YOURSAY ‘Which part of the question that he did not understand?’
PM says again, no money used for personal gain
Odin Tajué: The now well-known exposé by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) was published on July 3. The implication of the exposé is so serious, so damning that were he innocent of the allegation, he would have, within at most 48 hours, instructed his lawyers to sue the journal for defamation.
Anyone in his position would not even demand a retraction and an apology published on the front page but initiate legal action immediately. A week has gone by, but he has not done so.
Instead, we hear of his lawyers asking WSJ for its position on the allegation. Why does he/do they need that? The message or information imparted through the exposé is clearer than daylight.
The exposé was written not in bombastic or highfalutin English but in a level anyone with at least 12 or 13 years of schooling would understand.
We note that PM Najib Razak has been playing with semantics to evade the question of whether he has taken the money. Here are two quotes of his:
"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" and "I would like to stress again that I had never taken 1MDB's funds for my personal interest."
Let us tackle the easiest matter first. The confirmation from 1MDB and SRC International are worthless. What we have heard from 1MDB chief Arul Kanda Kandasamy and Second Finance Minister Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah is more than sufficient to tell us that their statements are as worthless as monopoly money.
In both his quotes, what he has implied is that he did take the money, that the only thing he did not do was to use the money for his personal gain/interest. Of course, we all know that implication.
We are not as stupid as he seems to think we are. What constitutes or what he meant by personal gain/interest is of no import, as neither one serves to assoil or absolve him of the serious offence. But let us take a look at it, anyway.
If he did use some of the money to finance the Umno-BN campaign pre-GE13, and/or to induce voters to vote for the coalition by offering them incentives to do so, then the expending of that portion was for his personal gain because had the Umno-BN won, he would remain prime minister.
Continuing to occupy that position would be his personal gain. Similarly, if he had dished out the money to sundry people or entities, the reason for the giving must be anticipation of reciprocal support - which, again, would be his personal gain. Remember his ‘gua tolong lu, lu tolong gua' (I help you, you help me)?
Existential Turd: Indeed, Najib is not categorically denying that huge sums of money were deposited into his bank account. He is denying that he used the money for his personal gain. This non-denial is as good as admitting his did receive huge sums of money.
What he means by "not for his personal gain" is up to his interpretation. So exactly for what purpose did he use the money for? Even if he did not gain directly, did he gain indirectly?
Commentable: The WSJ allegation is made with malicious intent? What malicious intent?
Najib, if the humongous sum of monies was transferred into your accounts, then you are really asking for it and in fact, you deserved it.
Of all people, you ought to know how sensitive global leaders are with regards to illegal transfers and money laundering, especially nowadays when some of the world leading nations are victim to the IS (Islamic State) terrorism.
They don't care whether nations such as Malaysia project itself as a moderate Muslim country. If you move money around suspiciously, you are bound to be rooted out. Think, of all PMs and presidents in this world, why pick you?
Why WSJ has to harbour malice against you? What for?
KayL: According to AmBank founder Hussain Ahmad Najadi's son Pascal, "Dad then spoke about massive corruption. He also said that they [people in power] had lost the plot in the sense that they recklessly and behind their own population’s backs raked in billions of ringgit from construction, oil and gas to defence and transportation. He made a point that it’s insane that they do not for one second think about the future generations, simply not."
All the cronies have really sunk deep into the cesspool. Some cronies are already claiming to be neutral in case Umno sinks. But back when Umno was strong, they lap up all the privileges and kickbacks that come with it.
Malaysia has truly disgusting people in charge, the lot of them, and I hope they all go up in flames together.
Np: Imagine a person who worked for a company and he used his position as the managing director to transfer company's monies to his personal bank account.
When he was caught by the shareholders, he justified his actions by telling the shareholders that his aim was to use the monies for the well-being of the company.
Such a case would immediately be considered as embezzlement of company's funds.
Anonymous 759201436321741: Here is the bone contention. The issue here is that the PM is not denying the money was credited into his personal accounts, but that he did not profit from it (personal gain).
If you study all his statements, he never denied the existence of the money, only strenuously denying that he profited from it personally.
But WSJ never accused him of profiting from it (use the money personally) only asserting the money went into his personal accounts. How to sue WSJ for something they did not say or even suggest?
Cmfoo: Najib, we say again - it's not about 'personal gain'. That's not what WSJ reported but that the funds flow into your personal accounts with your name on it.
You can easily and say it outright that this isn't true. Why skirt the issue and avoid answering the basic question that everyone is waiting for?
Swipenter: Najib, was the money deposited in your private accounts and why? Whether you used the money for personal gain is chapter two of the saga.
Chapter three is what was the money used for? Chapter four is who benefitted from the money? And the prologue is how the money was obtained by SRC and Tanore Finance. We already guessed it came from 1MDB.
Kingfisher: The PM is answering the second question but not the cardinal question as to whether public money was received in his personal accounts as reported by the WSJ.
There will be no need to answer the second question now as it is purely academic at this stage. He will have much to answer later. For now, answer the first question.
