The BBC: Najib Razak PM in the Clear-Where did it all begin?



Clearly it is not what the opposition thinks of the Prime Minister of Malaysia or what the scribes at the Malaysian Insider, Bersih, the Malaysian Bar, The Wall Street Journal or even the ABC in Australia has to say about Najib Razak that matters. It is what the facts independent of each of these groups reveal that matters.

No law was ever broken with the receipt of funds into the Prime Minister’s account as alleged by the opposition. There was no law that the opposition and their allies could cite that Najib had broken for them to justify the use of the words like corruption. The money did not come from 1MDB. Those allegations by critics of government and the Prime Minister in particular have not only failed the opposition but also their constituencies.

In desperation and in a display of abject ignorance of the law and politics, the Malaysian Bar and its allies in the opposition including Bersih went to town with the so called 1MDB affair. They were ably assisted by Claire Rewcastle Brown aided and abetted by elements within the British government to slander and to smear the Prime Minister Najib Razak in the process.


So much for the opposition’s knowledge of geopolitics and the law. So much for Bersih’s knowledge of the immensely powerful nation of Saudi Arabia and the spread of its tentacles in the region.  One wonders now if the time is now finally right for a fightback, a payback to put behind bars those players in the oppositions campaign of destabilization of the country.

The Saudis have been entrenched in the business and politics of Malaysia since the Tengku Abdul Rahman Malaysia’s first Prime Minister. He welcomed them into Malaysia in exchange for a large personal ‘donation’ (gift) to his personal account by the late King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Saudi involvement and their influence in Malaysia has been subtle and gone largely unnoticed because of the way in which the Saudis prefer to operate; by stealth. Unlike the Chinese, the Saudis are not ostentatious. They are discreet. Very discreet.

Not long after that first Tengku Faisal meeting, the Tengku Abdul Rahman was made President of the Islamic Development Bank a bank financed by the Saudis and other oil rich Islamic states in the Gulf. Britain and the US had encouraged that relationship between the Tengku, the Arabs and Faisal but for strategic reasons and not for the spread of Islam.

The Saudi royals have always been captive of the west ever since oil was discovered in the kingdom. Very little of what the Saudis do escapes the eye of the US and British intelligence apparatus. It was the US with Britain and France that after all put the present Saudi royal family and their children where they are today. And they remain there under the protection of the west

The Saudis have also been an indirect funder of the many NGO’s operating in Malaysia and in places like Egypt, the former Yugoslavia, the Philippines, Indonesia and the Ukraine.

One merely has to research the Iran Contra Affair to understand the dynamics of the intertwined interests of the US, the UK, Israel, France and Saudi Arabia in order to understand the generosity of a player such as the cashed up Saudi Royal Family in international politics.  That includes channeling money the US and the west is otherwise unable to directly pay to their minions like Bersih and their associates in Malaysia, the Tahrir square rebels in Egypt and the anti Assad forces in Syria.


In short, Bersih, Sisters in Islam, the PKR, PAS, the Christian evangelical churches and yes the Vatican’s representatives in Malaysia through various organizations, donations and alliances are recipients of Saudi money in one form or the other.

Several Sultans of Malaysia have also been recipients of the largess of the Saudi royal family over the years which they have not disclosed. Such gifts require no accounting or disclosure to the Malaysian public but to the consciences of the recipients and to God as it goes.

This has nothing to do with religion or politics per se according to a political analyst from the Brookings Institute. It is all about interests.

Before the 2013 elections we wrote a piece on Wahhabi and radical Islam’s support for PKR and Anwar Ibrahims crusade parading as a democratic alternative to government in Malaysia. The opposition and elements of the Malaysian Bar scoffed at us and poured scorn at our claims.

The BBC report below now sheds light on the facts of the $681 million payment. Notably it also allows the Wall Street Journal to withdraw saving some face in a feeble statement they include quoting a Wall Street Journal source about the affair. Well we can’t expect anything more from the Wall Street Journal.

