Upshot from Azalina’s bizarre and gibberish statements – will PAC investigate whether Attorney-General Chambers had drafted a charge sheet against Najib for corruption in May last year and whether it will summon leading members of Special Task Force on 1MDB to testify?


I am quite fascinated by the two bizarre and gibberish statements issued by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, viz:

• statement on Saturday, 27th February 2016 in immediate response to Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s Facebook posting that before he was sacked as Deputy Prime Minister in July last year, he was briefed by the then Attorney-General, Tan Sri Gani Patail about the deposits from the state-owned SRC International into Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts and informed that a crime had been committed by Najib; and

• statement yesterday, 1st March 2016, replying to my statement on Sunday, 28th February 2016 commenting on the “two extraodinary statements” by both Muhyiddin and Azalina.

I am not interested in getting into a polemics with Azalina but prefer to deal with the substantive issues thrown up, intentionally or otherwise, by the bizarre and gibberish statements by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department which called for follow-up action at least on two fronts.

Firstly, whether the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) investigating in to the RM55 billion 1MDB scandal will probe whether the Attorney-General’s Chambers had drafted a charge sheet against Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak for corruption in connection with the RM42 million SRC International scandal, whether work on this charge sheet for corruption against Najib went back to May last year and the final outcome of this charge sheet.

I had noted in my Sunday statement that Azalina, in mentioning about “a charge sheet said to be drawn up in May” last Saturday, had disclosed for the first time about the time origin of such a “charge sheet” and I had asked whether she had received the necessary official clearance to declassify such an information or whether she is guilty of breach of the Official Secrets Act for divulging such an information in the public domain.

Azalina gave a most bizarre and gibberish response yesterday, stating: “The idea that he was unaware of this is unacceptable given that, on July 30, 2015, Sarawak Report uploaded what it claimed was a draft charge sheet of a corruption charge against the Prime Minister in relation to SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former subsidiary of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), even though the investigation into this affair was only completed in December 2015.”

Azalina’s statement is bizarre and gibberish because she did not quote source and/or proof that the charge sheet of Najib’s corruption was drawn up in May 2015 and this information is already in the public domain.

I am prepared to give Azalina another chance to quote source and/or proof that such information about the charge sheet drawn up in May had been made in the public domain before Azalina’s statement on Saturday.

Access to Sarawak Report was blocked by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) on July 19, with the announcement by the MCMC that access would be blocked “until the Special Task Force looking into 1MDB completed its investigations”.

This brings us to the second issue focussed by Azalina’s bizarre and gibberish statements (although this would be the last of her intention) as to the present status and actual role of the Special Task Force on 1MDB, which had made a special impact in the early period when it issued press statements signed by Tan Sri Abdul Gani, then Attorney-General, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamad and the Bank Negara governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz.

Will the PAC summon the leading members of the Special Task Force to testify as to the role of the various agencies which had constituted the Special Task Force on 1MDB and the actual outcome and achievements of the Special Task Force?

I believe Malaysians are quite intrigued by Azalina’s first statement on Saturday when she accused Muhyiddin of being involved in a high-level conspiracy to topple the Prime Minister because the then Deputy Prime Minister had been briefed by the then Attorney-General that the Prime Minister Najib had committed corruption wrongdoing in the RM42 million SRC International scandal.

Azalina had said: “The fact that a sitting Attorney General was privately briefing and sharing classified legal information with Tan Sri Muhyiddin, a member of Cabinet and UMNO member who clearly had vested interests, is not only unethical but also a breach of the Official Secrets Act.”

What should Gani as Attorney-General have done in the circumstances if he had grounds to come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister had committed a corruption offence in the RM42 million SRC International scandal?

If Azalina thinks that it is wrong, improper and unethical for Gani to have briefed the Muhyiddin as Deputy Prime Minister, what should Gani have done?

Was it wrong, improper and unethical for Najib to sack Gani as Attorney-General beliving that Gani had reasons to believe that the Prime Minister had committed a corruption offence and should be charged in court, and to appoint Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali as Attorney-General to exonerate him of any criminal wrongdoing?

Finally, is it wrong, improper and unethical for Azalina to defend the Cabinet “purges” which resulted in her being appointed into the Cabinet to be one of Najib’s foremost propagandists and defenders? Isn’t there a conflict of interest?

Print Friendly

  1. #1 by Godfather on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 - 5:50 pm

    She got her knickers in a twist, but I will bet my bottom ringgit that she will just wriggle out of it by claiming that she was misquoted. These people can twist the facts, sweep things under the carpet, but they won’t dare sue because that would effectively put the evidence trail into the public domain, especially with regard to bank instructions. There are banks which will be waiting for court orders to release wire transfer documentation because they cannot simply breach banking privacy rules. The thieves know that their knickers will be exposed once they sue and the hearings get conducted in open court. Which is of course why Ling Liong Sik’s case won’t see the light of day.

  2. #2 by good coolie on Thursday, 3 March 2016 - 2:17 am

    Once whistle-blowers’ backs are lashed, then only will the government govern. How can the government govern when the whistle-blowers are blowing their whistles? (Another piece of gibberish from madame).

You must be logged in to post a comment.