Riza Case - Former Bar Presidents' Statement? If offence after 2014, Minimum Mandatory fine USD 1,240 million?

See below a Media Statement by some past Malaysian Bar Presidents on the Riza Aziz case. .

See also relevant previous posts:-

Tell the AG, do not COMPOUND Riza Aziz'z money laundering offences - if compounded cannot charge later? 

Riza Aziz case, the AG's statement? Money recovered from Najib's and Rosmah's house belong to Riza?

Riza Aziz - Pay back 43%(US$108 million) of what he allegedly took? Compounded for what and how much- US$620 million? US270 million? Justice?

 

NEWS

392 SHARES

Share to Facebook

Share to More

Eight former Bar presidents demand answers on Riza Aziz deal

Published 10:12 am

Modified 10:12 am

Eight former Bar presidents have issued a joint statement criticising the discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) decision involving money laundering charges against Riza Aziz, describing the deal as “perplexing”.

"The information provided thus far gives the impression that there are no good reasons for the withdrawal of the charges and discontinuance of the prosecution,” said the statement which is signed by Zainur Zakaria, Kuthubul Zaman, Yeo Yang Poh, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Ragunath Kesavan, Lim Chee Wee, Christopher Leong and Steven Thiru.

"We are left wondering why the prosecution is seemingly deflecting the responsibility for the decision taken and why Malaysia appears to have been short-changed."

They said the deal gave “the perception that an accused person can be exonerated of serious crimes if he is willing to pay back part of the illicit proceeds of his alleged crimes”.

“It is indefensible and outrageous to allow an accused person to buy himself out of a serious criminal offence. It is an abuse of process that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

In the statement, the former Bar presidents urged attorney-general Idrus Harun to look into rescinding the settlement and reinstituting the charges against Riza.

On May 13, the Sessions Court granted movie producer Riza a DNAA for five charges of money laundering involving U$248 million (RM1.08 billion) linked to 1MDB funds.

Judge Azman Ahmad allowed the application by ad hoc prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram on grounds that an agreement had been reached under which the accused would repay a portion of the money to the federal government.

The decision has subsequently resulted in a war of words between anti-corruption body MACC and former attorney-general Tommy Thomas over who was responsible for the plea bargain, which appeared to favour the accused.

Full statement

Below is the statement of the eight former Bar presidents:

We thirst for information, and seek answers; especially in respect of matters of public interest and importance. The recent withdrawal of the charges and discontinuance of the prosecution against Riza Aziz for serious criminal offences is one such matter.

Riza Aziz was facing five charges under Section 4 (1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (“Act 613”). It was alleged that he had received monies totalling US$248 million linked to 1MDB between April 2011 and December 2012. He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

If convicted of any of the five charges, he could have been imprisoned for a maximum of five years, or liable for a fine not exceeding RM5 million, or both.

The decision of the attorney-general to agree to a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in the prosecution of Riza Aziz for alleged money laundering offences is perplexing.

The information provided thus far gives the impression that there are no good reasons for the withdrawal of the charges and discontinuance of the prosecution.

We are left wondering why the prosecution is seemingly deflecting the responsibility for the decision taken, and why Malaysia appears to have been short-changed. To leave these questions unanswered is unsatisfactory.

It appears from the media release issued by the attorney-general on May 17 that the decision to bring about the discharge not amounting to an acquittal – which resulted from a discontinuance of the prosecution for all five charges – was not made because the attorney-general apprehended concerns over the strength of the prosecution’s case, or the sustainability of any of the charges, against Riza Aziz.

Controversial tape recordings

There is nothing to readily suggest that the case against Riza Aziz would fail. We are also reminded of the controversial tape recordings disclosed by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, allegedly of the former prime minister, Najib Razak, and stepfather of Riza Aziz, requesting a member of a Middle Eastern royal family to assist by concocting an agreement to cover up the alleged 1MDB monies remitted to Riza Aziz.

Instead, the attorney-general’s decision was based on an agreement between the prosecution and Riza Aziz, for him to disgorge assets amounting to US$108 million, and cash of approximately US$14 million, both of which are allegedly linked to 1MDB, and to surrender the “Metropolis” poster and pay a compound under Section 92 of Act 613. It has been reported that the compound payable is RM500,000.

Riza Aziz was prosecuted for offences under Act 613, and was facing five charges. We are mindful that the wording of Section 92(1) to (4) suggests or envisages that a compound may be applicable, and may be offered by the “competent authority or relevant enforcement agency”, albeit with the consent of the public prosecutor, only before a person has been prosecuted.

After charges are laid, Section 92 is no longer applicable, and only the attorney-general qua public prosecutor has carriage of the matter. The attorney-general should look into rescinding the settlement and reinstituting the charges against Riza Aziz, on the grounds that the agreement could well be unlawful and in contravention of the provisions of Section 92.

It is clear that the disgorgement, surrender, and the compound pursuant to the agreement would not result in a full recovery of the US$248 million under the five charges against him. Indeed, the disgorged assets totalling US$108 million is only about 43 percent of the US$248 million that Riza Aziz is alleged to have laundered.

Buying oneself out of criminal offence

It is indefensible and outrageous to allow an accused person to buy himself out of a serious criminal offence. It is an abuse of process that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

It is important to note that one should not conflate the recovery of assets through forfeiture proceedings with the prosecution for criminal offences. The two are distinct legal processes that hold the accused to different requirements of accountability for the crimes, and ought to be pursued separately and cumulatively against the alleged wrongdoer. In Riza Aziz’s case, both proceedings were afoot until the fateful decision to beget the discharge not amounting to an acquittal in the money-laundering case.

It also appears that the disgorged assets amounting to US$108 million constitute the assets already seized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) of the United States of America as the subject-matter of forfeiture proceedings against Riza Aziz.

Thus, the seized assets are destined to be returned in due course to Malaysia, without any need for an agreement with Riza Aziz. This has called into question the efficacy of or legitimacy for the agreement with Riza Aziz. It appears to be superfluous, as nothing substantively new has been offered or brought to the table.

It is unclear if the agreement with Riza Aziz also includes his providing full cooperation and actionable evidence as to the dealings, transactions and money trail which could lead to a successful prosecution in the 1MDB case, as well as giving evidence as a witness for the prosecution. If so, then this raises further questions as to whether the prosecution has obtained in hand such evidence before the withdrawal of the five charges, and why the prosecution thinks he would make a reliable witness given his familial relationship with an accused person in the other 1MDB related prosecution.

In the media release by the attorney-general, he disclosed that he was advised that his predecessor, Tommy Thomas (below), had agreed “in principle” to a representation made by Riza Aziz for the disgorgement of assets and payment of compound under Section 92 of Act 613. It begs the question who had advised or informed him of this.

Tommy Thomas has denied making any decision to enter into an agreement; and in effect explained that he was only agreeable in principle to consider the representation. This is a far cry from saying that Tommy Thomas had previously agreed to the deal. Tommy Thomas resigned on Feb 28, and it appears that the present decision was made thereafter.

No cogent reasons given

It is also apparent that the media release has not disclosed any satisfactory answers as to why the prosecution decided to make a deal of this nature. It provides no information as to why the prosecution was withdrawn, other than that it was done to get some money back.

Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution confers the attorney-general, as the public prosecutor, with exclusive power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence. In discharging this constitutional power, the attorney-general is entitled to consult, take advice and weigh all relevant factors, including antecedent facts. However, the ultimate decision under Article 145 (3) is that of the incumbent attorney-general.

As the ultimate decision-maker, the attorney-general is accountable for the exercise of the constitutional power and discretion to discontinue the prosecution; because the discretion and power are exercised on behalf of the people, in the interest of justice and the public good. The office of the attorney-general, especially qua the public prosecutor, is an office of public trust. It is only in dictatorial, totalitarian or authoritarian regimes that the exercise of such discretion and power is exempted from public scrutiny.

The decision of the attorney-general must therefore be supported by valid, rational and cogent reasons. The media release by the attorney-general does not provide such reasons, and it does not therefore satisfy the requirements of accountability.

The agreement thus far revealed is simplistic. A question that begs an answer is whether there is more to the agreement than what has been disclosed. There is a perception that there may be more. In this regard, the timing of the agreement with Riza Aziz has given rise to speculation. It occurred during the currency of the uncertainties with regard to proceedings in Parliament, and it preceded the signing of the previously elusive memorandum of understanding for the fledgling Perikatan Nasional political pact.

It is therefore imperative, in the interest of maintaining public confidence, that clear, rational and cogent reasons be promptly provided.

The people require, deserve and are entitled to clear, cogent and intelligent reasons and answers for the performance of constitutional functions and duties, as well as the exercise of constitutional powers and discretion. The failure or inability to provide such reasons and answers must themselves be explained. There should never be an impression given that one may buy oneself out of a prosecution without penal accountability for a serious criminal offence.

“It is not only what we do, but also what we do not do, for which we are accountable.”- Jean-Baptiste Poquelin

Signatories
Zainur Zakaria
Kuthubul Zaman
Yeo Yang Poh
Ambiga Sreenevasan
Ragunath Kesavan
Lim Chee Wee
Christopher Leong
Steven Thiru

Source:- Malaysiakini, 29/5/2020

My Comments:- 

There was an amendment in 2014, and the new section 4 came into force on October 2014 - so it all depends when Riza committed the offence, if after the new section 4 came into being, then if convicted of any of the five charges, his sentence will be so much more higher - If offence committed before that new section 4 came into being, then maybe 'he could have been imprisoned for a maximum of five years, or liable for a fine not exceeding RM 5 million, or both.' for each one of the 5 offences.

Now, the new section 4, after amendment - significantly increases the sentence 

- First, for the offence, there is NO - option, fine OR prison. On conviction, sentence includes both a prison term AND a mandatory fine.

- Second, with regard the prison term, the maximum is now 15 years,no more 5 years.

- Third, with regard to fine, what is set for this offence is a mandatory MINIMUM fine only  so, the fine would be the MInimum or a much higher amount.

-  Fourth, the MINIMUM fine set is no more RM5million - it is really very much higher - it is 'five times the sum or value of the proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence at the time the offence was committed' - in Riza's case, it is really FIVE time USD 248 million = USD 1,240 million. So, the MINIMUM fine is 'whichever is the higher' - so, in Riza's 5 charges, it certainly will be way way higher than 5 million. 

HENCE, that USD 1,240 million is merely the minimum fine and as such the fine could be so much more higher...there is a no maximum limit for fine in this offence.

4  Offence of money laundering[ ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001]

(1) Any person who-

(a) engages, directly or indirectly, in a transaction that involves proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence;
(b) acquires, receives, possesses, disguises, transfers, converts, exchanges, carries, disposes of or uses proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence;
(c) removes from or brings into Malaysia, proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence; or
(d) conceals, disguises or impedes the establishment of the true nature, origin, location, movement, disposition, title of, rights with respect to, or ownership of, proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence,

commits a money laundering offence and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years and shall also be liable to a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of the proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence at the time the offence was committed or five million ringgit, whichever is the higher.

HENCE, THE DATE THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED IS VERY IMPORTANT - if before the new Section 4  came into force, RIZA is very lucky ...but if the alleged offence was committed after October 2014(if not mistaken), the new punishments come into play

Chew Kok Woh(speaking for MCA?PN?) speaks out against criticizing China?even if it is about human rights?

Does MCA central committee member Datuk Chew Kok Woh speak for MCA, and/or the Perikatan Nasional coalition that governs Malaysia?

Well, if that is his position, then the MCA and the Perikatan National will not take a stance against Israel and the US for the injustices committed on Palestine and the Palestinian people.

Likewise, it means that MCA(or PN) will not speak out against Myanmar for what it did with regards the Rohingya people.

Does anyone remember whether MCA or Chew Kok Woh spoke up about the 1MDB issue - the internationally recognized acts of kleptocracy, etc..

Does Chew not realize that we now live in a global community - where every Nation States do highlight and speak out against injustices and human rights violations in every other country? That is what happens also during the Universal Periodic Review at the UN?

Does MCA (or just Chew) support detention without trial laws...or 'national security laws' that suppress or violate the rights of individuals - freedom of speech, expression, peaceful assembly?

Chew said it was disgraceful of Santiago to join many Western lawmakers and politicians to criticize China as Hong Kong was part of China....He said China could introduce any laws on security it wanted in Hong Kong

Has Chew(and/or MCA) forgotten that Malaysia too is a Federation - so, do you not believe that States should also have a say...and their 'autonomy' too.... This exercise of the Peninsular States individual autonomy came about when some States decided to not simply follow the Federal government's lifting of certain conditions during the MCO. Even the BN ruled state of Pahang, said 'NO' - we will decide for Pahang after we had our meeting...

Malaysia is also a Federation twice made up of 3 parties - Peninsular Malaysia States, Sabah and Sarawak? 

Is it right for the Federal government to ignore the 'autonomy' of Sabah and Sarawak? 

So, does MCA want to remove the special rights of Sabah and Sarawak? 

YES - Hong Kong is part of China, but it is also an autonomous region with its own style of governance, administration of justice and on other matters. Can China force its laws onto Hong Kong? 

Interestingly, CHINA itself is not making noise or demands of Malaysia - so, why is Chew Kok Woh (and/or MCA) getting so worked up?

Autonomy of regions in a country is something common in many countries even in ASEAN - we accept and understand. Closer home, Aceh after some struggle managed to get some autonomy for its region, likewise the southern Muslim States of Thailand, and also the Philippines. 

The rights of people in such autonomous regions, like Hong Kong with regards to China, cannot simply be violated or 'trampled upon' without the consent of the people of the said autonomous region. 

Is Chew(and MCA) now of the position that China can impose its will on Hong Kong, disregarding the existing agreement that gives Hong Kong autonomy with regards to not just governance, administration, laws, judiciary, etc? Are they saying that the same laws and manner of governance of China applies also to Hong Kong? If the people of Hong Kong agree, then it is a different situation - the protests(NOT riots) are an indication of how many feel in Hong Kong...

I wonder what Chew's(and MCA's) position was about the BERSIH mass protests - does MCA believe and accept the right of peaceful assembly and the right to protest? 

If Chew Kok Woh was approached to sign that statement, I wonder whether he would have signed? Would he have refused simply because it is calling on China not to do something that is a violation of human rights of the people of Hong Kong?

Politicians - you must stand by values and principles, including for JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS - and speak out against injustice and violations of human rights everywhere not just in Malaysia, and not just speak up ONLY if it directly affects you, your ethnic group or your religious group...

Sad really that many of the Malaysian politicians just do not speak up enough...

Chew Kok Woh must be praised for speaking up and expressing his view, although I may not agree with his position ...and, by the way an MP (or a party member) too can speak his views and opinions anytime -  it is absurd to insist that they speak up only if they get their political party's approval...DID MCA allow Chew to say these things? I wonder?

Anyway, with regard that statement 

An MP, is a human person, and he can always have a personal view different from his party's view. The then Minister Nazri was for abolition of the death penalty, even when he was in the BN Cabinet, and spoke up stating clearly that it was his personal view...not the government's view.

Come next elections, people will want to know more about individual candidates - and may not simply vote just because he stands as a candidate for this or that party. 

Too many 'party-hopping' MPs has brought about this new NORM...clearly even party leadership made so many mistakes about the people they chose as candidates including PKR, BERSATU,UMNO,...

The Chinese Malaysians in Malaysia, by the way are Malaysians not Chinese nationals > so, is this criticism of Charles Santiago and/or DAP an attempt to woo the support of Chinese Malaysians come next elections? 

In defence of China - is that the MCA strategy to woo back the support of Chinese Malaysians?

And, by the way, DAP is a Malaysian party - open to any Malaysians. Time for maybe MCA to also become a 'truly' Malaysian party by opening membership to all Malaysians..

 

 

 

MCA raps DAP MP for signing anti-China memorandum

---

• Nation
• Monday, 25 May 2020
  10:27 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR: DAP MP Charles Santiago has come under fire from MCA for being a signatory to an international memorandum against China.

The Klang MP was among 200 parliamentarians and policymakers from 23 countries which attacked China for proposing national security laws in Hong Kong.

MCA central committee member Datuk Chew Kok Woh (pic) said the DAP should declare whether this was also the official stand of the party.

"We want the DAP to state categorically whether it has the same position as the MP from Klang.

"He has signed as the chairman of the Asean Parliamentarian for Human Rights but he is a DAP MP," he said.

Chew said it was disgraceful of Santiago to join many Western lawmakers and politicians to criticise China as Hong Kong was part of China.

He said China could introduce any laws on security it wanted in Hong Kong and it was not for any Western countries to meddle.

"We can see that the security has got out of hand in Hong Kong where violent riots, bomb-throwing and vandalism have got out of control.

"This is not democracy but a threat to democracy which the West has closed an eye and even praised these rioters as pro-democracy," he said in a statement.

Chew said none of these western media had condemned these acts, adding that the DAP must surely be aware of the wrongful actions of these protestors.

Another memorandum signatory is lawyer Andrew Khoo, a former Malaysian Bar Council human rights committee co-chairman.

The two joined the last Hong Kong colonial governor Chris Patten and US senator Ted Cruz, both constant critics of China, in the joint declaration which attacked China for its "unilateral introduction" of the laws and claimed "the integrity of the one country and two systems hangs by a thread."

The joint statement also urged governments to raise their voices against China.

Chew said China had every reason to introduce laws against secession, subversion and terrorism.

"The US and western countries have similar laws, so let's not be hypocritical.

"It's shameful that Santiago has joined the others to put his name there and put Malaysia in an awkward position because we have excellent ties with China.

"The DAP leadership should demand Santiago to retract his name," he said, pointing out that Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai was the previous special envoy to China.

Chew asked what was the stand of Tan on the position of Santiago and come out openly.

He said such laws were badly needed in Hong Kong to restore peace and stability for a conducive business environment.

Chew said it was simplistic of anti-China people to say democracy would be threatened in Hong Kong.

"I like to ask when Hong Kong was under the British from 1841 to 1997, (except during Japanese rule) did the British introduce direct elections?

"The British then occupied all the top civil service and the police force under the British was hugely corrupt," he said.

In response, Santiago defended his right to express his own opinion regarding China's proposed national security laws in Hong Kong.

He urged Chew to "take his fight" elsewhere, saying that Chew's comments were a case of "being desperate to stir the hornets' nest when there is no issue to begin with".

Santiago added that Chew should see that there were concerns expressed towards China's relations with Hong Kong.

"Hasn't he (Chew) heard of words such as selling state secrets, treason, sedition that have been used by China to nab dissidents?

"I am also against the thwarting of Hong Kong's judicial system as the new laws drafted by China could see trials being conducted behind closed doors," he said in a statement to Malaysiakini.- Star, 25/5/2020

MCA leader slams Klang MP for signing anti-China memorandum

Published 25 May 2020, 12:38 pm

Modified 25 May 2020, 12:50 pm

131

An MCA leader has slammed DAP's Klang MP Charles Santiago for allegedly putting Malaysia in an "awkward position" by signing a joint international memorandum against China.

Charles was part of 191 parliamentarians and policymakers from 23 countries who issued a joint statement condemning Beijing’s “unilateral introduction of national security legislation in Hong Kong.

Charles signed the memorandum as the chair of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights.

MCA central committee member Chew Kok Woh said it was disgraceful of Santiago to join many Western lawmakers and politicians in criticising China when Hong Kong was part of China.

"It's shameful that Santiago has joined the others to put his name there and put Malaysia in an awkward position because we have excellent ties with China," he said.

He said China was free to formulate any laws on security in Hong Kong.

"We can see that the security has gotten out of hand in Hong Kong where violent riots, bomb-throwing and vandalism have gotten out of control.

"This is not a democracy but a threat to democracy which the West has closed an eye too and even praised these rioters as being pro-democracy," The Star quoted Chew as saying.

"The US and Western countries have similar (security) laws, so let's not be hypocritical," he said.

Hong Kong needed such laws to restore peace and stability for a conducive business environment, he said.

He then questioned if this was the official position of DP particular when DAP chairperson Tan Kok Wai was previously special envoy to China.

"We want the DAP to state categorically whether it has the same position as the MP from Klang.

"He has signed as the chairperson of the Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights but he is a DAP MP," said Chew, who is also Batu Sapi division chief.

"The DAP leadership should demand Charles retract his name," he said.

When contacted, Charles said he will respond to Chew's statement later.

Another signatory from Malaysia was lawyer and Bar Council Human Rights Committee former co-chairperson Andrew Khoo. - Malaysiakini, 25/5/2020

In full: 191 parliamentarians and policymakers from 23 countries slam Beijing for ‘assault’ on Hong Kong freedoms and rule of law

by Hong Kong Free Press 24th May 2020

 

A coalition of 191 parliamentarians and policymakers from 23 countries have issued a statement condemning Beijing’s “unilateral introduction of national security legislation in Hong Kong,’ and calling for sympathetic governments to unite against this ‘flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

File photo: via Flickr.

The letter comes after Beijing announced plans to roll out national security legislation in the autonomous city.

The initiative was led by the former governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten, and the former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. The list of signatories included ex-prime ministers, foreign secretaries, defence ministers, as well as legal and human rights experts and diplomats.

Lord Patten of Barnes said: “The statement shows growing and widespread international outrage at the decision by the Chinese government to unilaterally impose national security legislation in Hong Kong. The breadth of support, which spans all political parties and four continents, reflects both the severity of the situation and ongoing unified international support for the principle of one-country, two-systems.”

Ex-British foreign secretary and patron for NGO Hong Kong Watch, Sir Malcolm Rifkind said: “This is the most serious threat to the people of Hong Kong that there has been from the Chinese Government since 1997. The people of Hong Kong need, and deserve, our support.”

---

The statement in full:

We, the co-signed, write to express grave concerns about the unilateral introduction of national security legislation by Beijing in Hong Kong. 

This is a comprehensive assault on the city’s autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. The integrity of one-country, two-systems hangs by a thread. 

It is the genuine grievances of ordinary Hong Kongers that are driving protests. Draconian laws will only escalate the situation further, jeopardising Hong Kong’s future as an open Chinese international city. 

If the international community cannot trust Beijing to keep its word when it comes to Hong Kong, people will be reluctant to take its word on other matters. Sympathetic governments must unite to say that this flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot be tolerated.

Signatories:

Rt. Hon Lord Patten of Barnes, former Governor of Hong Kong
Rt. Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary:

USA

Members of the Senate
Senator Benjamin L Cardin, Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee
Senator Ted Cruz, Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senator Edward J Markey, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy
Senator Robert Menendez, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Members of the House of Representatives
Congressman Robert B Aderholt
Congressman Ami Bera, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Non-proliferation, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Congressman Eliot L Engel, Chairman of US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs
Congressman Mike Gallagher
Congressman Vicky Hartzler
Congressman Michael T McCaul, ranking member of US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs
Congressman James McGovern, co-chair of the Congressional Executive Commission on China
Congressman Adam B Schiff, Chairman of the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Congressman Adam Smith, Chairman of US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services
Congressman Christopher Smith, former Chair of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee
Congressman Tom Suozzi
Congressman Ted Yoho, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Non-proliferation, US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs

Former Ambassadors
Grover Joseph Rees, former USA Ambassador to East Timor

EU
Former EU Special Envoys
Jan Figel, former Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia and EU Special Envoy for Promotion Freedom of Religion or Belief outside of the EU (2016-19)
Members of the European Parliament
Petras Austrevicuis MEP (Renew Europe, Lithuania)
Jose Ramon Bauza Diaz MEP (Renew Europe, Spain)
Francois-Xavier Bellamy MEP (European People’s Party, France)
Vladimír Bilčík MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia)
Reinhard Buetikofer MEP (Greens, Germany)
Katalin Cseh MEP (Renew Europe, Hungary)
Pascal Durand MEP (Renew Europe, France)
Engin Eroglu MEP (Renew Europe, Germany)
Anna Fotyga MEP, (European Conservatives & Reformists) Poland former Foreign Secretary of Poland
Michael Gahler MEP (European People’s Party, Germany)
Evelyne Gebhardt MEP (Socialists & Democrats, Germany)
Markéta Gregorová MEP (Greens, Czech Republic)
Bernard Guetta MEP (Renew Europe, France)
Rasa Jukneviciene MEP, (European People’s Party, Lithuania) former Minister of Defence of Lithuania and former President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Eugen Jurzyca MEP (European Conservatives & Reformists, Slovakia)
Karin Karlsbro MEP
Moritz Körner MEP
Andrius Kubilius MEP (European People’s Party, Lithuania), former Prime Minister of Lithuania
Miriam Lexmann MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia)
Javier Nart MEP (Renew Europe, Spain)
Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová MEP (European Conservatives & Reformists, Slovakia)
Urmas Paet MEP (Renew Europe, Estonia), former Foreign Secretary of Estonia
Peter Pollák MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia)
Michaela Šojdrová MEP (European People’s Party, Czech Republic)
Ivan Štefanec MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia)
Romana Tomc MEP (European People’s Party, Slovenia)
Hilde Vautmans MEP (Renew Europe, Belgium)
Guy Verhofstadt MEP (Renew Europe, Belgium), former Prime Minister of Belgium

Germany
Peter Heidt MP, Germany
Eckhard Gnodtke MP, Germany
Gyde Jensen MP, the Chair of the Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid Committee, Germany

Sweden
Joar Forssell MP, Sweden
Hampus Hagman MP, Sweden
David Josefsson MP, Sweden
Frederik Malm MP, Sweden
Lorentz Tovatt MP, Sweden

Denmark
Viggo Fischer MP, Denmark

Ireland
Senator Ronan Mullen

Lithuania
Mantas Adomenas MP
Arvydas Anusauskas MP
Audronius Azubalis MP, former Minister of Foreign Affairs
Laurynas Kasciunas MP
Gabrielius Landsbergis MP
Radvilė Morkunaite-Mikuleniene MP
Emanuelis Zingeris MP, Chair of the Subcommittee on Transatlantic Relations and Democratic Development
Žygimantas Pavilionis MP, former Ambassador of Lithuania to the United States of America

Slovakia
Members of Parliament
Alojz Baránik MP
Ján Benčík MP
Peter Cmorej MP
Ondrej Dostál MP
Gábor Grendel MP, Deputy Speaker
Jarmila Halgašová MP
Radovan Kazda MP
Miroslav Kollár MP
Vladimíra Marcinková MP
Peter Osuský MP
Peter Pollák MP
Juraj Šeliga MP, Deputy Speaker
Andrej Stančík MP
Romana Tabák MP
Marián Viskupič MP
Anna Zemanová MP
Miroslav Žiak MP
Jana Žitňanská MP
Former Member of Parliament
František Šebej, former MP and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee,

Malaysia
Andrew Khoo, Advocate and Solicitor, High Court of Malaya in Malaysia, former Co-Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Bar Council Malaysia
Charles Santiago MP, Chair of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights

Myanmar
U Kyaw Min San, Member of the Bago Regional Parliament and former legal adviser to the International Commission of Jurists Office

South Korea
Jung-Hoon Lee, former Ambassador for Human Rights, South Korea

India
Dr John Dayal, former President of the All India Catholic Union and Member of the National Integration Council, India

Indonesia
Rafendi Djamin, former Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia
 Yuyun Wahyuningrum, Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia

Australia
Members of Parliament
Kevin Andrews MP, Former Australian Defence Minister, Chairman of the Human Rights sub-committee of the Australian Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade
Vicki Dunne MP
Andrew Hastie MP, Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Intelligence and Security, Australia
Ian Goodenough MP
Peter Khalil MP, Member of the Joint Standing Committee Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade
Janelle Saffin MP
Dave Sharma MP, Member for Wentworth
Phillip Thompson MP, Member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Tim Wilson MP
Members of the Senate
Senator Eric Abetz, former Leader of the Government in the Senate
Senator Alex Antic
Senator Slade Brockman, Senator for Western Australia
Senator Matthew Canavan, former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia
Senator Claire Chandler
Senator David Fawcett, Chair of the Joint Standing Committee Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade, former Assistant Minister for Defence
Senator Kimberley Kitching, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Accountability and member of the Joint Standing Committee Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade
Senator Matthew O’Sullivan
Senator James Paterson
Senator Tony Sheldon
Senator Amanda Stoker

New Zealand
Simeon Brown MP
Marama Davidson MP, Coleader of the Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand
Simon O’Connor MP, Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee

Canada
Members of Parliament
Kenny Chiu MP
Garnett Genius MP, Shadow Minister for Multiculturalism & Canada-China Relations
Erin O’Toole MP, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs
John Williamson MP
Members of the Senate
Senator Leo Housakos, former Speaker of the Senate
Senator Jim Munson
Senator Thanh Hai Ngo
Former Ministers
Irwin Colter, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General
David Kilgour, former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific and former MP
Former Premiers
Bob Rae, former Premier of Ontario and Federal MP - Hong Kong Free Press, 24/5/2020

MP Jerantut Chair of MRB, and now Rubber Board announce RM100 million Centre be build in Jerantut? OK?

When you become a Minister, remember that your responsibility is MALAYSIA - not your own Parliamentary constituent > When the Minister uses his/her Ministry and its resources to do things in his/her constituency, we have make sure it is not an abuse of power or monies for self-gain?

Now, under the Perikatan Nasional again, they are making their 'government' MPs and/or politicians heads of government agencies, and even Directors of GLCs - a very bad practice, in my opinion. An MP, when he is not in Cabinet has a very important 'check and balance' and monitoring role - to make sure the government, or its agencies and/or even GLCs, do not do anything wrong...[We have seen how this has happened in the previous BN government as it has all come out into the open in the 1MDB, SRC and other scandals > it a global embarrassment today]

When a non-Cabinet, government MP is appointed head of a government agency, or a Director in some GLC Company(or government fully owned company), Malaysians suffers a LOSS > we may have just lost an MP, who would have been a check and balance on the government. Does this 'reward' of being appointed head of Agency or Director in GLC wrong? Is it not gift of money and 'power' a corruption of Parliament and/or parliamentary system? Will he who gets such a position, and maybe even more income and 'power' now be critically monitoring PM Muhyiddin and his Cabinet, or will he 'stop doing his job' for fear that if he behaves like an effective backbencher MP, he may lose his position in this agency(which will mean a reduction of personal income as well).

Sadly, when the people elected in the Pakatan Harapan and allies into government, our hope was all these bad practices and 'political appointments' are put to an end...but sadly, Pakatan Harapan continued with these 'bad practices'. Non Cabinet government MPs were also appointed to head government agencies - Charles Santiago, for example, was appointed to head SPAN(Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara)...

Non-Cabinet MPs of the government parties and Opposition MPs should be in Parliamentary Committees, that would be tasked to continously monitor also these different government agencies, companies and GLCs - and not be made heads or Directors of such entities. These Parliamentary Committees will be tasked with oversight, investigation and making sure that all these agencies, companies and GLCs are carrying out their activities right, and no abuse happens. After what happened in 1MDB, SRC and ..., this is and must be the priority.

When a MP is the head, many problems arise > Can even the government effectively monitor to prevent abuse< especially a government where the Prime Minister also needs the support of MPs to remain Prime Minister.

MPs, as peoples' representatives, already have the difficult task of being the representative of tens of thousands of their Constituents, plus playing an effective 'check and balance' role to ensure the PM and Cabinet is doing what is right, that all Ministries, government agencies, companies and GLCs are functioning correctly without engaging in corruption or kleptocracy..They have to regularly meet with their constituents, and engage with them for they are their representatives. That is WHY we pay our MPs such a high salary and allowances.

Now, the Jerantut MP Datuk Ahmad Nazlan Idris was recently appointed as the Chairman of the Malaysian Rubber Board (MRB) about a month ago during the MCO period, and now we hear that '...a RM100 million Rubber Technology Centre (RTC) will be built in Pahang’s Jerantut district...', that is in his own constituency? Abuse of power?

When Mahathir was Prime Minister during the BN rule, Langkawi, his constituency, was seen to be the beneficiary of a lot of government projects and monies - when Najib from Pekan became Prime Minister, similarly we see a lot happening in Pekan...It looks like this trend, which I believe is wrong must end.

For real change, Malaysians need to be more careful when they choose who will be their MP or ADUN >> Now, we know, that it may not be relevant which party candidate, he or she is but more importantly, we need to look more closely at the person - his character, his values, his principles...For after all, we just saw so many PKR MPs, including main leaders, abandon PKR and allowed BN to return to power, as part of Perikatan Nasional. We saw Muhyiddin and many in BERSATU do the same...

The question is whether we, Malaysians, want this 'bad practices' to end or not, OR are we OK about it? 

I look forward to the new Perikatan Nasional government now EXPOSING the wrongdoings of them Pakatan Harapan(PH) leaders when they were in power...when will the 'corruption' cases against the PH leaders and politicians start...OR were they all CLEAN?

The people decide...so what say you?

- Was the decision to build the new 'RM100 million Rubber Technology Centre (RTC) will be built in Pahang’s Jerantut district' OK? Really, when appointed head of an agency, or Director of a government company, it is wise to not do things that suggest bias in favour of your own personal interest ...or the interest of your own constituency. Was the Jerantut MP part of the decision making process that decided to build the Rubber Technology Centre in Jerantut - I think, only right, if he was not part of any decision of a national agency where a decision affects his/her constituency?

Is there a Parliamentary Select Committee which will REVIEW this decision of the Malaysian Rubber Board (MRB)?

OR maybe, MRB really made that decision before Ahmad Nazlan Idriseven appointed to be Chair of MRB?

Maybe, MRB and Prime Minister(or relevant Minister) must transparently explain to the people of Malaysia...

 

Malaysian Rubber Board RM100m Pahang project raises many questions - Teresa Kok

theedgemarkets.com

/

theedgemarkets.com

May 25, 2020 23:50 pm +08

^-A ⁺A

KUALA LUMPUR (May 25): Seputeh Member of Parliament (MP) Teresa Kok said that as the former primary industries minister, she must voice her strongest objection to Malaysian Rubber Board (MRB) chairman Datuk Ahmad Nazlan Idris' announcement that a RM100 million Rubber Technology Centre (RTC) will be built in Pahang’s Jerantut district, where he is a two-term MP from Umno. Kok said the RTC, an entirely new project, poses serious questions on why it is needed, especially at a time when public funds must be prudently utilised.

In a statement on Monday, Kok said Ahmad Nazlan was only appointed as MRB chairman about a month ago but appeared to have worked at warp speed to obtain the necessary approvals to spend RM100 million of public funds for a mega project in his parliamentary constituency.

"The speed in which the project was announced raises many questions. There are many layers of proposals and studies that must be done at even at the MRB level before a project of this size can be approved by the board. The previous PH (Pakatan Harapan) government through (the) MoF (Finance Ministry) and my ministry have reset and imposed much stricter procedures before any big projects are given approvals. This will take more than one year at least. I am sure the board could not have done all the necessary studies to justify spending RM100 million for the RTC in such a short time. Clearly, all fiduciary and MoF procedures have been violated in this case.

"As the saying goes 'history repeats itself', because another previous MRB chairman, an Umno MP for Jasin Datuk Wira Ahmad Hamzah, did the same by ordering an unnecessary RM44 million project in his constituency in 2010 in Jasin, Melaka, which has turned out to be an unsalvageable white elephant and has been and still is bleeding millions of ringgit exceeding the original cost. This project still remains uncompleted.

"Despite the country’s economy moving into deep crisis and heading into recession and Malaysia remaining in partial lockdown struggling to grapple with Covid-19 infections, Ahmad Nazlan appeared to have Prime Minister (PM) Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s ear in approving a non-essential multi-million ringgit project in his parliament constituency, when clearly the Perikatan Nasional government's priorities should be elsewhere. As such, I strongly urge Muhyiddin to explain if he is aware [of] this mammoth RTC project which is to be built in the parliamentary constituency of the MRB chairman he endorsed.

"The PM and finance minister owe the people an explanation on the speed at which such huge projects seem to be taking off at this inopportune time,” Kok said.

Kok said Malaysia already has several fully-operational rubber technology and research centres in Sg Buloh, Selangor, and Kota Tinggi, Johor. Abroad, she said Malaysia has the Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre in the UK.

She said all these centres are undertaking top quality work, operating at optimal levels and have some levels of excess capacity now. As such, there is no pressing need for another research centre for now given the present economic condition and when public funds are urgently needed to cater for the immediate and pressing needs of the people, including rubber smallholders, she said. - Edge Markets, 25/5/2020