By : KIM QUEK
PRIME Minister Najib Razak’s
refusal to disclose the donor of the S$16 million contraband cash seized at the
Hong Kong International airport, following his minister’s earlier
acknowledgement of the cash as donation to Sabah Umno, has only heightened
suspicion over the web of deceit and cover up of high corruption in the
corridor of power.
His minister Nazri Aziz had
earlier (Oct 11) given a written reply in parliament denying that the said S$16
million cash was Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman’s money, claiming that it was a
donation to Umno party in Sabah instead, even though the carrier of the cash,
Michael Chia Tien Foh, was a well known personal agent and close associate of
Musa Aman, as will be elaborated later.
In a further attempt to dismiss
the notion of any impropriety over the episode, minister Nazri added in his
statement that the Malaysian Anti-Corrupition Commission (MACC) has concluded
that “no element of corruption was proven”.
However, this statement has
glaringly contradicted MACC’s latest stance on the issue, aired only a few days
earlier.
Answering questions by
reporters on the sideline of the recently concluded Sixth Conference of the
International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) in Kuala
Lumpur, MACC deputy chief commissioner (operations) Shukri Abdul said on Oct 5:
“The investigation against Musa is on corruption and we have completed the
investigation, but the panel has instructed us to get more evidence.”
By “the panel”, Shukri Abdul
was referring to MACC’s operations review panel, which instructed the operation
division to collect further evidence against Musa after being presented with
the report on the case during the panel’s last sitting in May.
While MACC’s head of
investigation is claiming that it is still in the midst of investigation, how
could minister Nazri claim in the same breath that MACC has concluded that
there was no evidence of corruption?
Dishonest Answers All Round
Obviously, one of the two is
lying; or more likely, both are lying, as there is no credibility in what these
two gentlemen have said, if we were to take into consideration the full
circumstances of the case.
Nazri is unlikely to have
told the truth, as he couldn’t have known more than the head of investigation.
As for Shukri, how serious
can we take his word that MACC couldn’t come to a conclusion despite four long
years of investigation into a simple case of someone caught red-handed while
smuggling an enormous sum of laundered cash?
After all, evidence galore
in the Internet of the intricate network of money flow originating from timber
corruption in Sabah with Michael Chia as one of the focal points of the trail
that eventually ends up in Musa Aman’s personal account in UBS AG in Zurich.
In fact, a flow chart
showing these money movements complete with account details was produced by the
Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a copy of which has
been conveyed to MACC, according to Sarawak Report website, which has also
posted the chart in Sarawak Report.
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2012/04/hold-on-trust-for-aman-more-devastating-evidence-from-the-icac-investigation/.
It is not difficult to see
from this elaborate network of bank accounts and money transactions that the
S$16 million incident is only the tip of the iceberg of a clandestine operation to siphon massive
timber corruption money from Sabah.
Apparently, ICAC has also
forwarded its findings to MACC, and requested for inter-country co-operation to
wrap up the case, but such attempt was reportedly blocked by Attorney General
Gani Patail.
Can MACC deny that it is in
possession of the fruits of ICAC’s laborious investigations into the case
including the said money flow chart that conclusively crucifies Musa Aman?
Perhaps the parliamentary select committee on corruption should summon MACC
chief commissioner Abu Kassim to answer this question.
Musa’s Lies Exposed
Adding to the credibility
crisis of the duo – Nazri and Shukir – is the blanket denial by Musa Aman of
all allegations against him.
Responding to Sarawak
Report’s various allegations that among others, Musa’s two sons studying in
Australia regularly received timber kickbacks from bank accounts controlled by
Chia, Musa flatly denies these in a written statement on April 12, 2012 that
reads:
“I deny all these
allegations. I wish to put it on record once again that I have no business
association whatsoever with an individual named Michael Chia”.
Musa’s denial, however, was
contradicted by banks statements produced in the Singapore High Court in a
civil suit (Suit No.752 of 2010/N) in June that was brought by Chia’s former
associate and now adversary involving a money dispute.
To defend its position in
the dispute, UBS AG produced bank statements that clearly showed that Musa’s
sons Mohammed Hayssam Musa and Hazem Musa Hazem Mubarak Musa were regular
recipients of money remitted from accounts of companies which Chia claimed to
be under his control.
These British Virginia
registered shady companies with large amount of unaccounted for cash regularly
flowing mysteriously through their accounts are obvious vehicles of money
laundering.
Thus both UBS AG and Chia,
out of the necessity to defend their respective positions, had unwittingly
produced in court evidences that tell us that Musa Aman has told a blatant lie
that he has no link whatsoever with Michael Chia. More than that, these bank
documents also collaborate documents in Sarawak Report’s possession (including
the abovementioned flow chart) that regularly surface in its frequent exposure
of Musa Aman’s nefarious ventures as the notorious timber baron of Sabah.
Interestingly, according to
Sarawak Report, these secret reports are leaked documents from not only ICAC,
but also from MACC, which has carried out a parallel investigation on Sabah
timber corruption, following the arrest of Michael Chia in Hong Kong on 14 Aug
2008 for money smuggling and laundering.
Judging from MACC’s long
silence and inaction despite the wealth of evidence of Sabah timber corruption
in its hands, it is not difficult to visualize the limitations under which it
has to operate.
UMNO Incriminates Itself
Prime Minister Najib Razak
certainly didn’t help matters with his curt refusal to divulge the source or
any information that may lessen the gravity of this scandal. In that encounter
with the press after chairing the Barisan Nasional supreme council meeting on
Oct 12, he even tried to sanitize this sordid incident by saying “every
political party has the right to receive political donation as long as it is
done in a proper way”. He added that the
amount of the donation is irrelevant, repeating the proviso that “as long as it
is done in a proper way”.
It really boggles the mind
to think that the Prime Minister could consider such bizarre fashion of
conveying donation as “the proper way”.
May we remind the Prime
Minister that money smuggling and money laundering are serious criminal
offences, for which Michael Chia would have been prosecuted, convicted and
jailed and the cash confiscated, if not for the Malaysian government’s refusal
to extend its co-operation to the Hong Kong authorities.
And since Michael Chia is
only a courier, the master for whom he serves – Umno – is even more guilty.
In any democratic country,
law enforcers would have swung into action following the Prime Minister’s open
admission of such association of breach of law; but of course, in Boleh Land,
this is business as usual – nothing to make a fuss about.
This latest scandal is only
one of many that have been incessantly popping up lately despite the imminence
of a crucial election. It only serves to reinforce the hard fact that our
self-styled “reformist” Prime Minister’s many “transformations” he claimed to
have brought to the nation are more illusion than substance.
As for his vision of “best
democracy” and “developed nation” status in the near future, is it not a land
too far to reach?
No comments:
Post a Comment