law of the jungle ....Government told to reopen assault probe on Nazri’s son

PKR today demanded the Home Ministry reopen the assault case involving Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Aziz’s son, saying it was an offence to “amicably resolve” a criminal matter.

Party vice-president N. Surendran accused Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein of showing “blatant disregard” for the country’s legal system for declaring the matter closed via such a settlement.

“It is unprecedented for the home minister to personally approve of such ‘amicable settlements’, which are against public policy and the rule of law.

“If a crime is committed, the perpetrator must be brought to court and duly charged. Under our legal system, crimes cannot be ‘amicably settled’,” Surendran (picture) said in a statement.

He added that such a settlement could amount to an offence under section 214 of the Penal Code and by approving the settlement, Hishammuddin may have abetted the allegedly illegal act.

“Was the investigation compromised simply because the case involves the son of a senior Umno minister?

“Further, what are the terms of this illegal settlement and did the settlement involve the police, Nazri Aziz or Hishammuddin?” Surendran asked.

The Home Ministry had confirmed on Wednesday that Nazri’s son Mohamad Nedim has been cleared of any wrongdoing in the assault of a condominium security guard earlier this year, saying that the case was “settled amicably” by both sides.

In a written reply to Loh Gwo-Burne (PKR-Kelana Jaya), the ministry said it was Mohamad Nedim’s former bodyguard who had assaulted the security guard in the March 20 incident and the matter has been investigated by the police.

“For the information of YB and this Dewan Rakyat, the assault of a security guard in March 2012 was actually the fault of Mohamad Nedim Nazri Aziz’s former bodyguard, and this case has been investigated under section 160 of the Penal Code.

“This case has been settled amicably by both parties,” the ministry had said.

Surendran, however, argued that the ministry’s reply was insufficient as it did not explain the outcome of the probe on Mohamad Nedim.

He pointed out that every citizen, regardless of social status, is equal before the law, saying that the assaulted security guard in this case has a right to impartial justice.

“We call upon the home minister to make a full and frank disclosure of the real facts of the case and to reopen the investigation into this assault case,” he said.

Earlier this year, opposition lawmakers had raised a hue and cry over the case involving Mohamad Nedim, accusing the authorities of covering up because of the man’s status as the son of a senior Cabinet minister.

At a press conference on April 9, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar was forced to urge the public to “trust” the police’s decision in the matter, pointing out that surveillance videos of the alleged scuffle at a plush Mont Kiara condominium had shown that Mohamad Nedim was innocent of wrongdoing

 

 

comments

 

 

But I doubt if the guard is still around. Many of them, if not all, are foreigners. Might have been kicked out the country and that's why it's amicably settled. Amicably to Nazri. Not so amicable to the guard... but I won't be surprised he got a nice pay-off.

Just like Dinosaur Minister's former maid....jadi hamba seks menteri perogol anak yatim

This is the reason most of us wanted UMNO kicked out from the government. I hope Najib understands our wishes, the people's wishes, as he frequently said he had.

It is hard to believe that a " Law Minister " does not understand laws, or choose not to understand laws.Perhaps, laws are not equally applied to everyone in this country.

The de facto law minister is taking the law into his own hands, abetted by the home minister!!! 

Is this a First in the country or in this region? A consequence of 1Malaysia? 

Both the ministers have committed an offence by virtue of not respecting the judiciary or even in contempt of the court. A police report against these duo should be expected. The judiciary simply cannot keep silent on this matter, whereas the attorney general cannot be allowed to go scot-free as well for his seeming complicity. 

Is this the law of the jungle we Malaysians have to put up with? Or there are two sets of laws here, one for UMNO one for the rest of the country? Malaysians demand answers

as usual .... where thieves do like to admit it wrong...Najib dismisses claims RM40m Sabah Umno cash was smuggled

Datuk Seri Najib Razak brushed aside today suggestions that a RM40 million political donation received by Sabah Umno had been smuggled into the country.

The Umno president was asked today by reporters if there was any basis to the suggestion by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders that the money was brought in illicitly.

