The "Skandal LGE Banglo" Statutory Declaration

The seller of the house, Miss Phang Li Koon has signed a Statutory Declaration (SD) in an attempt to relieve pressure on Lim Guan Eng's undervalued purchase of his Bungalow at 25 Jalan Pinhorn Road on Green Lane, Penang Island.

Certainly her SD raises more questions than it answers.

This is the SD:

STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, PHANG LI KOON (NRIC No. XXXXXX-07-XXXX) a Malaysian residing in No. XXX-X, Xxxxx Xxxxx, XXXXX Georgetown, Pulau Pinang solemnly and sincerely declare the following: 

I got to know CM’s family since 2008. I became a close friend to his wife, Betty Chew since then because of her friendly and humble character. 

In 2008, I bought a house at No. 25, Pinhorn Road, Penang for RM 2.5 million and did some renovation with the intention to let my brother live in. However after I heard from CM’s wife that she was looking for a place to rent due to termites problem at her official residence, I decided to offer them my house to stay. A tenancy agreement was entered and signed on 1/7/2009 with 3 years tenure at RM5,000 per month but later the tenure was extended to another 3 years to 30/6/2015. 

At that time I felt very honoured to rent my house to Penang Chief Minister and his family and also able to help them with their house problem. 

However, renting the house to them had caused me much distress and stress from the BN and NGOs alleging untrue stories about me. By then I decided to sell the house. There were also more incidents in later years from demonstrations and funeral rites held in front of the house, to even molotov cocktails bomb thrown into the house compound which make the house so exposed and unsafe. 

There were endless news on the house with its address and pictures splashed all over the newspapers. I felt very uncomfortable that if my relatives or I ever decide to stay there in future, I will not feel safe and secure to stay in such an overly exposed and much publicized house. 

So by early year of 2012, I had orally let CMs wife, Betty Chew know that if they were ready and willing to buy, I will sell them the house at RM2.8 million. I was told by Betty that they were interested but CM was worried that he could not afford buying the house if he was not re-elected as the Chief Minister. So Betty asked whether I would still sell the house to them at the same price of RM2.8 million after the 13th General elections. 

However after the 13th general election in 2013, CM’s wife told me that they still need some time to purchase the property and she requested for an option to purchase at later date when they were ready to do so. In 2014 CM and I then executed an agreement dated 23.6.2014 whereby I agreed to grant him a 5 year option tenure to purchase the said property at RM2.8million in consideration of CM paying me RM100,000-00. Pending exercising of the option, I shall continue to allow CM and family to continue renting the said property. 

Sometime before the extension tenancy was up in 30/6/2015, I had made up my mind to dispose off the property for good. I am a businesswoman and I do not wish to tolerate unnecessary stress and have my name splashed all over the newspapers or social media again and again especially when those insensitive people want to attack CM or raise issue on the Taman Manggis land which I am not involved. I decided to sell the property because it attracts so many unnecessary publicities and allegations from time to time. 

I had again asked CM’s wife, Betty to request CM to exercise the option to purchase. I did not survey the market when I decided to sell to CM in 2015 because I didn’t think it was necessary. I already have CM as a buyer and there was an understanding pursuant to the Agreement dated 23.6.2014 pertaining to the agreed sale price. 

After CM’s wife, Betty told me that they have managed to secure a house loan, we decided to sign the sale agreement at the price we agreed earlier; i.e RM2.8mil. From my records the sale & purchase agreement was signed on 28.7.2015 and the bank released the full loan sum in October, 2015. 

CM and his family had been my good tenants for the last 6 years. To me, CM is a respectable leader and I feel very honoured to sell my property to him. I think Penang has done well under his administration. Most importantly I have sold my property to the person I respect. I have no regret of selling my property to CM at RM2.8million. I have cleared myself of unnecessary headache and stress. 

I do not understand why my agreement to selling the house to CM has been blown up to such a big national issue when I have no business dealings with the state government. Neither have I obtained any benefit from the state government by selling the house to him. 

It is my decision at what price I want to sell to the CM. I stress that I was not pressured or forced or under any undue influence by CM or any party to sell the house to CM at RM2.8 million. I sold at my own free will on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. 

I also wish to clarify here that I am not a director nor shareholder of KLIDC company which has successfully bid for the Taman Manggis land under an open tender. I am also not involved in the management of the company. I reserve my right to legal action against any party should they try to make unnecessary connection to complicate the matter and drag me into this controversy.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960. 

Subscribed and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
at Georgetown )
in the state of Penang ) ……………………………
on this 22nd day of March 2016 ) PHANG LI KOON
Before me,

…………………………………….
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

The entire SD represents nothing more than a bare denial with the key essence being "willing buyer willing seller" and a denial that she is linked to KLIDC, the company that won the tender for the Taman Manggis state land under controversial circumstances and dubious pricing.

To be sure, the ex-Menteri Besar of Selangor Khir Toyo had also used the "willing buyer, willing seller" excuse on 6 Dec 2010.

"Willing buyer, Willing Seller" excuse did not help Khir Toyo escape jail.

But as we know, that didn't help him one bit. Khir Toyo was eventually convicted for corruption under Section 165 of the Penal Code. He went to jail and his house was confiscated.

Miss Phang had also mentioned that in early 2012, she had already agreed to verbally agree to sell the house to Lim Guan Eng for RM2.8 million - a mere 8% appreciation after 2 years from her original cost of .the house in late 2012 of RM2.57 million (RM2.5mil + RM69,000 stamp duty excluding legal fees).

Miss Phang also said that Lim Guan Eng were very good tenants who probably paid the rental on time. But it is important to note that the majority of the rental was paid for by the Penang State Government and not Lim Guan Eng.

She then mentioned that she signed an option agreement with Lim Guan Eng in 23rd June 2014 where she agreed to grant a 5 year option to purchase the house at RM2.8 million in return for an options fee of RM100,000.

This is of course an unusual arrangement where there is a call option (not sure if there is also a put option) with an options fee too. It's like they are trading oil futures - very rare in real estate transactions where the price typically goes up and up.

To me, whether the sale consideration was legally sealed in 2014 or 2015 makes no difference as even in June 2014, the RM2.8 million price was severely undervalued already.

For example, no. 34 Pinhorn road, barely 4 houses diagonally opposite of Lim Guan Eng's house on the same road was transacted just 4 months later at RM722 psf compared to the RM275 psf price for Lim Guan Eng.

It is certainly not possible for the property price to jump almost 3 fold within 4 months.

JPPH transacted valuation of LGE's neighbout at 34 Jalan Pinhorn

Miss Phang also said that "she does not have any business dealings" with the Penang State Govt -which is not exactly true.

