Malaysians are entitled to a frank and honest answer from the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak whether the RM580 million out-of-court settlement of Tajudin Ramli’s debts is proof that Malaysians today are still paying for the RM100 billion financial scandals perpetrated in the 22 years Tun Dr. Mahathir was the Prime Minister. And if so, they want to know of other such instances.
More and more Malaysians are asking this question as there is total lack of transparency, accounting, explanation or details for the RM580 million out-of-court settlement with government-linked corporations (GLCS), raising the question whether the Barisan Nasional government has achieved another entry in the Guinness Book of Records in being the first government in the world to surrender a court judgment for RM580 million.
One big controversy among Malaysians today is who is to be believed, Mahathir or Tajudin Ramli about the “double bail-out” of MAS.
Tajudin had claimed through his affidavits that former premier Mahathir had made him buy MAS to help bail out Bank Negara after the central bank suffered massive foreign exchange losses due partly to speculation in foreign currency markets as a “national service” with an “Overriding Agreement” to indemnify him against any losses suffered. This has been denied by Mahathir.
Four reasons have been advanced by those who believe that Tajudin’s claims are more credible, viz:
(1) Tajudin would be out of his mind to buy at RM8 something trading at RM3.50 then.
(2) Tajudin would do so if he was protected by an overriding agreement as he claimed.
(3) the overriding claim appears credible because the government did subsequently buy back from him at twice market price which the government was not otherwise obliged to do so.
(4) affidavits are sworn statements to court and false statements constitute perjury, a punishable offence.
As Prime Minister, Najib would know what actually transpired and Malaysians want him to tell the country the truth, whether it is Mahathir or Tajudin who is lying and whether criminal action would be instituted against Tajudin if he had committed perjury in his affidavits.