Reactions to DOJ Lawsuits reflect Ignorance of Malaysian Officialdom


June 27, 2017

Reactions to DOJ Lawsuits reflect Ignorance of Malaysian Officialdom

by Dr. M. Bakri Musa, Morgan-Hill, California

Image result for Najib Razak, Riza Aziz and Rosmah Mansor

Najib Razak, Rosmah Mansor and Riza Aziz (inset): Their Day will come,only a matter of time

America is a Rorschach Test to most foreigners. What they view as America reveals more of themselves than of America; likewise, how they react to events in America.

One visitor to Washington, DC, would see only the homeless under the bridges, potholes on the streets, and “adult” stores at very corner; others, The Smithsonian, Georgetown University, and the National Institutes of Health. The contrasting observations reflect volumes on the observers.

Consider the Malaysian responses to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuits relating to alleged illicit siphoning of funds from 1MDB. I am not referring to the kopi-o babbling in the echo chamber of UMNO-paid “cyber-troopers” that pollutes the social media. They are pet parrots; babbling whatever is coached to them. With a different master offering more leftovers they could be made to change their tune.

Image result for 1mdb

Where is Mr. Lodin Wok Kamaruddin now?

What interests me instead are the responses of ministers and commentators. Their utterances expose their appalling ignorance of the American justice system. They also reveal much of themselves, as per Rorschach’s insight.

One Minister, eager to be seen as his master’s favorite lapdog, asserted that DOJ is being influenced by the Malaysian opposition. On cue, the other hounds and bitches piled on. A hitherto severe critic of the establishment pontificated that a former champion college debater together with Mahathir and Daim Zainuddin were involved.

Heady stuff for a young man! Though flattered, Syed Saddiq went ahead and filed a police report against that blogger! Mahathir described best those who believed such canards: “Bodoh luar biasa!” (Extraordinarily stupid!)

Those characters must also believe that the American judicial system is like Malaysia’s, where prosecutors could be influenced or paid off a la one Shafee Abdullah. Sarawak Report alleged that he was paid RM9.5 million from Najib’s slush fund before being appointed special prosecutor in Anwar Ibrahim’s case. Shafee has not denied that.

Image result for The RM9.5 million Shafee Abdullah

The RM9.5 million Shafee Abdullah–who else are the beneficiaries of the bounty?

Another Minister declared DOJ’s charges ‘mere’ allegations. Sorry, no marks for stating the obvious. A former journalist-turn-blogger echoed that, and proceeded, for emphasis, to reprint in bold the DOJ’s caution.

Of course DOJ’s accusations, like all court complaints, are “alleged” until adjudicated by the court. DOJ must have credible evidence to not waste taxpayers’ money on frivolous lawsuits. The jury would not buy it. DOJ does not allege any Joe on the street of corruption.

Those who believe otherwise must think that DOJ and American courts are like Malaysia’s where prosecutors could be bought to bring on cases with the flimsiest of evidences and still find judges to convict, as with Anwar’s case.

That is not a far stretch. A few years ago, a defense lawyer V.K. Lingam known for his amazing ‘skills’ in getting his clients acquitted was caught on videotape assuring his listener that he had the judge in his pocket. The lawyer’s utterance, “Correct! Correct! Correct!” would forever be embedded in the annals of shame in the Malaysian Judiciary.

Then there was the character who insinuated that the ‘inactivity’ of DOJ since its first filing a year earlier reveals its sinister political motive. Had he followed the court’s calendar he would have noted the flurry of activities. Among them, the successful challenge by the new trustee of some of the seized properties to be represented.

This character went on to opine that since her initial filing in July 2016, US Attorney-General Loretta Lynch had been “fired,” implying that the lawsuit was without merit. Such willful ignorance reveals a deliberate attempt to mislead. Lynch was a political appointee, and with President Trump’s election all such appointees were replaced. Further, the second filing was by her successor.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid, a local PhD, implied that all the furor over 1MDB were fake news, the concoctions of hostile foreign media! It is instructive that this character did his dissertation on the local media. To him, the likes of The Wall Street Journal are like Utusan Melayu. His response reveals as much about him as the institution that awarded him his doctorate.

A junior minister accused the Americans of trying to topple Najib, in cahoots with the opposition. Not too long ago he and others were lapping at pictures of Najib golfing with President Obama. That minister however, did not see fit to lead a demonstration at the embassy in defense of Malaysia.

It is unfortunate that this non-too bright character’s remarks resonated with simple villagers. A senior Minister, a little brighter being that he was a London-trained lawyer, dismissed the whole DOJ affair. Malaysia had other far more important issues to attend to, he sniffed. If the staggering sums of the loot did not impress him, what about the charges of corruption levelled at the highest government official, cryptically referred to as “Malaysian Official 1.” That should be his and all Malaysians’ top priority.

Yet another minister advised everyone not to panic. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Nobody was panicking except her crowd.

Attorney-General Apandi was miffed that DOJ did not consult him. DOJ’s lawsuits were prompted to protect American financial institutions from the corrupting influences of dirty foreign funds. It does not need Malaysia’s ‘help,’ more so considering that Apandi had declared no wrongdoing.

Apandi was also upset at the criminal insinuations against the Prime Minister. His comment unwittingly revealed what he thinks of his job, less as chief prosecutor, more as Najib’s private attorney. No wonder his “investigations” exonerated Najib! Apandi also unwittingly confirmed that MO1 is, in fact, Najib and that the activities he was alleged to have been engaged in were criminal in nature.

