These are the five things I will do on the RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals if I am Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee:
Firstly, I would have summoned the former Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail as a star witness of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) investigations, in particular to testify whether there was a draft corruption charge sheet against the Prime Minister, Datuk Sri Najib Razak related to 1MDB and whether this was the real reason why Gani had been summarily sacked as Attorney-General although he was three months short of compulsory retirement?
Gani’s presence and testimony is all the more urgent as a result of two recent developments: the statement by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on Oct. 22 that it had never denied the authenticity of a draft charge sheet against the Prime Minister and Gani’s first public appearance at the Bar Council forum on Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) on 3rd November rubbishing the government claim that Gani was removed for “health” reasons as Gani had showed up at the public forum not in a wheelchair or as an invalid but looking very “hale, hearty and healthy”!
Secondly, I would have summoned the present Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali as another star witness before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearings to find out what change of policies he had initiated on the RM2.6 billion “donation” and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals on replacing Gani as Attorney-General, and in particular why he rejected Bank Negara Malaysia’s recommendations for prosecution against 1MDB for violation of financial laws.
Would Gani have agreed to the Bank Negara recommendation for prosecution of 1MDB if he is still Attorney-General in contrast to Apandi Ali?
Furthermore, Apandi Ali should also explain why whistleblower and former Batu Kawan division deputy chief Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang have been charged under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 which allowed detention without trial – in total contradiction to Ministerial assurances given to Parliament that Sosma would not be abused as it related to special measures on security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security, which could have no connection with either Khairuddin or Matthias.
Thirdly, as Chairman of PAC, I would have ensured that PAC gets to the bottom of WHO were the donor/donors of the RM2.6 billion “donation” deposited into Najib’s personal bank accounts a month before Parliament was dissolved for the holding of the 13th General Elections in May 2013.
Former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir had ridiculed the story that an Arab potentate had anonymously donated RM2.6 billion to Najib for the 13th General Election campaign, expressing doubt that there is such a generous Arab who is prepared to part with billions of ringgit when he could not get a single sen from the Arab countries when he had solicited aid from them for the International Islamic University when he was Prime Minister.
Mahathir further pointed out that the Arab leaders did not even bother to reply when he had written to them asking for help to finance an Islamic centre in Oxford University that Malaysia had funded.
If the DAP had received a single sen from any foreign source for our party activities in the past 50 years, party leaders would have been charged and jailed and the party accused of being guilty of anti-national and even treasonous activities.
With RM2.6 billion from a foreign source as admitted by Najib himself, would this make the Prime Minister guilty of anti-national and even a treasonous act?
There is one more question to be established by the PAC. Was RM2.6 billion the total amount deposited into Najib’s personal banking accounts or was it more than RM2.6 billion?
Fourthly, as Chairman of PAC, I would be equally committed to get to the bottom of the other question resonating throughout the country, where have the RM2.6 billion gone to?
The RM2.6 billion was allegedly donated to Najib for the 13th General Election election campaign.
Malaysia’s election laws stipulate that the maximum expenditure legally permissible for a parliamentary candidate is RM200,000 while the maximum legal expenditure for a State Assembly candidate is RM100,000.
With 222 Parliamentary seats and 505 State Assembly seats to be contested in the 13th General elections, this meant that the maximum election expenditures permitted by Malaysian election laws come to RM44.4 million by all UMNO/BN’s 222 Parliamentary candidates and RM50.5 million by the 505 BN State Assembly candidates, or a total of RM94.9 million – short of RM100 million!
But Najib has received RM2.6 billion “donation” which is 26 time more than the legally permissible election expenditures for all the 222 Parliamentary and 505 State Assembly candidates from Barisan Nasional.
Two questions immediately arise: Firstly, are the anonymous donor/donors so ignorant of Malaysian election laws that they are prepared to donate 26 times what is legally permissible to be spent by the 222 Parliamentary and 505 State Assembly candidates of BN in the 13th General Elections? Where have the rest of the RM2.5 billion ringgit, which is over 96% of the donation, gone to?
Secondly, how can Najib accept RM2.6 billion donation for the 13th General Election, when the maximum expenditures legally permissible for all the BN Parliamentary and State Assembly are less than RM100 million?
