheduled press conference that he was satisfied that the funds in Najib’s account were ‘not a form of graft or bribery’ and that ‘no criminal offence’ had been committed in relation to the funds, according to Reuters reports.”
“There was no reason given as to why the donation was made to PM Najib, that is between him and the Saudi family,” Reuters quoted the attorney general as saying.
Readers may recall, the MACC sent a team to seek confirmation of the donation.
Testifying in Najib’s SRC trial on Feb 27, 2020, MACC investigating officer Mohd Nasharudin Amir confirmed the authenticity of four letters linked to an alleged donation that the Saudi Arabia royals had given Najib.
The officer also testified that the admission did not come from the Saudi royal but his legal representative.
Nasharuddin testified that the MACC had, on Nov 29, 2015, gone to record a statement from Prince Saud Abdul Aziz Malik Abdul Aziz al-Saud at the palace of the then Saudi ruler King Abdullah in Riyadh.
But instead of meeting the prince, a legal representative whose name was Abdullah Al Koman had shown up on the prince’s behalf. Nasharuddin also testified that Al Koman had signed the statement that he had given the MACC on behalf of the prince.
The issues and quotations were retrieved from the public domain and have never been embellished. Why such a delve into the past, you may ask.
The answer is simple. The public has a right to know what has been said and done in the past so that they are informed of the events leading to the current state of affairs. Nothing more, nothing less. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist and writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.