Najib to “check” on corruption allegations against IGP – what next?

The statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday that he was not aware of the postings on a website on allegations of corruption and involvement with underworld figures against the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and top police officers and that he would “check” strains credulity to the utmost.

Image Hosted by
This is because these allegations against Musa and other top police officers have been made almost a month ago, the first article appearing on June 3 and the second article on June 9, 2007.

It appeared on a known website, Malaysia-Today news portal and by an identified writer, Raja Petra Kamaruddin in his series “The Corridor of Power” — unlike the earlier Internet allegations of RM5.5 million corruption accusing the Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Johari Baharum for releasing three men held under the Emergency Ordinance which appeared on anonymous websites three months ago.

Furthermore, on June 19, I had sought to adjourn Dewan Rakyat to have an urgent parliamentary debate on the serious corruption allegations against both Johari and Musa, and although my motion was rejected by the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah as not “urgent”, is it conceivable that the Deputy Prime Minister continued to be unaware or uninterested about the serious corruption allegations against the Inspector-General of Police?

Up to now, nobody in government has been able to explain why the corruption allegations against Johari which appeared on an anonymous website was immediately investigated while the corruption allegations against Musa which appeared on a known website has instead been ignored by the authorities!

If Najib is really unaware of the contents of the Internet allegations of corruption against Musa, then something is very wrong with Najib or his circle of advisers in this Internet era where information travels at the speed of light, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year.

Will Najib now raise in the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that there should be independent investigation into the serious corruption allegations against the IGP?

The problem is that serious questions of integrity have also been posed to Najib himself about the massive defence purchase commissions, i.e. US$120 million commission for the submarine deals from France and US$100 million commission for Sukhoi jet from Russia.

Who will raise in the Cabinet that there should also be an independent investigation into these deals in keeping with the public commitment of the Abdullah premiership to foster integrity and combat corruption?

Be that as it may, now that Najib has publicly said that he would “check” on Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s serious allegations of corruption against Musa and other top police officers, he should explain what he proposes to do about these allegations.

  1. #1 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 12:51 pm

    Beyond general remarks like that made by Najib that he would “check” on Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s serious allegations of corruption against the top police officers, I understand that there is an internal policy directive from the government directing government officials not to respond in any way to the allegations posted against them or the government on the Internet whether or not the allegations have merits or baseless. The government stance seems to treat with condescension all allegations posted as spams that don’t dignify a response. The logic appears that many allegations are posted from unknown and unverifiable sources and if the government officials (identifiable and known) were to respond or rebut each and every allegation posted, the government will forever be on the defensive to no avail. Besides to give government officials the liberty to respond would open the way to greater political damage if they respond the wrong way unaware of the repercussions to the image of the government. The policy seems to be grounded on the thinking that if the officials do not respond to an allegation manifestly baseless and slanderous as they eqully do not respond to those allegations that have justification and basis, then the public will not know the difference between the two categories and will not draw the adverse inference in the second instance of non response and no comment. The message is to tell all that silence or no comment does not imply consent or agreement to what is alleged, regardless.

    Please check out this out, whether there is such an internal directive.

  2. #2 by Rocky on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 1:26 pm

    Directive they may have. But what surprises many is that all these rumours generally turns out to be true!!!! especially those from RPK(god bless him)

    The govt needs to deal with perception as they have been doing a lousy job and they are scared to deal with the things public is keen as seen how they deal with in the press or the parliament. In fac they are not event scared of the parliament cos they are above everything.

  3. #3 by moong cha cha II on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 2:27 pm

    what haappened to those police reports on the UMNO delegates who raised racist issues during the recent UMNO GA ?

    If something proceeded from there (the police reports), then sometime will proceed from the “checking” by Najib.

    If nothing happened there, then nothing will happen here also.

  4. #4 by WFH on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 3:29 pm

    Heed the warning signs of impending dangers soon to come

    That a connection has now been established of the DPM in THAT court case calls for desperate damage control measures on his part; that it is imperative and crucially necessary for him to launch an offensive to throw public attention in another, ANY, direction – in this instance, it looks like a raising of stakes as to who will stare who down.

    Surely it is no coincidence that only just a day-and-a-half after revelations of the potential existence certain photographic evidence, the DPM claims he is only just NOW aware of internet allegations about IGP Musa’s extra-curricular activities, which he now will only “check”!!

    I do not for one instant believe he is either ignorant or unaware of the internet expose by RPK which had already been all over for the good part of a month. I

    t’s likely he was complacent and did not think that the revelations would surface to destroy his public declaration about that certain foreign national. Hence his cocky inaction or non-action.

    Now with a worse situation facing him, possibly leading to a connection of involvement in not just the case currently being heard but even extending to having dirtied hands in defence procurement. When, as is now proven, he lied about never meeting or knowing that lady, I bet he’s constantly feeling very, very hot under the collar.

    The message is there for those who need to step carefully. Many parties will have to watch each and every one of their “adversaries” moves. Survival mode has been activated/triggered in the DPM’s and every mah-chai’s camps.

    Let’s hope there will be no collateral damage spillover into the public space. Let’s hope there’ll be no sacrificial lambs in this battle of the most powerful within the corridors of power.

    Oh..!! And they’d better do it quietly, lest they wake up the PM….!!!

  5. #5 by k1980 on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 3:49 pm

    Najib checking on the serious allegations of corruption against Musa and other top police officers would be similar to Hitler checking on allegations of genocide in the German concentration camps.

  6. #6 by inoato on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 5:26 pm

    birds of the same feathers; your guess is as good as mine!

  7. #7 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 7:03 pm

    It seems there is a new culture which can be referred to “I will check culture” that has mushroomed around the PM and the DPM. If that is all that citizens of Malaysia deserve than it is time for us to abandon democracy as we know it and start afresh.

    First we dump the PM who is clearly listless, seldom ever focused and when he does focus it is to say, “I will check”.

    Next comes the DPM, how do we do that? Some say this is best done in our courts, in the Altantuya murder case which has forced his parliamentary secretary to issue a defensive statement if nothing else.

    If there really is such a photograph out there it will surface. There are a number of individuals sitting around a dinner table and not just one. There is a photographer whose work is to take photographs. There is a photograph shop where photographs are developed. As they say this picture is worth a thousand words.

    I would say this picture is worth quite a few thousand dollars and more.

    So let’s check.

  8. #8 by k1980 on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 8:16 pm

    What?…this picture is worth quite a few thousand dollars and more only? To the person trying to cover it up, it is worth berbillion- berbillion

  9. #9 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 9:15 pm

    Here’s the conundrum : whatever Najib publicly said, how could he “check” on Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK)’s serious allegations against Musa and other top police officers, when to do so, would be to indirectly lend credence to RPK which raises questions of what happens to the allegations that RPK has equally made against Najib and who would be investigating these allegations – Musa?

  10. #10 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 10:07 pm

    In that case, he would have himself checked out sooner than he thought.

  11. #11 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 10:14 pm

    “What?…this picture is worth quite a few thousand dollars and more only? To the person trying to cover it up, it is worth berbillion- berbillion” k1980

    This photograph merely shows that Najib and the others sitting around the dinner table in some expensive restaurant somewhere having an expensive dinner probably at Malaysian tax payers’ expense.

    No, even that would be hearsay

    Does it prove that people sitting around each other knows each other? Yes. So?

    If that is to prove that Najib lied when he said he did not know the deceased, how is that relevant when he is not even a witness in the trial?

    Since the photograph if it exists does not prove anything, why should it be worth anything? There are others out there showing Najib in compromising positions.

  12. #12 by alphoti on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 10:24 pm

    Malaysia is in very serious problem.

    PM is sleeping. He cannot do anything to DPM as he need his support and in return he will pass the baton when he go.

    DPM got too many problems, charges of corruption, Altantuya case, etc. If he dare to go after Musa, then things will definitely not go as planned.

    All other Ministers have their own problems. Talk too much, they will go first. So, silence is golden.

    The people? They keep voting the bunch in! Come election, give them some ‘sweets’, vote BN. So many voters never realise BN is using the people’s money to buy them. How pity.

  13. #13 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 10:32 pm

    It is on public record, uncontradicted, that he is thick with Baginda. There is really nothing wrong to have known or met the mongolian girlfriend of his good friend. Knowing is by itself innocuous unless one reads further into it. The denial of having known her is therefore the first irreversible mistake because it sounds implausible and implies that there may be further to be read into the reasons behind an implausible denial. It is not conceivable why a witness under oath such as Burmaa Oyunchimeg, 26, the victim’s cousin should concoct she saw a photograph when there was no such thing. What is the motive of such a concoction? This startling disclosure must be viewed in context of the obliteration of immigration records which suddenly changes the complexion of the case from one personal between victim Altantuya and the accused abettor to one implicating the Malaysian government that should not suffer the imigration records to be tampered if it had no interest in the matter. In the age of Information Technology, never be too surprised when a photograph suddenly appears on the Internet, whether or not authentic or superimposed. The man got too much on his mind to think of investigating another especially when the responsibility of such an investigation on police should rightly be vested in the head of the proper Ministry – the Minister of Home Affairs/Internal Order.

  14. #14 by John F. Kennedy on Sunday, 1 July 2007 - 11:49 pm

    It all boils down to a crisis of credibility!

  15. #15 by i_love_malaysia on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 1:15 am

    DPM- You better watch out! you better look out, IGP is coming your way!!
    IGP – You better watch out! you better look out, DPM is coming your way!!

    You dont touch me and I dont touch you and every thing will be alright!!

  16. #16 by undergrad2 on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 4:49 am


    “The denial of having known her is therefore the first irreversible mistake …”

    I thought he was reported to have said that “he never knew her”??

    There is a difference when if he were to say instead, “I never heard of her” – which even then he’d be correct if she were to have used a different name.

    “t is not conceivable why a witness under oath such as Burmaa Oyunchimeg, 26, the victim’s cousin should concoct she saw a photograph when there was no such thing”

    Yes, we are talking about a witness who has reason or reasons to lie. She is not an independent witness. Her testimony requires corroboration. Another witness like the victim’s father could take the stand and say he too did see it. But he too is not an independent witness. By repeating a lie does not make it any less a lie. So it is back to “she says he says”. Remember if you assert you must prove.

    How often do these people take photographs while having dinners anyway? So even if they did have dinner together with a few other people, and there’s a photograph out there somewhere what does that prove? It merely serves to show some people having a meal. How relevant is that??

    Within the context of the trial so far, where is the relevance to any of the issues? First rule of evidence: before it could be admissible as evidence, it must be relevant. Then it must not be hearsay.

    This photograph fails on both counts.

    Assuming it is relevant to prove a witness has lied, which witness? Najib is not a witness in this trial! Najib did say he did not know her (rather than of her) but it has to be repeated in court before he could be said to commit perjury. Telling lies is only a crime when you are under oath in a court of law.

    Assuming Najib is and, even if he is witness having given testimony that he never knew the deceased, whether the photograph is admissible in evidence would depend on how it is used in the trial – and what the issue is.

    If the issue is that the witness Najib, in this case, lied in his testimony made under oath to the court that, for example, he “does not know the deceased”, “never heard of her” and “had nothing to do with her” (the last is a contradiction – if you never heard of someone how could you have anything to do with her?) then the photograph could be admitted for that limited purpose. It goes to his credibility as a witness – and even then assuming his credibility is an issue.

    So something must be relevant to any of the issues in the case before it is admissible as evidence. Where is the relevance, and what is the issue at this point?? Zilch.

    The Prosecutor did right want in stopping the witness because it has no relevance to any of the issues. It is speculative and meant to sensationalize – a media scoop which is what it is. The judge made the correct ruling. (However, I must admit that it is strange that the Prosecution was the one to move and moved quickly to silence their own witness without so much as an objection from any of the other counsel! The objection came only from Karpal Singh – no relative of Goddamn Singh – who asked why this witness was not allowed to finish).

    The issue about missing immigration records:

    “..immigration records which suddenly changes… to one implicating the Malaysian government..” Jeffrey

    That is one quantum leap to make! Deletion of immigration record? What is its relevance? The fact that certain records are not available, how does that play out? It proves government involvement in the murder?? Like I say it is one giant leap to make. Missing records can be explained away – like a computer glitch? It is a coincidence that it affects the records of our visitors from Mongolian? It proves the involvement of someone powerful like the deputy to the Prime Minister who has an interest in the matter? Maybe – even likely. What does that show? He is not even a witness. You do not have enough reason or reasons to be able to subpoena Najib to attend court and give testimony.

    So where does that lead us?

  17. #17 by Loh on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 5:18 am

    When DPM Najib said that he would check on the allegations against the IGP, it meant to say that nobody else in the country, except perhaps the PM should now be involved in dealing with this case. It is hands off to everybody.

    Please be reminded that Najib said he would reveal the EPU methodology about the infamous statistics. It is six months now, and he is still not ready to deal with it. That would take years when he is ready. Meanwhile, other than the PM, nobody can deal with it.

    So in a similar manner, it would take years for Najib to complete his checking, unless the PM decides that he had enough of sleeping, and would do it on behalf of Najib.

  18. #18 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 7:43 am

    “Directive they may have. But what surprises many is that all these rumours generally turns out to be true!!!! especially those from RPK (god bless him)” – Rocky.

    RPK has, without doubts, his sources within the power structure.

    Some but not all of RPK’s rumours are true. His leak on Pak Lah’s nuptial intentions was true as proven by subsequent events.

    When he makes allegations and innuendoes of corruption on high officials, it is a matter, unlike a wedding, that cannot be subsequently proven or verified. This is because there is unlikely to be a subsequent impartial investigation – only small fries get impartially investigated here – with transparent disclosure to vindicate or discredit such rumours.

    Readers however will give RPK a measure of credence on the general drift of he RPK says about this or that person being tainted with corruption because readers know only too well what the country is and has been all along and what the game is all about.
    But this alone however does not mean that every specific allegation on any official is completely true.

    For example, when RPK alleges so and so has done the following acts – (a), (b), (c) – which leads to the following inferences (d) and (e), the problem is (a) is correct, (b) is half true depending on one’s interpretation and (c) is completely false, so what becomes of the inferences/conclusions (d) and (e)?

    The reason why the person maligned by the false rumour on (c) does not sue RPK on defamation is because if such proceedings were to be taken, embarrassing details of that which is true in (a) and partially true in (b) will also be disclosed! Suffice to say, silence on false rumour (c) does not imply a consent that it is true.

    Another aspect that one should take into account is this.

    When there is a perception of general drift and auto pilot of top leadership, the generals and napoleons immediately below at various tiers of the power structure engage in a free for all power struggle between themselves inter – se to carve and expand and often defend their respective fiefdoms and spheres of influence against one another in rivalry. (It is a phenomenon not so obvious during TDM’s administration because as an autocrat his rein was tight over his underlings and he clamped down on internal dissent, which simmered but did not boil to the surface).

    It is under such conditions of internecine rivalry under present administration that the strife between top officials becomes intense because the one at the top keeps the distance and refuses to take sides to “balance power” so that the contending and feuding parties will forever vie for his support keeping his position strong and safe. (This is called the playing of one against the other game).

    So what do the “Napoleons” do when their complaints against one another to the boss evince no decision or action on the boss’s part?

    They would try to discredit their rivals in the public domain by deliberately using their underlings within the corridors of power to leak the shenanigans and misdemeanours of their rivals to the public – not through the mainstream press, which is muzzled most time but through the avenue of RPK, who fearlessly reports in the public domain whatever information hitherto unknown that he is privy to.

    As I earlier said, some information leaked is true; the balance portion is disinformation deliberately disseminated by one faction in rivalry against the other to discredit it.

    Unless what is leaked is superseded and vindicated by a subsequent event, for most times readers will not know if they are true, partially true or completely false.

    This is especially the case if it is conceded that there might well exist an internal governmant directive to officials not to respond to allegations posted in the Internet, whether they are true or false.

    If there were a response then at least readers will have a better sense and feel whether the allegations are true or not but not otherwise.

  19. #19 by undergrad2 on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 8:32 am



    For it to be evidence it must be first be relevant to an issue. What is the issue? If it is admissible as evidence, it is not proof that a witness has lied about not knowing who the deceased was. The nature of the relationship is another matter. Najib is not on trial and neither is he a witness. It would show some people having a meal around a dining table and guests included the Deputy Prime Minister, the accused and the deceased. It is not even relevant.

    This witness for the prosecution is not an independent witness and her testimony has to be corroborated by an independent witness. The father of the deceased who said he too saw the picture is not an independent witness. Right now it is the credibility of this witness Amy that is relevant – not Najib who is not even a witness.


    Those letters purpotedly written by the deceased is only admissible to show her state of mind. It would be hearsay and therefore inadmissible as evidence if you go into the truth of its contents e.g. she says “Razak was going to kill her.”

    Hence those letters cannot be used to implicate Razak. It is only admissible to show her state of mind.

    Computer records.

    The relevance of the missing computer records is to show that there may be a conspiracy involving high government officials. Or it is nothing more than a computer glitch which happens now and then. It certainly does not implicate Najib in any way.

  20. #20 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 9:02 am

    I am not referring to any link to Altantuya’s murder or the subject matter of “whodunnit” in the trial. I am addressing other swirling allegations in the Web – the business aspects – and the political implications.

  21. #21 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 9:16 am

    We’re talking about public perception, response from Opposition like Anwar and other implications from these relevations and developments. I am not talking about standards of legal proof and evidential merits of the revelations in relation to standards in a trial – for now, not yet.

  22. #22 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 9:39 am

    WOuld you ask the rat to check the cheese store? Period.

  23. #23 by k1980 on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 12:17 pm

    No need to checklah. According to the ‘Mr Clean’, he’s ‘Tan Sri Clean’

    Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Monday the contract of service of Tan Sri Musa Hassan has been extended to enable the inspector-general of police continue with efforts to combat crime and corruption.

  24. #24 by Jimm on Monday, 2 July 2007 - 2:24 pm

    No need to check as AAB just given TMH an extension on his contract. Must be the influence of TMH ‘s brother , TSSH.
    Anyway, now that all controlling power are with AAB, having TMH around can be fun.
    TMH have to share his ‘profits’ with AAB group.
    So near, yet so far ….
    Well, at least TMH can still sit there and continue to generate more profits eventhough he need to ‘share’ them.
    Bo Hoo Heey Pun Hoh ..(In Hokkien)
    No Fish, Prawn also can do ..

  25. #25 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:17 am

    Malaysia has a huge problem with credibility.

    When somebody speaks, even PM or DPM, people ask (including Lee Kuan Yew): Is it Credible?

    Malaysia has a problem with Integrity.

    When somebody squeals or whistleblows, all the PM and DPM says is: Let me check. EAch time the checking lasts till the next General Election. And there is a funereal silence, the silence of the graveyard, when questions are asked about each scandal.

    Malaysia has a problem with EQUITY.

    The weighing balance used by BN as their electoral symbol appears balanced ONLY on the poster. THe real weighing balance BN uses in Parliament or in the Government offices are all screwed up, skewed and slanted against the common people. UMNOputras are the ugly beneficiaries. The crumbs fall off the table and MIC and MCA cronies stoop to scoop up the spoils. It’s ugly, degrading, demeaning and a bloody to all right-thinking people.

  26. #26 by shiock on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 11:58 am

    “IGP contract to be extended” – AAB.

    It also means hands off to DPM. No need to “check”.

    Its confirmed that there are 2 camps here…

You must be logged in to post a comment.