Thisia: Which part of the question that he did not understand? Was the RM2.6 billion transferred to your personal bank accounts? Yes or no? -Mkini
PM says again, no money used for personal gain
Odin Tajué: The now well-known exposé by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) was published on July 3. The implication of the exposé is so serious, so damning that were he innocent of the allegation, he would have, within at most 48 hours, instructed his lawyers to sue the journal for defamation.Anyone in his position would not even demand a retraction and an apology published on the front page but initiate legal action immediately. A week has gone by, but he has not done so.
Instead, we hear of his lawyers asking WSJ for its position on the allegation. Why does he/do they need that? The message or information imparted through the exposé is clearer than daylight.
The exposé was written not in bombastic or highfalutin English but in a level anyone with at least 12 or 13 years of schooling would understand.
We note that PM Najib Razak has been playing with semantics to evade the question of whether he has taken the money. Here are two quotes of his:
"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" and "I would like to stress again that I had never taken 1MDB's funds for my personal interest."
Let us tackle the easiest matter first. The confirmation from 1MDB and SRC International are worthless. What we have heard from 1MDB chief Arul Kanda Kandasamy and Second Finance Minister Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah is more than sufficient to tell us that their statements are as worthless as monopoly money.
In both his quotes, what he has implied is that he did take the money, that the only thing he did not do was to use the money for his personal gain/interest. Of course, we all know that implication.
We are not as stupid as he seems to think we are. What constitutes or what he meant by personal gain/interest is of no import, as neither one serves to assoil or absolve him of the serious offence. But let us take a look at it, anyway.
If he did use some of the money to finance the Umno-BN campaign pre-GE13, and/or to induce voters to vote for the coalition by offering them incentives to do so, then the expending of that portion was for his personal gain because had the Umno-BN won, he would remain prime minister.
Continuing to occupy that position would be his personal gain. Similarly, if he had dished out the money to sundry people or entities, the reason for the giving must be anticipation of reciprocal support - which, again, would be his personal gain. Remember his ‘gua tolong lu, lu tolong gua' (I help you, you help me)?
Existential Turd: Indeed, Najib is not categorically denying that huge sums of money were deposited into his bank account. He is denying that he used the money for his personal gain. This non-denial is as good as admitting his did receive huge sums of money.
What he means by "not for his personal gain" is up to his interpretation. So exactly for what purpose did he use the money for? Even if he did not gain directly, did he gain indirectly?
Commentable: The WSJ allegation is made with malicious intent? What malicious intent?
Najib, if the humongous sum of monies was transferred into your accounts, then you are really asking for it and in fact, you deserved it.
Of all people, you ought to know how sensitive global leaders are with regards to illegal transfers and money laundering, especially nowadays when some of the world leading nations are victim to the IS (Islamic State) terrorism.
They don't care whether nations such as Malaysia project itself as a moderate Muslim country. If you move money around suspiciously, you are bound to be rooted out. Think, of all PMs and presidents in this world, why pick you?
Why WSJ has to harbour malice against you? What for?
KayL: According to AmBank founder Hussain Ahmad Najadi's son Pascal, "Dad then spoke about massive corruption. He also said that they [people in power] had lost the plot in the sense that they recklessly and behind their own population’s backs raked in billions of ringgit from construction, oil and gas to defence and transportation. He made a point that it’s insane that they do not for one second think about the future generations, simply not."
All the cronies have really sunk deep into the cesspool. Some cronies are already claiming to be neutral in case Umno sinks. But back when Umno was strong, they lap up all the privileges and kickbacks that come with it.
Malaysia has truly disgusting people in charge, the lot of them, and I hope they all go up in flames together.
Np: Imagine a person who worked for a company and he used his position as the managing director to transfer company's monies to his personal bank account.
When he was caught by the shareholders, he justified his actions by telling the shareholders that his aim was to use the monies for the well-being of the company.
Such a case would immediately be considered as embezzlement of company's funds.
Anonymous 759201436321741: Here is the bone contention. The issue here is that the PM is not denying the money was credited into his personal accounts, but that he did not profit from it (personal gain).
If you study all his statements, he never denied the existence of the money, only strenuously denying that he profited from it personally.
But WSJ never accused him of profiting from it (use the money personally) only asserting the money went into his personal accounts. How to sue WSJ for something they did not say or even suggest?
Cmfoo: Najib, we say again - it's not about 'personal gain'. That's not what WSJ reported but that the funds flow into your personal accounts with your name on it.
You can easily and say it outright that this isn't true. Why skirt the issue and avoid answering the basic question that everyone is waiting for?
Swipenter: Najib, was the money deposited in your private accounts and why? Whether you used the money for personal gain is chapter two of the saga.
Chapter three is what was the money used for? Chapter four is who benefitted from the money? And the prologue is how the money was obtained by SRC and Tanore Finance. We already guessed it came from 1MDB.
Kingfisher: The PM is answering the second question but not the cardinal question as to whether public money was received in his personal accounts as reported by the WSJ.
There will be no need to answer the second question now as it is purely academic at this stage. He will have much to answer later. For now, answer the first question.
Thisia: Which part of the question that he did not understand? Was the RM2.6 billion transferred to your personal bank accounts? Yes or no? -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.