Cowgate Shahrizat's Continuation Baffles The Politicios

Malaysia's UMNO Keeps a Scandal-Plagued Pol
Asia Sentinel

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak apparently is having considerable trouble persuading Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the minister for women, family and community development and the source of a controversy over alleged misuse of public funds, to quit the United Malays National Organization.

It was announced three weeks ago that Shahrizat, who also serves as the head of Wanita Umno, the women’s wing of the party, would step down from the ministry when her Senate* term ends on April 8 as a result of what has become known as the Cowgate scandal. Her husband, Mohamed Salleh Ismail, and other members of the family have been accused of misusing a major portion of a RM250 million soft loan from the government to establish the National Feedlot Corporation, to slaughter cattle under Islamic dietary rules.

Mohamed Salleh Ismail has been charged with criminal breach of trust and violating the Companies Act in relation to allegations of misuse of RM49 million of the funds given to the company. According to a report by Malaysia’s Auditor General, the money was steered into the purchase of things that had nothing to do with the project to slaughter 60,000 cattle annually. The Auditor General found that the project had never come remotely close to meeting its goals. Subsequent allegations have involved the purchase of condominiums in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, travel for the family, a Mercedes-Benz sedan for Shahrizat and other items.

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad reportedly has repeatedly told party leaders Shahrizat must go, party insiders say, and her main protector, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, is also said to be backing away from supporting her.

“Dr M wants her out and his people have told me so,” a source told Asia Sentinel. “So does Muhyiddin who is distancing himself from her. So she is quite alone.”

However, political bloggers in Kuala Lumpur say Shahrizat apparently has demanded successfully that she stay as a member of parliament, and to keep her job as head of Wanita as well.

“It’s common knowledge that the PM doesn’t dare sacrifice Shahrizat or hold her accountable or even ask her to quit her Wanita post because he doesn’t dare take the chance of a revolt within Wanita Umno so close to the elections,” the source said. “Knowing Malaysian and Malay politics, I can see his dilemma.”

Shahrizat, the source continued, remains popular with the women’s wing of the party “and Wanita Umno are the biggest vote getters for Umno and Barisan Nasional. During campaigning, they are very effective, going house-to-house, using the soft touch to win hearts, giving away sarongs and gifts and so on. It’s easier for a woman to enter an opposition stronghold than for men and that’s where Wanita Umno’s usefulness is to Umno and the Barisan.”

Despite the fallout over the National Feedlot scandal, the current administration has tried to distance Shahrizat from the NFC, saying she was wasn’t involved with what her husband and children were doing. Read more.

Shahrizat Coming Home To Roost

Hantu Laut

Shahrizat sacrificed herself says the PM. She should have in the first instance when the scandal was exposed to the public tendered her resignation voluntarily.

She rejected the clarion call for her to step down gracefully.She ignored ignominious public opinion against her. Sad to say a little too late, the damage is done, her resignation has lost its value.

Though the PM tried to save her the embarrassment and soften the blow to her pride, it's obvious she was under pressure to resign.As they say pride comes before a fall.

UMNO leaders should discard their politics of arrogant if they want to win the coming election.

Najib should also drop half of his cabinet ministers from contesting the elections.I will not name who are the deadwoods as the PM should himself know who they are.

Story here.

Is The Police Competent In Reading The Law?

Hantu Laut

The NFC debacle, is it morally wrong or criminally wrong?

As usual, Malaysian media only give a half full cup for the public to drink.Of course, if you don't ask the right questions you wouldn't get the right answers.

Like the smart reporter asking Wan Azizah whether she has Anwar's Omega watch which Azizah replied in the affirmative and next was her most terrifyingly stupid request "cuba tunjuk".No one in their right sense would think Azizah would be carrying the watch everwhere she goes, only that embarrassingly stupid reporter.

I have in my previous posts explicitly mentioned that Shahrizat should resign her ministerial position out of moral obligations.

Is the police competent in reading the law? Are they under public pressure to indict the directors of NFC or they do have a watertight case aginst them?

What is criminal breach of trust?

Section 405 of the Penal Code (Act 574) stated that:

405.Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property either solely or jointly with any other person dishonestly misappropriates, or converts to his own use, that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

The punishments under the law came under Section 406 to 409:

406. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and not more than ten years and with whipping, and shall also be liable to fine.

As always Mat Zain is all pumped up to grind his axe against the AG. He may be wrong here when he asserted Section 409 is the charge applicable to the directors of NFC.Unless, they are considered civil servants or agents the charge should be under Section 406.If the case is thrown out there would be many poison arrows flying toward the AG.

Section 409 below:

409. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, in his capacity of a public servant or an agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years and not more than twenty years and with whipping, and shall also be liable to fine.

If they are considered as civil servants, which I doubt, or as agents which is possible than Mat Zain may be right in his assumption.

Needless to say, the directors of NFC had strayed away from the main objective of the soft loan given to them.The lack of due diligence by all parties concerned may be the cause of this debacle.In the first place the loan should not have been given to a non-GLC entity.Soft loan of this nature should only be approved to GLCs, where the government has complete control over the company.

Having not seen the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the books of NFC it would be unwise to speculate.

Only the AG can determine whether there is watertight case against the directors of NFC.

NFC Directors Laughing All The Way To The Bank

Hantu Laut





No personal guarantee!

The giver of the loan should now carry the burden of responsibility to the taxpayers.If this isn't abuse of the first order what would you call it? It's not the recipient fault if the government acted so stupidly.Those involved in giving out the loan should also be investigated.

It is now clear why the money was used for what it is not intended for.This soft loan is softer than soft, abnormally low interest rate, no collateral, no director's personal guarantee, it is as good as giving the money away for free.

"The loan agreement has been signed. If we don’t pay back, we will be declared bankrupt or locked up in jail. We will pay every sen plus interest. The question of misappropriation does not arise,” said Wan Shahinur Izmir, who is minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s son.

Come on man! Who are you kidding? How is the government going to sue you personally for recovery of the loan if you did not sign personal guarantee?

My company had borrowed tens of millions before from banks and all directors were made to sign "Joint and Several Guarantee" in spite of more than sufficient securities given to the banks.

If the company folded and can't pay up the loans and there happen to be diminution in the value of the securities, the directors are fully liable for the amount including all interests and if they failed to make good the banks would declare every director a bankrupt.

The government, probably, can charge the directors for CBT (Criminal Breach of Trust), which, sometimes, is difficult to prove in a mismanagement.

Misappropriation is a crime, mismanagement is not.Buying properties under the company's name for investment or even to house working directors is also not a crime, it becomes a crime only if they are in your personal name using company's fund to purchase.It would also not be a crime if the company gave you a housing loan duly approved by the BOD (Board of Directors).

You see, whichever way the government is going to be the biggest loser if the project failed.

Read the full story here.