Why can’t Najib just say “yes” or “no” to the grave WSJ allegation that almost US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) were deposited into Najib’s personal accounts before the 13th General Election

All mainstream media blared that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has vehemently “denied” the report by Wall Street Journal, entitled “Investigators Believe Money Flowed to Malaysian Leader’s Accounts Amid 1MDB Probe”.

But Najib deny the WSJ report?

What Najib said last night was “I have never taken funds for personal gain as alleged by my political opponents – whether from 1MDB, SRC International or other entities, as these companies have confirmed.”

Why can’t Najib just say “yes” or “no” to the grave WSJ allegation that almost US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) were deposited into Najib’s personal accounts before the 13th General Election.

WSJ had reported that documents show that “By far the largest transactions were two deposits of US$620 million and US$61 million in March 2013, during a heated election campaign in Malaysia”.

Is Najib denying that the two deposits of US$620 million and US$61 million were deposited into his personal bank accounts in March 2013, or he is admitting that there were such deposits but he had never taken the funds for personal gain – whatever Najib’s definition of “personal gain”?

The very fact that up to now, Najib is ambivalent in not making an outright denial that there had been deposits of some US$700 million into his personal bank accounts – as distinct from his quick but ambiguous denial in declaring that he “have never taken funds for personal gain” raises red flags and presumptions adverse to Najib’s cause, whether about his innocence, probity and integrity

Najib should come out with a straight-forward statement denying that there had been two deposits of US$620 million and US$61 million into his personal account in March 2013 – or everybody can only conclude that Najib could not deny such vast deposits into his personal bank account and the Prime Minister could only turn and twist about the use of the deposits concerned.

I had suggested yesterday that Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin should ask Najib not only behalf of the Cabinet, but also of Parliament and the country to go on leave as Prime Minister following the sensational allegations of the Wall Street Journal against him and to let a three-man committee of national elders, comprising two former Prime Ministers Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah, and former Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Musa Hitam, to decide whether and the conditions on which Najib should return to resume as Prime Minister if the WSJ allegations remain unresolved.

It is clear that Muhyiddin does not have the political temerity to ask Najib to go to leave.

Furthermore, it would appear that Najib does not agree with the idea of a three-man committee of national elders comprising Tun Mahathir, Tun Abdullah and Tun Musa Hitam to recommend on what Najib should do in the face of the serious and unprecedented allegation of Prime Ministerial misconduct as contained in the WSJ report – especially as Najib is accusing Mahathir of masterminding the latest allegation of him siphoning money from 1MDB.

Najib cannot just rely on an ambivalent and ambiguous denial as sufficient response to the WSJ report yesterday, especially as WSJ today stood by its report and defended its investigative article accusing the prime minister of embezzlement, saying it was based on government investigations the report of which was seen by Najib himself.

Even more serious, WSJ said the documents it saw, which were the basis of its report , have been shared with the Attorney-General and others in the Government.

Who is telling a bare-faced lie – WSJ or Najib the Prime Minister?

Raising red flags is Najib’s threat to take legal action against WSJ – why it was not stated by Najib himself but by his political secretary?

And why only threat, instead of immediate legal action against WSJ.

In this connection, the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail owes an explanation to the country and people why he has taken no action to protect the integrity of the government and Malaysia when he had seen the damning documents concerned against the Prime Minister?

Furthermore, has the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission seen the incriminating documents concerned or is it just totally irrelevant in the larger scheme of things?

Malaysia cannot be rudderless, with a Prime Minister accused to serious and even heinous Prime Ministerial misconduct who is not prepared to do anything, apart from uttering “sweet nothings”, to establish his innocence and integrity.

Under the circumstances, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet must act, and must be prepared even to stage a “mutiny”, by convening an emergency meeting of Parliament next week.

If Najib cannot secure a confidence vote in the emergency meeting of Parliament, he should gracefully resign as Prime Minister.

  1. #1 by Godfather on Saturday, 4 July 2015 - 12:55 pm

    The message to UMNO and BN is clear: if I go down, all will go down with me. Everyone had their fingers in the pie.

  2. #2 by pulau_sibu on Saturday, 4 July 2015 - 4:03 pm

    i am more concerned about if any accounts with his immediate family members.

    he may say the accounts were created under his name by some irresponsible individuals for other purposes. he did not withdraw the money by himself

  3. #3 by pulau_sibu on Saturday, 4 July 2015 - 4:08 pm

    who said he has nothing to hide? he has money to hide

  4. #4 by bruno on Saturday, 4 July 2015 - 9:15 pm

    If Muhyiddin do asked and Najib complied by taking a leave of absence,that Muhyiddin is going to replace Najib.Right?

  5. #5 by bruno on Saturday, 4 July 2015 - 9:16 pm

    Is it not like replacing the alligator with the crocodile? Are you guys nuts?

  6. #6 by bruno on Saturday, 4 July 2015 - 9:18 pm

    Is there nobody else to lead the country except these crooks?Then the country is going to the wolves and not to the dogs.

    • #7 by cemerlang on Sunday, 5 July 2015 - 10:53 am

      It is not easy being a leader. You cannot be bad neither can you be good. You must meet the expectation of the majority. You cannot be too strong. You also cannot be too weak. A leader will choose another leader. There is one ultimate leader but he she will have many other leaders working for him her. Before you can be the ultimate leader yourself, you must make the present ultimate leader see that you can be the next success ultimate leader. That is why in ancient times, these people will fight physically with punches, with weapons and one will die to prove the potential leadership. Today we fight with words and with actions. Depending on what the present ultimate leader is thinking, the next ultimate leader is the decision of the present one. Just because you are success, it does not mean it is success. agi idup, agi ngelabang.

You must be logged in to post a comment.