Sunday, February 7, 2016

Singapore & 1 MDB: Change of leadership may mean an adverse review of unsustainable water agreements

by Ganesh Sahathevan

While Singapore continues to play its game of realpolitik with Malaysian PM Najib Razak ,doing it what it can to imagine away its own evidence on the 1 MDB affair, the realities that underlie  Malaysia-Singapore relations seem to have been ignored.
These are as follows:
First,Najib Razak cannot remain PM forever, and whoever succeeds him will have to face the consequences of the 1 MDB affair.It is too large a hole to ever disappear.
In doing so, Singapore's role in helping hide at least USD 1 billion will have to be confronted.An increasingly restless population, angered by loss of work and rising costs of living, will demand it.

Then, regardless of what the leaders on either side of the causeway might think, these following  matters that are in the public domain which concern the supply of increasingly scarce water in Malaysia to Singapore will have to be dealt with, and long standing grievances on the Malay side will have to be addressed.

While a number of agreements have been entered into governing the supply of water, and while Singapore's lawyers have shown time and time again that they are more than capable of taking on the Malaysians, no lawyer can fight reality.Indeed, frustration is a basis for abandoning contractual agreements. And , the factors that might frustrate the Singapore-Malaysia water agreements are quite evident.

First, there may have been an over-estimation of the size of the catchments on the Johor/Malaysia side.  The Johor River Basin  is the primary basin  that provides Singapore's water.This early  estimate of the Johor River basin,made sometime in the late 80s shows the catchment extending all the way to the south-east coast of Johor.The size of the basin shown here was probably the basis for Singapore-Malaysia water negotiations during the 70s,and onward:



However, this later estimate of the basin ,based on satellite imagery captured sometime in the late 90s, shows clearly a far smaller catchment, which is confined to the central part of Johor.





While Singapore secured its supply of water via the 1990 agreement that involved  the construction of a dam across the Sungei Linggiu (a tributary of the Johor River) , that is not likely to change the fact that water continues to be drawn from the Johor River Basin. Even if it does the satellite image below shows that there is a long term problem that Singapore has identified, which is very much part of national strategic planning, but appears to have been ignored with regards the Sungei Linggui Dam. That problem is  climate change, and one can readily see from the image below that the catchment, which is seen in this image as a significantly sized black spot in northern Johor, is surrounded by vegetation which will, by Singapore's own estimates, disappear as temperature rises.This in turn will adversely impact that catchment's capacity, and Johor's ability to supply itself.


These issues have been the subject of very delicate high level negotiations over the past 50 years, but now the issue of some US$ 1- 4 billion misappropriated from the Malaysian Government and stored, at least in part, in Singapore, will almost certainly be a factor. Singapore cannot expect that Malaysia would  not consider itself to be the aggrieved party who will seek recompense in any way possible.
END 








Saturday, February 6, 2016

PM Najib's NR1 makes lightning weekend trip to Singapore:Singapore Government's 1 MDB cover-up no longer tenable

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Malaysian PM Najib has made an unexpected quick trip to Singapore, arriving at Changi Airport 
on Saturday afternoon at approximately 3 pm in the afternoon. The Airbus 319 ,call sign NR1 appears to have come down from somewhere off the east coast of the peninsular,from where it overflew Batam enroute Changi Airport.
This sudden visit comes at a critical point of time in Singapore's ongoing investigation into 
the 1 MDB saga. It is fair to assume that this sudden lightning visit is related to the 1 MDB matter.







Reference

Successful prosecution of Gerald Fernandez & Fr Joachim Kang suggests that Singapore's prosecution of Yak Yew Chee & 1 MDB theft is not credible

Singapore Government can no longer pretend that Najib Razak is not a person of interest : Singapore cannot say it does not know where US$530 million went to


Raja Petra Kamaruddin,Paul Stadlen's Rakyat Post,put Turki Abdullah at centre of 1 MDB scandal

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The following was published by Rakyat Post and reproduced by Raja Petra Kamaruddin on his Malaysia Today. Given the statement by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir ,these revelations show clearly a minor royal using his position to give his private ventures a veneer of respectability ,and while doing so ,playing a central role in what we now know is the theft of some US$ 4 billion from 1 MDB

“As Prince Turki is the founder and chairman of PetroSaudi International, he wrote using his Royal letterhead to Najib Razak ‘As a follow up to the dialogue we initiated, please find enclosed a letter from MY CEO’.”

