Amazing Malaysia keeps its most corrupt Prime Minister in power

August 4, 2017

Amazing Malaysia keeps its most corrupt Prime Minister in power


Image result for Malaysia's Scorpene Submarines

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak faced renewed questions Thursday (Aug 3) over a 2002 sale of submarines to his country after a close associate was charged in France over alleged kickbacks.

Najib, then Defence Minister, oversaw the deal worth nearly €1 billion (US$1.18 billion) to buy two Scorpene-class submarines and one Agosta-class submarine from French naval dockyards unit DCN, which is linked to French defence group Thales.

Abdul Razak Baginda advised Najib at the time. An investigation into the deal was launched in 2010 in response to a complaint from Malaysian rights group Suaram, and investigators allege Abdul Razak received kickbacks.

He was charged in July in France with “active and passive complicity in corruption” and “misappropriation of corporate assets”, a French judicial source told AFP this week.

He denies wrongdoing, saying in a statement after the news broke that he had “not committed any crime of corruption or breached any laws in the matter”.

Image result for Malaysia's Scorpene SubmarinesSUARAM’s call for accountability for this serious crime of corruption has fallen on deaf ears despite its continuous effort to demand answers from the Government of Malaysia. The insistence of our government leaders that French law cannot reach them, speaks volumes of the ignorance coupled with a lack of political will to perform its obligations under the UNCAC (UN Convention Against Corruption)


On Thursday Suaram, in a joint statement with NGO The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism, urged Malaysian authorities to take action.

“It is no longer tenable for the Malaysian authorities to dismiss the Scorpene deal as above board and keep silent on the damning developments in France,” the statement said.


“Najib was the Defence Minister that signed on the contract then – we urge for him to answer for what happened then, and what would be the steps taken by Malaysian institutions.”


Malaysia’s Most Corrupt Prime Minister Najib Razak remains in power,despite scandals. He is the country’s Houdini

A spokesman in Najib’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Najib has previously denied any link to the graft allegations, rejecting them as a politically motivated smear by the opposition.

As part of the deal DCN agreed to pay €30 million to Thales’ Asian unit, Thales International Asia (Thint Asia).

The investigation revealed that another company, Terasasi, whose main shareholder was Abdul Razak, received an equivalent sum for what was billed as consultancy work, but which investigators believe was really a front for kickbacks.

Under the French legal system, a suspect is charged if there is “serious” proof of wrongdoing. The case is examined by an investigating magistrate, who has the power to decide either that there is no case to answer, or to send the matter for trial in court.

The person who has been charged will almost certainly be interviewed by the magistrate investigating the case.

The affair emerged spectacularly in 2006, when Abdul Razak’s Mongolian mistress – who was said to have demanded a payoff for working as a language translator in the deal – was shot dead and her body blown up with plastic explosives near Kuala Lumpur. He was later cleared of abetting the murder.


The Ethically-Blighted Prime Minister of Malaysia–Najib Razak

June 19, 2017

The Ethically-Blighted Prime Minister of Malaysia–Najib Razak

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

Image result for Najib Razak and Rosmah Mansor

As for MO1, his spouse and stepson, they are beyond shame. With the millions if not billions they have already expropriated, they can handle the setback. Malaysians however, would be saddled for generations with 1MDB’s humongous debt. Quite a legacy for the son of the late Tun Razak! As for the Tun, what a legacy to have bequeathed Malaysia with his ethically-blighted son.–M.Bakri Musa

The dismissive attitude of Malaysian officials to the latest US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) civil forfeiture lawsuit targeting expensive assets allegedly acquired with funds illicitly siphoned from 1MDB is misplaced. Their stance is an embarrassing display of gross ignorance.

Yes, civil lawsuits in America are as common as mushrooms after a rainfall. This DOJ action however, is the largest (in dollar value) such forfeitures to date. This second set of lawsuits targeted assets allegedly given to Hollywood celebrities, as well as to the spouse of “Malaysian Official 1” (MO1). The two categories are separate though the latter believe that she is in the same class as the former.

Najib apologists and enablers never fail to point out with unconcealed smugness that the defendants to the lawsuits are not individuals, specifically Najib or his associates and relatives, rather those assets.

That is right, but such sophistry reveals a fundamental ignorance of the American judicial system. Those targeted assets do not exist in vacuo; someone or somebody owns them. They in effect are the defendants.

