Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin mencabar kerajaan melalui 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) menyaman editor kewangan Wall Street Journal (WSJ) atas tuduhan berkaitan dana RM2.6bilion membabitkan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Razak.
Beliau berkata, CEO 1MDB Arul Kandasamy sepatutnya mengemukakan saman ke atas WSJ kerana didakwa memfitnah kononnya sumber wang itu datang daripada pelbagai syarikat berkaitan 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) bukan derma daripada kerajaan Arab Saudi.
“WSJ dakwa dana RM2.6 bilion datang daripada pelbagai sumber yang ada kaitan dengan 1MDB. Jika tidak benar tuduhan ini mengapa hingga kini CEO 1MDB tidak ambil tindakan?
“Terkini apa yang dicakapkan oleh Ken Brown. Jika CEO 1MDB menafikan dakwaan dibuat, itu naïf namanya. Ambil tindakan dan saman.
“ Dulu kata nak saman tapi tak saman, jika saya jadi CEO jika orang tohmah, saya tidak boleh nak naïf saja. Saya ambil tindakan dan saman.
“Bukan kita suka nak ambil tindakan tapi kita nak tahu apakah cerita yang betulnya. Kita nak tahu siapa yang betul siapa yang salah kita mahu kebenaran. Selagi tak betul orang akan hilang kepercayaan terhadap kerajaan,” ujarnya.
Muhyiddin merujuk kepada satu laporan media asing yang mengatakan Pengarang Kewangan WSJ Ken Brown dalam satu wawancara bersama ABC News Australia yang mendakwa wang derma RM2.6 bilion itu adalah bukan daripada keluarga Diraja Arab Saudi.
Muhyiddin berkata demikian ketika berucap pada Majlis Penghargaan Program Tuisyen Percuma yang diadakan di Balai Raya Taman Intan Duyung anjuran Gabungan Ketua Cawangan Malaysia semalam.
Muhyidddin juga menyentuh mengenai keputusan Peguam Negara Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali membebaskan Presiden Umno dari sebarang kesalahan berkaitan derma RM2.6bilon dan RM42juta dari SRC Internatinal dalam siasatan berasingan membabitkan PDRM dan SPRM.
Ahli Parlimen Pagoh ini berkata, Peguam Negara perlu membenarkan beberapa negara terbabit dalam skandal tersebut untuk mengadakan bantuan kerjasama jenayah dengan Malaysia di bawah Mutual Law Assistance (MLA).
“Sama ada peguam negara mahu bantu atau tidak memberi kebenaran MLA kepada Switzerland, Singapura Hong kong dan Amerika Syarikat untuk jalankan siasatan mereka.
“ Nanti mereka akan buat laporan kononnya Malaysia tidak memberi sokongan terhadap negara mereka untuk jalankan siasatan pula,” ujarnya.
Malah kata beliau lagi, bukan bertujuan untuk memburukkan kepimpinan Perdana Menteri dan ketelusan Peguam Negara sebaliknya, ujar beliau rakyat mempertikaikannya malah dunia turut mempersoalkan skandal yang membabitkan Perdan Menteri itu sejak sekian lama.
Beliau menjelaskan peruntukkan perlembagaaan yang memberi kuasa kepada Yang Dipertuan Agong untuk melantik peguam negara, atas nasihat Perdana Menteri, bukan bermakna peguam negara tidak boleh mengambil tindakan terhadap seorang Perdana Menteri jika terdapat bukti untuk pendakwaan.
“Saya bukan nak burukkan nama PM dan Peguam Negara. Dunia persoalkan kenapa Peguam negara tidak ambil tindakan terhadap PM.
““Jika seseorang itu dibuktikan banyak melakukan kesalahan maka itu tidak bermakna Peguam Negara tidak boleh bertindak.
“Kalau dulu Ghani Patail (bekas Peguam Negara) tidak bertindak Apandi juga tidak bertindak. Persoalannya sama ada Peguam Negara boleh bertindak atau tidak? ” ujarnya. - malaysiadateline
What if Najib or 1MDB sued WSJ?...
We are all waiting for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s one major decision - to take the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to court.
Although WSJ’s report has been most damaging to his reputation, as well as the reputation of Malaysia as a country, both Najib and 1MDB could only afford to skirt around the allegations made by WSJ instead of suing WSJ.
For example, 1MDB in a statement accused WSJ’s reporting “has never been called into question, is not only disingenuous but an outright lie”. If it has never been called into question, then why not challenge WSJ in court?
As usual, ministers such as Azalina Othman could only use the same line of argument - that “there are parties from within the country and outside who are trying to use back-handed tactics to topple the democratically-elected prime minister.”
We recall years ago, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad also said the same of George Soros and the Jews, in order to cover up the weaknesses of his own administration. I see this as some people becoming bankrupt of ideas that they have to use the same line.
Meanwhile, I am always amused by responses from two other ministers. One of them, however, has remained silent but Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan has made a sweeping statement that WSJ has “broken every rule of journalism in the book. How do we know these people even exist?”
I just wonder what he means by “every rule of journalism”! In journalism, it is perfectly fine to quote someone who prefers to remain anonymous, but if there is a need to produce the witness in court, then the journalist could be compelled to reveal the sources.
Why so unwilling to sue WSJ?
My question therefore, is why is Najib and 1MDB seemingly so unwilling to drag WSJ to court?
Perhaps, one hint lies with the answer given by WSJ’s finance editor Ken Brown, who told ABC News Australia on Feb 12 that his team has “loads of evidence to back up” their story.
Whereas Najib and his men’s story keeps changing over the identity of the donor, Brown maintains that the money funnelled into Najib’s personal accounts came from a “bunch of companies and bank accounts related to 1MDB.” Although we may give Najib the benefit of the doubt, Brown’s allegations certainly warrant an appropriate reaction since Najib’s international reputation is now at stake.
Yet, why do we see Najib and 1MDB dragging their feet despite being challenged to drag WSJ to court?
Najib and 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy know that they are not dealing with any Tom, Dick and Harry from the streets of New York. WSJ has been around since July 8, 1889, and today, it is the largest newspaper in the United States by circulation, with over 2.4 million copies in print (including 900,000 digital subscriptions).
There you go, our Rahman Dahlan is giving a lecture to journalists from the WSJ! Having graduated from Sonoma State University in California, Rahman should know better what WSJ stands for in the United States.
WSJ would not publish anything that is serious in its allegations against a country’s prime minister unless it has “loads of evidence” to support its story.
Man’s dignity is to defend the truth
A man’s dignity is to defend the truth. Najib has described himself as a brave Bugis warrior who would not abandon the ship.
Therefore, when the Bugis warrior is challenged, there is no reason not to put on a brave fight, even to defend himself to the point of death.
But, why did Najib not defend his case against WSJ? Never mind about winning or losing the case in court, but I can only speculate that there is this major fear that more evidence will be exposed in court if the case proceeded.
This would probably be even more damaging to Najib’s own reputation. We will never know what this “load of evidence” can do to Najib’s own credibility as the leader of this country until WSJ has a chance to expose it in court.
Even if Najib won the case, and WSJ has to pay huge sums in historically one of the biggest defamation cases, the world would have witnessed what could be one of the biggest scandals in Malaysia.
Under the present circumstances, this is not impossible, but it would mean exposing our judiciary system to scrutiny by the rest of the world. Of course, the ruling can go either way whether it is in a Malaysian court or a court in the United States, but, what if the case is brought against WSJ in a court in the US and the ruling turns out against Najib and 1MDB?
What if Najib and 1MDB lost?
In short, what if Najib and 1MDB lost the case?
What would be their fate? Where will they hide their faces? Would it mean that the other investigative bodies currently investigating into possible money-laundering use the case to their own advantage?
While the appeal process can take several years, the damage would have been done should Najib and 1DMB lose the case to WSJ, and this is not what anyone in their position would like to see happening.
Under such circumstances, I rest my case. I do not think that Najib, 1MDB or anyone for the matter would take such great risks to drag the WSJ team to court.- Stephen Nag,mk
Majlis Sambutan 40 tahun Najib jadi pe..a...k...
MAYBANK 5642 5857 6644