“No. No. It was already explained in Parliament,” he said when asked about the smuggling allegations.

Yesterday, the Barisan Nasional (BN) government continued to defend Sabah Umno’s RM40 million political contribution from an unknown source, with an Umno minister telling opposition lawmakers to refer to Hong Kong’s anti-graft agency if they opposed the contribution.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, in deflecting criticisms against Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman in the Dewan Rakyat, told the House that it was not an offence for a political party to receive donations from any individual.

“Political donations are not any offence. If we wanted to say it is an offence, we would have enacted laws against it,” he said to uproar from the opposition bench.

“If people want to contribute, let them contribute. What is the problem there?”

Last week, Parliament was told the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had cleared Musa of graft and money-laundering allegations after finding that the over S$16 million (RM40 million) allegedly channelled to the Sabah chief minister through corrupt means was meant for Sabah Umno’s use.

Nazri also said the Attorney-General’s Chambers had shelved the matter after finding no element of corruption in the case, which was first raised by whistleblower site Sarawak Report earlier this year.

In April this year, Sarawak Report had revealed documents allegedly from the Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) showing that a Sabah lawyer was holding some US$30 million in a Swiss bank account for Musa.

The report also claimed that a paper trail showed that the millions of euros as well as US, Hong Kong and Singapore dollars had been channelled from several firms managed by Hong Kong-based timber trader Michael Chia to a number of British Virgin Islands companies and subsequently to the Chia’s Swiss account.

Musa has since denied any link with Chia, who was arrested and charged with money laundering after attempting to smuggle S$16 million (RM40 million) back to Malaysia in 2008.

According to media reports, Chia had at the time allegedly told the Hong Kong authorities that the money belonged to Musa.

Musa had previously accused Sarawak Report of defaming him, claiming the graft allegations were likely part of a conspiracy by his detractors who wanted to topple BN in the east Malaysian state.

He had said he would offer full co-operation to the authorities if he were required to but stressed that in the meantime, his focus was on serving the state instead of “entertaining these frivolous allegations”.

Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) said today it was appalled with the government’s conclusion that “no element of corruption was proven” in its investigation of Musa.

The anti-graft watchdog urged the authorities today to ensure a full disclosure of the political contribution.

Last week, Najib also refused to disclose the source of the political donation received by Sabah Umno.

“It is a political donation. All parties have a right to receive political donations. As long as it is through the right channels, it is not an offence,” the Umno president had told reporters after chairing a BN supreme council meeting.

 

 

comments

 

 

So is it ok for PR to receive political donation from Soros?

BN has choose not to answer the actual question posed . The issue here is not whether it is political donation or otherwise. Political donations from legal source are acceptable. But if the source of the money is illegal than its a different story !

Why then does the money need to be carried in personally? Why wasn't the money wired in so that there is a clear transaction trail?

An independent international investigator should be brought in to unearth this scandal.

" It is a political donation. All parties have a right to receive political donations. As long as it is through the right channels, it is not an offence,” the Umno president had told reporters after chairing a BN supreme council meeting.

What type of Statement from a PM.....???
YES, Right channels.........BUT your Donations came from BACK DOOR through Smuggling way, IS that the RIGHT CHANNEL...... please don't treat Malaysians as STUPID FOOLS......your statement is so HOPELESS.....worst is from Malaysian PM.....shame on you....

How can one protect another, just for political support and votes????? Sabah has always been a safe haven or fixed deposit for BN and whatever they request will be fulfill including their illicit acts. This hot cash is definitely money laundering and yet he's protected, just like the NFC case.

What a moronic PM we have!! I hope all the fence sitters are waking up and make the right decision at the ballot box!!

Our MACC chief and the IGP should just go Harakiri!! How can you tolerate such nonsense? Where is the Kedaulatan Undang-Undang? And what are the Rulers - the Protectors of the consitution doing? Just keep quiet and pretend not to know?

Just come clean!

Najib explain why RM40m Sabah Umno cash was smuggled instead using bank transfer!

