YOURSAY 'If it was political funding, it would have gone into party's account and members would have known about it.'
PM: No laws yet, can't say what's right or wrong
Tholu:
Mr PM, please do attempt to fool the Malaysian people by saying that there are currently no laws regulating political funding or donations. If it was political funding, it would have gone into the party's account and party members would have known about it.
But in your case, the money went into your personal account and not a single person, including your deputy, knew about it until it was exposed by The Wall Street Journal .
Under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, "donation" is defined as "gratification" and therefore receiving it is a penal offence.
Don't play ignorant. Opposition parties, do not fall for his trap. Do not join this new political funding reform committee, which is actually established by the PM to create an impression to the public that the RM2.6 billion in his account is not an instance of corruption.
By being in the committee, the opposition would inadvertently endorse the supposed “lacuna” in the law as to the definition of “donation”.
Ferdtan: After a month of silence since WSJ and Sarawak Report revealed that the RM2.6 billion was deposited into the prime minister’s private bank accounts, the story had changed to political donation. They cannot, or will not, tell who the donor is.
More crucially, they have not explained the RM42 million that had been traced from SRC International, a company owned by Finance Ministry. The rumoured proof was so damaging to Najib that the investigators from the ‘special task force’ were questioned and arrested by the police when the investigation was about to be wrapped up.
The money trail started from SRC International with RM50 million to its subsidiary, Gandingan Mentari SB, then to Ihsan Perdana, a company linked to 1MBD for the amount of RM42 million, and this finally landed into Najib’s account.
Nobody, as it is legally wrong, can say that this amount was a donation. Money belonging to the government-owned company (public money) cannot be given to any individual, especially a prime minister, as donation; especially when there is a conflict of interest with Najib as PM and finance minister, receiving the money that he had a direct control.
That was totally against the law.
Versey: The first and worst of all frauds is to cheat one's self. All sin is easy after that. A liar and a person of low moral fortitude will and can always figure out a way to justify anything.
A person who does not possess some common moral fortitude such as social justice, honesty and proper conduct is not fit to be a leader.
Najib’s administration will only give the public the impression that it is lacking in proper fundamental moral standing, thus losing its moral authority to govern and lead the nation.
Freedom: I remember Najib signed the Transparency International Malaysia’s Election Integrity Pledge in February 2013.
The pledge is, to quote TI-M, "observe the principles of integrity and accountability, uphold the rule of law, practice good governance and transparency and protect the interest of the rakyat".
Guess who was the president of TI-M at that time? Paul Low (who is now integrity minister).
Hytan: Najib, don't try to divert/distract the humongous amount of money found in your personal bank account to laws on donations to political parties.
The issue is on responsibility and accountability of funds belonging to political parties and there are existing laws in this regard.
Since you claimed that the funds were donations to Umno, was there a trust deed drawn up by Umno for you to hold the funds in your personal bank account in trust for the party?
Why were the funds not advised to the party upon receipt but only after the expose by WSJ? There have been no details of how much already spent and where the balance is. Aren’t these offences considered criminal breach of trust (CBT)?
Apa Ini?: There are laws and then there are laws. Most of us have never been to law school but we know instinctively that depositing RM2.6 billion to your personal account and hiding this fact from fellow ministers is obviously wrong - and even stupid.
No two ways about it. And how was the RM2.6 billion spent? Well, you can bleat away about it till the cows come home, no one will buy your story.
Negarawan: The international financial community has lost confidence in Najib and his administration as evident by the steep plunge in the ringgit and capital flight.
By announcing publicly that he has not broken any law because no existing law applies to his transgressions, Najib is just making a fool of himself. He looks even more foolish when he is flanked by two deadwood ministers.
Speechless: First, political donations should go to the party's account. Second, if political donations had gone to a personal account, this should be disclosed to the party. If WSJ hadn't published the expose, no one would know about the money.
Third, a detailed listing of where the RM2.6 billion has gone should be prepared and made public.
Last but most importantly, a country's leader has the moral obligation to ensure he acts with integrity regardless of whether laws are in place.
Ipohcrite: Personally, I don't want a PM who doesn't even know what is right or wrong when every right-thinking citizen does.
Besides man-made laws, there are also moral laws. If I did not make myself clear enough, here it is: I won't stand for an immoral PM. Will you?
Anonymous Hotplate: There you go again, Najib, twisting and changing facts as usual. That whatever you do is not wrong as there is no law for it. How thick is your skin, Najib?
PM has lost moral authority on funding reform
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