By targeting those assets and not their owners, DOJ is spared the task of identifying their rightful owners. That can be an arduous and expensive task, what with multiple shell companies involved in dizzying number of foreign jurisdictions. Instead, all DOJ has to do is wait for the owners to come out of the woodwork to identify themselves and lay claim to those assets by challenging the lawsuit. They have to, otherwise they would lose those assets, or at least their share.

One of those owners is Jho Low. He claimed to have bought those assets with his family’s wealth. That at least was believable as he came from a wealthy clan in Penang. Sure enough, his family’s assorted trusts too have contested the lawsuit from faraway New Zealand!

Image result for Reza Aziz and J Lo

Then there is one Reza Aziz, identified as the “stepson of MO1.” Where did this son of a nondescript Malaysian army officer get his wealth? From his mother, the daughter of my parent’s contemporary as a village school teacher in Kuala Pilah? Visit her dilapidated ancestral home back in my kampong, and her current flamboyant lifestyle today would make you puke. As for Reza’s stepfather Najib Razak, that man had spent his entire adult life in government, with its measly pay.

Reza Aziz concocted the idea that the money (some hundred million!) was a “gift” from a benevolent Saudi Sheik. Even the wealthiest corpulent Sheik would not be so extravagant with his favorite toy-boy, yet this Reza Aziz character wants those seasoned DOJ prosecutors to believe his story! Even his American accountants did not believe him.

One other owner has also come forward. Hollywood celebrity Leonardo DiCaprio has not only surrendered the gifts he had received “from the parties named in the civil complaint” but went further and cooperated with DOJ investigators. That cannot be good news for either Jho Low or Reza Aziz.

Any bets whether any of the other “owners,” specifically the alleged recipient of that pink diamond, MO1’s spouse, would return their gifts? It is worth pondering whose actions better reflect the forgiving spirit of Ramadan, hers or DiCaprio’s?

Najib supporters trivialize the DOJ’s lawsuit, citing its lack of “action” after its first filing last year as proof of its political intent. To them, these series of forfeiture lawsuits are yet another albeit more sophisticated American attempt at regime change.  Such commentaries reveal a pathetic lack of the basic understanding of the US justice system.

This asset forfeiture is a civil lawsuit. Unlike criminal ones where the axiom “justice delayed, justice denied” is adhered to, civil suits can and do drag on for years. They go to trial only when all parties are ready, and all extraneous issues as with ownership claims settled. The fact that these forfeiture lawsuits drag on should not be misinterpreted in any way.

There is also the possibility that criminal charges would be filed against specific individuals during the discovery or the trial.

There is only one certainty. Once a lawsuit is filed, those assets are effectively tied up. They cannot be sold, mortgaged, or altered in any way without the court’s consent. DOJ has in effect total control of those assets, meaning, their de facto owner.

These forfeiture lawsuits will not be settled out of court. Those prosecutors have a point to prove, and with unlimited resources to pursue it. That reality has prompted owners like DiCaprio to cooperate with DOJ.

This will not be like a Malaysian trial where prosecutors could be illicitly paid off or where defense lawyers openly brag about having judges in their (lawyer’s) back pockets. The defendants have hired some of the best legal minds including those who had once worked in DOJ and had successfully prosecuted many high profile kleptocrats. It will be far from a walk in the park for the DOJ lawyers.

DOJ does have something in its favor. In a civil suit, unlike a criminal trial, the burden of proof is lower, only the “preponderance of evidence” and not “beyond reasonable doubt.” The burden of proof also shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant. Meaning, the owners have to prove that the funds they used to purchase those assets were untainted. It would be very difficult to convince an American jury that a Middle Eastern sheik would willingly part away with hundreds of millions of dollars to a Malay boy no matter how pretty he looks, for nothing in return.

Regardless of the outcome, this trial would expose to the world all the sordid ugly details of the 1MDB shenanigans. Once those are out, not many would be proud to call themselves Malaysians. They would be downright ashamed for having elected a leader with such unbounded avarice, and then letting him get away with it for so long.

Image result for Najib Razak and Tun Razak

As for MO1, his spouse and stepson, they are beyond shame. With the millions if not billions they have already expropriated, they can handle the setback. Malaysians however, would be saddled for generations with 1MDB’s humongous debt. Quite a legacy for the son of the late Tun Razak! As for the Tun, what a legacy to have bequeathed Malaysia with his ethically-blighted son.

RPK in a Legal Bind with Sarawak Report

New York

June 20, 2016

RPK in a Legal Bind  with Sarawak Report: Will he escape as he did in the past–A  Houdini Move?

Lies, Damned Lies And RPK!

Lies, Damned Lies And RPK!