If the responses were revealing, the non-response or silence was even more so. The lawsuits allege that billions were illicitly siphoned from the company, and it is mentioned umpteen times in the complaints. Yet 1MDB did not seek to be represented as a party of interest. This reflects its management’s inability to separate the company’s interests from those of its officers’. Najib is 1MDB’s chairman. The management confuses Najib with the company. Management is not looking after the company’s interest in not seeking representation, which was how the mess started in the first place.

Malaysian officials’ responses to DOJ’s lawsuits did not reflect well on them or Malaysia. I can hardly wait for their reactions or “spin” when this DOJ investigation goes on to its next inevitable phase, the filing of criminal charges and or when one of the defendants becomes a prosecution witness.

Meanwhile, fake news or not and collusion or not, MO1, his spouse, or stepson will not be stepping foot in America any time soon, if ever. That is revealing.

The Role of the Malaysian A-G in Political Scandals


June 20, 2017

 

Image result for Apandi AliThe Malaysian Attorney-General is the Public Prosecutor. He must uphold the Rule of Law. (The Malaysian Constitution–Article 145). His job is to protect the public interest, act with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect.
The Malaysian Constitution–Article 145

 

The Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the Government. His role and responsibilities are provided for in Article 145 of the Federal Constitution. Article 145 of the Federal Constitution provides:

(1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

(3A) Federal law may confer on the Attorney General power to determine the courts in which or the venue at which any proceedings which he has power under Clause (3) to institute shall be instituted or to which such proceedings shall be transferred.

(4) In the performance of his duties the Attorney General shall have the right of audience in , and shall take precedence over any other person appearing before, any court or tribunal in the Federation.

(5) Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine.

(6) The person holding the office of Attorney General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.

The Role of the Malaysian A-G in Political Scandals

The A-G’s quick dismissal of the DoJ’s second suit and his vigorous defence of the Prime Minister against any criminal wrongdoing has raised eyebrows.

by  Lim Wei Jiet

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Image result for malaysian official 1

 

A little over 24 hours ago, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a second suit to recover more assets allegedly acquired using 1MDB funds. The 251-page complaint sheds more light on the scandal and seeks to seize assets such as yachts, diamonds, rights to Red Granite Pictures films and paintings by notable artists.

In a matter of hours, the Malaysian Attorney-General (A-G) saw fit to release a press statement. Two observations were made from this press statement:

Number One – the A-G was unmistakably dismissive of the DoJ’s second suit: “This second action comes on the anniversary of the first, and appears to be a repeat of it”.

Number Two – the A-G mounted a vigorous defence of the prime minister: “The attorney-general expressed his strong concerns at the insinuations and allegations that have been made against the Prime Minister of alleged criminal wrongdoing in relation to the civil action”.

With respect, these postures adopted by the A-G are both misconceived and not in line with the role of an attorney-general in law. Make no mistake – this second civil suit is not a repeat of the first filed on July 20, 2016.

First, the DoJ has now quantified the alleged misappropriated funds at US$4.5 billion from the initial US$3 billion. Second, it reveals several new “phases” in which funds were allegedly siphoned from 1MDB. Third and most obvious, it has identified more assets in which these misappropriated funds were spent on.

It is therefore unfathomable how the A-G can reach a conclusion that the second civil suit is a repeat of the first, what more in a matter of hours after its release.

Eyebrows were also raised as to how quickly the AG sought to shield the Prime Minister from allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

These statements appear to be incongruent with established international conventions on the role of prosecutors.

Article 13(b) of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors 1990 states that prosecutors shall “(b) protect the public interest, act with objectivity, take proper account of the position of the suspect and the victim, and pay attention to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect”.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the International Association of Prosecutor’s Standards of Professional Responsibility 1999 states that “Prosecutors shall perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. In particular they shall…act with objectivity; have regard to all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the suspect…always search for the truth and assist the court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community, the victim and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness.”

Moving forward, it is humbly recommended that these guidelines be followed by the A-G:

• To appoint a special prosecutor of unimpeachable integrity to investigate and take appropriate action in relation to the 1MDB matter, as the attorney-generals in the US have done in Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal and Robert Mueller towards Russian interference in the US elections.

• Whenever a foreign jurisdiction takes action on matters relating to the 1MDB matter, take appropriate time to read and liaise with the authorities to comprehensively assess all relevant angles before dismissing the same.

• Whenever any party alleges or accuses a person investigated in the 1MDB matter, take appropriate time to reach out to such parties for more information before dismissing the same.

• Never attack or defend any person currently being investigated in the 1MDB matter to prevent an impression of bias.

If one needs a role model, one can look no further than our US brethren in Sally Yates, the acting US attorney-general who defied US President Donald Trump in defence of the Rule of Law and the dignity of the DoJ.

I end by quoting a paragraph of her poignant speech to the Harvard Law School’s graduating class of 2017:

“There is plenty worth fighting for. For me, it’s criminal justice reform — so that we can have a fair and proportional criminal justice system that applies equally to all regardless of race, wealth or status. It’s also respect for the brave men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line to protect us. It’s holding corporate executives who break the law accountable so that cheating and stealing doesn’t become just a way of doing business…It’s the rule of law, and the principle that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must be free to do their work without political interference or intimidation.”

Lim Wei Jiet is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. He is also the deputy co-chairperson of the Malaysian Bar Constitutional Law Committee.