“The second letter is from 1MDB lawyers Wong and Co with attachments of letters written by the CEO of PetroSaudi International to the 1MDB-PetroSaudi JV to demand repayment of US$700 million (RM2.61 billion) into PetroSaudi International’s JP Morgan Chase Account for account of RBS Courts Bank Ltd (544-7-4487)6).
“This clearly shows any transfers for fund into Good Star Ltd accounts was at the instruction of PetroSaudi International CEO and not by 1MDB.
“The third latest letter is a written confirmation by PetroSaudi International that the controversial Good Star Ltd company has always been fully owned by PetroSaudi alone (this has been proven to be a false assertion,but Turki's insistence can in fact be used against him)..
“Taken together, the above document trails clearly show that:
* 1MDB has never transferred any money to third party owned accounts other than to the 1MDB-PetroSaudi JV
* Good Star Ltd is and has always been a fully owned PetroSaudi company
The entire joint-venture was done with the full knowledge and in agreement with the highest levels of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia leadership.”
As we now know, that last statement is also false.

This would not be the first time that Raja Petra Kamaruddin has provided the evidence.Those familiar with the Commercial IBT will recall how he proved that Anwar Ibrahim was involved in that matter.
END

Al-Sauds have abandoned Turki Abdullah:Now up to Malaysia, other countries to charge ,arrest or seek his extradition


by Ganesh Sahathevan


In a telling comment published in the New York Times ,Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister had this to say about his country's alleged involvement in Malaysia's ongoing 1 MDB scandaL:

In Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said ....he did not think that the money had come from the Saudi government or that it was a political donation.

“It is a private Saudi citizen, I believe, and the funds went to an investment in Malaysia,” he said in an interview on Thursday.

With that one sentence Adel ,who is the first commoner to be appointed Saudi foreign minister, confirmed what the WSJ and Sarawak Report have alleged for the 9 months, and reduced Prince Turki Abdullah, a central figure in the Malaysian scandal ,to the status of a commoner.

This is a clear signal from the Al-Sauds that Turki's problems are of his own making, and whatever happens to him is not their concern , nor that of the Kingdom they run.

It is now left to Malaysia and the other countries involved in the matter, particularly Singapore, to charge and arrest Turki bin Abdullah.

END




References

Saving Prince Turki: UK regulator looks away in matter involving Turki Abdullah Al-Saud



"Donor" Prince Turki Received US$77 Million From 1MDB EXPOSE!

"Donor" Prince Turki Received US$77 Million From 1MDB EXPOSE!

4 FEB 2016

Nawaf Obaid - always willing to give a 'Saudi insider' explanation to western journalists.
Nawaf Obaid – always willing to give a ‘Saudi insider’ explanation to western journalists.
When foreign news journalists asked Najib’s media coordinator, ex-APCO man Paul Stadlen, last week for the name of the Saudi Royal, claimed to have donated RM2.6 billion to the PM’s election effort, he disappointed them.
Sadly, the Saudi royal family did not wish to reveal any further information, he explained.
On the other hand, Stadlen urged journalists to check out a very ‘insightful’ BBC article, which claimed that the donor was none other than the former King Abdullah, who died last January, acting together with his 7th son, Prince Turki.
The gift came partly from the King’s own money and partly from the coffers of the State of Saudi Arabia itself, added the BBC’s Middle East defence correspondent, who later admitted to Sarawak Report that he knows nothing about Malaysia.
“The $681m (£479m) deposited in the bank account of Malaysian PM Najib Razak by Saudi Arabia was to help him win the 2013 elections, a Saudi source says…. The Saudi source said the donation was made amid concern in Riyadh about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood…The well-placed Saudi source, who has asked not to be named, told the BBC the payment was authorised from the very top – from Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah – with funds coming from both his personal finances and state funds.”[BBC – Saudi gift to Malaysia PM Najib Razak ‘for election campaign‘]
Few journalists in KL are in any doubt as to who “the well-placed Saudi source, who has asked not to be named” was.
It is widely agreed by a chortling foreign press corps that the ‘deep throat’ could only have been Nawaf Obaid, one of the few ‘strategic analysts’, who talks regularly to the western press in Saudi Arabia.
Indeed, Western journalists who have to report on Saudi matters are very grateful for the garrulous Nawaf, who set himself up as a one-man strategic analyst after doing his BA at the War Studies Department at Kings College London and has now obtained a Fellowship at Harvard.
The Telegraph’s Con Coughlin has reportedly lauded him as one of the best sources in the Middle East and the following day he too was penning an article along remarkably similar lines to the one from the BBC, where again he referred to  “one senior Saudi source”, whom he said commented:
“It is not unusual for Saudi Arabia to make donations like this. It happens all the time to help moderate Muslim governments to remain in power so that they can provide regional security tackle the extremist threat.”
Really?
Coughlin’s single sourced claim contrasted markedly with feedback obtained by papers with journalists on the ground, like the Wall Street Journal, which reported that Saudi officials had denied any knowledge of such an individual payment, which was described as “unprecedented”.
NAAFI's story was snatched upon by the Telegraph to attack its political enemies in the UK
Recently concluded? Nawaf”s story was snatched upon by the Telegraph to attack its political enemies in the UK
Nevertheless, to have two mainstream publications swallow the story hook line and sinker that King Abdullah had kindly given Najib a secret personal US$681 million dollar donation through an off-shore BVI account, in order that he could illegally rig an election, was manna to UMNO spinners and the BBC ‘corroboration’ in particular appeared in numerous articles internationally.