BN politician Muhyiddin Yasin has just joined a long queue of people to denounce the self-important blogger, ‘RPK’ for outrageous lies.

Sarawak Report has no evidence (and indeed no opinion) on the details of the alleged libel in this present case. However, we do have volumes on the non-trustworthyness of RPK.

Our evidence shows that it is barely relevant whether what RPK says at any given time is true or false, because the man is so deceitful, discredited and unreliable. If something true needs to be revealed, therefore, then a more credible outfit will have to be persuaded to publish it instead.

As for the recent jumping up and down by RPK, demanding to be sued in this matter by Mr Muhyiddin, let us inform the world how RPK reacts when he is actually sued.

First the cringing fellow pretends he doesn’t reside at his own address and that his wife and his son don’t know him and so cannot pass on legal letters addressed to him.

When that doesn’t work he next he pleads utter poverty and mewls that it isn’t worth suing him, since he has no money and has no assets to pay up when he loses.

But, even more laughably, RPK once backed in a corner, denies that he actually is responsible for his notorious platform, the blog Malaysia Today!

How things were before we issued proceedings.....

I am not responsible for Malaysia Today!

Malaysians, including the handful who remain regular readers of Malaysia Today, will be doubtless rather astonished to learn that RPK is now formally denying that he controls the blog, which has been the source of all his puffed up notoriety.

Yet this excuse became his prime defence when challenged to defend his case in court by Sarawak Report.

The same archive story after the legal action - RPK has disappeared and Julian Khoo has assumed responsibility for the story!

The doughty accuser, who had earlier made a string of outrageous and untrue accusations about the Sarawak Report Editor, had by then turned yellow, of course.

To begin with he had written apocalyptic pieces about having “crossed the Rubicon” and being ready to fight even unto jail, in order to defend the man he described himself as being a “proxy” for – i.e. Prime Minister Najib Razak:

“…do your worst. We have both now crossed the Rubicon and there is no longer any turning back. And as much as they may try to oust Najib Tun Razak, he is still going to be the Prime Minister of Malaysia long after I come out of jail.”[April 10th]

But, as the deadline for a formal reply in legal terms arrived, RPK’s tail dived firmly in between his legs.

An email arrived at SR’s lawyers with just hours to spare, in which RPK denied he was any longer responsible for Malaysia Today, saying that instead it is run by anonymous characters in KL, over whom he has no control!

Yes, he does write the occasional opinion piece for the outlet, RPK explained, but none of those had raised any of those false allegations Sarawak Report was objecting to (untrue).

RPK went on to say that we really needed to address our concerns to the Editor named on the present masthead of Malaysia Today … a chap by the name of Julian Khoo.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned ‘Mr Khoo’ had simultaneously issued his own formal apology in the blog itself – a major first in that Malaysia Today had uttered the ‘S’ word (sorry) for the first time ever!

RPK was plainly hoping that this dual strategy of semi-apology and semi-denial would ward off SR’s famously mean and hungry firm of lawyers and get him off the hook over all the lies he had uttered in his proclaimed role as Najib’s proxy.

RPK/ Mr Khoo appear to have removed their apology when we indicated it was inadequate and more needed removing from the site!

The mysterious Mr Khoo

However, Sarawak Report suggests that Mr Khoo is a fiction and a deception, invented in a sorry attempt to save face and prop the puffed-up ego of the ranting Mr Kamarudin.

We have evidence to this effect, which we would be happy to lay before those British courts, which RPK is now running from as fast as he can muster.

Specifically, before we sent our legal letter to RPK we took the obvious precaution of capturing an entire copy of the website Malaysia Today.

Prior to our legal challenge this picture stated RPK's editorial imprint on the top of each article published. The terms 'admin' or 'super admin' accompanied articles not authored by himself.

There was no sign then of any Mr Khoo, just a picture on the masthead of each and every article showing the self-important RPK, in his favourite pose sporting a beard and cheeky chappy beret.

A week later, on the day of his apology and denial, the entire site had undergone a sudden transformation!

Mr Julian Khoo had been introduced as the ‘Editor’ on the masthead of nearly every article on the site, dating right back through the archives to the very first utterings on Malaysia Today.

Likewise, the cheeky chappie photograph of RPK had vanished from the top of those self-same articles!

SOMEONE had taken a very risky and deceitful decision, therefore, to try to alter and disguise not only the present but the past on Malaysia Today.

