By Khairie Hisyam
So Bank Negara Malaysia feels 1Malaysia Development Bhd should be grilled in court. The case is compelling yet the Attorney-General’s Chambers feels otherwise. And the question is why.
Another week, another war of words between self-styled strategic development company 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) and its critics, primarily Petaling Jaya Utara member of parliament Tony Pua. He says, she says, “walk the talk”, “baseless” this and that – it is never-ending and likely won’t unless there is a change of tack on how the controversy is handled.
And that is why the only way to conclusively settle the issue is to bring the matter to court.
Bank Negara Malaysia certainly would agree. Fresh after a rare yet timely statement by the Malay rulers urging speedy resolution to the 1MDB saga, a statement by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on Oct 8 revealed that the central bank, after investigating the company, felt necessary to recommend criminal prosecution proceedings be initiated.
That is not the sort of conclusion any authority would lightly come to. For the central bank to have come to the conclusion that 1MDB needs to be subjected to criminal prosecution implies grave wrongdoing on its part – at least one of which issue would be the deception (intentional or otherwise) when procuring permissions for overseas transfers amounting to US$1.83 billion from 2009 to 2011.
To recap, said deception, which breaches the Exchange Controls Act 1953 (ECA), was the reason why Bank Negara revoked three permissions issued for the transfers in a statement dated Oct 9. In Bank Negara’s own words:
“The bank at all times expects full and accurate disclosure of information by applicants in considering any application under the ECA. On its part, the bank concluded that permissions required under the ECA for 1MDB’s investments abroad were obtained based on inaccurate or without complete disclosure of material information relevant to the bank’s assessment of 1MDB’s applications.”
One question mark here is the nature of the so-called deception. Was it an honest mistake? Did someone forget to mention a few details to Bank Negara? Did 1MDB deliberately withhold certain information from Bank Negara when applying for the permissions? Was there intention to deceive?
It is not a light question to answer. Ideally the pursuit of the truth behind this should involve rigorous processes to examine the facts of the matter and bring relevant 1MDB personnel, past and present, to the dock for questioning.
And that means subjecting 1MDB to criminal prosecution proceedings as recommended by Bank Negara.
It is therefore puzzling that the AGC, after deliberating on the matter for two weeks since Bank Negara submitted its investigation papers on Aug 21, decided 1MDB did nothing wrong after all.
How did the AGC come to this massive conclusion in two weeks after only reviewing the investigation papers submitted by Bank Negara?
It boggles the mind. Recall that this year had seen a trove of leaked information and documents implicating 1MDB on a myriad of potential wrongdoings over the years – more importantly, there had not been any substantial denial on the authenticity of these materials from the company.
On the contrary, the company continues to cry foul over how such leaks break the law, which in turn implies that a good deal of the material is genuine. This would seemingly provide a more than enough reason to subject the company to a court proceeding to seek the absolute truth.
But no, the AGC feels there had been no wrongdoing, despite 1MDB clearly breaching the ECA according to Bank Negara. And that, it seems, is the end of it for this particular issue.
There are presumably more aspects involved than meets the public’s eye in this consideration but that is precisely the point: to the layman the matter now becomes AGC’s word against Bank Negara’s word.
Because whichever way the matter is looked at from, the fact remains clear: 1MDB has breached the ECA and should be made accountable for it through due process of law.
To be clear, AGC has the authority to decide not to prosecute despite Bank Negara’s recommendations. The attorney-general has the sole authority to initiate criminal prosecution as provided by our Federal Constitution and has discretion not to even when a person has clearly done wrong.
But having the authority is not enough. 1MDB is a public interest matter, with its billions of debt ultimately carrying implications for the government’s finances, and therefore require much disclosure.
If the AGC feels the company had not done anything wrong despite Bank Negara’s opinion to the contrary, the public deserves to know why and how the AGC came to that conclusion. And the best way to do that is to make public Bank Negara’s investigation papers as well as provide a written reasoning on the AGC’s decision to clear 1MDB anyway.
Failure to do otherwise will only fuel questions of what there is to be hidden in the face of such damning revelations throughout 2015 so far and who is hiding it, especially after the controversial manner in which the attorney-general was abruptly replaced in end-July.
Meanwhile, here is how 1MDB, which has lodged police reports over leakages, could better use its time: lodge police reports against past chief executive officers and officials who are responsible for the ECA breaches and other potential wrongdoings highlighted by the leaked information and documents.
Because if the company truly has nothing to hide or fear, surely bringing miscreants to account over the alleged wrongdoings through due process of law is the only logical thing to do.
GRRRRR!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.