Nawaf’s record as a paid spinner for Najib 

Sarawak Report has, of course, already exposed Nawaf Obaid as one of numerous agents hired by the Prime Minister’s Office over recent years to ‘spin’ against Najib’s political enemies in the western media.
The line up - Jho Low left, Prince Turki 2nd left and Tarek Obaid 2nd right - on the yacht they hired and pretended belonged to the Sauid Prince!
The line up – Jho Low left, Prince Turki 2nd left and Tarek Obaid 2nd right – on the yacht they hired and pretended belonged to the Sauid Prince!
Last month we documented in detail how the supposedly objective insider, was getting monster kick-backs behind the scenes for doing PR favours via his ‘briefings’ of foreign journalists and through “Op Eds” in newspapers, which he arrogantly claimed to be a master writer of, compared to Najib’s official media teams.
We have evidence of payments of over US$1.7 million to Nawaf, in what appear to have been a wider pattern of transfers from his brother Tarek Obaid, in return for his involvement in a campaign to defame the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in the media and in US government circles after 2010.
Please send my brother a million dollars out of that money I got from 1MDB
Please send my brother a million dollars out of that money I got from 1MDB
For the money Nawaf, who did indeed hold a Saudi official post at that time, was also used to access favours for Najib, who was attempting to create an impression of a close personal relationship with the Saudi King.
Yet, when Najib together with Jho Low attempted to engage Nawaf in a plan to organise a visit by King Abdullah to Malaysia and to get the Arab Royal to lend him US$10 billion in 2011 at low interest rates, Nawaf sneeringly dismissed them as fantasists “on drugs”.
“No No N, just ask for 1 Trillion dollars in this case and save everyone the hasstle! Someone is taking some sever and I mean sever DRUGS!” (sic) [Nawaf to brother Tarek]
Even so, five years later the same characters are trying to convince the world that King Abdullah did after all ‘donate’ Najib a 2 billion ringgit bung, on a basis of a couple of short audiences that were achieved in Riyadh.

The Prince Turki connection and his US$77 million kick-back

However, this is not the only respect in which Nawaf Obaid is a deeply compromised source upon which to rely on matters relating to Najib and 1MDB.
Because Nawaf’s brother is none other than the same Tarek Obaid, who was the Director of PetroSaudi, the company which is now being investigated by the Swiss and Singapore authorities, along with the FBI and Serious Fraud Office, for acting as a front to siphon hundreds of millions from Malaysia’s 1MDB development fund.
The money that was paid to Nawaf by Tarek can in fact be traced to the tens of millions of dollars Tarek netted in kickbacks from Najib’s ‘official advisor’ Jho Low, originally looted from 1MDB.
The definitive diagram - pulled together from the documents by The Edge
The definitive diagram – pulled together from the documents by The Edge
It was for this reason that Sarawak Report told the BBC that any claim emanating from the single source of Nawaf Obaid should be treated with extreme caution.
A particular give away in the single source-based reportage was the hint that Prince Turki bin Abdullah, the now deceased King’s 7th son, was somehow involved in this generous payment to Najib.  Because Turki also is deeply compromised by the whole affair, in that he is the other 50% Shareholder of PetroSaudi and, like Tarek, he was handsomely rewarded with enormous kickbacks out of money extracted from 1MDB.
The money trail (above) obtained from data from PetroSaudi’s own emails (thanks to the now jailed whistleblower Xavier Justo) shows that the Prince, who was by no means personally wealthy as has been implied, received at least US$77 million from the deal.
Here are the confirmations sent by JP Morgan Swiss to PetroSaudi after they handled the payments:
Further payments brought the total to US$77 million from Tarek's JP Morgan account which received hundreds of millions from Good Star and 1MDB
Further payments brought the total to US$77 million from Tarek’s JP Morgan account which received hundreds of millions from Good Star and 1MDB
Payment notice to Tarek Obaid by JP Morgan
Payment notice to Tarek Obaid by JP Morgan
Therefore, the idea put forward by the BBC article that Prince Turki, who is described as having “extensive business interests in Malaysia”, was partially the ‘donor’ of Najib’s windfall is laughable.
Far from donating, Turki has looted money from Malaysia!
It has made the Prince vulnerable to pressure, as the people around Najib have sought desperately to find a convincing Arab to pose as the donor, however. The story going round KL is that it was indeed Prince Turki, who was introduced to the Deputy Prime Minister and to MACC officials as the source of the money.
On the basis of these private assurances, backed by no published evidence whatsoever, both parties have now publicly announced that they have ‘met the donor’ and are ‘satisfied’.
Unsurprisingly, the Prince is said to be adamantly resisting any more public show on the matter.  Nor has any proof been obtained that the money came from him, beyond his Royal word, which we have shown was already bought for US$77 million.

Sarawak’s ‘Islamic extremism’ problem?

It is perhaps not surprising therefore that the single-sourced information obtained by the BBC and Telegraph appears to be full of uniformed nonsense to those who know something about Malaysia.
For example, the statement by the BBC that most of the money allegedly provided by the Saudi King was spent on projects to prevent Muslim extremism from developing in Sarawak, is laughable.
“The purpose of the donation was simple, said the Saudi source – it was to help Mr Najib and his coalition win the election, employing a strategic communications team with international experience, focusing on the province of Sarawak, and funding social programmes through party campaigning.
But why should the Saudis care about an election in a non-Arab country more than 6,000 km (3,700 miles) away? The answer, the source said, lay in their concerns over the rising power of the Muslim Brotherhood, which they consider a terrorist organisation.” [BBC, “Saudi gift to Malaysia PM Najib Razak ‘for election campaign’]
As everyone who knows knows, Sarawak is predominantly Christian and the Muslim rulers installed by KL protect their base by condemning bigotry.
Yes, much of the money was spent on vote-buying is Sarawak, according to all reports, but the bribes in Sarawak were to secure BN’s so-called “safe deposits” in the isolated rural seats in these backward states, in order to shore up their loss of support in West Malaysia and in the urban areas.
It had nothing to do with Islam, but it provoked the appropriate response from certain western journalists who are focused on terrorism. Well done Nawaf?

Fingerprints

The Muslim Brotherhood label carries clear fingerprints leading to Nawaf.  It is the accusation that Najib’s PR people have used for years to tarnish the now jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s image amongst liberal allies in the West.
Sarawak Report has already provided emails to show that Nawaf Obaid was also commissioned to spin this accusation on behalf of Najib.  It is therefore not at all surprising that he appears to have dragged it up again to try and explain the so-called donation.
On a previous occasion, Nawaf was less lucky in convincing responsible journalists, who had bothered to seek corroboration for his Muslim Brotherhood line against Anwar.
The BBC’s Jeremy Bowen told him in a email in December 2010:
“the most common response I am getting is from people who suggest this is another attempt to damage Anwar Ibrahim’s reputation”.
After which the frustrated spinner emailed his brother to complain “how difficult it has been to get a serious news organisation to run with this subject”
Show email
From:
Date:
To:
Show email
But last week Nawaf scored big time with the Daily Telegraph’s Con Coughlin, who even developed the theme in order to condemn the foreign policy of the British Labour Party, whom his newspaper politically opposes:
‘..the really intriguing fact to emerge from the year-long investigation, has been the revelation that the accusations actually related to a secret payment made by Saudi Arabia to help Mr Najib win the 2013 election campaign.
Ever since the emergence of Islamic State (Isil) in Syria and Iraq, Left-wing critics such as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have consistently accused the Saudis of funding Isil and other Islamist extremist groups.
But what the Najib investigation demonstrates is that the opposite is the case, and that, rather than funding extremists, the Saudi government has been quietly supporting moderate Muslim leaders around the world as part of their attempts to combat the global threat posed by Islamist-inspired extremism.” [Telegraph “Saudi Arabia funds moderate Muslims, not Isil. Extremism is on the rise in South East Asia. Of course the Saudis want to stop that”.]
This is what the world of media spinners would describe as a bullseye for Nawaf and one can only imagine the invoice he might have subsequently put into the Malaysian PM’s Office.  Media Coordinator Paul Stadlen will have been happy to pay, it seems, as he re-parcelled the material around his Malaysian media network.
Najib warrior Rajah Petra Kamaruddin was soon trumpeting the Telegraph analysis
Najib warrior Rajah Petra Kamaruddin was soon trumpeting the Telegraph analysis
However, when Sarawak Report attempted to call Mr Coughlin to put him right about this latest canard, he sadly slammed down the phone before we had a chance to finish introducing ourselves.

Friday, February 5, 2016

So,Malaysia does not want to know that US$4 billion has been been stolen from its 1 MDB? : IGP Khalid has a duty to investigate the theft,as do the AG ,PM, DPM and others



by Ganesh Sahathevan




In all the excitement about the Swiss AG's discovery that some USD 4 billion has been misappropriated from 1 MDB, a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund, many have failed to ask why the IGP Tan Sri Khalid has not immediately commenced an investigation into a case of  massive ,record breaking theft from a government body.No, nobody needs to lodge a police report, it is his duty to investigate an obvious crime, as it his duty to so as a matter of urgency.




Similarly, no one has asked Very Learned Apandi why he has not requested  the Swiss AG hand over his  findings as a matter of urgency, but instead issued this nonsensical statement:




1. I note the statement issued by the Office of the Attorney-General of Switzerland, and further remarks attributed to the Swiss Attorney-General by an American newspaper, concerning an investigation into two former officials of 1MDB.

2. I and the relevant Malaysian authorities are keen to establish all the facts about 1MDB that have led to recent allegations against the company. That is why a number of investigations - including by the Public Accounts Committee, the Royal Malaysian Police, and the Auditor General's Department - are currently on-going.

3. The Malaysian authorities, including the Attorney-General's Chambers, are committed to working with all relevant foreign law enforcement entities through the applicable international conventions and agreements. Similarly, 1MDB has from the outset cooperated with the enquiries.

4. Regarding the recent public statement by the Office of the Attorney-General of Switzerland, my office intends to take all possible steps to follow up and collaborate with our Swiss counterparts, and we look forward to receiving the findings of their investigations and materials through the normal channels. These materials will then be reviewed, alongside the findings of other relevant authorities and our own investigations, to determine the appropriate course of action.

5. Contrary to recent media reports, the investigations into donations that were made to the Prime Minister are entirely separate to those into 1MDB. The Attorney-General's Chambers exhaustively reviewed the report provided by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and, as has been announced, found no evidence of wrong-doing and hence have instructed for the cases to be closed.

6. Any attempt by media organisations to conflate the two sets of investigations is irresponsible and prejudicial.

TAN SRI MOHAMED APANDI ALI
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
MALAYSIA

Remember, money has been stolen from a Malaysian, not Swiss ,sovereign wealth fund. If one did not know better , reading Apandi's  statement one could easily come to the conclusion that it is the other way around.

And then, there is DPM Zahid's anger at being informed that money has been stolen from his Government:
The deputy prime minister said any statement made outside of official channels could affect ties between both countries and lead to bias reporting.
"We will leave it to the Attorney-General to get details on the allegations from his Swiss counterpart," Ahmad Zahid said after closing the MITA Tourism Fair at the KL Convention Centre.
The incredulous Malaysian response is best described  in this headline from The Guardian:
Malaysia accuses Switzerland of 'misinformation' over stolen 1MDB billions
All so sadly obvious.....
END 

Successful prosecution of Gerald Fernandez & Fr Joachim Kang suggests that Singapore's prosecution of Yak Yew Chee & 1 MDB theft is not credible


by Ganesh Sahathevan


As previously reported. such is the weight of evidence in the public domain, that the Singapore Government can no longer pretend that Najib Razak is not a person of interest in the 1 MDB affair. Singapore cannot say it does not know where some US$530 million of 1 MDB money went to.


Then, this morning ,in the matter of Yak Yew Chee the Singaporeans put on a performance which suggests that they will not mind playing the clown in order to further what they think is a sophisticated game of realpolitik. Unfortunately for the Singaporeans, it is their own history in such matters that is held against them.This story is best told by the following reports from the state owned and controlled Straits Times .An excerpt from a book by the former Attorney General Of Singapore is provided to fill in the gaps.

Straits Times Singapore has reported:


In a surprise turn of events, private banker Yak Yew Chee filed an application on Friday (Feb 5) to withdraw his request to the Singapore High Court to release some of about S$9.71 million in his bank accounts frozen by authorities here as part of investigations related to Malaysia state investor 1MDB.

Mr Yak had earlier applied to release the funds held in 12 bank accounts with DBS, CIMB, OCBC and Bank of China, to pay taxes and legal fees as well as for basic expenses.

However at the High Court on Friday morning, his lawyer, Roderick Martin of Martin & Partners, said that his client has sufficient funds in his foreign bank accounts to pay for his taxes and legal fees.

Mr Martin asked the Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng for assurance that the funds, amounting to around S$1.75 million in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), would not be seized if his client were to remit it back to Singapore for the payments.

DPP Tan said Mr Yak should have asked this before making the application, and save everyone's time.

The court documents filed by the DPP objecting to Mr Yak's earlier application, released on Friday morning, said that the banker had failed to disclose material facts relating to his available finances:

- After Mr Yak was put on unpaid leave in May 2015 while investigations were being conducted by his employer, BSI Bank, and prior to 12 of his accounts being seized in September 2015, he transferred a "staggering S$5.7 million to his foreign bank accounts".

- From October 2015 onwards, he had also arranged for his salary of some S$82,500 per month to be paid by way of cheques, and has been able to deposit his salary - more than S$330,000 - into accounts with Julius Baer and ICBC

- By Mr Yak's own evidence, he earned more than S$27 million in salary and bonuses over the past 4 years, with S$8 million due to him. On the other hand, the CAD has only frozen bank accounts with funds amounting to approximately S$9.71 million, "leaving a staggering S$9 million unaccounted for".



