Najib should present Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday on the RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO” scandal of Michael Chia as well as whether Nazri violated conflict-of-interest principles


The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should present a Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday on the RM40 million donation scandal of Sabah timber trader Michael Chia as well as whether the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had violated conflict-of-interest principles when answering questions in Parliament on the issue.

Although the Prime Minister last month (Oct. 19) denied that there was any attempt to smuggle the RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO” into the country and claimed that the whole issue had “already been explained in Parliament”, the facts are the contrary.

Instead of putting the issue to rest, Nazri’s various explanations, both inside and outside Parliament, some of which contradicted each other, on the alleged RM40 million “donation for Sabah UMNO”, have only aroused greater suspicion and reinforced widespread belief that a major cover-up is afoot about the RM40 million scandal – which went as far back as more than four years ago on August 14, 2008 at the Hong Kong International Airport allegedly over currency trafficking and laundering with S$16 million cash in Singapore currency in Michael Chia’s luggage before boarding a flight to Kuala Lumpur.

Nazri’s claim that when answering in Parliament, he was only reading the answers whether given by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or the Attorney-General and that he was not responsible for these answers is completely unacceptable and makes a total mockery of the principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament.

The further revelation, confirmed by Nazri himself, that his son Nedim was using a luxurious Hummer SUV, which retails at over RM459,000, owned by Chia, has raised serious questions whether conflict-of-interest principles had been gravely violated when he made statements in Parliament clearing Michael Chia as well as the Sabah Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Musa Aman of corruption.

It is most ironic that just a month after he had exhorted at the Sixth International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) Conference and general meeting in Kuala Lumpur on the critical and crucial importance to instil “a natural abhorrence to corruption” among people in positions of power and authority, he is now under a serious test whether he is prepared to “walk the talk” by giving a Ministerial statement on the swirling questions affecting Michael Chia, Musa Aman and Nazri in Parliament on Monday.

Print Friendly

  1. #1 by Godfather on Saturday, 3 November 2012 - 5:27 pm

    UMNO has a natural abhorrence to telling the truth. The only thing they are good at telling is “So what ?”

  2. #2 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 November 2012 - 5:44 pm

    According to the MalaysianInsider’s report of 3rd Nov. DPM Muhyiddin said that public should not be too quick to pass judgment regarding Rafizi Ramli’s allegations of conflicts of interest in Nazri’s defence & clearing of Michael Chia reportedly being found with RM40 million based on Nazri’s son purportedly using Michael Chia’s Hummer. Muhyiddin said that we have a system and legislation; that if Nazri’s accusers believe the minister had committed an offence they could very well refer him to the authorities and until authorities have proven wrongdoing on his part it was not right to penalize him.

  3. #3 by NotBN on Saturday, 3 November 2012 - 5:52 pm

    Not only do we not know where the money is from (haram or legit) I don’t think UMNO Sabah knew it was coming, certainly not the CM as he even deny knowing the courier. Maybe someone in Sabah UMNO would know, RM40M is not small change. UMNO and BN is history. Time for change, be it PKR,DAP or PAS, otherwise there will be nothing left. We cannot let this mother of corruption continue. WE cannot let the BN govt mislead us or continue to instil fear using the racial or religion card. There is nothing wrong to remove or stop corruption – under all religions Islam or any.

  4. #4 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Saturday, 3 November 2012 - 6:07 pm

    Muhyiddin says, ” do not be quick to judge Nazri.”

    Ha, ha, ha, ha….. coming from Muhyiddin, what would you expect? That brackish water becomes pristine pure water without ‘laundering’ with membrane technology.

    Tsk, tsk, Muhyiddin….call a lemon by any other name it would be just as sour. Or call a skunk by any other name, it would still stink to high heavens. Tsk, tsk, Muhyiddin….

  5. #5 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 November 2012 - 6:26 pm

    Conflicts of interest is not the same as wrongdoing and commission of offence. Conflicts of interest is a set of circumstances that one places himself which creates a real risk that his professional judgment or actions may be improperly influenced by his personal interest. To allege someone as (1) placing himself improperly in conflict of interest position is independent separate and different from (2) accusing him of having already committed a wrong doing/offence. (1) often precedes and creates motivation to commit (2) though its not always necessarily the case. Therefore to prevent (2) one should properly avoid being placed in position of (1). As Rafizi has alleged impropriety of (1) in Minister’s son photographed using Michael’s Hummer, Rafizi has not alleged the Minister of having committed (2) (any offence). To say that public should not pass judgment too prematurely and ought to await authorities’ investigation whether any offence has been committed is to confuse the commission of an offence (for which the relevant minister has NOT yet been criticized by the Opposition) from the impropriety of placing one self in conflict of interest position for which the relevant minister has been criticized by the Opposition.

  6. #6 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 4 November 2012 - 9:17 am

    In all of this attack on Nazri, I hope the opposition don’t lose sight that its Musa Aman and Sabah that should the main focus is not Nazri who is not worth over-investing to topple..

  7. #7 by jus legitimum on Sunday, 4 November 2012 - 12:46 pm

    No sane people will still give support to the ruling central government in the coming GE.Enough is enough.There will be a gigantic earthquake measuring 8.0 on the Richter scale coupled with the greatest ever tsunami sweeping out the corrupted,racist,incompetent and evil 55 year old rotten to the core regime.

  8. #8 by on cheng on Sunday, 4 November 2012 - 2:04 pm

    If this is indeed donation, why must it be Sing. $ cash??
    why support Sing $ ? why cash ?
    Are we NOT in electronic age?
    why from HK and thru so many stops ?
    why carry by a non UMNO member (non bumi ?)
    why take 4 year ? so their explanation is sheer rubbish !!

  9. #9 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 4 November 2012 - 2:33 pm

    ///why support Sing $ ? why cash ?///

    “Cash” cos circumventing banking system there’s no audit trail.

    Sing $ cos Singapore’s currency strong (1 S$to RM2-50) and Sing currency has large denomination for eg it introduced its $10,000 banknote as the highest denomination of its Orchid series on 29 January 1973. That means one note S$10,000 is equivalent to R25,000. Lesser no. of notes in brief case RM40 million is divided over S$10,000 (equivalent to RM25,000 per note).

  10. #10 by mickeytiger2006 on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 - 9:36 am

    If the 40 was legal as explained, murder of mongolian cover-ups as no big deal, where is the rule of law and justice?

You must be logged in to post a comment.