Which businessman will give RM40m to political party without getting favour in return? Who will believe the story???

another movie by the BN government...corruption donation to UMNO...HK dropped Musa’s case after MACC probe

Putrajaya has confirmed that Datuk Musa Aman was only cleared of corruption after Malaysian graftbusters told Hong Kong authorities that a RM40-million cash contribution allegedly meant for the Sabah chief minister was a “political donation” to Umno.

De facto law minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz told  that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) probe on Musa was initiated after Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) requested for information on the issue.

He said the ICAC had asked for MACC’s co-operation after Sabah timber trader Michael Chia was arrested and charged with money laundering in 2008 for attempting to smuggle S$16 million (RM40 million) out of Hong Kong.

According to media reports, Chia had at the time told Hong Kong authorities that the money belonged to Musa.

“MACC agreed to co-operate with its Hong Kong counterparts and found that the money in question was not for Musa’s personal use.

“The agency then reported back to ICAC with the information and the Hong Kong authority decided to drop the matter and pull its complaint from the Swiss court,” Nazri told yesterday.

The minister was asked to respond to DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang’s accusation that he had been giving conflicting reports to Parliament on which anti-graft authority ― Malaysia’s or Hong Kong’s ― had first cleared Musa of graft.

In a statement yesterday, Lim had demanded a full disclosure and chronology of events leading to Musa’s name being cleared, raising suspicion over whether Malaysia had tampered with the graft case to save the Umno leader from a graft charge.

Lim pointed out that Nazri had at first told Parliament that it was Malaysia’s Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) that had absolved Musa, based on findings from MACC’s investigation on the matter.

The minister also said that the ICAC had pulled its Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) application from Switzerland’s courts after finding that the RM40 million was meant for Sabah Umno and not Musa’s personal use.

But when speaking on the issue in the Dewan Rakyat again on Thursday, Nazri had told House that it was ICAC that had first cleared Musa, even telling opposition parliamentarians to refer their queries to the Hong Kong agency if they were dissatisfied with the decision.

Lim said that Nazri had “tied himself up in contradictions” and demanded the minister clarify which agency ― MACC, the AGC or Hong Kong’s ICAC ― had cleared Musa’s name, as well as the chronology of events.

Among others, Lim said Nazri should disclose details on when the MACC had completed its probe and submitted its papers to the AGC, when the AGC declared the matter closed and whether the MACC had agreed to its opinion.

He added that the minister should also reveal when the ICAC had completed its probe and decided to pull its case from the Swiss courts.

“Many questions cry out for answer on the RM40 million ‘smuggled’ cash from Hong Kong to Malaysia, ending up as donation to Sabah Umno, which Nazri should clear in Parliament on Monday,” the senior DAP lawmaker said.

When asked when the AGC had stepped in to declare Musa innocent, however, Nazri told  that he was unsure.

“I think it’s best that you ask the AGC on that. I am not clear as to whether the AGC cleared Musa after ICAC dropped the case or before,” he said.

Yesterday, Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak had dismissed allegations by the opposition that the RM40 million had been “smuggled” into Malaysia. He had previously defended the donation, but refused to divulge details on the source of the funds.

 

 

comments

 

 

So UMNO has the money but refuses to divulge the source?

Good. This is perfect election fodder to contrast UMNO's lack of transparency and willingness to run clean.

Rm 40 million is a huge contribution and there should be a law for disclosure of the contributor if the amount exceeds rm 10 million from a single contributor. When there is no law on such contributions, it gives rise to gaping hole for corrupt activities. Apart from that, with such a largess, BN clearly has a huge unfair advantage in elections in Sabah.

chia is a timber trader in SABAH, he made 40m donation to bn SABAH. bn is in power in SABAH. chia has business interest in SABAH & he made contribution to those in power in SABAH. i can't see how that's not classified as corruption. actually its clearly a corruption.

and we were led to believe that the case were dropped due to hk's icac investigation. so it was macc exonerating their cohort as usual, and as expected