The below article contains extracts of the BBC’s recent comments and report on the outcome of the Malaysian Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute the Prime Minister of Malaysia (which in any event would have required impeachments proceedings against him first if there was prima facie evidence of any wrong doing as alleged against him).


Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah personally authorized a $681 million payment to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, the BBC has reported.

Malaysia’s attorney general revealed on Tuesday that the early-2013 payment, the subject of months of speculation, had come from the Saudi royal family and involved no corruption or improper conduct. Malaysia’s prime minister had previously said that the cash was a private donation from a Middle Eastern donor that he declined to name.

Tuesday’s revelation was the latest twist in a long-running political scandal around Najib and the country’s ailing sovereign wealth fund Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), the advisory board of which the prime minister leads.

On Wednesday the BBC reported that the cash – $620 million of which was returned to the donor a few months later – was paid by Saudi Arabia to Najib to help the prime minister win 2013 elections at a time when the Saudis were worried about the global influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the time, the BBC said, Malaysia’s opposition alliance included the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, which was loosely inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood.

A “well-placed Saudi source” told the BBC that the payment had been authorized by King Abdullah, and the funds came from his personal wealth as well as state funds.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal, which first revealed in July the large payment to Najib’s personal bank account, but said at the time that the cash came via troubled fund 1MDB, reported on Wednesday that the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no knowledge of the payment.

And while the BBC wrote that it was not unusual for Saudi Arabia to fund foreign governments in pursuit of its own interests, the WSJ reported that it was told by an unnamed Saudi official that “a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented.”

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as other government agencies outside Malaysia, are still investigating the payment, the WSJ reported. Malaysia’s attorney general said on Tuesday that he had told the country’s own anti-corruption body to drop its probe into the money transfer.


The $681m (£479m) deposited in the bank account of Malaysian PM Najib Razak by Saudi Arabia was to help him win the 2013 elections, a Saudi source says.

The donation was made amid concerns in Riyadh over the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and other forms of Islamic extremism extending to places such as Malaysia.

Anwar Ibrahim and organizations such as Bersih have unwittingly been a party to paving the way for the Brotherhood and other extremists organizations promoting undemocratic and theocratic government’s in the middle east, Malaysia and beyond.

The Muslim Brotherhood with its more sophisticated organizational structures havs been known to successfully penetrate street political groups like the Tahrir Square anti Mubarak coalition; And these street groups much like Bersih, engage in the mayhem they create, they provide a Trojan Horse in the ensuing chaos for other more sinister and extreme radical groups like ISIS (Daesh or the Caliphate) to thrive and muster in their midst.


Malaysia’s attorney general has on the face of the evidence before him correctly cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of any allegation of corruption on 26 January 2016, The AG’s decision follows an intensive investigation into allegations of corruption over receipt of $681 in an account associated with the Prime Minister as has been alleged. In so doing he is confirming and acknowledging that the money was in fact as claimed by the Prime Minister to be a donation from the Saudi royal family.There was no breach of any local laws of Malaysia.

Seeing as nothing illegal had occurred, there was no reason or obligation on the part of the Prime Minister to respond to the many allegations hurled at him as also there was no further reason for the Attorney General to pursue the allegations against the Prime Minister in this regard.

Pressure on the MACC (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission) to pursue the AG as well as the Prime Minister appears to be bluster, capricious and a red herring considering that the MACC’s investigations on all the ‘evidence’ when held up against the law takes them nowhere.

The MACC is being ill advised either internally or by their external legal advisors if they chose to continue to pursue this affair in light of the best evidence there is available. This being the acknowledgment by the Saudi Royal family of a donation by them on the authorization of king Abdullah to the Malaysian Prime Minister.

There is no law the MACC, the AG or the opposition groups in Malaysia are able to cite that has been broken, let alone broken by the Prime Minister. The MACC’s mandate does not permit them or allow them to persecute any official. They have to act on the basis of the law and the particular legislation that governs their existence, their duties and their powers.

