Seventh tranche of questions for Salleh from BN government’s Janus-faced attitude to Yeo’s conviction to Felda acquisition of PT Eagle High Plantations
My seventh tranche of questions for the Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak to help him reinstate his right to ask questions and demand answers from others, after forfeiting such right when as Minister responsible for the portfolio of information, he failed to answer numerous questions about government scandals and failings, are as follows:
Question 31:
Does Salleh agree that the Special Affairs Department (Jasa) statement today insisting that that ex-BSI banker Yeo Jiawei's conviction in Singapore does not implicate 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in the 1MDB investigations is an open contradiction of the welcome voiced by the Finance Minister II Datuk Johari Abdul Gani that it was “good news” for Yeo’s conviction on witness-tampering charges in relation to Singapore’s investigations into the 1MDB money trail.
Can Salleh as the de facto Information Minister explain why the Barisan Nasional is developing a Janus-faced personality on international trials on 1MDB kleptocratic money-laundering scandal, on the one hand “welcoming” Yeo’s conviction and on the other, disclaiming that Yeo’s conviction has anything to do with the 1MDB scandal.
Can Salleh explain BN Government’s Janus-faced attitude, why the “welcome” statement by Johari and the dismissive statement by JASA?
Question 32:
Furthermore, does Salleh agree that JASA’s statement today is one of the stupidest to be issued by the Barisan Nasional government on the 1MDB scandal, which has catapulted Malaysia into the ranks of “global kleptocracy”?
What is JASA trying to say when it insisted that Yeo’s conviction in Singapore does not implicate 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in the 1MDB investigations?
JASA is only stating the obvious that Najib or Arul cannot be any stretch of imagination be implicated in the offence of witness tampering for which Yeo had been convicted and jailed, but the inescapable fact is that Yeo’s present conviction and jail sentence is only collateral to the major offences which included money-laundering, cheating and forgery in the illicit movement of S$23.9 million (US$16.54 or RM74 million) of 1MDB-linked funds.
How can JASA claim that these primary charges have nothing to do with Arul or even Najib as the key person solely responsible for all major decisions affecting the 1MDB?
Can 1MDB and the Barisan Nasional government continue to charade to pretend that they are unconcerned and unconnected to the criminal investigations and prosecutions connected with 1MDB which are taking place in some 10 countries all over the world – including the largest kleptocratic lawsuits initiated by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to forfeit US$1 billion of 1MDB-linked assets in US, UK and Switzerland?
Question 33:
Recently, Wall Street Journal featured Malaysia’s 1MDB woes in a special coverage “How a Malaysian Scandal Spreads Across the World” detailing how the 1MDB global fraud worked – extending its tentacles from Kuala Lumpur to Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands, Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg, New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Washington, Honolulu and London.
In its section entitled “Dragnet”, the WSJ feature said:
“Investigations into 1MDB are under way around the world. U.S. prosecutors have moved to seize $1 billion in assets allegedly acquired with misappropriated funds, and authorities have fined several international banks linked to the alleged scheme.”
Has the Cabinet discussed this WSJ article and what is the Cabinet’s decision.
Question 34:
Yesterday, the Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said that Barisan Nasional had still to reach consensus on Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi’s private member’s bill motion to amend Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355).
Is this true.
Hasn’t MCA, Gerakan, MIC and the Sabah and Sarawak component parties of Barisan Nasional already acquiesced to UMNO, as stated by Jamil Khir Baharom and Ahmad Maslan on Sunday, and agreed to the UMNO proposal to support Hadi’s private member’s bill in Parliament in March to be followed by a government take-over of Hadi’s private member’s bill?
Or will Salleh say that the other 13 BN component parties can still disagree with any UMNO proposal to support Hadi’s private member’s bill motion and their Mps can vote against Hadi’s private member’s bill motion as there is no Barisan Nasional consensus to support it in the March Parliament?
Question 35:
Salleh should explain why Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) is paying such a high price to acquire PT Eagle High Plantations, and how it could better shareholder value as well as benefit the taxpayers.