Straits Times had earlier reported that Yak would be charged today, but he was not. That the DPP had no knowledge of Yak's overseas accounts ,and that he would let Yak go without any consequences despite he having "failed to to disclose material facts relating to his available finances" raises questions about the Singapore Government's prosecution of this matter and the 1 MDB theft.The Government has its own successful record of prosecution of such matters to contend with should it find this accusation offensive. This record is well demonstrated by example of the cases against Gerald Fernandez and Fr Joachim Kang.As these reports show, the Government of Singapore is very thorough in its investigations, and has been known to initiate investigations even when the victims of the crimes in question are not aware of the injury:




The matter of Gerald Fernnandez,as related by former Attorney General Of Singapore.Francis Seow:


Shortly before I was due to leave the service, a Geoffrey Fernandez, the secretary and legal adviser to the Malaysian Singapore Airlines (MSA), a two-nation air carrier, whose head office and main operating station were based in Singapore, was brought back to Singapore, after lengthy extradition proceedings in England, charged with the offence of criminal breach of trust of a paltry sum of $5,000. His more heinous offence, which was carefully muted, was that he had translated national airline company politics into a dangerous game of international politics by pitting the two governments against one another. Banking heavily on his presumed friendship with Tungku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, the prime minister of Malaysia, Malaysian cabinet ministers, and other high Malaysian dignitaries, he had waged an indiscreet campaign of malignity against the prime minister himself and impugned the integrity of his bosom friend, the MSA’s chairman and now Chief Justice of Singapore, Yong Pung How. J.B. Jeyaretnam, now in private law practice, was retained as his legal counsel and saw me regarding bail for his client. My immediate reaction was that it was an impudent request. For, when he was released in Malaysia on a personal cognisance as a member of the Malaysian bar, he had jumped bail, skipped out of the country using his brother’s passport to boot, and fled to Ireland. While on an illadvised sojourn to England, he was arrested. The offence was ordinarily bailable, but, for the antecedents and the prime minister’s personal interest in the matter, it would take more than a manful judge to grant him bail. In all the circumstances, it was difficult to accede to such a request for bail unless there were compelling grounds.I perused the investigation papers, and noted that the case against him was not as strong as I had thought. It turned on a single witness whose evidence, if successfully impugned, would leave the prosecution without a leg to stand on.


He was jailed for 21 months and fined S$5,000 for corruptly receiving S$5,000 in order to show favour to insurance brokers Edward Lumley in connection with MSA affairs.




The matter of Fr Joachim Kang,best told in these three reports by The Straits Times





Priest loses bid to have frozen funds released.
By Elena Chong.
612 words
20 March 2004
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Limited



Catholic cleric accused of breach of trust wanted to use Malaysian bank account to fund defence

CATHOLIC priest Joachim Kang Hock Chai got a firm 'no' from the High Court yesterday when he asked for permission to take some funds from his Malaysian bank account to pay his legal costs and other expenses.

Kang, 55, through his team of lawyers, wanted to vary the undertaking he made last year not to dispose of his Malaysian assets, including shares and a Maybank account in Penang, when he was released on $1.2 million bail.

Kang, whose criminal breach of trust trial begins on Tuesday, said in his affidavit that he had borrowed money from his siblings to pay for his lawyers.

He had engaged a Queen's Counsel, whom he had paid £30,000 (S$93,000). However, he dropped the QC as he had exhausted his funds in England and couldn't find a buyer for a flat in London he owns. His bail money was raised by Catholic well-wishers.

Kang said he needed more money to finance his defence.

He had appealed to Archbishop Nicholas Chia for financial help to pay the legal and other expenses, but his request was turned down.

His lawyers, who estimated he needed about $500,000 for his defence, also failed to persuade the Attorney-General's Chambers last month to vary the undertaking.

The assets seized in Singapore and frozen in Malaysia are worth about $6.25 million. As his Maybank account in Penang has RM529,010 ($235,000), he wanted to change the terms so he could take out some money from the account to pay his legal costs.

Kang is accused of misappropriating $5.1 million in church funds over an eight-year period when he was parish priest of the Church of St Teresa. He is said to have made 19 fund transfers.

Yesterday, Mr N. Sreenivasan, together with Mr Peter Low and Mr Mark Goh, urged the court to grant the application, arguing that his client had reported faithfully every week to the Commercial Affairs Department for the past 11 months.

The variation, he said, formed a very small portion for a very specific purpose.

Objecting, Deputy Public Prosecutor Anandan Bala said Kang had failed to show that the funds in Maybank Penang were not linked to two transfers from the Church of St Teresa bank account.

He said Kang's mere assertion that the assets were more than the total amount of $5.1 million involved in the charges was not good enough grounds for him to ask for the order to be varied.

What Kang has to prove is that the amount in the Malaysian bank account is not connected to the two transfers, he added.