The allegations by Malaysia’s opposition and one of its former prime minister’s Dr. Mahathir Mohamed charged that the Prime Minister had in their view illegally channeled money from the sovereign fund 1MDB to his personal uses. Even if that money came to the Prime Minister via the 1MDB fund, the commingling of these monies with 1MDB monies is what the AG or MACC have to sort out. And in such circumstances the fault lies with whoever paid the money into the account unless any monies taken out of 1MDB (if it is proved to be the case) was taken out without proper accounting procedures being followed in the process. And even then it does not amount to the offence of corruption!

The PAS party one of Malaysia’s coalition of opposition groups which includes Bersih, the Malaysian Bar and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (the Parti of the family of Anwar Ibrahim counts the Brotherhood as a source of their inspiration) raised the allegations against the Prime Minister and continued relentlessly relying on the Wall Street Journal’s report allegedly supporting their allegations.

The Wall Street Journal now suggests otherwise.


A well-placed Saudi source, on the condition of anonymity, told the BBC the payment was authorised from the very top – from Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah – with funds coming from both his personal finances and state funds.

Observers of Saudi Arabia’s politics will no doubt remember the very large amounts in billions given to President El Sisi in Egypt as a reward by the Saudi royals to El Sisi for the overthrow of the democratically elected Brotherhood government 2 years ago.

King Abdullah is also the man seen in the youtube recording of the Organization of Islamic States meeting in which he threatens to “end” Muamar Gadhafi’s reign. Many commentators credit King Abdullah and his hundreds of billions for the eventual over throw and execution of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.

The purpose of the donation was simple, said the Saudi source – it was to help Mr Najib and his coalition win the election, employing a strategic communications team with international experience, focusing on the province of Sarawak, and funding social programmes through party campaigning.

Clare Rewcastle Brown, who has reported extensively on the issue for the Sarawak Report said the claim that the payment to Mr Najib was a Saudi royal donation for political purposes needed to be treated “with considerable caution”.

Notably Rewcastle Brown has apart from toning down her rhetoric in this regard, has not proved any of her assertions and far fetched claims on any issue before. There are allegations that Rewcastle Brown herself has been involved in soliciting and making illicit payments to third parties for improper purposes to set up the Prime Minister of Malaysia.



29 Responses to “The BBC: Najib Razak PM in the Clear-Where did it all begin?”
  1. JohorMali II says:

    A plausible analysis. But note that, as per your analysis, it is up to the Saudis to confirm or deny any or all of the actions imputed to them. Which they haven’t officially done up to now, as for as I know.

    In this context, the New York Times carried a report “Saudis Help C.I.A. Arm Syrian Rebels”. The report by Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, detailed the cosy nexus between the C.I.A. and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Quotes from the report:

    “The White House has embraced the covert aid from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey at a time when Mr. Obama has pushed gulf nations to take a greater security role in the region….

    “While the Saudis have financed previous C.I.A. missions with no strings attached, the money for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. “They want a seat at the table, and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be,” said Bruce Reid, a former C.I.A. analyst….

    “….a constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens continue to support terrorist groups.

    “”If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation, and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how persuasive of an argument is it?” said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser.”

    So, what are we to make of all this? That the US spy services knew exactly where the cookies have crumbled vis-a-vis the spy services of Saudi Arabia? That’s what the report hints at.

    Also, the Singapore Sunday Times paper today carried a front page report “Swiss prosecutor seeks KL’s help in 1MDB probe”, authored by Shannon Teoh, the paper’s Malaysia Bureau Chief. What is Switzerland’s Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) investigating?


    • grkumar says:

      The Saudi acknowledgement is carried in a BBC report from last Thursday 27 January 2016. The Saudis are very discrete in what they do which concerns their political objectives. I think the point is made in the article. Prince Turki and another Saudi official is reported as one of two sources having spoken to the BBC and to Reuters in another article about the same story. Prince Turki once headed the powerful Saudi intelligence service. We can only rely on official and ‘credible sources’ in reports. The BBC is not the Sarawak report. What is reported by the BBC and Reuters (two completely different and independent sources of news) in this matter are identical in many respects. One has to bear in mind this story about the Prime Minister receiving $621 million is the result of a news paper report too.