As a 20% owner of Winbond Management and Consultancy Sdn Bhd with an office on Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah, Penang, she was the contact person listed in State-owned agency Invest Penang website as one of the authorized foreign workers supplier in Penang.

It would be interesting to see if she had also supplied manpower to any state-owned companies and what is the volume and profitability of such business dealings.

But it is the majority 80% shareholder of Winbond Management, Datuk Tang Yong Chew, that is interesting.

Since she was listed as the contact person for Winbond, it is reasonable to assume she holds an executive or management position in Winbond and that her boss would be the majority shareholder and probably chairman Datuk Tang Yong Chew - since Datuk Tang owns 80% and she only owns 20%.

Datuk Tang also appears to be Miss Phang's boss in at least two other companies - Magnificent Emblem Sdb Bhd and Magnificent Emblem Properties Sdn Bhd.

As you can see in these two other companies, both are the only two shareholders and Datuk Tang's shareholdings is vastly greater than Miss Phang's minority shares - meaning the element of control is clearly in Datuk Tang's hands.

Their company is not a small company with RM75 million in sales.

While Miss Phang denies she is a shareholder or manager in KLIDC which won the Taman Manggis land tender from the Penang state govt., she did not however state that her boss and fellow shareholder in multiple companies is the 70% majority owner (60% under his name and 10% under wife Sally's name) of KLIDC too.

Miss Phang's boss, Datuk Tang is the 70% majority controlling shareholder of KLIDC

Given the close business relationship between both persons, it is strange that she said she is not a shareholder nor in the management of KLIDC but did not mention her relationship with the 70% controlling majority shareholder.

At least say lar "I know the boss of KLIDC as he is also my boss in at least 3 other companies!"

Now, under Section 165 of our Penal Code (the same section that Khir Toyo was convicted of), this was stated in regards of corruption or abuse of power regarding Public servants:

Certainly, Lim Guan Eng as the Chief Minister of Penang, the Chairman of the State Planning Committee as well as the Penang State EXCO in charge of land affairs and land development fits the description of "Public Servant" - exactly what Khir Toyo was.

And certainly there is enough evidence (including the stamp duty that Lim Guan Eng paid for the property) which proves that the property he purchased was deeply undervalued - thus fulfilling the "inadequate consideration term".

Therefore the last key part is up to MACC and the Attorney General to determine if Phang Li Koon fits the description under law of being a person who is "interested in" or "connected person" to Datuk Tang Yong Chew, the 70% majority controlling shareholder of KLIDC which won the Taman Manggis tender under controversial circumstances and pricing by virtue of Miss Phang's executive position in at least Winbond Management and her close and long-standing legal relationship with Datuk Tang.

That last crucial part would be up to the legal eagles to determine but if indeed this part is also proven then Lim Guan Eng may end up being charged with a possibly similar fate as Khir Toyo.

But in the meantime, Miss Phang's statutory declaration is yet another bare denial that does not seem to offer anything new other than much praises for Mr Lim Guan Eng and a repeat of Lim Guan Eng's "willing buyer willing seller" excuse with the added spice that because of her deep respect and honour for Lim Guan Eng, she is willing to forego millions of ringgit in potential profits thus she does not even bother checking the recent valuation of her property.

Given that, this SD is as pointless as the open house to media event and the one-to-one "be here or be square" coffee invitation with Datuk Shabudin "at my office".

Regardless, to help Miss Phang Li Koon who is the cousin of Penang DAP EXCO Phee Boon Poh strengthen her SD story even more and to prove she was telling the full truth in the SD, she should volunteer the following information:

1. Disclose who paid for the renovation and furnishing of the house and how much was such cost prior to you renting out and selling to YAB Lim Guan Eng - this is to prove that you did not in fact sold at a loss to YAB Lim. 
2. Disclose if any extensions were made during the renovation period and if such extensions received the relevant council approvals
3. Disclose the original tenancy agreement including the stamping date, stamp duty paid receipts and stamp duty numbers.
4. Disclose the renewal of the tenancy agreement including the stamping date, stamp duty paid receipts and stamp duty numbers.
5. Disclose her bank account statements to show the rental payments by Lim Guan Eng every month (you can hide other details and the account balance).
6. Disclose the 23 June 2014 sales option agreement including the stamping date, stamp duty paid receipts and stamp duty numbers.
7. Show us proof of your bank accounts that RM100,000 was paid by Lim Guan Eng into your account after signing the options agreement
8. Show us proof of your bank accounts that RM700,000 was paid by Lim Guan Eng into your account in 2015 after selling the house.
9. Show us proof of the RM2.1 million payment from the bank being deposited into your accounts as balance of the house sales proceeds.

Certainly her SD raises more questions than it answers.

In the interest of transparency and to help the exalted Chief Minister of Penang clear his name, please do consider revealing the above.

In the meantime, there are now various allegations of possible tender fraud related to the Taman Manggis land sale to KLIDC being circulated including a police report of this here where "'It's like buying a Proton then changing it to a Merc' 

And certain confidential state documents being exposed by RPK here which may shock the rakyat.

The de-facto RBA-in-Chief

Reading Mahathir's blog post yesterday titled "Najib's achievements", I am struck by the amount of half-truths, spins and outright lies in it.

As I have been on FaceBook for 2 1/2 years, I am deeply familiar with the Red Bean Army's (RBA) propaganda. For those who do not know, the RBA was a termed coined to describe cybertroopers loyal to the DAP prior to the 13th General Election to spread mis-truth and incite hatred towards the government.

Let me explain and rebut you like how I answer any common RBA troopers.

Che Det's writing in italics, my responses in blue.

1) He seeks the permission of the Singapore PM for the building of the bridge to replace the Malaysian part of the causeway. Later he asked the Singapore PM when he wanted to build the high-speed train. In both cases he was rejected. He doesn’t seem to be in full charge of the affairs of his own country.

That dang crooked bridge again!  The Sultan of Johor in an interview in December 2015 said:

"Both of us be­lieve that Jo­hor and Malaysia will ben­e­fit from the on­go­ing de­vel­op­ment and when the Kuala Lumpur-Sin­ga­pore fast train is built, the ben­e­fits will be enor­mous. 

I do not want to dig up the past nor do I wish to take a swipe at any politi­cian, ac­tive or re­tired, but the PM un­der­stands and ap­pre­ci­ates the need to work closely and not to re­peat the past. 

I find it hard to un­der­stand the ra­tio­nale or ir­ra­tional­ity of any Malaysian leader who wants Malaysia to quar­rel with Sin­ga­pore. It’s what I called crooked thinking."

Perhaps Mahathir should listen to His Royal Highness' advice and give up on your crooked thinking. Give up on your dendam and irrational hatred and learn to work together with our neighbours. 

Just because Singapore had embarrassed you by refusing to loan Malaysia USD5 billion even though you had publicly asked for it to save our country from the 1998 Asian Economic Crisis, doesn't mean that you must hate them forever.

If Malaysia had managed our economy well in the 1990s and not go on an unrestrained building binge and if we had not lost RM30 billion of BNMs reserves by your gambling on FOREX speculation then we would not have to be put into such a situation that we had to meekly and publicly ask our neighbours for help despite Mahathir whacking Singapore for decades.

When you build a bridge that joins two countries, I think it is logical to assume that you will need their approval too. What happens if we build only our side and the other side refuses to allow us to join the bridge to them or just close off the bridge permanently? Or bring the case up for international arbitration? Such a scenario would also embarrass us further.

2) He employed European consultants to advise him on the policies for the nation. This cost Malaysia RM 7 billion. These consultants did not understand the multi-racial character of Malaysia and the sensitivities of the people. The result is greater racism and tension between the races in Malaysia. The Chinese who before supported the BN, rejected him completely in 2013.

The much-bandied about figure of RM7 billion figure for consultants was for ALL consultants - local and foreign and includes such services for consulting engineers, consulting physicians, local accounting firm special audits etc - like what you did when you engaged Price Waterhouse to do a special report on Perwaja's RM15 billion losses.

RM7 billion is certainly not all for your "so-called European consultants" alone - but for services that the entire government spent for the 5 years period on 

And like any RBA, when challenged on this, I am pretty sure you would not be able to list down and justify your RM7 billion figure.

And to take it into perspective, RM7 billion is for the 5 years period between 2009 to 2013 - where the average govt budget spending per year is RM200 billion - making it a total of about RM1 trillion.

RM7 billion out of RM1 trillion would just be 0.7% of all spending.

Using absolute figures (rather than taking figures into perspective) and outright lies are a favourite RBA tactic.

Now you are blaming Najib for the drop in Chinese votes in GE13? 

It is mostly thanks to DAP demonizing PERKASA and PERKASA's many racial-tinged attacks against the Chinese and non-Muslims.

Did Mahathir forget that he was the patron of PERKASA and Ibrahim Ali's boss?

If you don't understand, here's a simple cybertrooper style graphics.

3) He actually employed Europeans to work in the PM’s department. Their influence over him led to his becoming insensitive to local conditions.

Here, you are probably referring to the APCO Worldwide case - which was to hire consultants for international public relations. Why would hiring foreign people who are familiar with the international market be a problem for you?

When Proton took over Lotus, did you also replace the foreigners working in Lotus? In fact, after you became Chairman of Proton in the year 2014, a new CEO was hired for Lotus Cars. 

His name is Jean-Marc Gales.

Such a RBA behaviour that you can do but others can't.

4) He set up agencies outside the Government to direct the affairs of the Government and disregarded the EPU and ICU in the planning and implementation of Malaysia’s development.
5) He paid these agencies, of which Pemandu is a major one, salaries and perks not in accordance with the Government salary scheme i.e. very much higher. He did not follow Government procedures and disregard the relevant authorities when doing this.

Your previous EPU was famous for awarding lop-sided IPP concession agreements. PEMANDU was introduced to provide transformation programs for the nation. So far, most international agencies have praised PEMANDU for the work they have done for Malaysia and PEMANDU is even now being hired by other country governments to help them. 

Let me just cite two of the chief contributions arising from PEMANDU's Economic Transformation Program. One is the Pengerang RAPID project, the downstream project that is now proving to be a saviour for our oil and gas industry jobs since upstream activities such as oil production and exploration has slumped. 

Read this:   As jobs dry up, oil and gas workers rely on Petronas’ Pengerang project for a lifeline

The other one was that PEMANDU identified that we would have needed to cut subsidies and wean Malaysia out of huge dependence on oil and gas revenues. Thus from 2009 where 42% of our govt revenues came from oil and gas we have come to a mere 14% reliance - thus sparing Malaysia of the pain that countries such as Brunei, Venezuela and the Middle East countries are facing now due to the oil price slump.

The EPU and ICT have their purpose and their importance is still relevant in what they do. It is just that PEMANDU does different things.

As for not following Govt procedures, what are you talking about? 

This is the government of the day and what working procedures that they implement IS the proper procedure.

Or do you mean that the current Govt is not following YOUR procedures?

Typical RBA tactic to use half-truth to try and incite anger in civil servants without acknowledging that the change has indeed brought benefits to the country.

6) He increased the budget of the Prime Minister’s Office very many times more. There are so many Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Office. His cabinet is the biggest in Malaysian history.

This is yet another favourite RBA tactic to fool others to think that the PM spends most of the money of the government.

Please understand the difference between PMO and the Prime Minister's Department.

The PMO's budget It is not just Najib alone lah.  The PMO has many many different units.

The budget is allocated here so it can be centrally controlled at the PMO level. Much of the budget are then passed thru to the various ministries and agencies for implementation.

The following are all under the PMO:

Commissions:
1. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
2. Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (SPRM)
3. Public Services Commission (SPA)
4. Education Service Commission (SPP)
5. Judicial Appointments Commission (SPK) JAC
6. Land Public Transport Commission (L.P.T.C)
7. Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission EAIC
8. Election Comission of Malaysia

Central Agencies
1. Public Service Department (JPA)
2. Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU)
3. Economic Planning Unit (EPU)
4. Malaysia Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU)
5. Public Private Partnership Unit (UKAS)