Before - RPK took ownership of his articles

This is extremely easy to detect and prove, Me Lud: not only does our own captured copy of the site show exactly how SOMEONE has attempted to retrospectively alter it, in order to introduce a Mr Khoo (who simply did not exist as Editor before that date) and remove the presence of RPK, but every other public web archive also shows the same discrepancy.

AFTER - RPK has removed his own picture and placed the name of the mysterious new Editor, Mr Khoo on all his archived material

Look at any regular archive service on the net and you can demonstrate the exact same phenomenon.  Sweeps of Malaysia Today taken prior to our legal letters, right up to March this year, feature RPK’s picture on each and every article, while Julian Khoo is absent.

Compare these to the present site and Mr Khoo has miraculously replaced RPK on articles, which he did not claim ownership of until the day of the apology.

This is why Sarawak Report says we have hard evidence of RPK’s deliberate deceit and lying. He is a man of such pathetic vanity that when forced to say sorry (or face the music) he has to invent a ‘Julian Khoo’ to do it for him.

It naturally fits in very well with the harping, racist theme of RPK’s unpleasant ranting that he has given a Chinese name to this particular whipping boy – it seems he didn’t want to ‘humble’ his core constituency either.

Abusively stirring up racial disharmony is RPK's key stock in trade.....

At which point it befits to mention that, of course, the proud ‘Malay blogger’, who pours bile on non-Malays, is not actually Malay anymore himself.

RPK has managed to gain refuge from his numerous detractors in Malaysia over in the UK, thanks to a Welsh mother.  He has taken a UK passport, which means that his Malaysian passport has been removed under the country’s nationality laws.

Since the offensive RPK would never dare swap back his present status as a passport holder of the more tolerant United Kingdom, his claims to be a ‘real Malay’ are therefore as bogus as much of the rest of what he writes.

In fact, he has no more or less of a right to an opinion on matters in Malaysia than Sarawak Report, even according to his own bigoted, racist criteria.

Step forward Julian!

So, before RPK challenges the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia to waste time suing a penniless foreign refugee abroad, who is known to be truth-shy, he should first present to the world this alleged new Editor of his site, the intriguing ‘Mr Julian Khoo’.

If this Julian Khoo is based in Malaysia, runs a business and is indeed RPK’s alleged publisher, he might certainly be worth taking to court.  But, right now, few people are likely to believe that he actually exists.

If he does exist, then plenty of people with issues about Malaysia Today would doubtless be most interested to have his full contact details.  They would also be able to ask him why he is now willing to take on ownership of ten year old articles, which until mid-March boasted RPK on their masthead instead?

Time to Act Against 1MDB Directors for Dereliction of Fiduciary Duty

May 7, 2016

Time to Act Against 1MDB Directors for Dereliction of Fiduciary Duty

by Kow Gah Chie

The Finance Ministry and 1MDB should take action against the former board of directors over the debts the state-owned company had incurred, lawyers said today.

They said legal action was needed following the statement that Minister of Finance Incorporated (MOF Inc) had accepted the resignation of the 1MDB Board of Directors that will come into effect on May 31.

Former Bar Council chairperson Lim Chee Wee wants the new Board of Directors to probe the wrongdoings highlighted in the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) report on 1MDB that was released last month.

“It needs to probe if there is a case against the directors and management,” he told Malaysiakini in a text message.

“They (Finance Ministry and 1MDB) have a duty to act against the wrongdoers who may include shadow directors.Shadow directors are individuals who are not named directors but whose instructions are followed by the company.If investigations by the new board reveal criminal wrongdoing, then the new board has to lodge reports with the relevant law enforcement agencies,” he said.

Another lawyer, Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, called on the Finance Ministry to mull legal action against the former 1MDB board of directors for possible breach of fiduciary duty.

“Accepting their resignation is not an asnwer,” he said.”The Finance Ministry should consult its lawyer to take civil action if the attorney-general does not want to take crimimal action,” he said, adding that the board members should be hauled up to court if they were sleeping and unable to prevent the fiasco.

“It is quite normal for public-listed companies to sue their former directors,” he told Malaysiakini. PAC has pointed out there were clear-cut breaches of fiduciary duty on the part of the ex-CEO Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, and on the part of the Board Directors for failure to supervise Shahrol,” he said.

najib duit

Make no bones about it –This Guy belongs in Jail, not Putrajaya

The advisory board might need to be held responsible for its inability in supervise Shahrol’s action, said Razlan.

When contacted, both treasury secretary-general Irwan Serigar Abdullah and 1MDB President Arul Kanda Kandasamy declined to comment.The PAC, in its 106-page report, had identified a number of weaknesses in the governance and decision-making of 1MDB.


Malaysia :The Attorney-General is not Above or Below the Law

March 21, 2016

The Bar Council does not do politics

 It is unfortunate that lawyers who are themselves politically active either openly or in private should accuse the Bar Council of acting like an opposition party.


By Gerard Lourdesamy

I was amused to read the comments made by two prominent lawyers who represent UMNO and the Prime Minister Mohd Najib Razak and another lawyer who is a DAP state assemblyman in Penang about the censure motion against the Attorney-General (A-G) Mohamed Apandi Ali proposed by three members of the Bar and the judicial review application filed by the Bar Council in relation to the A-G’s failure to exercise his prosecutorial powers against the Prime Minister for alleged corruption.

The Attorney-General is not Above or Below the Law

While they are perfectly entitled to express their views in support of the AG or otherwise, they displayed a certain degree of ignorance about the constitutional position of the AG, the role of public interest litigation by way of judicial review and the role of the Bar Council.

My response to them is :

(a) The censure motion did not originate from the Bar Council but from three members of the Bar;

(b) Unlike political parties like UMNO and the DAP, the Bar Council cannot prevent a motion from being tabled and debated at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Malaysian Bar so long as the requisite notice is given to the Bar Council Secretariat and the motion has a proposer and two seconders. This even applies to motions that are critical of the Bar Council or their leadership;

(c) The censure motion in its purport and effect had nothing to do with the judicial review application filed by the Bar Council against the A-G in respect of his decision not to charge the Prime Minister for alleged offences in relation to the RM2.6 billion “political donation” and the RM42 million from SRC International that mysteriously ended up in his personal bank accounts;

(d) The appointment of the A-G is done by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 145 (1) of the Federal Constitution on the advice of the Prime Minister;

(e) The Agong is bound to act on such advice as provided for in Article 40 (1) and (1A) of the Constitution;

(f) The appointment of the A-G is not one of the prerogative powers of the Agong, see Article 40 (2) of the Constitution;

(g) If every exercise of power by the Agong under the Constitution is deemed to be part of his prerogative powers, for example the Royal Address that is read at the state opening of Parliament, then we would like Brunei, be an absolute monarchy as opposed to a constitutional one;

(h) The locus standi test for judicial review in the context of public interest litigation has been widened by the Federal Court in the case of Malaysian Trades Union Congress & 13 Ors v Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor where the Court held that in order to pass the “adversely affected” test for judicial review, an applicant has to at least show that he has a real and genuine interest in the subject matter. The Court added that it is not necessary for the applicant to establish infringement of a private right or the suffering of special damage;

(i) Therefore, it would be erroneous to argue that the Bar Council’s judicial review application against the A-G is bound to fail by reason of Article 145 (3) of the Constitution. In fact there are obiter statements of the Privy Council and the Federal Court itself that suggests that in certain exceptional circumstances such a review may be possible;

(j) The sub judice rule is only applicable in criminal and civil cases where there is trial by jury. Otherwise it is obsolete. A single judge having to decide a case based on the law and evidence before him should be astute enough not to be influenced by external and extraneous factors and circumstances;

(k) In any event the application of the sub judice rule to questions asked in Parliament is for the Speaker to decide and not for ministers to pre-empt;

(l) It is unfortunate that lawyers who are themselves politically active either openly or in private should accuse the Bar Council of acting like an opposition party. This accusation is akin to saying that all lawyers who are active in UMNO or the DAP couldn’t care less about the Rule of Law and the interests of Justice;

(m) The Bar Council is only concerned about the Rule of Law and the imperative to do justice without fear or favour. It is a statutory duty imposed on the Bar Council by the Legal Profession Act. The Council is not bothered about lucrative legal fees from the government or government linked entities or a plethora of titles and honorifics or a slew of benefits that accrue to lawyers who very wisely represent and advise some of our politicians;

(n) If our government and its leaders have a tendency to only pay lip service to the Rule of Law, fundamental freedoms and human rights the Bar Council cannot be expected to keep quiet and vainly hope that these issues will be addressed by the government at some later date. I think close to 60 years since Independence is long enough for the government to act wisely and responsibly; and

(o) The A-G honestly knows how and when to defend himself. There is no need for lawyers in private practice who are well connected to the Establishment to comment as if they have been briefed by the A-G to represent him and by extension defend the government from the Bar Council.

Whatever the motives, self-regard and pomposity are not appealing traits in any lawyer, myself included.

Gerard Lourdesamy has been a practicing lawyer for the last 23 years.