Justice Lai Kew Chai said once a solemn undertaking has been given in a court of law, an applicant cannot be allowed to change it to use the money, especially when he had his own flat in Britain.

'In my judgment, his Penang Maybank account amounting to RM529,000 belongs to the Catholic Church, and I am not prepared as a court of law to assist him to make use of the church's money to defend himself,' he said.

He added that Kang had not tendered any bank statements from his British accounts to prove that all his funds had been depleted as he claimed.

All this compelled him to conclude that Kang had his own assets which he could use to advance his own defence.

Dismissing the application, the judge said he had to 'presume the worst'.

SPH AsiaOne Ltd.

Document STIMES0020040319e03k0000i







Home
Father Kang described as a 'blazingly honest' witness
709 words
13 October 1989
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 1989 Singapore Press Holdings Limited



PM's libel suit against FEER - Day 13 --------------------------------------

QC ROBERTSON yesterday staunchly defended Father Joachim Kang's credibility as the only witness for the Review.

Describing the priest as "blazingly honest", he told the court that Father Kang's testimony showed that he had not rehearsed his testimony to the court.

The priest, to whom the first passage in the article complained of had been attributed, could well have memorised the words in that passage and come to court to "rattle off the words attributed to him".

"He did not do that. He gave honest opinion of what he can remember two year s after what he said at the meeting," said the QC.

Mr Robertson was taking the court through the evidence adduced during the trial to show that the first passage in the allegedly libellous article represented, in so far as it could be interpreted as a comment, a fair comment made by Father Kang on a matter of public interest.

The passage had former priest Edgar D'Souza quoting an unnamed priest as saying that it was hard not to believe that the Government had not attacked the Church and that its real targets were four priests and not the 16 ISA detainees.

These remarks were alleged to have been made on June 3, 1987, at a meeting o f priests one day after Mr Lee met a Catholic delegation at the Istana.

Mr Robertson said that, contrary to what Mr Lee claimed, the passage did not

quote the exact words of Father Kang but had merely paraphrased him.

So the words used were not necessarily those of Father Kang, and if the priest had gone on to the witness stand and claimed that the words were exactly his, then Mr Justice Thean would have reason to doubt Father Kang's honesty.

The QC maintained, however, that the words used in the passage came close an d were equivalent to those provided by Father Kang's testimony.

In particular, he noted that Father Kang did not use the word "attack" - a key word in the passage - in court, although the word "target" was mentioned.

But he asked: "What is a target for but to be shot at and attacked?"

Noting that Father Kang's evidence was not shaken under cross-examination by Mr Previte, he said: "In summary ... Father Kang emerged as a blazingly honest witness ... It was not really challenged."

Mr Robertson told the court that Father Kang recognised that he was being quoted in the article when he read it in December 1987 - six months after he made his comments, not two years later at the trial.

He maintained that the defence of fair comment did not require that the opinion must be accurate, only that it was based on true facts.

And the facts known to Father Kang and set out in the Review article atteste d to the fair-mindedness of the priest's opinion, he said.

Mr Robertson then turned to the question of confidentiality of the June 3 meeting, a point raised by Mr Previte in his cross-examination of Father Kang.

He reminded the court that Father Kang had said that the Archbishop had not enjoined any oath of secrecy of those present at the meeting and that confidentiality in this case was not a requirement in law.

He added that some of the four priests who were invited to hear what Mr Lee had said about them the day before had taken down notes at the meeting, and so the other priests should be allowed to tell their lawyers or other people about the meeting.

Claiming that Father Kang had no political motives and no connection with th e Catholic groups in which the 16 detainees were involved, he said the priest had repeatedly said in his testimony that, during and after the meeting, his main concern was the fate of the four priests and the Church.

This, the QC said, was the "first ushering in" and the nub and essence of th e comment reported in the first passage of the Review article complained of.

Father Kang, he added, had also affirmed that his opinion was honestly held.

SPH AsiaOne Ltd.







Priest pleads guilty.
By Chong Chee Kin.
649 words
15 April 2004
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Limited



Kang admits to transferring $5.1 million in church money for his own benefit and offers to pay back all the money taken

AN HOUR before the hearing began, Court No. 7 was packed to capacity.

About 50 mostly middle-aged men and women sat quietly in the court, unlike in the earlier days of the trial when some of Joachim Kang's former parishioners would sing hymns before the court was in session.

In the crowd were the familiar faces of court junkies who zero in on high-profile cases such as the Slim 10 lawsuit and the trial of TV presenter Shankar Aiyar for molesting a woman.

At 10am yesterday, on the 16th day of Kang's embezzlement trial, the Roman Catholic priest pleaded guilty to six counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT).

Kang, 55, the former parish priest of the Church of St Teresa, admitted being responsible for transferring $5.1 million from its funds to his personal bank account and using the money for his own benefit.