      As for Saudi involvement in Syria, it i a question of survival. Iran’s growing influence in the region is indisputable. The Shia Sunni divide threatens all Sunni kingdoms like Bahrain, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where large and not insignificant numbers of restive Shias live and are increasingly dissatisfied marginalized citizens. The story of the middle east one might say.

      I am not suggesting the US intelligence community knows everything that goes on in the Saudi intelligence community, but they know what the House of Saud gets up to. It is in their interests to do so. There have been gaps and relapses in their monitoring of Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud but who’s perfect?

      Teoh’s report is “Hogwash”. Anytime there is an inquiry about the legitimacy of monies held or transferred to Swiss accounts, even if this be by Swiss banks abroad, the Swiss will want to know about it. It is part of the commitment to be a more thorough about illicit funds the Swiss gave to the international community after Ferdinand Marcos’s funds were discovered in their accounts.

      The Swiss continue to investigate the existence and legitimacy of funds held in their accounts of a large number of world leaders, which includes the Holy See (the Vatican) as part of ongoing investigations initiated by government agencies, individuals an other interested parties the world over. An investigation is no evidence of any wrong doing.


      • Platea1356 says:

        Are you implying or stating as a matter of fact that the report carried in the Singapore Sunday Times today is erroneous in all aspects? If so, there should be lawsuits galore in the making.

        Again it is a matter of who to believe. Are you certain that the Saudi parties you mentioned told BBC and Reuters “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”?

        Are the BBC and Reuters more “trustworthy” than, say, the Singapore paper mentioned?

        By your admission, the US intelligence community (or spy services) know what the House of Saud gets up to. By extension, that means that the US spy services were/are aware of the various funding transactions entered into by the Saudis. Or were they not aware that the Saudis were embarking on these kinds of transactions?

        This is all getting very murky with the conflation between spy services and national security interests…….


      • grkumar says:

        You are going off on a tangent disappointed the opposition and Bersih have failed again. The US is not interested (even though it is claimed otherwise by many) about who gives who what unless it is a threat to their interests in the region. They know what the Saudis do. But thats not news. Whether they wish to stop the Saudis taking their F15’s to Israel to be modified or serviced even though they are technically enemies is business of thheirs and they will do something about it. Thats because the F15 is theirs even after it has been sold. But where the Saudis give $1 million or $1 billion to someone there is a point at which they may intervene or say or do something about it. Thats only as I said before, if it interferes in their interests somewhere.

        As far as Singapore and Mr. Teoh’s article is concerned, you have to ask him about it. As far as we are concerned apart from it saying virtually nothing new, it has the hall marks of the writings of a “controlled democracy” where people write benign things and occasionally slander their neighbours.

        You take your choice of who to believe we will ours.


      • grkumar says:

        There is another aspect to your question about the Singapore report. What would your reaction be if Teoh’s report was the same as that of the BBC and Reuter? would you believe his report? What if he said Najib has no case to answer? would you have believed his report? What still if he reported what Lee Kuan Yew is reported to have told the Australian Intelligence service (which he did) that Anwar Ibrahim was in fact guilty of sodomy and was bi sexual? would you have believed him? It is a matter of the evidence.

        In this case the accusers have failed dismally to produce any evidence of an offence having been committed. In fact what they have put forward is so outrageously inaccurate and gossip based, it can only be characterized as being “opposition” material.

        Regardless of whether the BBC or Reuters can be believed, what stands is the fact the opposition have failed to make out a case. Any case against the PM.

        Instead they continue to allege corruption on the part of anyone not producing what they cannot themselves produce. guilty verdict based on facts and the law. Sadly you have the Malaysian Bar as driver behind this scandal and outrage. Think the next time you engage one of the Malaysian Bar who support this movement.


      • Kineas1067 says:

        I have read and re-read Shannon Teoh’s report in the Singapore Sunday Times that was published yesterday 31 Jan 2016. To avoid any misunderstanding, I read it in the print edition of the paper in hard copy black & white.

