Muhammad Taib’s three brothers should clear the name of Selangor Mentri Besar by convincing Malaysians that there could be no doubt whatsoever that the RM2.4 million belonged to them

On Tuesday, Bridgecon Berhad executive chairman Datuk Raduan Muhammad Taib said the money equivalent to RM2.4 million had been given to his brother, Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Muhammad Taib to purchase property on the Gold Coast near Brisbane and that it belonged to him and two other brothers, Datuk Othman and Hasan.

However, when asked how he and his brothers had raised the money for the purchase of the property, he said the matter ”could be explained” but he could not expand any further as he feared that it was sub judice.

It was also reported that Raduan also declined to comment on why the brothers had given cash of S$1 million and RM700,000 or whether a major portion of the money had belonged to him as he was the most successful of the brothers.

The sub judice excuse is completely unacceptable, for if Raduan and his brothers are really worried about this rule, he should not have said a single word until the trial of Muhammad Taib in the Brisbane magistrate’s court on March 21 for the offence of not declaring RM2.4 million when leaving Brisbane for New Zealand on Dec. 22.

Raduan should know better than anyone else that the sub judice rule does not apply in Malaysia and that in any event, there is nothing to jeopardise in Muhammad Taib’s case as the Selangor Mentri Besar had publicly admitted to having the money as well as commiting the “technical offence” of not making any declaration as required under Australian law because of ignorance of the law.

Muhammad Taib’s three brothers should realise that they owe a duty, not only to their brother who is Selangor Mentri Besar but even more important to the people of Selangor and Malaysia, to fully explain the nature, origin, source and purpose of the RM2.4 million which they claim was theirs as Muhammad’s credibility and integrity depend on the their ability to convince Malaysians that there could be no doubt whatsoever that the RM2.4 million cash belonged to them and not Muhammad Taib.

Fourteen questions for Raduan, Othman and Hassan to satisfy in the court of Malaysian public opinion to clear the name of Muhammad Taib

What Raduan, Othman and Hasan should worry is not about fictitious sub judice of the proceedings in the Brisbane magistrate’s court, but the prejudice in the minds of Malaysians about the credibility of Muhammad Taib’s explanation because of the failure of the three brothers to conclusively and authoritatively prove in the court of Malaysian public opinion that the RM2.4 million was theirs.

What Raduan, Othman and Hasan should do is to appear at a joint press conference to establish beyond a shadow of doubt that the RM2.4 million was theirs, by giving clear-cut answers to the following 14 questions:

• How much each brother owned out of RM2.4 million;

• How each had raised this sum of money;

• Who would bear the greatest loss if the RM2.4 million is forfeited by the Brisbane magistrate’s court on March 21, as is usual in such offences;

• The nature and price of the property in Gold Coast in Brisbane they wanted to buy;

• Why they chose Gold Coast near Brisbane to buy property purportedly for their children to further their studies in Australia, when Gold Coast is more famous for entertainment and tourist attractions like night-spots, 24-hour casinos and Surfers’ Paradise than quality education centres;

• The position of their children’s educational levels;

• Why they have no confidence in the education system in Malaysia at a time when the government is striving to transform the nation into an international centre of educational excellence and discouraging Malaysians from going overseas for further studies;

• Why they chose their brother, the Selangor Mentri Besar, to be their real estate agent who did not even know that the Sale and Purchase Agreement in Gold Coast could not be concluded without the presence of his two brothers who could not join him on the trip as their children were getting married.

• Why did they give Muhammad Taib the RM2.4 million in cash when they themselves, as corporate players, should know that the Sale and Purchase Agreement in Gold Coast could not be concluded as Raduan and Othman could not go to Australia.

• Why did they give Muhammad Taib S$1 million and RM700,000 in cash for the purpose of business transaction in Australia, instead of relying on electronic transactions or even if it was to be on cash-basis, why not the more relevant Australian currency;

• Whether the S$1 million and RM700,000 were given to Muhammad Taib in Malaysia for him to bring to Australia or whether the money was passed to him after he had arrived in Australia.

• Were they aware that under Australian law, anyone entering or leaving Australia must declare any amount worth over A$5,000 in whatever currency, and did they forewarn Muhammad Taib of this Australian law?

• Where were the S$1 million and RM700,000 currencies obtained or exchanged, showing documentary proofs as to which bank or financial institution had carried out the transaction to turn them into cash.

• Muhammad Taib went to Australia on Dec. 16. Why did the brothers disregard considerations of safety and security and allowed the Selangor Mentri Besar to lug around RM2.4 million cash for a week before he was arrested at the Brisbane Airport, or for close to two weeks, if he had not been arrested and continued on his trip to New Zealand before returning to Malaysia?

In his statement, Raduan said he and his brothers “would co-operate” with the Anti-Corruption Agency and other authorities in their investigations on Muhammad.

From this statement, it is clear that the ACA had not started investigations into Muhammad over the RM2.4 million cash caper in Brisbane. The question is why the ACA is holding back on actual investigations, although it had announced that it had “started” investigations - why it is only a “verbal” and not an actual start, beginning with the interrogation of the Selangor Mentri Besar and his brothers?

(10/1/97)