Former MCA President, Datuk Chua Soi Lek recently threw some light on the RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal, when he recollected how Najib had in a Barisan Nasional Supreme Council meeting before the 13th general election made an unprecedented pledge to fund BN component parties.
Chua said Najib delivered what he promised and disbursed funds to the BN component parties for the 13th General Election campaign.
All the heads of Barisan Nasional parties should appear before the PAC to state how much they received from Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” for the 13th General Elections campaign and what amounts were given to the BN candidates, whether parliamentary or state assembly.
Fifthly, if I am head of PAC, I would ensure that the PAC would table a report on its investigations into the RM2.6 billion and RM50 billion 1MDB twin mega scandals latest by November 30, so that MPs from both sides of the House could debate the PAC report latest by the last day of the current meeting of Parliament on Dec. 3.
Will the new PAC Chairman Datuk Hasan Arifin do all five, or any one of these five, measures?
(Speech at the DAP “Solidarity with Lim Kit Siang and Mana RM2.6 billion?” ceramah in Bandar Sungai Long, Selangor on Sunday, 8th November 2015 at 8 pm)
It’s too early to talk of what you want for Christmas.
Our Malaya History record by British Administration
UK PARLIMENT minutes at November 1950
Migration Statistics
HC Deb 29 November 1950 vol 481
Mr. T. Reid
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of Chinese, Malayan and Indian immigration into Malaya since the end of the war.
Mr. Dugdale
With my hon. Friend’s permission, I shall arrange for a table of migration statistics for the period January, 1947, to June, 1950, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Statistics for the post-war period before 1947 are not available.
Following is the table:
IMMIGRATION
————Malays—Chinese—Indians
1947—–11,540—126,203–43,614
1948—–11,809—121,115–37,319
1949—–29,126—-96,449–31,770
1950 (January—June)
———–34,642—-40,421–16,634
———–87,117–384,188–129,337
EMIGRATION
————Malays—Chinese–Indians
1947—–10,914—130,242–54,856
1948—–13,098—144,440–45,039
1949—–28,399—128,884–38,033
1950 (January—June)
———–36,767—-36,730—21,506
———–89,178—440,296–159,434
———–87,117—384,188–129,337
Excess of Emigrants over Immigrants, January, 1947, to June.
1950 ——2,061—–56,10—-30,097
They love to attack others by call them ‘pendatang ‘.
Follow:
UK PARLIMENT minutes at November 1950
Malayan citizenship is not a nationality, and does not affect or impair the status of British or other nationals who become Federal citizens. Citizenship may be acquired either automatically or on application. The following persons are automatically Federal citizens:
(a) Any subject of the Ruler of a Malay State.
(b) Any British subject born in either of the Settlements of Penang and Malacca, who is permanently resident (that is say, has completed a continuous period of 15 years’ residence) anywhere in the territories comprised in the Federation.
(c) Any British subject born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation whose father, either
(i) was himself born in any of these territories or;
(ii) has resided therein for a continuous period of not less than 15 years;
(d) Any person born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation, who habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.
(e) Any other person born in any of these territories at any time, both of whose parents were born in any of the territories and have been resident in them for a continuous period of not less than 15 years; and
(f) Any person whose father is, at the date of that person’s birth, a Federal citizen.
The provisions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by application are as follow:
The High Commissioner may grant a certificate conferring the status of a Federal citizen on any person who applies and satisfies the High Commissioner—
(a) that either—
(i) he was born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation and has been 1011 resident in any one or more of the territories for not less than 8 out of the 12 years preceeding his application; or
(ii) he has been resident in any one or more of those territories for not less than 15 out of the 20 years immediately preceding his application.
(b) The applicant must satisfy the High Commissioner that he is of good character, possesses an adequate knowledge of the Malay or English language, has made a declaration of permanent settlement in the prescribed form, and if his application is approved, that he is willing to take the citizenship oath. An applicant for citizenship must be of the age of 18 or over.
In the case of any person over the age of 45, who has been resident in any of the territories comprised in the territory of the Federation for 20 years, and who applies for citizenship within two years from the appointed day, the language qualifications will be waived.
#2 by worldpress on Monday, 9 November 2015 – 9:44 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
UK Parliment minutes at April 1949
May I turn now to the question of Malaya? I would like to preface my remarks by referring to a recent broadcast of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, the Commissioner-General. Referring to self-government he said: “This is a promise which we shall not break; our purpose is to unite and gradually transfer rule, and we shall support with all our hearts any movement seeking to associate Malays, Malayan Chinese and others owing undivided loyalty to Malaya in a brotherhood of all peoples inspired by common patriotism.” Naturally we all agree with those sentiments. But a very interesting comment was made in one of the leading vernacular newspapers Utusan Melayu. It described this statement as “A promissory note on which the date for payment of the loan has been left blank.” That, surely, is the whole crux of this matter. What does the writer of that article expect? Does he expect what I might call a Mountbatten date to be put on the promissory note? Do we really want, as Lord Killearn has warned, a second Burma? Can we really put down a blank date as to when we hand over power? Surely the date which we write in for handing over control in Malaya is the date when the Malayan peoples have shown themselves, to themselves, to us and to the world at large, as ready to rule themselves peaceably and efficiently. They know they cannot do it yet. As the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, said, they have a war on there. That has to be cleared up.
Furthermore, the relationship between the Malays and the Chinese themselves has to be resolved. I am glad to say that in the last few months rapid strides have been made in this respect. Malay-Chinese good-will committees have been set up, but the establishment of one committee was immediately followed by the throwing of a grenade at Tan Cheng Lock, a prominent Chinese, by one of his own compatriots. But Malay-Chinese organisations are being organised on a Federation basis, and I trust that the Government will do everything they can to welcome and further these organisations and do everything else they can to solve this difficulty.
They love to attack other call them ‘pendatang ‘.
Well follow is the record at UK Parliment minutes at May 1949
Malayan citizenship is not a nationality, and does not affect or impair the status of British or other nationals who become Federal citizens. Citizenship may be acquired either automatically or on application. The following persons are automatically Federal citizens:
(a) Any subject of the Ruler of a Malay State.
(b) Any British subject born in either of the Settlements of Penang and Malacca, who is permanently resident (that is say, has completed a continuous period of 15 years’ residence) anywhere in the territories comprised in the Federation.
(c) Any British subject born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation whose father, either
(i) was himself born in any of these territories or;
(ii) has resided therein for a continuous period of not less than 15 years;
(d) Any person born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation, who habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.
(e) Any other person born in any of these territories at any time, both of whose parents were born in any of the territories and have been resident in them for a continuous period of not less than 15 years; and
(f) Any person whose father is, at the date of that person’s birth, a Federal citizen.
The provisions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by application are as follow:
§
The High Commissioner may grant a certificate conferring the status of a Federal citizen on any person who applies and satisfies the High Commissioner—
(a) that either—
(i) he was born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation and has been 1011 resident in any one or more of the territories for not less than 8 out of the 12 years preceeding his application; or
(ii) he has been resident in any one or more of those territories for not less than 15 out of the 20 years immediately preceding his application.
(b) The applicant must satisfy the High Commissioner that he is of good character, possesses an adequate knowledge of the Malay or English language, has made a declaration of permanent settlement in the prescribed form, and if his application is approved, that he is willing to take the citizenship oath. An applicant for citizenship must be of the age of 18 or over.
In the case of any person over the age of 45, who has been resident in any of the territories comprised in the territory of the Federation for 20 years, and who applies for citizenship within two years from the appointed day, the language qualifications will be waived.
UK PARLIMENT minutes at March 1951
sked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the conditions of citizenship in Malaya which will allow the seven out of eight non-Federal citizens in Malaya to register as Federal citizens.
MR.J.G.
Nearly all Malays, who comprise about half the total population of the Federation of Malaya, are automatically Federal citizens. About one-quarter of the non-Malay population are also automatically Federal citizens; the conditions under which the remainder of the non-Malay population could acquire Federal citizenship are contained in the Federation Agreement of 1948 and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the relevant clauses.