        I fail to see where Teoh has gone “off track” in the report. Much of the report quoted from the statement issued by Switzerland’s Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) – a statement that was distributed to the media.

        Teoh’s report did mention the Swiss OAG as saying “there were four cases involving allegations of criminal conduct…..these occurred between 2009 and 2013 relating to …..”.

        If the Swiss OAG is indeed conducting investigations, then the rebuttals should be made to that office. Not questioning the motives of the reporter and the newspaper he or she works for.


      • grkumar says:

        If a reporter as Shanon Teoh is game enough to take upon himself to distribute and to comment on half cocked bits of information whether or not it comes from the land of Gnomes, thats up to him. He quotes from third parties and not from sources. But then again being a “Chevening scholar” one has to take what he says or writes in the context of what the British have used the Chevening scholarships for over time: i.e to build servants in their far flung outposts to serve their interests.

        Shannon quotes third and fourth hand sources like the two clowns at the Wall Street Journal whose report on the 1MDB affair the Malaysian opposition, Bersih and the Malaysian Bar grabbed at like a drowning man would to a straw. The Wall Street report quoted a plethora of ‘unnamed’ sources and documents that were supposedly “reviewed” by the authors of that report. They provided nothing more than speculative unreliable amorphous and apocryphal documents. What Teoh does is an embarrassment because he does the same thing but quotes those who quote others. What the Wall Street Journal did was to be expected of Rupert Murdoch and his credibility. Murdoch hires “the best money can buy” but the truth and competence. It is what the gullible public want. Sensation. The question is this would these allegations stand up in a court of law? can one cite third hand hearsay as an exception to the rules of evidence anywhere other than Iran and Saudi Arabia or Guantanamo Bay?

        Would Shannon Teoh applying his own standards on his Sunday Times article, be able to publish an article on the Lee Family or on the Temasek Funds loss of $65 Billion as an act of corruption ? I don’t think so. Well thats the value of a Shannon Teoh and Sunday Times Singapore report. It always comes with strings attached and has standards no civilzed democracy should or would support.

        The Swiss authorities like most others have an obligation it seems when it suits them to make incomplete statements (unless it is the Teohs who report it in an incomplete manner) about inquiries or investigations being conducted into specific bank accounts and transactions. They have not made any statement that Najib is under investigation.

        As an example, the Indians remain the largest depositors of foreign (and mostly dirty) money in Swiss bank accounts. Yet inspite of several Indian government and Indian Tax office requests for information on the many multi million dollar accounts of cricketers (from bookies and match fixing $80 million in the case of one of India’s best known batsmen according to the Indian Tax Authorities), the Swiss have produced nothing.

        One will recall the German plant in the Lichtenstein Bank scandal, who downloaded the details of several prominent foreign politicians and everyone with a public profile from Mother Theresa’s many charitable foundations, to the Vatican, Coca Cola, the British Royals and a host of Malaysian tax dodging businesses and the cocaine traffickers of Columbia, having their accounts in Lichtenstein and the hue and cry it caused for a short time.

        A German businessman committed suicide rather than face the consequences of his social ostracization if all were revealed.

        Funnily the Swiss receive these requests every day by the hundreds. They selectively release the names and identities of those being investigated in breach of their own banking rules. It is why Singapore and Dubai have taken over from where Switzerland as an offshore discreet banking centre. It means little anyway because the Swiss have neither jurisdictional or other persuasive capacity to engage Najib or anyone else like the Saudis because of their sovereign protection and importantly the absence of any provable or proved misconduct on Najib’s or the Saudis part.

        Najib has not been found guilty of anything under Swiss law. Whats being investigated is the conduct of the bank Falcon which is registered in Switzerland. There is no statement by the Swiss that the investigation has a nexus to the Saudi donation to Najib.

        Najib or anyone else for that mater do not require to present themselves or to make any representations to Swiss authorities. No offence has been committed, the Swiss have no jurisdiction in Malaysia and they have not made a case out against anyone. No rebuttals required.

        Questioning the credibility of the reporter in this case is not the point or case. He is much raking and short on facts. He is merely regurgitating that which has not yet been proved or established and is selective about what he is reporting.


      • Kineas1067 says:

        Very well. Then what are we to make of this front page report in the Singapore Straits Times today (“1MDB saga: Singapore seizes bank accounts “)?

        I will leave it to you to peruse this report in it’s entirety and come up with your opinions.


      • grkumar says:

        Read what we have just posted.


  2. Deva says:

    Bro – you seem to be in the extreme know about almost everything, Unfortunately i have a very simple mind. I come from a very simple family. My grandfather was very influential in my moral up-bringging. I;ll be brutally honest with you, the Arabs ( or any one for that matter) taking the trouble to transfer USD 600 Million into Najib’s personnel account vide some obscure method/.channel is really extremely difficult to swallow – if everything is above board why go through the trouble of all these obscure methods. Then the various different versions/story and inordinate delay just makes things worst.

    i have no respect for a man who cant stand up and answer questions. Najib was supposed to be in Parliament to give details instead he send Azlina.

    Please lah – Najib is not the village crook – he is the PM – he must stand up and be honest.

    We have laws with regards to repatriation and inflow of funds – there are obvious reasons for the same.

    BNM had reprimanded and fined Arab Malaysian Bank. They never explained why.

    An honest man has nothing to worry about – it is clear to me – that Najib has not to date and i think never will, be honest with the USD 600 million in his personal account.

    We all should be guided by human values. Nothing in my mind justifies the opaque/non transparent channelling of funds. If indeed they were for legitimate reasons and done legitimately – both giver and receiver would have been forthright from the very begining.


    • grkumar says:


      I think ‘simplicity’ is your problem. In Malaysia as it is the case in many other countries it is those who assert the claim who must prove every element of the offence they say has been committed. Thus far we have had a national self governing body of lawyers called the Malaysian Bar who have sought to side step this rule by making claim with Bersih, the opposition and a host of others but after all this time have proved nothing of substance to support their many far fetched claims. They began earlier with the Scorpene affair, they followed it with murder. The murder of Altantuya. They went after the PM’s wife and her alleged spending sprees with public money which they had no evidence to prove. They led the allegation that Kevin Morais was murdered on the orders of the PM as they did with Altantuya. We exposed Amrick Singh Siddhu and his part in all of this.

      It is not the job, the obligation or the duty of anyone to say anything when they are being accused of something. A good lawyer will explain your rights to you and your right to silence.

      Whoever has been providing legal advise to Najib must be the brightest bulb in the pack of dim lawyers in Malaysia. Silence in such situations is the best defence. If not one would spend all of their life defending against allegations of all sorts.

      Top go to court to defend such allegations requires thought. In the witness box you give a further platform to these loosers to agitate further what they cannot do in a sensible, orderley and meaningful way.

      Any half baked lawyer worth his salt will be able to dig up other things not connected with the charge and that will include family matters other personal matters and more important, matters of state which do not concern the matter before the court and support their fantasies. Notice how Ambiga has gone quiet over Muhamad Shafee in respect of the Malaysian Bar’s allegations against him for supposedly breaching the Rules of Professional Conduct? The Malaysian Bar and Ambiga do not like people exposing their own misconduct under the same rules. They become precious and back down. A sign of cowardice driven by ignorance. Ambiga typifies the negative stereotype of the Tamil with an opportunity at hand.

      It i why not many leaders of countries or their ministers choose the courts to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has more to do with common sense.

      Anyway this is a report that the otherwise anti Asian anti Najib/ Malay BBC that published the report. When we spoke to their London office they confirmed they spoke to people within the Royal House of Saud.


      • Deva says:

        Bro-As I said NTR isn’t the village crook nabbed for nicking 50 ringgit off somebody. Apparently 600 mil greens landed in his acct. Initially he denied – even stating he would be a fool to receive such amount in his personal account. Then various different versions have been dished out. Finally he volunteered to disclose in parliament. He did not appear. Whilst I agree he has no legal duty to defend himself but as a leader of the nation he has a moral duty to explain. As I said – if the purpose was legitimate – there is no reason for the clandestine transfers.
        Truth will withstand anything.
        The problem is NTR has not been forthright. If everything was legitimate – why even think of being silent as a defense strategy. Anyways peace to you. The drama to date defies logic and at the risk of repeating – the sheer secrecy and convulated fund transfer actually speaks volume.


      • grkumar says:

        These are “reports” you quote. “reports” in the local media like the J Star, Malaysia Kini, the Insider and others that have as much credibility as Ferdinand Marcos had in his time. The fact remains it is not an obligation, moral or legal for the PM or anyone faced with any allegation to speak up, speak out or to respond to their accusers. Why provide his accusers with a platform to further their mischief? They ought to have come out with the evidence. Real evidence which Ambiga and people like her would have difficulty spelling the word let alone understanding its meaning. They did not. Because if they did have that evidence in an admissible form they could have impeached the PM then had him tried in a court of law.

        Why should the PM or any other accused help an accuser prove any element of their case against him?

        The Malaysian Bar and Ambiga Sreenivasan and the opposition have mud on their faces. But they are too thick skinned to do anything about it because it is normal for fools in their category to go about with mud on their faces not knowing or feeling anything about the mud they carry on their faces.

        If there was a wrong doing, then all of us, we included, have a right to know about it. And those claiming to be in possession of that evidence to support their claims against the PM ought to have brought it out properly (as real lawyers (not frauds with law degrees) often do in the proper way in a proper forum instead of smearing a person in the cheap media like the Malaysian Insider and Malaysia Kini. None of these media outlets allow people to argue a point regardless of how much evidence there is to support unless it is to simply and mindlessley support what they have to say. And much of it is lies. They are a one way street funded by the same people who fund Bersih.

        Time for government to disband and wind up the Malaysian Bar. Therein they will find skeletons many would not believe existed. A new Malaysian Bar subject to the state and to laws with respect for the courts, the law, parliament, the government and all its institutions is necessary for a workable and competent legal profession. Not one controlled by the large firms who are highly political. The Malaysia n Bar is a failed state.


    • grkumar says:

      BTW this blog is not about any individual. We have our sources, we follow what goes on and try to keep on top of it. If one wishes to publish anything, one ought to be in the know (knowledgeable). If one of us is unable to obtain information on a particular topic, we pass it on to the next person who is “knowledgeable” about it. Thanks for the compliment anyway.


  3. Sir,

    Are you implying that it is permissible for a civil servant to receive donation, whatever form it may be and for whatever noble cause it is intended for, from now on?

    If the answer is affirmative then, any civil servant in the future who shall be queried for the existence of fund in the bank account beyond his/her income could walk away from any indictment with “private-donation-for-social-program” justification.

    I just hope that the learned Attorney-General has contemplated thoroughly on the implication of his decision.

    Thank you.


    • grkumar says:

      We are not implying anything. It is not an offence to receive a gift of any sort by anyone; be it a donation or a hand out. As far as we are able to ascertain none of the allegations about Najib diverting funds from the 1MDB were proved at any time, nor had it any semblance of truth to it nor did the people who made the allegation in the first place prove or provide any evidence of their claim against Najib. There is no evidence of any admissible character to it in the many allegations against Najib and his nexus to the money that Najib received funds from any source in order to do them favours in return out of his office as Prime Minister which could have constituted a bribe , corrupt and sanctionable under the law.

      In terms of corruptly receiving “gifts” or “donations” In exchange for favours arising out of the gift and the office of the donee (public servant), there are prescribed offences that cover that kind of conduct. It was not the case here and nothing of the sort has been proved.

      You are talking here about a group of people who claim that by making such allegations (a number of them, all unverified and unverifiable) against government and individuals they do not like, they can displace the government and rule the country. It is no wonder the opposition has always been an opposition and the BN continues to rule. The opposition has a serious credibility deficit. And till they correct that they will not rule anything including their own lives.

      Ask yourself this the next time another allegation comes up. Can the maker of the allegation prove their allegations to the standard required in order to satisfy the requirements of the law.

