1MDB decided that instead of answering questions of major public interest posed by a Member of Parliament (MP), it is proper to tell the MP to stick his nose somewhere else.
1MDB accused me of having a “tidak apa” attitude on the sources where the Sarawak Report, The Wall Street Journal and other media agencies secure their information. 1MDB even suggested that I should “commence an enquiry as to how confidential Bank Negara investigation documents ended up in the possession of the foreign internet portal, the Sarawak Report”.
Let me make it very clear here that between figuring out who leaked information and uncovering the truth behind the multi-billion ringgit 1MDB scandal stinking of misappropriation, embezzlement and criminal breach of trust, my priority is categorically with the latter.
I am absolutely certain that not only my voters in Petaling Jaya Utara, millions of Malaysians fully support my priorities here. Therefore, it is not for 1MDB to tell me what I should or should not do for I am only ultimately answerable to the rakyat.
My key concern therefore is to determine as far as possible the authenticity of these leaked documents. Hence yesterday, I had asked the 1MDB President, Arul Kanda to confirm if the Bank Negara Malaysia Letter of Authorisation published on the Sarawak Report is genuine.
The letter dated 29 September 2009 granted permission for 1MDB to acquire 40% of 1MDB PetroSaudi Limited on the basis of particular information provided by 1MDB in its application. The key information provided included
- that the joint venture will have combined equity funds of US$2.5 billion to be used for investment in various sectors;
- that the US$2.5 billion of funds will be deposited with Banca della Svizzera Italiana SA, Geneva while waiting for the prospective investments to be identified;
- that the funds will be transferred in tranches to ensure an orderly foreign exchange market
The authenticity of the letter is very important because if true, it would mean that 1MDB would have clearly misled Bank Negara because we know now for a fact that all of the above information are factually untrue.
The exposé would hence clear cut evidence for the investigating authorities and the Attorney-General to charge the responsible officials for criminal breach of trust, abetting misappropriation and embezzlement as well as a host of other crimes under the Financial Services Act governed by Bank Negara.
However, Arul Kanda chose not to answer the question and tried very hard to turn the tables on me. 1MDB even made a police report yesterday on these leaks of letters, board minutes and other documents specifically to determine the source of the leaks. 1MDB’s reaction only leads me, and I’m certain nearly all Malaysians, to believe that the documents published are genuine articles.
We can hence conclude that the only reason why 1MDB is so obsessively concerned about leaks is the fact that they are trying their utmost, and obviously failing miserably, to hide all the criminal shenanigans which have been, and perhaps are still taking place in the company.
Let me ask Arul Kanda, between misleading Bank Negara with “inaccurate or incomplete disclosure of information” to cover up for multi-billion ringgit misappropriation of 1MDB funds, and the letters of approval being leaked to the public domain, which should problem should the 1MDB President give priority to? Who’s the one with the “tidak apa” attitude?