Department and Agencies
1. Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (APMM)
2. Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU)
- Malaysian Legal Aid Department (JBG)
- Malaysia Department of Insolvency (MdI)
3. Maritime Enforcement Affairs Division (BHEPMM)
4. Ceremonial and International Conference Secretariat Division (BIUPA)
5. Cabinet, Constitution and Inter-Government Relation (BKPP)
6. Property and Land Management Division (BPH)
7. Research Division
8. Public Complaints Bureau (BPA)
9. National Civics Bureau (BTN)
10. Judicial and Legal Training Institute (ILKAP)
11. National Audit Department
12. Malaysia Department of Syariah Court (JKSM)
- Mahkamah Syariah Wilayah Persekutuan (MSWP)
13. Malaysia Department of Islamic Development (JAKIM)
- Jabatan Agama Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI)
14. Parliament of Malaysia
15. Department of Statistics
16. Department of National
17. Attorney General Chambers
18. Department of Awqaf, Zakat and Haji (JAWHAR)
19. Advisor Board
20. Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board
21. Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board
22. National Security Council (MKN)
23. Prime Minister's Office
24. Chief Government Security Office (KPKK)
25. Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan
26. Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan
27. Pejabat Penasihat Sains
28. Prime Minister's Department
29. Unit Inovasi Khas
30. National Palace of Malaysia
31. Office of the Keeper of the Rulers' Seal the Conference of Rulers'
32. Secretariat Office of Ex-Prime Minister Y.A.Bhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad
33. Secretariat Office of Ex-Prime Minister Y.A.Bhg Tun Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi
34. Pejabat Seranta Felda
35. Office of Federal Secretary, Sabah
36. Office of Federal Secretary, Sarawak
37. Bahagian Pendidikan Awal Kanak-Kanak
38. Unit Kawal Selia Felda (UKSF)
39. Performance Management & Delivery Unit PEMANDU
40. Protection Division UPS
41. Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM)
42. Federal Territories Director Of Lands And Mines Office

Statutory Bodies
1. Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA)
2. Pilgrims Fund Board (LTH)
3. Penang Regional Development Authority (PERDA)
4. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan
5. Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM)

Corporations
1. Institut Integriti Malaysia (IIM)
2. Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology
3. Talent Corp
4. TERAJU
5. PEMANDU Corporation
6. UNIK Corporation

Yes, even Mahathir's own office (32. Secretariat Office of Ex-Prime Minister Y.A.Bhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad) is budgeted under the PMO's budget.

It is sickening to see that the Mahathir is using such an often-repeated RBA piece of propaganda - which is entirely misleading.

7) He created jobs with high salaries for people he retired from service so that they will support him irrespective of his wrongdoings.

Who do you mean by this? More information needed. Or is it like how you put your brother-in-law as Chairman of Tabung Haji after he retired? 

Don't just make accusation like any RBA. Back your accusation up!

8) He had a lavish life-style and spent well beyond the means of a Malaysian Prime Minister for his daughter’s wedding.

Like any common RBA, you become personal and attack family members - despite being told multiple times that it was the in-laws who paid for the wedding.

Did you expect Najib's in-laws to be poor?

Najib's son-in-law Daniyar's mom, Maria, was married to Bolat Nazarbayev, the brother of long-time Kazakhstan president, for more than 10 years.

Bolat is super-rich and has a virtual monopoly of Kazakhstan fertilizer industry and also owns banks.

During their divorce court hearings in New York, the media reported that the court papers had stated that Maira had once purchased USD75 million (RM311 million) worth of jewelry and paid for it using Bolat's money.

A Mar 12, 2014 divorce settlement allowed Maira to keep US$50m (RM207m) in jewelry and a US$20m (RM83m) New Jersey house - a total worth of RM300 million - but had to give up custody of her son with Bolat.

I am also sure that Maira herself had money saved from her 10 year wedding too but this was not disclosed.

Daniyar is the only other son of Maira and I do not see any issues with Maira giving a few million ringgit to Daniyar to purchase presents or hold his own grand weddings or that Daniyar had been funded by his mom to do business and make his own money.

The next dozen or so of Mahathir's allegations are his recycled allegations regarding 1MDB where his accusations have progressively gone down from RM42 billion lesap to RM27 billion missing and suddenly to "a few billion" missing.

I don't want to bother answering this as these have been answered dozens of times already by various people and 1MDB itself. You can search my blog for those replies.

You ask, you get answered but you pretend not to hear and ask again. Yet another pretend-dumb, cannot see tactic of the RBA to keep asking the same questions and repeating the same allegations despite being answered multiple times before.

We move on to this.

24) He denied at first; then admitted, saying that it was a gift; then that it was a donation to ensure he won the election; then it was a donation from Arabs who appreciated his fight against Muslim terrorists; and finally that it was a donation from the late Saudi King. The source of the money is still not proven.
25) Now a Saudi Minister said there is no record of a gift, that probably it was a Saudi investment. The amount was not so big, he said.

Najib never denied receiving funds in his accounts at all. Not even once. All he said was that the funds were not from 1MDB or songlap money and it was not for personal use - so stop fitnah him and put words into his mouth (yet another RBA tactic).

And when you mention the Saudi Minister, you forgot to mention that  the Saudi Arabia foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir  himself. confirmed that the money into Najib's accounts came from Saudi Arabia and was quoted to say this:

"In Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that he accepted the (Malaysian) attorney general’s opinion that there had been no wrongdoing, but he also said that he did not think that the money had come from the Saudi government or that it was a political donation.

And your continued attacks on Najib also failed to cite that the office of the Swiss AG spokesman Andre Marty had told the Nikkei Asian Review "In the ongoing criminal proceeding of the OAG, Mr Najib Razak is not one of the public official under accusation,"

Yet another favourite RBA tactic of ignoring other credible and key pieces of information.

27) Money in any person’s account, whether from profits or borrowed or gift must be declared to the income tax department even if it is not subject to income tax. Apparently the Internal Revenue Board is not able to verify from official records about how the acquisition or existence of this money was done. There is also no clear report about the money by Bank Negara to determine whether it is being laundered.
Like what LHDN said.

Political donations are not subjected to tax, said Inland Revenue Board (IRB) chief Mohd Shukor Mahfar as quoted by news portal Malaysiakini. “To me, if the income is subjected to tax, (then we can tax). If income not subjected to income tax, then we cannot tax,” he was quoted.

And if you believe Wall Street Journal and your buddy Clare Brown at Sarawak Report, you would also have believed that the majority of the RM2.6b was returned shortly after within months (and within the same tax year) - with the remainder being used for political or CSR expenses.

And since there was no balance after the return and expenses that did not benefit Najib personally, what is there to tax?

BNM had already given their recommendations on 1MDB to AG which AG declined to prosecute and gave his reasons why. 

Those recommendations to AG was for revocation of approvals that BNM gave 6 years ago based on the basis that the forms were not filled in properly. NONE was for money laundering The AG gave his reasons why BNM's case was weak then: 

All three approvals given by BNM for remittance applied by 1MDB was given within the duration of not more than three days,” said Apandi during a press conference held here today. 

He also explained that based on the relevant ECM forms, namely 09A and 06B it had did not required the applicant to supply the names of the beneficiary owners during application. 

“Bank Negara should examine the applications. It is evident that BNM has not requested for further information,” said Apandi. 

“If Bank Negara Malaysia has not requested for specific information, why should 1MDB be blamed when they have filled in the information and answer the questions needed?” he asked.

Yes. BNM's investigations did not lead to any allegations of money-laundering when passed to the AG.

36) Malaysians are ashamed that Malaysia is rated as among the ten most corrupted country in the world and Najib is regarded as the most incompetent Finance Minister.

Another RBA tactic of labeling Malaysia as ten most corrupted country in the world. From your Deklarasi Mahathir, you gave your "proof" why you said Malaysia is top ten most corrupted.

Here it is:

"Fasal 3. Di bawah pentadbirannya negara jatuh tersenarai sebagai salah satu daripada 10 negara yang paling banyak mengamalkan rasuah mengikut laporan Ernst and Young Asia Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013. Malaysia juga telah jatuh empat anak tangga Indeks Persepsi Rasuah 2015, dari 50 ke 54."

Let me explain:

According to them, Malaysia is top ten most corrupt and their main evidence is the Ernst and Young Asia Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013.

Firstly, nama sudah "Asia Pacific" only - so how can be top ten most corrupt?

And worse.. this Report only covers 8 countries.

Read for yourself: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/2013_Asia-Pacific_Fraud_Survey/$FILE/EY-Asia-Pacific-Fraud-Survey.pdf

Survey of EIGHT countries means Malaysia is top TEN most corrupt?

Where you go to school ah?

Their second evidence is this: " Malaysia juga telah jatuh empat anak tangga Indeks Persepsi Rasuah 2015, dari 50 ke 54."

You already say no. 54th - so where the top 10 comes from? This little piece of fact already CONTRADICT your own point!!!

And worse again.. it is actually 54th CLEANEST out of 167 countries as listed by the Corruptions Perception Index 2015: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table

What kind of people would actually put their signature on a document like this knowing full well it contains obvious lies that even a kid can find out?

Tak malu ke? 

For the remaining points, it is time for me to also use familiar RBA tactics of using copy-paste graphics and meme.

For not suing WSJ, let me remind you of what you said.

And when you said you can swear on your allegations against Najib, let me remind you how many times you said you will swear on your holy book in the mosque but have never actually done so - not even once!

Heck, even when the Police came to question you TWICE on your multiple allegations and asked you to prove it, you refused to answer both times and lamely said you will only answer in court should they ever charge you.

What is this? If you have the proof then please answer the police. You make the allegation but you refuse to provide your proof to the relevant authorities.

And if indeed the police charges you for criminal defamation, then you will say that you are being victimized.

When others ask you why you don't make police reports against Najib, you say you have no evidence!!

I believe more and more people are getting tired of your antics to remove Najib. It is getting really desperate recently.

After your son Mukhriz was asked to resign as Kedah Menteri Besar and your lackey Tan Sri Muhyiddin was suspended from UMNO, your actions have betrayed your motives.

These desperate actions have shocked and revolted many people including:

- keeping quiet when Wan Azizah said you are weak and that it is Pakatan assisting you and not the other way around.

- Rafizi Ramli saying that you read from their script and that he is using you to help Pakatan win more Malay votes to beat UMNO

- becoming the ultra-hypocrite when you work with the person you once called the ultra-chauvinist racist Lim Kit Siang.

- attending a Pakatan Harapan event where one of their chief goals was to call for the release of Anwar Ibrahim.

- completely ignoring our Federal Constitution and following the colonial British tactics of calling for a referendum to remove a Prime Minister.

Malaysians are no longer fooled by you saying you are doing it for the Rakyat but they know your desperation and shocking behaviour is to protect your son and elevate him as the future Prime Minister.

How else can you explain the following that all happened IMMEDIATELY after your son was removed as Kedah Menteri Besar despite saying before you will not work with opposition just a few months ago?

Najib is close to completing 7 years as Prime Minister and he has done a pretty decent job so far. Our economy is transforming in the right direction and he has successfully helped us navigate the 2008-2009 Great Global Recession and the oil price slump. Our economy is still growing, our unemployment rate has not jumped (in fact we want to import more workers) and there is no mass closing of shops, collapse of conglomerates or Danaharta or Danamodal needing to be set-up like your 1998 crisis (which you refused to resign even then).

Now let me remind Mahathir of his first 7 years.

From 1981 to 1998 by the end of his first 7 years in power, Mahathir had doubled our unemployment, ran the highest budget deficits in Malaysian history, doubled our debt above the key 100% Debt-to-GDP ratio, doubled our foreign debt, more than doubled our unemployment rate, plunged our country into recession, seen our stock market drop by half, misused Maminco and destroyed the tin industry - our main export industry, mismanaged the tragic Memali incident resulting in the deaths of 18 civilians and police officers, forced the resignation of his deputy PM, his finance minister, sacked 3 other cabinet ministers (including Pak Lah) and 4 deputy ministers during ramadhan, destroyed the judiciary system, cheated billions of Bumiputra shares from EPF via Makuwasa, allowed BMF to collapse under RM2.5b of debt, almost allowed a full-blown racial riot before throwing more than 100 persons in jail under ISA for Ops Lalang,, closed 4 major newspapers including Sin Chew, Watan and The Star, split UMNO cleanly in half and caused it to be declared illegal.

And during that time, not one but TWO ex-PM - Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn, his Deputy PM and his Finance Minister thought he was useless.

And Mahathir now says Najib's first 7 years is no good and wants to save UMNO and save Malaysia?

But the evidence show that Mahathir's first 7 years was a complete disaster compared to Najib. 

Other than the other mishaps listed, here are some hard data:

(any Mahathir loyalist willing to dispute the above?)

Save Malaysia from what, actually?

I sincerely hope that Mahathir will stop using RBA-style topics and use his twilight years resting and enjoying life.

There are enough lies and propaganda from the RBA out on social media already. We do not need Mahathir acting like the de-facto RBA-in-Chief adding to the clutter.

Answering Chedet's "Government Secrets"

Answering Chedet's latest blog post "Government Secrets" today.

1. The A.G. would like the punishment for people who leak Government secrets to be caned and jailed for life. 

2. It tells of a very primitive mind and is unIslamic. The Quran repeatedly enjoins upon Muslims to judge with justice. The punishment should fit the crime. It should not be excessive. Even for your foes you have to judge with justice, if you are guided by the teachings of the Quran. 

3. But I am not going to complain about his primitive mind. I am questioning whether Najib with 2.6 Billion Ringgit in his personal and private accounts is doing his work as Prime Minister. Is it in his terms of reference to acquire secret funds and keep it in his personal accounts. No Prime Minister of Malaysia has ever done this.

Firstly Tun Mahatir, I think you had best answer Wan Azizah's allegations today that you had unjustly put Anwar Ibrahim in jail. If Wan Azizah is right then you have committed a most unjust, unIslamic and barbaric act.

Chances are that Mahathir will keep quiet about this. These are serious allegations that he framed Anwar that will forever destroy Mahathir's legacy.

But because Mahathir needs to beg Pakatan for help now, I believe he won't comment.

Like I had said before, when you negotiate from a point of weakness due to inability to control your emotions and hatred due to the sacking of your son, then other people (like PKR) will take advantage of you to use you and put words into your mouth.

At this time, you can do nothing!

3. But I am not going to complain about his primitive mind. I am questioning whether Najib with 2.6 Billion Ringgit in his personal and private accounts is doing his work as Prime Minister. Is it in his terms of reference to acquire secret funds and keep it in his personal accounts. No Prime Minister of Malaysia has ever done this.

The AG's statement on OSA was not specifically referring to the investigation papers or Najib's bank accounts but on various leaks recently including the BNM letter to Tabung Haji and other documents relating to Tabung Haji's investment panel recently.

It is thus very naughty of Mahathir to try and link the OSA with Najib's investigation or his bank accounts. There was no indication that the AG had specifically classified the investigation papers on Najib as OSA - it could have been a blanket order pertaining to all investigation papers.

As for the OSA punishments, it depends on what government secrets it is. What if you leak military secrets to a rival or warring country. Cannot be that the person gets 6 months in jail only or escapes with a fine?

What if the transaction is between two heads of states, which thus classify it as international relations?

This is what the MALAYSIAN OFFICIAL SECRET ACT 1972 (OSA) says are considered OSA documents:

1. Cabinet documents, records of decisions and deliberations including those of Cabinet committees;
2. State Executive Council documents, records of decisions and deliberations including those of State Executive Council committees;
3. Documents concerning national security, defence and international relations.

Thus it is clear that if the donation was indeed from Saudi Arabia and indeed be from Royalty as what the Attorney-General has said and what BBC's security correspondent had reported on that it was authorized right at the top of the Saudi Royal family, then the RM2.6b investigation papers would fall under point 3 of the schedule - international relations.

As the head of our government and also the head of the ruling party, UMNO whose constitution allows the president (or any appointed person) to handle money in trust for the party, there is every chance that our AG had examined where any money was spent from Najib's accounts. 

The AG probably came to a conclusion that Najib has spent whatever sum he had using this account on party or CSR related matters on behalf of his party and came to a conclusion that this account was for the benefit of the party.

Perhaps our esteemed opposition leader, Tun Mahathir needs to study the OSA law again?

In fact, Najib's accounts were probably not classified under OSA as will be explained in a future point.

4. In Government there are procedures and rules for receiving and handling funds. Najib has not abided by these rules. In fact he admits that the money is a gift to him personally, not to the Government. He did not inform the Government authorities about the money. It is in fact a secret from the Government. He seems not to have paid taxes on this money. Clearly the possession and management of this RM2.6 billion is not part of his work as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Like what LHDN said.

Political donations are not subjected to tax, said Inland Revenue Board (IRB) chief Mohd Shukor Mahfar as quoted by news portal Malaysiakini. “To me, if the income is subjected to tax, (then we can tax). If income not subjected to income tax, then we cannot tax,” he was quoted.

And if you believe Wall Street Journal and your buddy Clare Brown at Sarawak Report, you would also have believed that the majority of the RM2.6b was returned shortly after within months (and within the same tax year) - with the remainder being used for political or CSR expenses.

And since there was no balance after the return and expenses that did not benefit Najib personally, what is there to tax?

5. The money is therefore not a Government secret which is protected by the Official Secrets Act. The reports by Bank Negara and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission are therefore about wrong-doings involving Najib as a person while in the Government. Such wrong-doings must be investigated and reported by the relevant authorities so that appropriate actions can be taken according to the laws of the country.

6. The police and other enforcement authorities must act and investigate the reports. Not doing so would be a dereliction of duty. Covering up would be a crime.

Actually, the government would have been informed. Such a big transfer would also be subject to the approvals of Bank Negara Malaysia - which is what our AG and PM Najib had confirmed too.

Unless of course you do not believe that Bank Negara is part of the government?

Or perhaps Najib should have informed the Council of Elders of the Government instead? Oh.. the Council of Elders do not exist yet and not under our constitution? But Mahathir wants it to be done and if you don't give him what he wants, he gets angry, throws tantrums and crosses over to the opposition without even considering that it is a betrayal of the highest order.

7. The A.G. has the right to decide whether a case should go to the courts or not. That right should be exercised with due consideration for the elements involved in the cases and public concern about them. All sides should be heard. And this can only be done in a court of law. Judgement by the A.G. simply by reading the reports is a denial of justice, is frivolous and unjust, especially when the reports are made by credible and established institutions. What the A.G. has done is to damage the credibility of an institution of governance and a part of the judicial system of this country.

8. The OSA is not meant to make a secret of criminal acts perpetrated by officers and employees of the Government. Such criminal acts are not above the law. They should be investigated by the authorities and be put before a court. 

9. Instead the person reporting on the alleged wrong-doings by Najib, was arrested together with his lawyer, detained and charged in court. 

10. When the A.G. prefers a charge on anyone, the law must fit the crime. When the charge does not fit the allege crime, so much so that the presiding judge dismissed the case, the A.G. loses his credibility. And along with it goes the judicial system. 

11. Now the A.G. wants to appeal against the decision of the judge. Should the A.G. win, the institution would lose respect and acceptance by the people. 

12. If the A.G. wishes to regain his credibility he should clarify whether he considers crimes perpetrated by officers of Governments are considered as Government secrets which must be hidden and protected by the Official Secrets Act or not.

The AG examined the investigation papers on the RM2.6b and he decided there was no case. Even the MACC themselves met the donors and also have the signed documents from the donor confirming it is a donation to Najib directly.

You already said that the AG had final say. He was appointed by the YDP Agong and you should respect his rights under our constitution.

If the AG said there is no case, then there is no case.

Or should we just ask the Council of Elders to decree that the case be allowed to go to court and then once in court, we sack the Chief Justice and all the court judges like what happened during your time - just so that UMNO does not need to hold a re-election again and some Prime Minister can stay in power?

At this moment in time, Najib's RM2.6b is at the investigation papers stage. 

Do you think any and all such investigation papers for any individual and for any crime should be released to the public? 

Wouldn't this prejudice anyone who have not been prosecuted for the crime or have gone to court where such details would then be publicly available? 

Wouldn't it also invade on his right to privacy if no crime has been committed?

This is a strange request from Tun Mahathir that any and all investigation papers should be made public.

Also, bank account details are also covered under our Financial Services Act 2009 (previously known as BAFIA) - thus Najib like any other private individual is covered under this act.

If someone handed you Najib's bank account statements today and you reveal it to the press tomorrow, you will also be charged in court - much like what Rafizi Ramli had found out before.

As for the issue of the RM2.6billion, I am not sure Mahathir  is aware that the New York Times reported that even the Saudi Arabia foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir  himself. confirmed that the money into Najib's accounts came from Saudi Arabia and was quoted to say this:

"In Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that he accepted the (Malaysian) attorney general’s opinion that there had been no wrongdoing, but he also said that he did not think that the money had come from the Saudi government or that it was a political donation.

Further on the subject of credible sources. your continued attacks on Najib which cited foreign investigators also failed to cite that the office of the Swiss AG spokesman Andre Marty had told the Nikkei Asian Review "In the ongoing criminal proceeding of the OAG, Mr Najib Razak is not one of the public official under accusation,"

And you also forgot to mention that MACC also went to meet and interview the donor in Saudi Arabia and has in its possession the bank transfer documents including 4 letters from the donor lodged with the banks during the transfer.

“The MACC knew of the details of the donor through a document taken from the bank and it was found that four letters were sent to the bank when the large sum of money was deposited into the account of the Prime Minister.”

Incredibly the you forgot to quote a named Saudi Minister or a named Swiss AG spokesperson?

Why are you not telling your readers about that infinitely more credible source? What are you trying to hide or what perception are you trying to create for your readers?

Also, a month back the UK Government owned BBC's foremost expert on the war on terror and Middle East security correspondent, Frank Gardner OBE says that his highly placed sources tell him that the RM2.6b was authorized at the very top of the then Saudi Arabia royalty and that such funding is normal.

As for your two friends Matthias Chang and Khairuddin Abu Hassan who went around the world happily submitting documents and making reports as per their own admission.

What documents were they submitting to foreign governments? Were those authentic confidential Govt documents or were those fake documents?

I let you choose.

And whether fake or authentic, you think the government should not take any action on them?

CONCLUSION

As for how to retain credibility, I think Tun Mahathir should really take his own advice and re-examine his recent actions. 

I think you should finally retire and rest before all that you have done for the country in the past is tarnished by your recent traitorous actions that makes many of your friends and ex-supporters reel in disgust.

It is clear from the timeline below that your personal dendam/hatred for Najib is not because of RM2.6 billion or 1MDB.

It is due to something else coz in August 2014, you already withdraw support for Najib's government. At that time, there was no RM2.6 billion issue nor 1MDB issue and you also did not state this in your statement on why you withdraw support then.

October 21, 2013- Mahathir’s Son Mukhriz Loses UMNO Bid to Najib’s Cousin

October 29, 2013  Mahahir accuses Najib’s allies of buying votes in October UMNO polls

and here:  Money politics, going into the millions, still afflicts Umno, says Dr Mahathir

October 30, 2013- Dr M wrong about money politics in Umno, say supreme council members

December 2, 2013 - Dr Mahathir steps down from Petronas post on the excuse of ill-health (even though a few months later you went on to become Proton Chairman

December 4, 2013 - Mokzaini Mahathir quits as Execuive Director of SapuraKencana becomes non-Executive Director.

January 9, 2014  - MTEM calls Petronas CEO names for purported mistreatment of Dr M

January 24, 2015 - Rafizi Ramli reveals that Mahathir wants to replace Najib and cite this as the reason why the Langkah Kajang for Anwar to take over as MB is necessary in order to prevent Selangor falling into emergency if the racist Mahathir factions take over should Najib fall - Rafizi: Anwar ke Kajang pertahankan Selangor daripada UMNO jika Najib jatuh

February 19, 2014 - Mokzaini sells 190.3 million shares in SapuraKencana amounting to RM818.3 million - substantially reducing stake

May 21, 2014- Dr M confirms appointment as Proton chairman

July 21 2014 - Proton requesting RM1.7 billion in funding (not approved)

Aug 18 2014 - Dr Mahathir withdraws support for Najib government

Jan 6, 2015 -  Public concern on 1MDB begins. Malaysian state fund 1MDB fails to repay RM 2 billion loan, chief executive replaced: reports

March 4th 2015- Mokhzani fully resigns from SapuraKencana Petroleum

March 13 2015 - Mahathir launches full-scale attack on 1MDB, Najib and family.

April 4, 2015 -  Mahathir Calls on Prime Minister Najib Razak to Resign

June 26, 2015 -  Najib delays Umno election by 18 months

July 2, 2015 - WSJ exposes RM2.6b in Najib's accounts

February 06, 2016 - Mukhriz Mahathir forced to step down as Kedah Menteri Besar

February 29, 2016 - Mahathir quits UMNO, Again

March 4, 2016 - Mahathir and opposition sign declaration to oust Najib and "Save Malaysia"

Do you seem to see where the trigger point was?

You seem to be a very good father. Hats off to you on this.

But your dendam is seriously clouding your judgement now.


Oh by the way. What are we Saving Malaysia from?

Great economic collapse like what you and your gang have been trying to propagate to Malaysians?

Well, that's not true. 

Hear it from a proper economist who compares the situation now and during your time when the shit really did hit the fan in 1998.

The generous and super forgiving Abu Dhabi Govt: Deposits in Najib’s Accounts Said to Top $1 Billion

There are certainly many strange things that I noticed in Wall Street Journal's sensational article early today titled "1MDB Scandal: Deposits in Malaysian Leader Najib’s Accounts Said to Top $1 Billion".

To summarize their article, WSJ makes the following claims :

1. More than USD1 billion was deposited in various transactions into Najib's accounts
2. Much of the money can be traced back to funds from 1MDB - specifically from a USD3.5 billion bonds jointly-guaranteed by IPIC and 1MDB.
3. About USD1.4 billion of collateral and USD1 billion in options termination fees - totaling USD2.4 billion were never received by IPIC or subsidiary company Aabar.
4. These payments by 1MDB to Aabar was supposedly deposited into a similarly named company in the British Virgin Islands called Aabar Investments PJS Ltd with no relationship with the actual IPIC subsidiary Aabar Investments PJS
5. The firm with a name similar to Aabar’s was set up in 2012, global investigators believe, by Aabar’s chief executive at the time, Mohammed Badawy Al Husseiny, and by Khadem Al Qubaisi, then managing director of IPIC and chairman of Aabar.
6. The majority of the USD1 billion including the famous USD681m (famous RM2.6b) funds came from this USD2.4billion and then somehow Najib returned most of the money.

Those are the six claims.that WSJ made.

Thus I decided to look at IPIC's actual financial statements which stated the following:in note 22:

Okay, what the above part meant was that IPIC confirmed that they guaranteed the USD3.5 billion bonds and that they stood to benefit from options over the power plant.

All fine and good.

The next part says this:

This part says that sometime in the year 2014, Aabar has cancelled the options for a fixed price and passed it back to 1MDB. Thus Aabar or IPIC have no more such options.

Following that, the next part is really about IPIC agreeing to take up the entire USD3.5 billion bonds and pay USD1 billion cash upfront to 1MDB (which it did) in return for swapping certain financial assets.

And even more incredibly, is this part.

Despite supposedly not getting paid USD2.4 billion,  IPIC paid USD1 billion upfront to 1MDB AND also paid USD103 million in interest for the bonds!

Incredible.

And so, what happened to the two persons who "misused" Aabar's name to divert USD2.4 billion in the account - namely Aabar’s chief executive at the time, Mohammed Badawy Al Husseiny, and by Khadem Al Qubaisi, then managing director of IPIC and chairman of Aabar?

Well, this was apparently their punishment according to WSJ.

"Abu Dhabi’s president removed Mr. Al Qubaisi last year. Soon after, IPIC’s new management removed Mr. Al Husseiny. In both cases, no reason was given."

Okay. This means that if you believe WSJ's 6 points stories above you will have to believe the following:

• IPIC guarantees both USD3.5 billions in bonds without any collateral except for some options over power plants - meaning no USD1.4b collateral was received.
• It then sells back their options to the power-plants and cancles them although they never received the USD1 billion payment
• On top of not receiving USD2.4 billion due to them from 1MDB, it goes ahead to pay an additional USD1 billion in cash to 1MDB!
• futher to that, IPIC pays another USD113 million in interest payments for the USD3.5 billion on behalf of 1MDB.

And to cap it all off, the two persons who allegedly "diverted" USD2.4 billion of IPIC's money are neither investigated, charged nor went to jail and simply ended up working directly with the crown prince in another job?

Are we to believe this is the case? The two guys who so happens to be the Chairman and the CEO "stole" USD2.4 billions and when "found out" were simply slowly removed and put into other jobs? No punishment, no investigations, no jail,. Nothing?

WSJ expects us to believe this without questioning?

OH WOW!! IPIC and Abu Dhabi government must be super-generous or astonishingly forgiving! 

Would you believe that?

And these guys manage USD60 billion of funds - they know what they are doing.

In fact, IPIC never issued a statement saying that they lost USD2.4 billion and the London Stock Exchange never queried them whether they have indeed lost USD2.4 billion - despite Tony Pua writing to the London stock exchange to ask them to do so.

So, how did WSJ get this info that USD2.4 billion have gone missing and ended up in another account?

These are their sources: "said the people familiar with the probes". 

No wonder 1MDB came out with a statement today saying "WSJ lost all semblance of balanced reporting/"

I agree with 1MDB when they said that.

Let me give you further proof.

WSJ ended their article today with this:

"A person familiar with 1MDB’s dealings also said the deposit didn’t come from Saudi Arabia. A Saudi official said in January the kingdom’s ministries of finance and foreign affairs had no knowledge of such a donation to Mr. Najib."

Yes. According to The Wall Street Journal, an anonymous Saudi official of undetermined rank said in January that they have no knowledge thus it must be true!

But somehow, WSJ forgot to quote a statement just 3 weeks ago and featured in the New York Times by the Saudi Arabia foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir  himself. who confirmed that the money into Najib's accounts came from Saudi Arabia and was quoted to say this:

"In Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that he accepted the (Malaysian) attorney general’s opinion that there had been no wrongdoing, but he also said that he did not think that the money had come from the Saudi government or that it was a political donation.

Further on the subject of credible sources. your continued attacks on Najib which cited foreign investigators also failed to cite that the office of the Swiss AG spokesman Andre Marty had told the Nikkei Asian Review "In the ongoing criminal proceeding of the OAG, Mr Najib Razak is not one of the public official under accusation,"

And WSJ also forgot to mention that MACC also went to meet and interview the donor in Saudi Arabia and has in its possession the bank transfer documents including 4 letters from the donor lodged with the banks during the transfer.

“The MACC knew of the details of the donor through a document taken from the bank and it was found that four letters were sent to the bank when the large sum of money was deposited into the account of the Prime Minister.”

Incredibly the WSJ chooses to quote from an unidentified Saudi source of undetermined rank but refuses to actually quote a named Saudi Minister or a named Swiss AG spokesperson?

Why are you not telling your readers about that infinitely more credible source? What are you trying to hide or what perception are you trying to create for your readers?

Also, a month back the UK Government owned BBC's foremost expert on the war on terror and Middle East security correspondent, Frank Gardner OBE says that his highly placed sources tell him that the RM2.6b was authorized at the very top of the then Saudi Arabia royalty and that such funding is normal.

Why aren't you telling your readers about that too in the interest of credible and ethical reporting?

That is "ethical and credible" reporting by WSJ for sure. 

For quite some time now, I have noticed the New York Post (not New York Times)and the Wall Street Journal have been playing tag-team to attack 1MDB and Najib with "exclusives".

And I still remember that it was the UK's Sunday Times that co-broke the Justo email leaks with Sarawak Report back in February 2015.

It does not escape my attention that all three NY Post, WSJ and the UK Sunday Times are all owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

When you resort to such sloppy reporting such as this using very non-credible anonymous sources and refuses to quote a credible full Saudi foreign Minister as a source, please don't blame me for suspecting a hidden agenda.

My suspicions were further reinforced earlier when WSJ hosted a Questions-and-Answers session on 1MDB where I asked 10 very basic questions but the answers from WSJ were decidedly not very convincing.

-----
PS. For whatever reasons, Najib has yet to sue the WSJ but I believe Najib will decide to sue when he can.

I think he may be getting approval from the Saudi counterparts first as he probably does not want to unilaterally reveal all these foreign countries details in court when challenged.

But we will not know unless Najib's lawyers give us the reasons

For me, I would wait for Swiss, HK or Singapore to complete their investigations first.

If and when cleared by those foreign countries, suing WSJ would be very much easier and there is thus no need to reveal too much details since other countries agencies have already done the investigations and can then submit to the court as evidence that WSJ is wrong.

And if and when these three foreign investigators fully clears Najib and 1MDB, whether Najib actually proceeds to sue WSJ is already a moot point - as by that time, WSJ's reputation and credibility on this 1MDB issue would already be destroyed.