      Thus far there has been at least 6 major crimes the PM has alleged to have committed. Not one has been proved. Each of these have backfired against the makers of the allegations. The Murder of Altantuya, the Balasubramaniam allegations, the carpet bagger salesman Deepak’s Jaikishnan’s allegations of corporate impropriety against the PM, the 1MDB affair, the purchase of a $100 million diamond by Datin Rosmah (When the most expensive diamond on record the Faberge egg diamond is valued at only $75 million), the Scorpene deal. There are more. If there is impeachable evidence then all of us have a right to know about it and all of us will benefit from prosecuting the PM. It is in our collective interests to do so.

      If the accusers have a shred of evidence capable of sustaining a charge it is incumbent on them not to seek foreign funding to make a story about it for years then prove nothing at the end.


  4. grkumar says:

    The MACC has been ill advised because there was no evidence in the first case reasonably capable of supporting an inquiry into corruption by the Prime Minister other than through third hand unsupported hearsay.

    The MACC had in fact on closer examination overstepped its mandate and its powers by undertaking such an investigation.

    Within the MACC are virulent and wholly hostile to government individuals. By what means and how they came to be appointed to the MACC board is questionable.

    Possessing a law degree for instance or being a journalist or other “professional” is no assurance of capability or competence in a position within the MACC. The MACC would by its very purpose require people who are totally detached from the political machinations of government or any other sector and not themselves be involved in anti government activity or known to have expressed views on corruption and government that are personal or qualified.

    Our view is that the Prime Minister being a somewhat Machiavellian operator, has allowed each of these groups to be led into a disaster of their own making through his silence.

    The MACC have been too ready to jump at shadows. Their counsel whatever counsel it is they received clearly was incompetent, ill advised, not thought out, inexperienced and more likely driven by a desire to collecting trophies. Over ambition by inexperience and ignorance. Their counsel that is.

    The board we are sure also consists of a coterie of informed and cautious people who may have been drowned out by ‘loud voices’ with their own axes to grind.


  5. grkumar says:

    Saudi money has gone to religious and welfare organizations some through state rulers some through previous Prime Ministers and religious organizations.

    As to funding NGO’s. the Saudis are no new commer to this game. The west is particularly keen to involve the Saudis in many of their adventures in political interference with friends and foe alike.

    The reason the Saudis are useful is because they are a totalitarian, tribal, religious state. There is no democracy, no freedom of information, no questioning the ruling family or their Wahabi theocrats.

    The Saudis have an endless war chest of funds from petro dollars, have investments in most western and Asian economies, have the protection of Israel and the west (Western Europe and the US) and have in some instances enjoyed the protection of the Russians where such protection has meant protecting the status quo and the interests of the Russians.

    Bersih, the Sisters of Islam, PKR, The Catholic Church (in a less direct way via the Holy See (Vatican)) and a host of others including so called “academics and intellectuals” in Malaysia and Indonesia. The list is not exhaustive.


  6. Arkan says:

    Two police commandos shot a woman in the head and blow her up with C4 and nobody is interested to know why????? What kind of humans this country is governed by. All these debate with jargon justifying no wrong doing in 1MD is bullshit. Just ask yourselves if you have any gray matter or at least some developed brain, why would 2 police blow up a woman ??? What is the reason?? This country is governed immorally without ethics. All its citizens are pathetically immoral. They just could not care a hood who they vote for.


  7. grkumar says:

    I have just stumbled upon all the problems in Malaysia in one response here. Yours.

    Perhaps a one way ticket to Alabama, Mississippi or Tennessee would send you to a place you would feel more comfortable in.

    The have their lynchings almost every 3 months. Problem is that they are more likely to lynch you than to allow you to be a part of their lynch mob.

    Wallow in your ignorance. Let the rest of the world get on with enlightening themselves.

    I think you have a stutter. You say the same thing twice.


  8. grkumar says:

    Then stick to elementary school where you clearly belong.


  9. grkumar says:

    Tidak udang juga.


Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Versi Bahasa Inggeris: […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: