Low Taek Jho and an official from 1MDB had hired Goldman Sachs Group to underwrite the US$1.75 billion bond offering.
SINGAPORE: In a private dining room at Singapore's Taste Paradise restaurant, over a meal of abalone and suckling pig, two Goldman Sachs Group Inc bankers were explaining a US$1.75 billion bond offering to six executives of a Swiss bank.
It was early 2012, and joining Goldman bankers Roger Ng and Tim Leissner that day were a young Malaysian financier named Low Taek Jho and an official from state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd, known as 1MDB, which had hired the New York bank to underwrite the bond sale.
Now, people familiar with the matter say, investigators from Singapore to the United States are looking more closely at the roles of Mr Ng and Mr Leissner, who have both left Goldman. And they're asking what happened in that private
dining room named after the first emperor of a unified China, Qin Shi Huang.
In particular, they're examining how US$577 million in proceeds from a bond sale that May ended up a day later in an account at BSI SA in Switzerland - the same bank whose executives were at the Taste Paradise.
The lunch, previously unreported, brought together the key parties in
what has become the biggest financial scandal in Malaysia's history,
involving the alleged misappropriation of US$4.5 billion of 1MDB funds.
It was the culmination of numerous conversations as BSI bankers and
compliance officials sought clarity on the deal.
The BSI account belonged to a British Virgin Islands entity known as
Aabar Investments PJS Ltd., which US court documents say was used to
siphon off about US$1.4 billion from two 2012 bond sales, including the
offering discussed at the lunch.
The man who led BSI bank into the abyss
Mr Leissner, Goldman's former chairman of South-east Asia and lead
banker for three 1MDB bond sales, is now barred from the world of
finance in Singapore and the US.
Prosecutors in Malaysia and Singapore are turning their attention to
Mr Ng, Mr Leissner's junior, who introduced several parties central to
the scandal, the people said. Malaysian authorities are said to be
preparing a warrant for Mr Ng's arrest, people familiar with the matter
said earlier this month.
Mr Ng couldn't be reached for comment. A lawyer for Mr Leissner, Mr
Marc Harris, declined to comment, as did Mr Edward Naylor, a Hong
Kong-based spokesman for Goldman Sachs, and an official at EFG
International AG, which acquired BSI in 2016. A representative for Mr
Low did not reply to emails.
Recouping fees
The 1MDB investigation has quickened since Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad returned to power in May. Tun Dr Mahathir has called
former premier Najib Razak, who set up the fund in 2009, a thief and
made resolving the case one of his priorities. Several arrest warrants -
including one for Mr Low, described by prosecutors as a key figure in
the plot - have already been issued.
Dr Mahathir said in a June 22 Bloomberg Television interview that
Malaysia is also seeking to recoup some of the almost US$600 million in
fees Goldman made from the three deals, which were arranged by the
bank's London-based unit.
"What we earned from the debt transactions reflected the risks we
assumed at the time, specifically movement in credit spreads tied to the
specific bonds, hedging costs and underlying market conditions," Mr
Naylor, the Goldman spokesman, said last week in response to Dr
Mahathir's comments.
Datuk Seri Najib has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and called the probe "political revenge."
Genteel banker
Mr Ng, a well-connected Malaysian banker, joined Goldman in 2005 from
Deutsche Bank AG, where he won mandates for several bond deals. He
provided an introduction to lawmakers in the state of Terengganu, which
in 2009 hired Goldman to advise it on the creation of the Terengganu
Investment Authority (TIA), the people said.
Mr Ng was promoted to managing director that year. At TIA, which
eventually became 1MDB, Mr Ng crossed paths with Mr Low, a Malaysian
dealmaker and adviser to the fund.
As Goldman won deals from 1MDB, Mr Ng and Mr Leissner forged a
friendship, which extended to their wives, according to the people.
Investigators are now also looking at a transfer shortly after the May
2012 bond sale of US$17.5 million to Mr Ng's wife, Malaysian lawyer Lim
Hwee Bin, from Mr Leissner's former wife Judy Chan, who runs a vineyard
in China, the people said. Ms Lim and Ms Chan did not reply to emails
and phone calls.
Mr Ng is described by those who know him as the antithesis of a Wall
Street investment banker - genteel, valuing personal ties and averse to
asking hard questions. He was content letting his boss champion the 1MDB
deals. Mr Leissner, who arrived late at the 2012 lunch and left early
to catch a flight, made most of the presentation, leaving Mr Ng and Mr
Low to fill in the gaps, according to the people familiar with the
meeting.
While Mr Ng played an important role facilitating the US$1.75 billion
bond deal, dubbed Project Magnolia, he wasn't involved in the two other
bonds Goldman underwrote for 1MDB, the people said. Mr Ng left the bank
in 2014, a few months before the missing 1MDB funds became public.
Now managing director for Asia at energy-drinks company Celsius
Holdings Inc, where Mr Leissner and his current wife Kimora Lee are both
investors, Mr Ng has been barred from travelling by the Malaysian
Anti-Corruption Commission, the people said.
He and his wife live in a gated community in Damansara Heights in
Kuala Lumpur, where houses sell for RM5 million (S$1.7 million) to RM25
million.
Mr Ng joined Boca Raton, Florida-based Celsius in 2016, the same year
Mr Leissner became co-chairman of the board. Mr Leissner resigned in
May 2017, though he remains one of Celsius' largest shareholders. Hong
Kong billionaire Li Ka Shing and Mr Russell Simmons, the former husband
of Mr Leissner's current wife, are also investors.
Ms Megan Bell, a spokesman for Celsius, declined to comment.
Politicians should not be appointed to run government-linked
companies (GLCs) to keep graft in check, said Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission Advisory Board Chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim.He
said politicians holding GLC positions might face conflicts of interest,
leading to abuse of power and responsibility.
ABOUT a month before Malaysia’s parliamentary election in May,
then-opposition leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad raised concerns over the
role that government-linked companies (GLCs) were playing in the
economy, being “huge and rich” enough to be considered “monsters”.
Data support his description – GLCs account for about half of the
benchmark Kuala Lumpur Composite Index, and they constitute seven out of
the top-10 listed firms in 2018. They are present in almost every
sector, sometimes in a towering way. Globally, Malaysia ranks
fifth-highest in terms of GLC influence on the economy.
Calls to do something about GLCs have increased since the election
following the release of more damning information, although most of it
relates to the GLCs’ investment arm: government-linked investment
companies (GLICs).
Some experts have proposed the formation of an independent body with
operational oversight for GLICs, after institutional autonomy is
established and internal managerial reforms are introduced. Unlike most
GLCs, GLICs are not publicly listed and face little scrutiny. The same
applies to the various funds at the constituent state level, which need
to be looked at too.
For GLCs, the answer is less straightforward. PM Tun Mahathir claims
that GLCs have lost track of their original function. Before the
Malaysian government decides on what to do, it needs to examine the role
GLCs should play – as opposed to the role they currently play – and to
examine their impact on the economy.
In Malaysia, GLCs were uniquely tasked to assist in the government’s
affirmative action program to improve the absolute and relative position
of bumiputras. The intention was to help create a new class of
bumiputra entrepreneurs – first through the GLCs themselves, and then
through a process of divestment.
Given the amounts of money involved and the cost of the distortions
introduced, the benefits to bumiputra were unjustifiably small and
unequally distributed. The approach of using GLCs as instruments of
affirmative action failed because it led to a rise in state dependence,
widespread complacency and even corruption, as Tun Mahathir himself
recognised in his memoirs, A Doctor in the House, and again more
recently. There is also empirical evidence that GLCs have been crowding
out private investment, a concern raised in the New Economic Model as
early as 2011.
Additionally, the new government has correctly highlighted the need to
include certain off-balance-sheet items and contingent liabilities, such
as government guarantees and public-private partnership lease payments,
in any complete assessment of debt outstanding. The use of offshoot
companies and special purpose vehicles (SPVs) in the deliberate
reconfiguration of certain obligations mean that traditional debt
calculations underestimate Malaysia’s actual debt.
All these factors combine to place new impetus on reconsidering the
extent of government involvement in business. Divestment will not solve
Malaysia’s debt problem, but it can help if there are good reasons to
pursue it. So how should the government proceed?
It is important to recognise at the outset, that there is a legitimate
role for government in business – providing public goods, addressing
market failures or promoting social advancement. And like in most other
countries, there are good and bad GLCs in Malaysia. If a GLC is not
crowding out private enterprise, operates efficiently and performs a
social function effectively, then there is no reason to consider
divestment. But a GLC that crowds out private investment in a sector
with no public or social function, or one that is inefficiently run,
should be a candidate for divestment. In this regard, one has to
carefully study why GLCs should be present in retail, construction or
property development, for instance.
In assessing performance, one needs to separate results that arise from
true efficiency, versus preferential treatment that generates artificial
rent for the GLC. The latter is a drain on public resources and a tax
on consumers. Divestment in this case, will likely provide more than a
one-off financial injection to government coffers – it will provide
ongoing benefits through fiscal savings or better allocation of public
resources.
The divestment process should be carefully managed to ensure that public
assets are disposed at fair market value, and does not concentrate
market power or wealth in the hands of a few. This has allegedly
happened with privatisation efforts in the past.
The new government has committed itself to addressing corruption and
improving the management of public resources. As part of this process,
one must re-examine just how much government is involved in business.
This is one of the many tasks that the Council of Eminent Persons is
undertaking in the first 100 days of the new government.
To be done correctly, would require a careful study of GLCs and their
impacts. This could then rejuvenate the private sector while enabling
good GLCs to thrive, and fortify Malaysia’s fiscal position in the
process. This is what Malaysians should expect – and indeed demand – of
the “New Malaysia”.
Jayant Menon is Lead Economist in the Economic Research and Regional
Cooperation Department at the Asian Development Bank. This is an
abridged version of an item that first appeared on the East Asia Forum.
Related articles
On the rise: A man walks past the Employees
Provident Fund headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. Remuneration of GLC chiefs,
senior management and directors have been on the uptrend following a
transformation initiative to make them more competitive commercially.
Overpaid CEOs and social duties of GLCs set for review
The new government has clearly said that there is a need to review the role of GLCs and the remuneration paid out to their top executives
A GLANCE at one of the annual reports of the country’s government-linked companies (GLCs) reveals that its chief human resource officer earned close to a million ringgit or about RM80,000 per month, last year.
Other senior personnel were also compensated with generous remuneration, with its chief executive taking home over one and the half million ringgit in financial year 2017.
More importantly, this was at a company that had courted much controversy in recent times over allegations of mismanagement and under-performance.
Such a scenario, however, is not uncommon at GLCs, where remuneration of key executives tend to run in the millions but performances sometimes leave much to be desired.
By definition, GLCs are companies where the government has a direct majority stake via their entities such as Khazanah Nasional, Employees Provident Fund, Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), the Armed Forces Fund (Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera) and the Pilgrims Fund (Lembaga Tabung Haji).
In recent years, remuneration of GLC chiefs, senior management and its directors have been on the uptrend following a transformation initiative to make them more competitive commercially.
The thinking behind this is that in order to attract talent – subjective as the definition of that may be – top dollar should be paid.
Some, however, argue that GLCs should in fact prioritise national service a little more.
Universiti Malaya’s Faculty of Economics and Administration professor of political economy Edmund Terence Gomez says GLCs have social obligations.
“What this essentially means is that GLCs cannot operate in a purely commercial manner as they also have to look at the social dimension,” he says. “The GLC professionals have many times articulated that they are doing national service. Going on that alone, one can argue that they shouldn’t be paid private sector salaries,” Terence adds.
And so it is now, there is a disquiet building up among GLCs following the change in government.
The new government has clearly said that there is a need to review the role of GLCs and the remuneration paid out to their top executives and senior management.
In this regard, the Pakatan Harapan government is understood to be mulling over making drastic changes in the appointment and remuneration of key directors at GLCs which include government agencies.
It was reported recently that the Council of Eminent Persons, headed by Tun Daim Zainuddin, who was Finance Minister in the 1980s, has requested details of the salaries of some of the top executives at GLCs as part of the review.
Already, there have been a couple of GLC chief executives who have left and more of this is expected to materialise over the coming weeks.
“It appears to be a purge of Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop’s boys,” quips an industry observer, referring to the veteran politician who was instrumental in the revamp and transformation of Khazanah which started in 2005 and subsequently, driving the GLC transformation initiative.
UM’s Terence says if the new government is to appoint new individuals, it must ensure that the process is transparent.
“If you are removing these people, who are you replacing them with? More importantly how are you selecting these people?
He adds there needs to be a transparent mechanism in the appointment of this new breed of professionals that will be brought in and what must also be looked into is the kind of check and balances being put in place to ensure governance.
“There should be a debate on these things,” he says.
Economist Yeah Kim Leng believes that a review is timely and appropriate as part of a deeper institutional and structural reform.
“The broad aims are firstly, to reduce excessive payoffs which don’t commensurate with performance and secondly, to address the widening wage and benefits gap between the top and bottom rungs of the organisation,” he says.
Such rationalisation will result in a more equitable salary structure as well as raise the generally depressed wages of middle management and support staff which form the largest number of most organisations, Yeah adds.
Unfair advantage
The role of a head honcho, be it at a GLC or non-GLC, is seldom a walk in the park.
CEOs make critical operational decisions that affect everything from future business directions to the health of a company’s balance sheet and employee morale.
The job generally entails long hours and tremendous pressure to meet expectations of shareholders and stakeholders.
But again, while local GLCs have been key drivers of the economy, one key feature is that they are ultimately owned by the government.
This, some argue, give GLCs unfair advantages such as access to cheap funding and political patronage over their private counterparts.
So, is running a GLC more of a stewardship role as opposed to an entrepreneurship role?
Therein lies the issue that in turn will have a bearing on the remuneration levels of GLC heads.
Minority Shareholders Watch Group (MSWG) chief executive office Devanesan Evanson puts it this way.
“Entrepreneurs have their skin in the game in that there are often the major or substantial shareholder in a company.
“It is in their direct interest to perform as this will be translated into share price appreciation which will impact the value of their shareholdings – this is motivation to grow the entrepreneurial spirit,” he says.
On the other hand, GLC heads do not have their skin in the game save for their limited shareholding through ESOS or share grant schemes.
“If a GLC loses money, the impact on them is limited. They may be prepared to take perverse risks as the eventual loser is the government-linked investment companies or GLICs (and the minority shareholders of the GLC), which eventually are the people who are the members or subscribers of the GLICs.
“In that way, we are not comparing apple to apple and yet, we need talent to run GLCs.
“So we can conclude that, we need to pay for talent at GLCs but it should not be as much compared to what one would pay the CEO of a firm which he started,” Devanesan says, noting that remuneration of some of the GLC heads have risen too fast in recent years.
Rising remuneration is a given, others say, as the government had recruited top talent from the private sector to helm these companies.
A case in point is Axiata Group Bhd, which has done relatively well with the infusion of the “entrepreneurial spirit” under the helm of president and group CEO Tan Sri Jamaludin Ibrahim, who has helmed the Khazanah-owned telco since 2008, they point out.
Prior to that, Jamaludin was with rival Maxis Communications Bhd, a private company controlled by tycoon Ananda Krishnan.
Other GLCs which have performed consistently over recent years include banks like Malayan Banking Bhd
and CIMB Group Holdings Bhd which have expanded their operations out of Malaysia, carving a brand name for themselves regionally.
Under a 10-year transformation programme for GLCs initiated in 2005, companies were given quantitative and qualitative targets to meet as measured by key performance indicators.
Now, the 20 biggest GLCs currently make up about 40% of the local stock market’s market capitalisation.
One of the principles under the programme was also the national development agenda, which emphasised the principle of equal growth and development of the bumiputra community with the non-bumiputras.
Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI) Centre of Public Policy Studies chairperson Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam says the purpose of establishing GLCs to encourage bumiputras to participate in business has largely been fulfilled.
“Now that the bumiputras are on a strong footing in the corporate sector with able leaders who have wide experience, it (GLCs) could be seen as an erosion to the welfare and progress of the smaller and medium-sized industries, particularly those where other bumiputras are involved,” Ramon says.
Having said that, he says although many GLCs are doing well, they have performed well “mainly because of protective policies and monopolistic practices”.
“The time has come in this new Malaysian era for more competition and less protection.”
Benchmarking
Still, if simplistic comparisons are to be made, the CEOs of the country’s two largest GLC banks, Maybank and CIMB for instance, took home less than the CEO of the country’s third largest bank, the non-GLC Public Bank Bhd
last year.
In 2017, Public Bank’s managing director Tan Sri Tay Ah Lek took home some RM27.8mil in total remuneration while Maybank’s Datuk Abdul Farid Alias earned RM10.11mil and CIMB’s Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz made RM9.86mil.
Across the causeway, a survey of CEO remuneration of Singapore-listed companies by one financial portal shows that Singaporean GLC CEOs earned 31% more than their non-GLC counterparts in 2017.
Singapore’s Temasek Holdings-owned DBS Bank, which is Singapore’s largest bank, paid out S$10.3mil (RM30.36mil) to its head honcho, while in the telecommunication sector, SingTel’s remuneration to its top executive was some S$6.56mil (RM19.34mil) for the most recently concluded financial year.
By definition, Singapore GLCs are those which are 15% or more owned by the city-state’s investment arm Temasek Holdings.
UM’s Terence does not think Singapore should be a benchmark for Malaysian companies.
“Singapore is a much smaller country and the manner in which they operate in is also different ... their GLCs are deeply conditioned by their holding company, which is the Minister of Finance Incorporated,” he says.
MSWG’s Devanesan notes that determining remuneration is “not exactly science” as there are many parameters to be considered.
Some of the factors to note include whether the companies are in a monopolistic or near monopolistic position and the performance of the GLC heads over the years.
“Based on these parameters, we can instinctively know if a GLC head is over-remunerated,” he says. Over in China, state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the country’s largest lender by assets, paid out about 63.43 yuan or about RM39mil in total remuneration before tax for the year 2017 to its top executive.
Notably, the Beijing-based ICBC’s net profit’s was at a whopping US$45.6bil (RM182bil) in 2017.
Sources: Gurmeet Kaur and Yvonne Tan The Star
GLC singers sing a different tune
Some officials singing 'Hebat Negaraku'.
Swan song for some after 'Hebat Negaraku' post-GE14 - CEO think video to showcase musical talents
Several heads of government-linked companies (GLCs) have come together
in a heartwarming music video titled "Hebat Negaraku" (my country is
great).
The heads of government linked companies (GLC) who sang a song that later became the theme song for the Barisan Nasional’s election campaign have distanced themselves from the controversial music video.
Those who sang and played musical instruments in the music video titled “Hebat Negaraku” (my country is great) said they did not know the video or the song was going to be a political theme song.
There have been repercussions on the CEOs who appeared in the music video. They have come under scrutiny for making a song that was used as propaganda by Barisan in the last general election.
Three of the GLC bosses in the video have either retired or resigned since the new government took over.
Several more have been speculated to leave in the coming weeks or months but nothing is cast in stone. Sources said this is because most of the CEOs are not known to have campaigned openly for either Barisan or Pakatan Harapan.
“None of the CEOs had a clue it would become a political song. Do you really think the CEOs would have done it if they knew it would become political?” asked one of the CEOs who appeared in the video but declined to be named.
“We have said no to so many things, and we could have easily have said no to this if it was political.’’
Another CEO said he was approached and felt it was “more of a patriotic song and nothing more.”
“At that point in time, we did not think much (of the repercussions). Hebat Negaraku was announced as Barisan’s campaign theme long after the recording was made. We did not know that.’’
Another CEO added: “We thought it was a casual thing when we were approached as some of the CEOs have their own band.’’
It all started when several CEOs were called to be part of a music video and they thought it was to showcase the musical talents of 14 GLCs heads, plus staff members of the 20 key GLCs.
The song is about the greatness, advancement and inspiration of Malaysia. It was released on YouTube on March 22 but has since been taken down.
But fingers have been pointed at the GLCs bosses who made the music video because it became a political video.
Datuk Seri Shazalli Ramly has been said to be the main orchestrator for the group in terms of making the music video. He was also said to be the branding chief for Barisan’s elections campaign.
Barisan lost the elections held on May 9 to Pakatan, which has since formed a new government and is scrutinising all the performance, processes, remuneration and procurement of the government and GLCs.
Shazalli quit his job as group CEO of Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TM) on June 6. Malaysian Resources Corp
Bhd (MRCB) group managing director Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Fateh Din has retired as group MD last week and it was something he had planned to do. Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd
Datuk Badlisham Ghazali did not get his contract renewed. All three were in the music video.
There is a GLC secretariat that now comes under the purview of TM, which was earlier parked under Khazanah Nasional Bhd. The secretariat organised the making of the music video, according to sources. The CEOs were called to attend a session and within a few hours it was all done with no prior rehearsals.
“When you are called, it could be difficult not to comply since it is the secretariat that called you. We have to oblige but we really did not know it was going to be a campaign slogan. This is really unfortunate that it has turned out like this.
“We were surprised when we found out it was a party slogan but it had already been done and what can we do, we are in the picture,’’ said another CEO.
Not all CEOs who were invited took part in the video. Prior engagements were the reason used for declining to appear. - By b.k. Sidhu The Star
‘Enough with being yes men’ - MACC chiefs warns top civil servants against brown-nosing
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has warned civil servants to stop the culture of bodek-bodeking (brown-nosing) in the public service.
Directors-general and heads of department must stop being “yes men” to ministers and deputy ministers, Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Mohd Shukri Abdull (pic) said.
“Do your own work and don’t interfere in the tasks of others. In fact, civil servants should consider this a warning – from now on, stop with the bodek-bodeking culture.
“By right, ministers have no authority on projects, they can only create policies. That is why the directors-general and heads of department must be brave enough to say no.
“Do not be ministers’ crutches or their yes men. It does not matter if we get kicked around as long as we are doing the right thing,” he told Sinar Harian.
He said that the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judiciary should be abided by, and boundaries of authority should be clear at each level.
“Do not ever breach the boundaries of another person’s job scope.
“That can cause chaos,” Mohd Shukri said.
He also said heads of department, especially those in enforcement divisions, must give clear and accurate advice to ministers, deputy ministers and other policymakers.
“Only say yes if you know it’s true, don’t just say yes, yes, yes although the matter may be untrue. You must be brave,” he said, adding that they should refer to the MACC if they were unclear about instructions.
Mohd Shukri also called on directors-general and heads of department to be bold enough to give the right advice as demanded by their rank.
“If you are not brave enough to say no to something that is not right, then it’s better to not hold that position in the first place,” he said.
He suggested the Government appreciate those who have served with integrity and not the kaki bodek (apple polishers), saying the latter group was ruining the country’s system.
“Get angry at me if you want, I am speaking the truth and the truth hurts but it’s worth it.
“Look at the situation now. When misdeeds are exposed, who wants to help? No one. Only we can help ourselves,” he said.- The Star
Wan Azizah to civil servants: Serve govt of the day or else ...
Concerned Ministers: (from left) Rina, Dr Wan
Azizah and Dr Maszlee speaking to the media during a press conference
after chairing the national Children’s Well-being Roadmap meeting in
Putrajaya. — Bernama
Civil servants must serve the government of the day and not obstruct the workings of the new administration, says Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.
“It has come to my attention that a small number of civil servants are not supporting, but obstructing, the Pakatan Harapan government.
“This is a warning to those doing so that we expect professionalism from our civil service and for them to serve the government of the day,” she said in a press statement after chairing a meeting for a national Children’s Well-being Roadmap in Putrajaya yesterday.
Her warning follows concerns raised by Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad earlier this month over the loyalty of civil servants who campaigned for Barisan Nasional during GE14.
On the Children’s Well-being Roadmap, Dr Wan Azizah, who is also Women, Family and Community Development Minister, said that more input was needed from stakeholders to develop strategies and programmes to address pressing issues affecting children.
She highlighted the need to develop a more integrated and coherent approach when dealing with children with growth deficiencies.
“We do not want a piecemeal approach to this,” she said.
Dr Wan Azizah said the roadmap would also cover marginalised, stateless and refugee children along with children who are victims of sexual abuse.
“This inter-ministerial meeting was called to create coordination as well as an expression of political will and our determination to get to the bottom of these problems.
“We can’t claim to be a caring society if we ignore and neglect those who are most in need of care,” she added.
Present at the meeting were Health Minister Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Education Minister Dr Maszlee Malik, Rural Development Minister Rina Mohd Harun, representatives from the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) and Home Ministry secretary-general Datuk Seri Alwi Ibrahim. - The Star
Every bit of money that was borrowed by 1MDB had Najib's signature, says PM
It is impossible for Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak not to know of transactions related to 1MDB when his signature was on the documents, says Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
The Prime Minister said he could not believe his predecessor’s claim that he knew nothing about money from the state fund ending up in his personal account.
“Who wants to believe him (that he didn’t know), when he signed (his name)?
“Every bit of money that goes in and out of the first borrowing of RM42bil, all (had) his signature,” said Dr Mahathir.
The amount refers to the total debt accumulated by 1MDB, a fund which was, in fact, founded by Najib in 2009.
“If he doesn’t know, it must be that he doesn’t understand what a signature means,” Dr Mahathir was quoted as saying in an interview with the Malay Mail yesterday.
Dr Mahathir described as “ludicrous” for someone to direct RM2bil to be transferred into his account, while refusing to be informed of the transaction.
“This cannot be. Because I have to sign to use the money.
“To use the money, I have to issue cheques. Najib always assumes that people are stupid,” Dr Mahathir added.
It was previously reported that about US$700mil (RM2bil) was allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB into Najib’s personal account.
In a Reuters report on Wednesday, Najib blamed his advisers and the 1MDB board for keeping the alleged embezzlement information from him.
He said he did not know if hundreds of millions of dollars that moved through his personal account was from 1MDB, and if money from the fund was eventually laundered to acquire assets globally, including yachts, paintings, gems and prime real estate.
To this, Dr Mahathir said the Government had all the information on Najib’s alleged involvement in moving the 1MDB money, and that it knew how much money had gone into Najib’s account.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister disclosed that the authorities had “an almost perfect case” against Najib for embezzlement, misappropriation of funds and bribery.
1MDB had fallen RM42bil in debt since its inception in 2009, and Dr Mahathir had been at the forefront raising questions on it over the past three years. -The Star
Najib: If I was informed about the troubles the fund was in, I would have acted
He does, though, have explanations for the vast sums of cash, luxury handbags and jewellery recently seized from his homes by the Malaysian authorities.
Speaking to Reuters in his first sit-down interview since his shock May 9 election defeat, Najib said his advisors and the management and board of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), had wrongly kept the alleged embezzlement of funds a secret from him.
Newly-elected Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad told Reuters on Tuesday that the authorities have “an almost perfect case” against Najib on charges of embezzlement, misappropriation and bribery linked to 1MDB.
Najib, in some of his most extensive comments yet on the 1MDB scandal, said he did not know if hundreds of millions of dollars that moved through his personal account was from 1MDB, and if money from the fund was eventually laundered to acquire assets globally, including yachts, paintings, gems and prime real estate.
“I’m not party to the yacht, the paintings...I’ve never seen those paintings whatsoever,” said Najib.
“I was not aware of these purchases. This was done without my knowledge. I would never authorise 1MDB funds to be used for any of these items. I’ve been in government so long, I know what’s right and what’s wrong,” Najib said in the interview held at a luxurious sea-facing private villa in a five-star hotel on Pulau Langkawi.
He blamed 1MDB’s board, saying it was incumbent upon them to tell him if something was wrong.
Relaxing in a black T-shirt and brown pants, Najib said he was enjoying golf, food, and time with his family.
The family booked the villa to celebrate Hari Raya holidays together. Najib’s children, including stepson Riza Aziz, a Hollywood film producer, were with him for the week, his aides told Reuters.
Malaysian investigators looking into 1MDB say they believe that Najib and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor have amassed vast amounts of wealth and property using funds from the state fund.
Rosmah briefly appeared at the interview but Najib said she would not take questions.
Nearly 300 boxes of designer handbags and dozens of bags filled with cash and jewellery were among the items taken away by police in raids at properties linked to Najib’s family.
Items included Birkin handbags from the luxury goods maker Hermes, each worth up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Najib said the public seizure of handbags and other luxury items created a negative perception but most were gifts given to his wife and daughter and had nothing to do with 1MDB.
“Yes these were gifts, particularly with my daughter’s they were tagged, they were actually labelled: when, by whom,” adding that a lot of them were wedding presents.
Najib said his son-in-law Daniyar Nazarbayev, the nephew of Kazakstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev, also gifted many of the handbags to Rosmah.
“People might find it hard to understand, but my son-in-law for example, he gets Birkin from his source, five or six at one go,” he said.
“His family has got some means, so it has nothing to do with 1MDB if it comes from Kazakhstan.”
US prosecutors have alleged that more than US$4.5bil (RM18.02bil) of 1MDB funds were laundered through a complex web of transactions and shell companies. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed several lawsuits to claim about US$1.7bil (RM6.8bil) in assets believed to have been stolen from 1MDB.
Some of the assets sought include a Picasso painting, luxury real estate in South California and New York, shares in a Hollywood production company and a US$265mil (RM1.06bil) yacht, and more than US$200mil (RM800.9mil) worth of jewellery – including a 22-carat pink diamond pendant and necklace.
Najib said this jewellery set was also meant to be a gift for his wife but she never received it.
“And until today we do not know...she says the item is not in her possession,” Najib said.
In the interview, Najib for the first time also spoke at length about Low Taek Jho, a Malaysian financier better known as Jho Low.
US and Malaysian investigators have named Low as a key figure who benefited from 1MDB funds.
Najib said he felt that Low’s connections in the Middle East, particularly with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, could be helpful in pulling in more investment to Malaysia from those places.
But he said he had never instructed Low to get involved in 1MDB, and had no control over what he did.
“I didn’t give him instructions, but he volunteered to do certain things, which he thought would help 1MDB. But whatever he did ultimately is the responsibility of the management and board.”
Malaysia is seeking to arrest Low, believed to be residing abroad, for his involvement in the 1MDB scandal.
He described Low and Najib’s stepson Riza as friends but said he was not aware of any dealings involving 1MDB funds in Riza’s Hollywood production company, which produced The Wolf of Wall Street among other movies.
When asked if he was still in touch with Low, Najib said:
“We have cut off communication again. I don’t know where he is.”
Low’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Najib has consistently denied any wrongdoing in 1MDB. He has said US$681mil (RM2.72bil) transferred into his personal bank account was a donation from Saudi Arabia, and not as US lawsuits have alleged misappropriated funds from 1MDB.
Najib said he had been given assurances from the late Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud that Saudi Arabia would be sending a donation.
“All I knew, I accepted at face value that this is coming from the Saudis, from King Abdullah at his behest, at his instruction,” Najib said. – Reuters
Najib: I did not benefit from 1MDB in any way
His say: ‘If anyone is found to be on the wrong side of the law, let the legal process take its course.’
LANGKAWI: Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has denied that he benefitted from 1MDB, adding that he believed that the sovereign fund had been created to do “something good for the country”.
“If I knew there was going to be misappropriation of funds, if that was my knowledge, I would have acted,” he said.
To a question if he blamed the 1MDB board for the fund’s troubles, he said:
“No. I am saying as a general principle, if they are in the know that something is not right, then it is incumbent upon them to tell me. It is the fiduciary duty of the board and the management to do the right thing. I expect them to do the right thing and to follow the law.”
He also said that they had no control over what Jho Low – who has been named the main suspect in the 1MDB investigation – did, adding that he could not pass judgment.
“But there are certain things which he may or may not have done. But I am right to say that investigations should proceed and if anyone is found to be on the wrong side of the law, let the legal process take its course.
“No, he was not working on my behalf. All those items he never invoked my name but he did say he was acting for someone else,” he said.
Asked who Low was acting for, Najib said: “You have to ask him that.”
He also said that he had not talked much about the 1MDB allegations because all these things happened out of Malaysia and that there were some “international ramifications” if he were to name certain prominent individuals who might affect the country’s diplomatic relations.
“I would also like to place on record that (his step-son) Riza has done very well – the movies, the box office sales has reached beyond RM3.2bil. So, it is not abusing concern. It is a profitable concern. But source of funding is subject to investigation. I think we will leave it at that.”
On RM2.6bil that was moved into his personal account in 2013, he said with the general election coming then, he had not wanted to get funding from companies as they would expect something in return eventually.
“If I have a source of funding, I could fund the elections and I could also do a lot CSR (corporate social responsibility) work without being obligated to anyone. That was my real intention you see. And I assumed everything was fine,” he said, maintaining that the RM114mil ringgit allegedly seized during investigation into 1MDB to be “genuine donations because the raid happened just two days after the 14th General Election. As president of the party, I had to prepare for the elections, and elections are very expensive affairs.
“Because donations are made in cash in election times. You don’t send cheques during election times, because people want cash. That is when monies are disbursed accordingly.”
On Barisan Nasional’s defeat in the elections, Najib said he saw part of it coming but that he did not expect it to be this catastrophic, blaming it on Opposition’s allegations that changed public opinion.
On the reopening of the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder case, he said the case had already been dealt with and denied that there was any evidence that he had ever met her.
“There are no records, no pictures or witness to say that I even knew her. It was subject to a proper trial and my name didn’t come up during the trial whatsoever.
“I’m on record to have sworn in a mosque in the name of Allah that I had nothing to do with the case.” - The Star
