YOURSAY | ‘Is this a reflection of declining standard of English or a plain case of distraction?’
Why draw conclusions when probe still on, minister asks DOJ
Anonymous #44199885: Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Abdul Rahman Dahlan has questioned the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision to “draw conclusions” despite admitting that its probe on 1MDB is still ongoing.
The minister also wondered if the DOJ's civil forfeiture suits could have something to do with the impending Malaysian general election.
Abdul Rahman, the DOJ has not made any conclusions as to “Malaysian Official 1” (MO1) and the wife of MO1.
They have said in their statement that they have facts supporting the reasonable belief that money has been laundered and US laws violated, and so are seeking the forfeiture of assets held by individuals or companies that had benefited from the illegal activity.
You, Abdul Rahman, should go after tycoon Jho Low and his compatriots in 1MDB and Red Granite Pictures. Instead, you focus on the irrelevant matters, like the identity of the complainants and the DOJ’s motives.
If a crime has been committed, you must take action and not allege that the investigation of the crime and enforcement of the law is to derail BN's election plans.
The trouble with Abdul Rahman and his cabinet colleagues is that they just can’t admit they have failed to protect the rakyat's money and allowed the people who allegedly robbed Malaysians of billions of ringgit to get away scot-free.
Clever Voter: The poor comprehension of this minister is worrying. Equally concerning is the intention to take statements out of context. Could this be a reflection of the declining standard of English or a plain case of distraction?
Ministers, irrespective of their loyalty, must act responsibly. Paranoia and knee-jerk reactions are not helpful.
The DOJ’s ongoing investigations are within their jurisdiction. It is wrong to accuse them of anything otherwise. After all, if we expect others to respect our laws, we should expect to reciprocate.
6th Generation Immigrant: Abdul Rahman needs to polish his general knowledge and language.
The DOJ crafted their "affidavit" to be then later presented in the civil court. The sitting judge shall then fairly and transparently "draw conclusion(s)" from the evidence presented.
“Affidavit”: a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation for use as evidence in court. “Conclusion”: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
Odin Tajué: Abdul Rahman’s idea of ‘conclusions’ is not clear. Or he is not clear about the meaning of ‘conclusions’.
Where the transactions pertaining to certain items have ended, there is nothing wrong for the DOJ to reveal what it has discovered about the particular items.
For example, the transaction involving Jho Low’s using of some of the money alleged to have been stolen from 1MDB to buy the pieces of jewellery for MO1’s wife ended when she came into possession of them.
Whether Mrs MO1 decides to keep the pieces of jewellery or sell them has no bearing on, or would not alter the result of the DOJ’s investigation and subsequent court filing.
Furthermore, the intention of the DOJ is to seize assets acquired with the allegedly illicitly gained funds. The longer it delays its seeking of the seizing of the particular assets, the harder it would be, if not impossible, for it to succeed.
For example, superyacht Equanimity could perhaps be remodelled sufficiently to make it look different and reregistered fraudulently, and by the time all that has been done, the original vessel would never be found. How will you seize something that does not exist?
Vijay47: To add to Odin Tajue's comments: Abdul Rahman, the fact that investigations are on-going does not prevent one from drawing conclusions from the facts or evidence already discovered.
If the police come across a body with the head missing and a couple of knives sticking into it, two conclusions are possible - first, that the headless person is dead and second, that the said headless person was murdered.
Meanwhile, investigations would continue to determine who separated head from body, though in Malaysia this next step is at times dispensed with, especially if pink diamonds are found strewn at the scene of the crime.
So, Abdul Rahman, each time you open your mouth, another two conclusions are possible. First, that you have no clue as to what you are talking about and second, you are lacking in quite a bit of the grey stuff.
Anonymous_1371637464: Quoting the Wall Street Journal: “The most striking item on the list is a necklace worth $27.3 million featuring a 22-carat pink diamond.
“The lawsuit alleges that 1MDB funds were used to buy it and other jewellery for the wife of ‘Malaysian Official No 1’. US officials told the Journal that Official No 1 is Mr Najib.”
When will these drowning ministers reach for the life buoy and start telling the truth?
Versey: An honourable man or woman is one who is truthful; free from deceit; above cheating, lying, stealing, or any form of deception. He or she is one who learns early that one cannot do wrong and feel right.
Likewise, a responsible cabinet minister will be honest no matter how painful the truth is but the irresponsible cabinet minister will hide behind lies and deceit.
Anonymous 2436471476414726: Abdul Rahman, the amount of 1MDB money allegedly stolen, so far verified by DOJ, is US$4.5 billion.
Assets procured using the stolen money is US$1.7 billion (so far verified and identified by DOJ). All these are supported by concrete evidence and proof which have been included in DOJ’s court filing.
Therefore, the question of the half-cooked report as you claim does not arise. The ongoing investigation is to trace and identify the other assets that have been procured using stolen money.
As and when these are verified, further civil suits will be filed with the court. That's the process.
How come ordinary folks like us understand this, but cabinet ministers like yourselves are not able to comprehend. More likely, you pretend not to understand and deliberately spin stories after stories to cover up for your boss.
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.
