Najib’s RM2.6 billion donation – from one donor or more than one, from one foreign country or more than one?
A question which should have been answered some six months ago if the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak really believes in accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance is now creating havoc all over the country, latest additions to the teeming questions swirling around the scandal of RM2.6 billion “donation” in Najib’s personal banking accounts just before the 13th General Election in May 2013.
The question is one of two queries central to the RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal – where the RM2.6 billion came from and where this RM2.6 billion had gone to.
Najib had refused to give a full and satisfactory accounting of the RM2.6 billion scandal, despite leading all Members of Parliament up the garden path for six weeks during the recent 25-day budget parliamentary meeting that the Prime Minister will bravely, fully and satisfactorily address all questions relating to this issue, only for Najib to play truant from Parliament on the last day on 3rd December, leaving to the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi to go through the parliamentary charade of a three-minute answer-nothing Ministerial statement.
Najib’s subsequent attempts to “save the day” on the RM2.6 billion donation scandal, with tame and orchestrated interviews with UMNO media and closed-door UMNO briefings, were to no avail, as Najib has again proved that his repeated promise to come clean on the RM2.6 billion “donation” just could not be believed or trusted!
So much for accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance in the Najib premiership.
But the half-hearted and haphazard attempts at explaining away the RM2.6 billion donation scandal had spawned more questions, including whether it was one donor or more than one donor involved in Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” and whether only one foreign country, or more than one foreign country had been involved.
Malaysiakini was the first to pounce on it in an article “Donor or donors? The curious case of RM2.6b” on Tuesday (Dec. 8) pointing out the discrepancy as to whether the donor for the astronomical sum was singular or plural.
In August, the new Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi told the Sri Gading UMNO divisional meeting that he had met representatives of the donor from the Middle East, that the donation was a sign of thanks to UMNO for Malaysia’s fight against terrorism.
The donor here was in the singular.
But Zahid seems to have flip-flopped on the issue yesterday when he stated that more than one person had contributed the colossal sum after the Najib had said in a tame and orchestrated interview with UMNO media two days ago that the sum had come from “donors” (penderma-penderma).
Did Zahid meet with representatives of one donor or more than one donor of the RM2.6 billion sum in August?
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has however maintained that it had met a single individual from the Middle East on the RM2.6 billion “political donation” found in Najib’s bank account, and it is understood that there was only a single donor.
Was there only one donor for the astronomical sum of RM2.6 billion donation, or more than one donor.
Was the “single individual” from the Middle east examined by the MACC also interviewed by the Deputy Prime Minister, or were they different persons.
Was the RM2.6 billion donation from one foreign country or more than one foreign countries?
These are many other questions about where the RM2.6 billion donation came from, and where the RM2.6 billion had gone to, which are being asked by more and more Malaysians in the past six months, and Najib should realise even more Malaysians would be asking these questions in the coming months and years if he continues to refuse to give a full and satisfactory accounting for the RM2.6 billion donation.
In his UMNO Presidential speech yesterday, Najib even took time off to lambast the PKR Vice President and Lembah Pantai MP, Nurul Izzah Anwar, falsely accusing her of “open betrayal of the country” for being photographed with Jacel Karim.
Unlike Najib, Nurul did not receive RM2.6 billion from foreign sources for disbursement in the country’s general election, or she would be further accused of another “open betrayal of the country”.
Does Najib realise that with foreign funding of RM2.6 billion for the country’s general election, there is a greater responsibility on him to reveal where the RM2.6 billion had come from and they had gone to, and to establish that he had not done anything which is detrimental to national objectives and purposes?
In the absence of a full and satisfactory accountability for the RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal, both inside Parliament and outside, the question posed by UMNO Vice President, Datuk Shafie Apdal rings loud and clear when he said Najib had to prove the RM2.6 billion donation he received was used for UMNO.
Shafie said the RM2.6 billion never made it into the UMNO accounts.
Where is the money?
More than five months after the first Wall Street Journal revelation of the RM2.6 billion “donation” scandal in Najib’s personal bank accounts, the basic questions remain the same – where the money came from and to where the money have gone to, while many collateral questions have been added to the heap.
Will Najib give final, full and satisfactory accountability for the RM2.6 billion donation scandal in his winding-up speech at the close of the UMNO General Assembly tomorrow, or will the scandal and the questions continue to grow in scale and magnitude to become an international financial scandal of the first degree, to become a major issue in the forthcoming 14th General Election?