In a voice barely audible above the hum of the air-conditioner, he responded 'guilty' six times when district judge Jasvender Kaur asked how he pleaded to the charges.

With his head bowed and hands clasped in front of him, he also agreed that 13 other charges of CBT be taken into consideration in his sentencing.

As expected, the amended charges to which he pleaded guilty yesterday were less severe than those he faced initially. Each amended charge carries a maximum jail term of three years, whereas the maximum penalty for each of the original 19 charges was 10 years' jail.

Kang, now the parish priest of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Tampines, has offered to pay back all the money he misappropriated from the church and from former St Teresa's parishioner Emily Chan.

Ms Chan, 73, a retiree who used to be director of an investment company, had donated a total of $2.55 million to the Church of St Teresa over a period of five years.

If the Catholic Church takes disciplinary action against Kang, it is likely to be only after he serves his sentence.

In court yesterday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Daniel Koh said that Kang's defence team had made 'last-minute representations for the reduction of the charges'.

'After much plea bargaining, the Attorney-General's Chambers has agreed to reduce the charges,' he said, adding that the essence of the charges remained the same.

Revealing details of the Commercial Affairs Department's investigation, the DPP said Kang opened a personal savings account with a deposit of just under $25,000 in November 1989, around the time he was posted to the Church of St Teresa. By May last year, the balance had ballooned to $1.3 million.

In May 1994, he issued a cheque for $60,000 from the church's bank account to fruit hawker Chua Siang Hoe as partial payment for the purchase of his flat in Bishan. Kang and Mary, one of his six sisters, were the registered owners of the $395,000 flat.

Between September 1998 and September 2000, he made out four more cheques from the church account to his own, for sums totalling $2.4 million. 'These transfers... were done for his own benefit and not intended to benefit the Church of St Teresa or the Archdiocese of Singapore,' said the DPP.

Kang later used the money to buy two apartments in Teresa Ville and Fifth Avenue and four properties in Penang, Malaysia, and also invested in unit trusts.

After admitting his guilt yesterday, he was seen outside the courtroom speaking in hushed tones to Monsignor Eugene Vaz, vicar-general and next in the hierarchy after Archbishop Nicholas Chia, and Father Patrick Goh.

The court is due to hear Kang's mitigation plea next Monday.

SPH AsiaOne Ltd.


Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Singapore Government can no longer pretend that Najib Razak is not a person of interest : Singapore cannot say it does not know where US$530 million went to

by Ganesh Sahathevan


In an apparent attempt to be not embarrassed by even the Swiss (story below),the Singapore Government let it be known yesterday that it will start prosecuting persons involved in the 1 MDB matter. The Government owned and controlled Straits Times reported yesterday: 

The first name has emerged in an ongoing probe by Singapore authorities into bank accounts related to alleged financial mismanagement at Malaysian state investor 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Sources say he is Yak Yew Chee, a senior private banker with BSI Singapore, a Swiss bank. A check with the High Court shows that a criminal motion will be heard this Friday (Feb 5) at 10am.

He was the relationship manager for 1MDB Global Investments Ltd, Aabar Investment PJS Limited and SRC International Sdn Bhd and Low Taek Jho.

That the Government has described Mr Yak as relationship manager for 1MDB Global Investments Ltd, Aabar Investment PJS Limited and SRC International Sdn Bhd and Low Taek Jho.

is interesting given that these are all the main players in the 1 MDB scandal.
PM Najib who is also Minister for Finance is in effect chairman of  SRC International Bhd and the person ultimately responsible for 1MDB Global Investments Ltd. 1 MDB has a three-tiered system of governance and heading it all as chairman is, again, Najib Razak. 
That such large transactions could have taken place without his knowledge is inconceivable and one should not forget that the transactions that comprise these crimes total approximately US$ 4 billion, approximately half of 1 MDB's capital. 


To make matters worse for Singapore's leadership, the transactions in question involve the movement  of some US$ 530 million which seems to have gone missing:

In March, Malaysian authorities were told of $529 million said to have been deposited between 2011 and 2013 into a business bank account in Singapore controlled by Mr. Low.
Information about the deposits and Mr. Low’s ownership of the account was given in a letter dated March 13 this year from Singapore’s police to Malaysia’s central bank, a copy of which was reviewed by the Journal. Malaysia had asked Singapore, its neighbor and the financial hub of Southeast Asia, for help in its investigation into 1MDB, according to the letter. In the letter, the police’s Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office gave details of deposits into the business account from the Swiss bank account of a company called Good Star Ltd.

Clearly, Singapore's leadership would know what became of all that money.The answer seems so obvious that Singapore must now charge ALL involved, or declare them innocent.
END 






Falcon Bank in breach of US Non-Prosecution Agreement: Swiss AG says quantum of related transactions is USD 4 billion,while Singapore MOF,MAS, remain silent