Seruan Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob kepada pengguna Melayu memboikot perniagaan kaum Cina untuk memberi tekanan supaya harga barang di pasaran jatuh adalah usaha mengalihkan kelemahan Kementerian Pertanian dan Asas Tani.
Ahli Parlimen Bakri Er Teck Hwa dalam satu kenyataan berkata, Ismail gagal menangani isu kelemahan Kementerian Pertanian dan Asas Tani.
“Antaranya, beras yang tersimpan di sebuah gudang di bawah BERNAS di Perlis selama tiga tahun sudah rosak.
“Menurut kenyataan dari pegawai Kementerian Pertanian, dipercayai ada banyak kes seumpama ini yang berlaku di negeri-negeri lain.
“Apakah hasil siasatan yang telah dijalankan? Adakah apa yang disebutkan oleh Menteri ini adalah satu percubaan untuk mengalihkan tumpuan orang ramai supaya tidak membangkitkan mengenai hal beras ini? kata Er.
Media sebelum ini melaporkan berlaku lambakan stok beras di Perlis disebabkan stok beras yang dikeluarkan tidak menepati spesifikasi gred yang ditetapkan.
Bernas, dalam satu kenyataan sebelum ini menyatakan beras Super Tempatan 15 peratus (ST15) berjumlah 6,029 tan metrik yang dikeluarkan oleh kilang tersebut terpaksa diproses semula sebelum boleh dipasarkan.
Tambah Er, Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak perlu segera mengambil tindakan terhadap Menteri Kabinetnya yang semakin hari semakin lemah dan tidak bertanggungjawab.
“Kenyataan tersebut tidak beretika dan cuba menambahkan prejudis di kalangan rakyat,” kata Er. – Roketkini.com
Adakah Ananda Krishnan akan menjadi penyelamat 1MDB...
AK dilaporkan telah mengukuhkan persetujuan untuk memberi pinjaman kepada 1MDB dengan jumlah sehingga RM2 bilion untuk membantu badan pelaburan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak itu untuk membayar hutang kepada Malayan Banking Bhd (Maybank) dan RHB Bank Berhad yang mencapai tarikh akhirnya hujung bulan ini.
Jika laporan The Edge yang memetik sumber itu benar, ia menunjukkan kerajaan Malaysia, terumata Kementerian Kewangan, kini dalam krisis kewangan.
Implikasi pinjaman seumpama itu, iaitu daripada individu kepada kerajaan - 1MDB adalah milik penuh Kementerian Kewangan - adalah memalukan.
Fikirkan:
- Malaysia yang merupakan sebuah negara yang kaya dengan sumber asli perlu meminjam RM2 bilion daripada seorang individu?
- Adakah Malaysia dalam krisis kewangan yang teruk, akibat hutang persekutuan sejumlah RM800 bilion yang juga menghakis keyakinan terhadap ringgit.
Mengapa AK ingit mengorek duit untuk 1MDB? Untuk menunjukkan dirinya sebagai penyelamat dan berkhidmat kepada negara?
Laporan Reuters 31 Januari menyatakan AK - individu kedua terkaya di Malaysia - akan meminjamkan RM2 bilion kepada 1MDB untuk melangsaikan hutang kepada dua bank tempatan.
Laporan itu menyatakan dua individu yang arif tentang perkara itu mendedahkan AK kini sedang berunding berhubung terma pinjaman dengan 1MDB.
Awal bulan ini. Reuters juga melaporkan yang AK dalam perbincangan untuk menjadi pelabur dalam penyenaraian aset jana kuasa oleh yang sudah lama tertangguh. Ia berkemungkinan akan dibuat pada enam bulan purnama tahun ini.
"Pada masa ini, ia hanyalah satu pinjaman. Kita tidak tahu sama ada ia akan diterjemah melalui saham ekuiti," kata salah seorang sumber itu.
Pegawai 1MDB enggan memberi komen. Pegawai di badan pelaburan AK, Usaha Tegas juga tidak dapat memberikan knyataan.
Apa kata-kata menteri lain?
Bahawa hutang menggunung 1MDB tidak mendatangkan kesan kepada ekonomi dan kewangan? Benarkah apa yang kita dengar ini? - Ng Kee Seng,theantdaily
1MDB has lied to Malaysians...
“It is not a responsible borrower anymore,” he says.
Referring to the company’s recent announcement that it has redeemed funds parked in the Cayman Islands and a subsequent news report that tycoon Ananda Krishnan is lending it RM2 billion, he points out that the two developments, taken together, are puzzling.
“It says it has fully redeemed money from the Cayman Islands. If it did, why must it borrow from Ananda? We don’t know what the terms of the loan were. Did it come with promises that Ananda will be the bigger owner of the soon to be listed energy company?
“That means, originally, 1MDB made a big splash announcing that it bought Tanjung Energy (Ananda’s company) with its 13 IPPs strewn all around the world already, with some provisions of converting debt to equity.
“Now, with its failure to pay the short term loan of RM2 billion, it borrows another RM2 billion to pay off that loan, and Ananda will eventually own not only the 13 IPPs but more.
“Ananda is the other TNB for Malaysia.”
He notes that 1MDB’s borrowings totals RM42 billion as of March 2014.
“Maybe 1MDB has borrowed some more. We don’t know. We know it just borrowed RM2 billion from Ananda Krishnan. Unless Ananda gave a free gift, the loan is RM42 billion. You dig another hole to cover an existing hole. The number of holes remains the same.”
He wonders what 1MDB should be called now that its chairman, Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, has indicated that it is not a sovereign wealth fund, but a “a strategic development company investing in strategic industries”.
“The best term that comes to mind,” Ariff says, “is 1MDB is a public interest company in the sense that whatever it does interests the public, more so the public-spirited individuals and groups. It cannot escape accountability because it is a government owned company, wholly owned by the Ministry of Finance.
“It was given RM1 million as seed capital and from there it went on borrowing money and issuing bonds like nobody’s business. It is our business to see that this government is duty bound to protect us from duplicitous and even corrupt dealings.” - fmt
Who ordered the ‘hit’ on Altantuya...
Abdul Razak Baginda must think that we are all dumb. In an interview with The Malaysian Insider, he said that Altantuya Shaariibuu's death was just a straightforward murder case, committed by rogue cops acting on their own.
"The truth to this murder is simply extremely too boring," Razak said. "It was a straightforward murder, but there are still people convinced that (the) police cannot do this without instructions. How many people die in (police) remand?"
Many people in Malaysia are asking what motive Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar had for murdering Altantuya. Why would two elite policemen, personal bodyguards to then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, leave their official duty stations and go off to kill a woman that they had never met, using police-issued weapons that could be traced back to them?
According
to Razak, no one ordered them. They just did it. Razak compared it to
death in remand, even though Altantuya was not under police arrest.Are we supposed to believe that members of the Royal Malaysian Police, and especially members of the elite unit that protects the prime minister and other high-ranking officials, are cut-throat murderers, out-of-control cops who take it upon themselves to kill people?
Why would they kill an allegedly pregnant woman who was not robbing a bank, who was not a terrorist, and who was posing no danger to them? Are harassment and blackmail of the DPM's friends punishable by summary execution?
What Sirul said
Let's look at what Sirul had to say over eight years ago. When he confessed to the murder on Nov 19, 2006, he said that Azilah told him there would be a reward of between RM50,000 and RM100,000 "if the case was settled."
Settling the case, according to Azilah's instructions, meant to "shoot to kill" Altantuya and her two companions in the Malaya Hotel.
Sirul did not say where the reward money was coming from. But if money is involved, it seems clear that this heinous crime is not about rogue cops.
In his court testimony, Sirul said Azilah told him that "there was work to be done." He testified that Musa Safri, Najib's chief of staff, had told Azilah about "a friend who had women problems."In short, Sirul's account of the events goes like this. Musa told Azilah that "a friend" had a problem. Azilah then told Sirul that "there was work to be done," and that the "work" was to "shoot to kill" Altantuya and her two companions. When the "case was settled," there would be a reward of between RM50,000 and 100,000.
After he was found guilty in 2009, Sirul asked the court not to sentence him to death. In tears, he said that he was being sacrificed to protect unnamed people who were never brought to court or even faced questioning.
"I appeal to the court … not to sentence me (to death) so as to fulfill others' plans for me."
What did Azilah think?
Azilah's lawyer at the time, Zulkifli Noordin, said that Azilah "felt that he had been betrayed," and that as a member of the elite UTK security unit, "Azilah would not issue an order to his subordinate if he didn't receive orders from the higher-ups."
Zulkifli, who was then in the opposition, abruptly quit
as defence attorney because he said there were attempts to interfere
with the defence he had proposed. The reason for the interference and
pressure, he said, was "to protect a third party."Zulkifli also was quoted in a Wall Street Journal article. "My client is a senior-ranking officer in the special unit of the police, and he has always acted on instructions - including in this case."
Razak's ‘selective memory’
Razak himself gave ammunition to what he calls the conspiracy theorists with his own statement to the police in 2006. He said that after he explained his predicament to Musa in October 2006, Musa then sent Azilah to see him, two days later.
In his affidavit, Razak said that Azilah said that he had "personally killed between six and 10 people," and that he could easily "finish off the girl."
(I always found it curious that the police never investigated and asked Azilah who the other six to 10 people were that he killed.)
Razak said that he was "shocked"
at Azilah's statements about murdering other people and his readiness
to "finish off" Altantuya. He says he replied that he merely needed
police protection.Yet notwithstanding Razak's admonition, Azilah and Sirul killed Altantuya the next day. Azilah then called Razak and said, "Tonight, sir, you can sleep well."
It is hard to believe that a woman lost her life simply because she was harassing a man, a private citizen, and that members of an elite police unit would take it upon themselves to kill her for that - on their own volition.
If all that Razak wanted was police protection, then why didn't Musa send an ordinary policeman, instead of taking two bodyguards away from the DPM's personal protective detail?
Or - why didn't he send an immigration officer to arrest and deport Altantuya?
And if Razak had expressed concern about killing Altantuya and said that all he wanted was police protection, why did Azilah ignore Razak's concerns and return the next day with Sirul, spirit Altantuya away, and then kill her and destroy her body?
Did she know too much?
But Altantuya was no ordinary woman, and her lover was no ordinary man. He was the agent for the purchase of the Scorpene submarines, a deal that is still under investigation by the French government for illegal payments. And she was with him throughout that time.
Part
of the Scorpene money, €36 million (RM148 million) went to a phantom
shell company in Hong Kong controlled by Razak. Altantuya traveled with
her lover Razak to Paris as the negotiations were conducted. Razak's
friend was the defence minister then, and he was responsible for the
purchase - and the purchase price - of the subs. The murderers were the
defence minister's personal bodyguards.So, I'm sorry, Razak. This whole situation is neither boring nor straightforward. We would like to ask you:
-
How much did Altantuya know?
-
What did she learn about the Scorpene deal from her times together with you?
-
You said in your Malaysian Insider interview that your
problem with Altantuya was purely a very private matter between the two
of you and had nothing to do with the Scorpenes. But as the saying goes,
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Knowing Altantuya's state of mind, do you think she was prepared to tell what she knew about the Scorpene deal if she didn't get what she wanted from you? After all, she was blackmailing you.
Najib's aide Musa was never called to testify, but there are a number of questions that we would like to ask him, too:
-
Razak told you about his problems with Altantuya on Oct 16, but it was two days later before you sent Azilah to see him. Did you talk to anyone about Razak's problem during those two days? Who? What did you discuss?
-
Was anyone concerned that Altantuya, who seemed to be desperate, in a
rage, and out of control at that time, might reveal what she knew about
the Scorpene deal?
-
Why did you pick Azilah, who boasted of killing 6 to 10 people, to
handle the problem? Why didn't you send an ordinary street police man,
if all Razak wanted was police protection? Or why didn't you send an
immigration officer to pick her up and deport her back to Mongolia?
-
Why do you think that "killing the woman" was the solution that Azilah immediately proposed to Razak?
-
Precisely what instructions did you give to Azilah?
- Why do you believe that Azilah and Sirul, two people under your direct command, committed this murder?
Given all this background, is it surprising that people still believe that the whole truth has yet to be revealed? The murderers have been convicted. But this case is not yet over. People want to know, who ordered the "hit" on Altantuya.
It is time for the police to visit Musa, and see what he has to say. But perhaps they already did, eight years ago, during their investigation of the murder.
In his remarks to Malaysiakini on Sunday, inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar added to the intrigue. He said that it is standard procedure in murder investigations to cover all angles, including establishing the reasons behind the action and securing the necessary evidence for a prosecution.
Khalid said that information is "recorded in the Investigation Papers which are submitted to the Attorney-General's Chambers for further action." He stressed that it was not the police's role to question the prosecutor or courts for not delving into the motive during the hearing process.
The question therefore is whether the police interrogated Musa and others in the DPM's office eight years ago, and if they did, what information they passed on to the AG's Chambers. After all, Khalid said that it is standard procedure in murder investigations to "cover all angles."
The prosecution, as we know, never called Musa as a witness, claiming that his testimony was not necessary. Yet the Court of Appeal unanimously concluded that Musa's testimony indeed was essential to the narrative upon which the prosecution's case was based.
The court ruled that "the failure of the prosecution to call or offer Musa for cross-examination... would have triggered adverse inference... against the prosecution."
In this case, adverse inference means that a reasonable person could infer that the prosecution would have produced Musa if his testimony would have been supportive of their position that these two acted alone. But because they did not call him, it could mean that his testimony would not have supported their case.
The prosecution, it could be inferred, did not want Musa to be subject to cross-examination by Azilah's and Sirul's attorneys because his testimony might have undercut and been adverse to the prosecution's case.
No matter what Razak says, this is not an open-and-shut case. There are too many unanswered questions. - John Mallot,mk
Mat Tarzan meninggal dunia
cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment