Why MACC “may” and not “shall” call Najib in for investigation over his infamous RM5 million “let’s make a deal” speech in the Sibu by-election?

At the Cheras DAP Solidarity Dinner in Kuala Lumpur on Friday night, I had posed the question – Why the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) dare not announce it will probe Datuk Seri Najib Razak if corruption is suspected in the Prime Minister’s infamous RM5million “deal” at Rejang Park, Sibu on the eve of Sibu by-election polling?

I posed this question as the New Straits Times had on Thursday carried the headline: “MACC; Sime probe if graft suspected” following nation-wide furore over the latest financial scandal in the country – the RM964 million Sime Darby losses from cost overruns from four projects in its Energy and Utilities Unit, in particular the Bakun Dam project.

I asked the MACC, why the double-standards in its reaction to these two cases, especially when there is ample evidence for investigation whether the Prime Minister had been guilty of corrupt practices in the recent Sibu by-election campaign particularly in his infamous RM5 million “deal” at Rejang Park, Sibu on the eve of Sibu by-election.

The YouTube video of Najib’s Rejang Park’s “let’s make a deal” speech, promising to allocate RM5 million for flood-mitigation in Rejang Park provided the BN candidate was elected, had been the hottest site for the past week.

Outrage and disbelief are the common reactions of Malaysians and even foreigners who saw the YouTube video, with Najib declaring in his own words: “If Robert Lau becomes the MP on Sunday, on Monday I will ask [for] the cheque to be prepared. Do we have a deal or not? We do! You want the RM5 million, I want Robert Lau to win.”

The MACC has bowed down to unrelenting public pressure to declare earlier today that it has opened a file into Najib’s infamous RM5 million “let’s make a deal” speech in Sibu on May 15, 2009.

MACC investigation director Mustafar Ali admitted that complaints had been lodged against Najib’s RM5 million “deal” speech, adding that the MACC may consider calling Najib in for investigation.

The question all Malaysians want to ask is why the MACC “may” and not “shall” call Najib in for investigation over his RM5 million “let’s make a deal” offer in the Sibu by-election?

Although Mustafar claims that the MACC is “colour blind” and “will take action whenever we receive information”, nobody is impressed unless and until MACC dare categorically declare that they will interrogate Najib personally in the RM5 million ‘let’s make a deal” case.

The MACC had shown no qualms when Pakatan Rakyat leaders are concerned, as in the past 16 months, the MACC had provided more than ample evidence that it acted more like the Umno/BN catspaw to further the Umno/BN political agenda than remaining true to its statutory remit to declare an all-out war against corruption.

The mysterious Teoh Beng Hock death at the MACC headquarters in Shah Alam in July last year is an unforgettable example to Malaysians – as MACC did not treat Teoh with kid-gloves like it is now doing with the Prime Minister, although Teoh was only a witness in an investigation involving some RM2,000 ringgit!

MACC must prove that it is party-blind and position-blind, and treat Najib no different as any other suspect for corruption if it is to make any headway to start recovering public confidence in its efficiency, independence, professionalism and integrity from an even lower level of public confidence that had ever befallen its predecessor, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

[Speech at the DAP Sibu Thanksgiving Dinner for Pakatan Rakyat Sibu by-election campaigners at Sungai Merah, Sibu on Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 8pm]

  1. #1 by Bigjoe on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 7:34 am

    Its UNBELIEVABLE that the excuse they are giving now is that ‘the deal’ is not corruption because its not made on a personal capacity but its official!! ITS WORST IF ITS OFFICIAL because its blatant abuse of power.

    I don’t know to think they are idiots or that they just arrogant to think people will eat up any flimsy excuse they dish out.

    Seriously, if you can’t improve performance of giving excuses, what hope is there in doing anything else?

  2. #2 by kluangman on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 8:30 am

    Please refer to case law Teoh Teik Huat vs Lim Kean Siew & Anor, Election Petition (Penang) No 1 of 1981 by justice Eusoffe Abdoolcader.

    It is very clear that what PM has said is not corruption as the promise made was not in his personal capacity but as a leader of the ruling government.

    PM had said that to a crowd comprising voters, supporters, locals and outsiders who were not registered as voters; the PM was not a candidate contesting (in the by-election); the allocation was never meant for individuals, especially voters, but to benefit the public at large; there was no forcing of voters to vote accordingly (voters had choice and did what they have done both in Hulu Selangor and Sibu); and last but not least, the money was never his own money but from the nation’s coffer.

    These are points that do not fulfill ingredients of proof for a corruption offence. DAP leader Karpal Singh knows better because he was the counsel in the case above.

  3. #3 by buy election on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 10:03 am

    I am sure he will be a ‘free’ man although he mentioned about 5 million ringgit

  4. #4 by son of perpaduan on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 10:09 am

    Obviously, there is no rule of law to bring this piece of shit to justice in this country on par with Myanmar. Umno will keep on robbing, stealing and monopolize your next generation if we refuse to stand up together to fight for your rights.

  5. #5 by Godfather on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 11:09 am

    “Psssst Boss, they want me to haul you in for questioning.”

    “So tell them you have interviewed me lah.”

    “But Boss, they have your full itinerary for the past 2 years and there’s no appointment with the MACC.”

    “OK, then call for a press conference to say that you are investigating me. 6 months later, when most of the rakyat has forgotten, and if Lim Kit Siang’s elephant memory makes him a nuisance, just say that you have sent your report to the AG. Let the AG handle it then.”

    “Yes, Boss.”

  6. #6 by sheriff singh on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 11:42 am

    As you all might guess, the decision has already been made: “No case”.

    Its now a matter of going through the motions and to find the right reasons and excuses not to proceed.

    Maybe AG might advise of ‘insufficient evidence’ and ‘inconclusive’ and so NFA. Maybe Najib was only ‘main-maining’ with the crowd and he had ‘no bad intentions’ or maybe its only ‘his opinion’ and it is his democratic right to have an opinion. Or maybe its ‘politicking’ so its quite all right to do so. And as one Lingam might say, ‘it looks like me, sounds like me, smells like me, talks like me, behaves like me, but is it me?’

    So you see, any reason is plausible to close the case as NFA.

    After all its only a tape recording and tape recordings can be forged, edited etc etc. You know, one TC has done it before with that photograph.

    NFA. Case closed. And they all lived happily ever after.

  7. #7 by dagen on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 12:15 pm

    No sheriff, no. Its avatar. Its the real big ugly baddie called US of america. They created a realistic and realtime avatar of jib and transplanted him there in sibu. Jib wasnt there at all.

    On the other hand, macc has solid evidence that khalid has committed an election crime.

  8. #8 by Jeffrey on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 1:03 pm

    Malaysiakini’s Hazlan Zakaria already reported on May 23rd that “the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission confirmed that it has opened a file into Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s controversial “let’s make a deal” remark in Sibu last week which many had claimed violated election rules against bribing.”

    MACC will go through the motion of interviewing the PM and recording his statement and then nothing will happen.

    When nothing happens instead of being taken to task by public MACC could exonerate and defend itself completely by the legitimate claim that what the PM said in Sibu about “deal or no deal” was not in violation of the election law as what commentator kluangman said in posting #2 above and also Malaysiakini’s report of 24th May under title “RM5 mil pledge: ‘Karpal knows it’s not corruption’.

    It is not to say that Opposition cannot take him to task for unethically leveraging on promises of development funds to get votes unfairly against Opposition.

    It is however a different kettle of fish to say something is against the law when the trutyh and the fact is that it is not. Especially so when its PR/DAP lawmakers who say this which could reflect that in spite of being supposedly law makers they either don’t know the law or deliberately for political objectives try to spin this issue with an untruth.

    Thats shooting your own foot because:

    (1) it provides MACC the opportunity to seize public relations inititive to open file and investigate its boss over something that obviously he did not break the law. Com on would the MACC investigate if what the PM said or did was really against or in violation of the law? How many cases of real violation by powers-that-be have been investigated? Your spin as given an opportunity to MACC to do a counter-spin that it is transparent and accountable and dare investigate its boss.

    (2) PR’s main political capital in contrast to BN
    is that you are supposed to stand for truth and say it to rakyat as it is whereas your opponent BN is supposedly lies and spins. So what advantage to you if it were argued that you are no different from your rival in methods?

    I take pains to explain this in earlier blog thread “Why MACC dare not announce it will probe Najib if corruption is suspected…on the eve of Sibu by-election polling?” until derailed by that LimKamPut whose idea of helping the Opposition is to cheerlead whatever you do – no matter how wrong – is right and above criticisms, whaever the longer term negative implications.

  9. #9 by Jeffrey on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 1:16 pm

    And in even registering his protest (totally unfounded and misquided without an iota of rationale) thsi nincompoop couldn’t even articulate or discourse his objections with civility and in measured tones but have to resort to vituperative and trolling all kinds of personal and insulting verbiage that don’t add value to whatever he said.

  10. #10 by monsterball on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 4:28 pm

    aiyah when MACC said they will investigate…you expect the chosen leader by Najib to hurl his boss to court?
    Already signs are given right now…with one saying..Najib is innocent with their idiotic reasons.
    Just wait for 13th GE…and finished the off…best.

  11. #11 by monsterball on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 4:37 pm

    Since after 12th GE…we are lucky to see the real UMNO B purpose and intentions.
    They can keep publishing all the false glories and achievements in their controlled stupid papers.
    Meanwhile..we can rely on internet will provide “the other side of midnight” news..so juicy…so fine.so good….hahahahahahahaha

  12. #12 by monsterball on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 4:52 pm

    MACC…may not…shall not and definitely will not dare to touch Najib.
    It’s wasting time….low class wayang kulit show.
    Worst of all..they are paid by tax payers for their salaries.

  13. #13 by gofortruth on Monday, 24 May 2010 - 5:24 pm

    It is blatantly obvious that MACC is only one of BN tools of fear with clear objectives :-
    1) inflict maximum harrassment on opposition politicians even to the point of torture & murder ;
    2) prevent their own BN people from abandoning ship.

    Now, we saw the RM 3 million deal Najib had executed with the Chinese school in Hulu Selangor by election. We saw his infamous “RM 5 million deal” speech in the Sibu by election. They led us to question what deals he had with Baginda Razak on the US$500 million submarine commission ; with his 2 convicted body guards who murdered the Mongolian girl in cold blood; With the Sultan of Perak to allow BN to snatch the state from PR..; with the sodomy man Saifu.. etc etc

    Najib must clear his name before any Malaysian has confidence in him as Prime minister!!!

  14. #14 by House Victim on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 - 4:43 pm

    Godfather really knows how Malaysia Boleh works!!
    Referring to Post #49, 50 on Page 2 and #1

    1) NJ ‘s speech falls into the basic criteria of corruption as being a Government Official offering Benefit to Voters in exchange for their Vote. (He was not offering to the air as the Lingnan case could argue!!)

    2) The Court Case so referred is a white wash on what the said Minister had done. Given an excuse if was a “Policy” “regardless of election” and in the capacity of one being able to do so.
    But, ignoring the facts that
    a) it was only offered during the election
    b) a Financial Minister is not at all capable of doing so unless it has been proposed, tabled and approved by many others, if to be according to proper procedures.
    c) and surely, any proposal of fund SHOULD NOT be mingled with an Open Declaration that it is to BUY vote!!
    d) If he did what he said, he has mis-appropriated the fund.
    f) A Government Official in public meeting should be unethical to speak ONLY of his own Party. Ethically should be politically NEUTRAL!!

    3) Karpal did not comment on the law on what was suggested under posting #48 of page 1.

    With an act of “King in his New Clothes”, the morality, or, ethnic had already gone!!

    If law cannot be straight forwardly understood, it is only something to be flip-flopped!!
    Any interpretation which are doubtful should seek the elucidation from the Court and not hiding under the Carpet of MACC or be debated by Red Herrings!!


  15. #15 by House Victim on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 - 4:46 pm

    Referring to Post #49, 50 on Page 2 and #1 of page 3.

  16. #16 by House Victim on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 - 12:50 am

    A. The Stipulation of Section 10 under Part III of The Election Offense Act 1954:-
    10. The following persons shall be deemed guilty of the offence of bribery:
    (a) every person who, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector or voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter or to or for any other person, in order
    to induce any elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as aforesaid on account of such elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election;
    (b) every person who, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives or procures, or agrees to give or procure, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to
    endeavour to procure, any office, place or employment to or for any elector or voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter, or to or for any other person, in order to induce such elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as aforesaid on account of any elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election;
    (c) every person who, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement as aforesaid to or for any
    person in order to induce such person to procure or endeavour to procure the election of any person, or the vote of any elector or voter at any election;
    A Very Strict Forwards – BRIBERY!!

    B. Offences against this Part
    6. (1) Every person who abets the commission of or attempts to commit an offence specified in this Part shall be liable, on conviction, to the punishment and disqualifications prescribed for that offence.
    (2) Every offence under this Part shall be a seizable offence within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593].

    I believe the offers were given in the present of EC officers, RL, as such
    a) The Qualification of RL being the Votee should had been void.
    b) Whether those EC officers should had been discharged should be well considered.
    c) At least the EC had failed to stop the speech (the offer) and had failed to seize the Convicted- NJ!! Who should not be talking (at least openly) for RL as HE IS NOT and cannot be the registered AGENT for RL!!

    RL in this instance should also be considered as committed Bribery if he had not stopped NJ in doing so!

    “Every person” in the stipulation should mean ANY PERSON!!

    The Challenge should not go only to MACC but also EC. At the end of the day, the Challenge could also go to AG as they are the one who has the power to “decide” if to proceed to prosecution!!

    Even one would expect that it will escape in the Boleh way. But, it must be pressed to go, so that it will be documented how Bully it can be in this Boleh Land!!


    It is painful to see Red Herrings here promoting – NO CORRUPTION when the offense had been Videos recorded and opened to the World!!

    This should be a case to see how the Authorities respond to their Duties. But, also to tell EACH & EVERY PEOPLE, INCLUDING POLITICIANS, DO RESPECT & PRACTICE LAW for Justice!! – From the Heart and not from the mouths!! Politic should not be for Flip-flop and so should be for the Laws with Justice!!

    Respect YOUR HEART, if you still got one!!

  17. #17 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 - 9:37 am

    No need 2 consider “may” or “shall”
    MACC came, saw, n decided: “No case”, no need even 2 say case closed as there is no case in d first place
    A voice fr afar: Well done, well done, come chew yr T-bones, woof, woff

You must be logged in to post a comment.