Musa
Aman scandal punctures Najib’s vision
I wish to share this
article by Kim Quek and the Sarawak Report link that is in the content. You be
the judge of Barisan Nasional (BN)-Umno’s accountability and justice, if that
is the word to describe the legal farce:
Musa
Aman scandal punctures Najib’s vision
17.10.2012
Prime
Minister Najib Razak’s refusal to disclose the donor of the S$16 million
contraband cash seized at the Hong Kong International airport, following his
minister’s earlier acknowledgement of the cash as donation to Sabah Umno, has
only heightened suspicion over the web of deceit and cover up of high
corruption in the corridor of power.
His
minister Nazri Aziz had earlier (Oct 11) given a written reply in parliament
denying that the said S$16 million cash was Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman’s
money, claiming that it was a donation to Umno party in Sabah instead, even
though the carrier of the cash, Michael Chia Tien Foh, was a well known
personal agent and close associate of Musa Aman, as will be elaborated later.
In
a further attempt to dismiss the notion of any impropriety over the episode,
minister Nazri added in his statement that the Malaysian Anti-Corrupition
Commission (MACC) has concluded that “no element of corruption was proven”.
However,
this statement has glaringly contradicted MACC’s latest stance on the issue,
aired only a few days earlier.
Answering
questions by reporters on the sideline of the recently concluded Sixth
Conference of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities
(IAACA) in Kuala Lumpur, MACC deputy chief commissioner (operations) Shukri Abdul said
on Oct 5: “The investigation against Musa is on corruption and we have
completed the investigation, but the panel has instructed us to get more
evidence.”
By
“the panel”, Shukri Abdul was referring to MACC’s operations review panel,
which instructed the operation division to collect further evidence against
Musa after being presented with the report on the case during the panel’s last
sitting in May.
While
MACC’s head of investigation is claiming that it is still in the midst of
investigation, how could minister Nazri claim in the same breath that MACC has
concluded that there was no evidence of corruption?
DISHONEST
ANSWERS ALL ROUND
Obviously,
one of the two is lying; or more likely, both are lying, as there is no
credibility in what these two gentlemen have said, if we were to take into
consideration the full circumstances of the case.
Nazri
is unlikely to have told the truth, as he couldn’t have known more than the
head of investigation.
As for Shukri, how serious can we take his
word that MACC couldn’t come to a conclusion despite four long years of
investigation into a simple case of someone caught red-handed while smuggling
an enormous sum of laundered cash? After all, evidence galore in
the Internet of the intricate network of money flow originating from timber
corruption in Sabah with Michael Chia as one of the focal points of the trail
that eventually ends up in Musa Aman’s personal account in UBS AG in
Zurich. In fact, a flow chart showing these money movements complete with
account details was produced by the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against
Corruption (ICAC), a copy of which has been conveyed to MACC, according
to Sarawak Report website, which has also posted the chart
in http://www.sarawakreport.org/2012/04/hold-on-trust-for-aman-more-devastating-evidence-from-the-icac-investigation/. It is not difficult to see from this
elaborate network of bank accounts and money transactions that the S$16 million
incident is only the tip of the iceberg of a clandestine operation to siphon
massive timber corruption money from Sabah.
Apparently,
ICAC has also forwarded its findings to MACC, and requested for inter-country
co-operation to wrap up the case, but such attempt was reportedly blocked by
Attorney General Gani Patail.
Can
MACC deny that it is in possession of the fruits of ICAC’s laborious
investigations into the case including the said money flow chart that
conclusively crucifies Musa Aman? Perhaps the parliamentary select
committee on corruption should summon MACC chief commissioner Abu Kassim to
answer this question.
MUSA’S
LIES EXPOSED
Adding
to the credibility crisis of the duo – Nazri and Shukir – is the blanket denial
by Musa Aman of all allegations against him.
Responding
to Sarawak Report’s various allegations that among
others, Musa’s two sons studying in Australia regularly received timber
kickbacks from bank accounts controlled by Chia, Musa flatly denies these in a
written statement on April 12, 2012 that reads:
“I deny all these allegations. I wish to put it on record once
again that I have no business association whatsoever with an individual named
Michael Chia”.
Musa’s
denial, however, was contradicted by banks statements produced in the Singapore
High Court in a civil suit (Suit No.752 of 2010/N) in June that was brought by
Chia’s former associate and now adversary involving a money dispute.
To
defend its position in the dispute, UBS AG produced bank statements that
clearly showed that Musa’s sons Mohammed Hayssam Musa and Hazem Musa Hazem
Mubarak Musa were regular recipients of money remitted from accounts of
companies which Chia claimed to be under his control. These British
Virginia registered shady companies with large amount of unaccounted for cash
regularly flowing mysteriously through their accounts are obvious vehicles of
money laundering.
Thus
both UBS AG and Chia, out of the necessity to defend their respective
positions, had unwittingly produced in court evidences that tell us that Musa
Aman has told a blatant lie that he has no link whatsoever with Michael
Chia. More than that, these bank documents also collaborate documents
in Sarawak Report’s possession (including the abovementioned
flow chart) that regularly surface in its frequent exposure of Musa Aman’s
nefarious ventures as the notorious timber baron of Sabah.
Interestingly,
according to Sarawak Report, these secret reports are leaked
documents from not only ICAC, but also from MACC, which has carried out a
parallel investigation on Sabah timber corruption, following the arrest of
Michael Chia in Hong Kong on 14 Aug 2008 for money smuggling and laundering.
Judging
from MACC’s long silence and inaction despite the wealth of evidence of Sabah
timber corruption in its hands, it is not difficult to visualize the
limitations under which it has to operate.
UMNO
INCRIMINATES ITSELF
Prime
Minister Najib Razak certainly didn’t help matters with his curt refusal to
divulge the source or any information that may lessen the gravity of this
scandal. In that encounter with the press after chairing the Barisan
Nasional supreme council meeting on Oct 12, he even tried to sanitize this
sordid incident by saying “every political party has the right to receive
political donation as long as it is done in a proper way”. He added that
the amount of the donation is irrelevant , repeating the proviso that “as long
as it is done in a proper way”.
It
really boggles the mind to think that the Prime Minister could consider such
bizarre fashion of conveying donation as “the proper way”.
May
we remind the Prime Minister that money smuggling and money laundering are
serious criminal offences, for which Michael Chia would have been prosecuted,
convicted and jailed and the cash confiscated, if not for the Malaysian
government’s refusal to extend its co-operation to the Hong Kong authorities.
And
since Michael Chia is only a courier, the master for whom he serves – Umno – is
even more guilty.
In
any democratic country, law enforcers would have swung into action following
the prime minister’s open admission of such association of breach of law; but
of course, in Boleh Land, this is business as usual – nothing to make a fuss
about?
This
latest scandal is only one of many that have been incessantly popping up lately
despite the imminence of a crucial election. It only serves to reinforce the
hard fact that our self-styled “reformist” Prime Minister’s many
“transformations” he claimed to have brought to the nation are more illusion
than substance.
As
for his vision of “best democracy” and “developed nation” status in the near
future, is it not a land too far to reach?
Kim
Quek
