Thinking Malaysians are perturbed by the unbecoming conduct of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Khalid Abu Bakar. He was clearly trying to cover up for the Umno Wanita leader Shahrizat Jalil during the Umno General Assembly.
Shahrizat is under intense scrutiny over the scandalous beef-breeding project, which was undertaken by her husband through their company, National Feedlot Corporation (NFC), with a soft-loan of RM250m from the government.
Following the Auditor-General’s damning disclosure that this project is in a “mess”, many startling and disturbing ‘fishy’ details have been unearthed by the Opposition. All these allegations of impropriety involve funds meant for a national livestock project to provide a cheap supply of beef to Malaysians.
From the allegations, it would appear that there has been blatant abuse and mismanagement of public funds suggesting corruption. This overwhelming and glaring evidence cannot be simply overlooked or covered-up or pushed under the carpet.
Khalid’s contention that “investigations have so far not revealed any element of corruption in the RM250m NFC” debacle is far-fetched, absolutely without merit and cannot be believed.
It has been alleged in no uncertain terms with regard to the abuse of the funds:
- That Shahrizat’s family bought two super luxury condos in Bangsar for RM6.9m each;
- That RM3m discount was given to a family-owned company;
- That RM3.3m was used to buy a Mercedes CLS350 and residential land in Putrajaya;
- That half a million was channelled to a family firm in Singapore;
- That huge sums of money were paid to a tour agency for family “holidays”;
- That the loan was released even before the agreement was signed.
The above stark allegations clearly establish that the money was not used for the purpose the loan was granted. That being the case, evidently the money was mismanaged and misappropriated, suggesting wrong-doing.
Is it possible that this aspect of the abuse of the loan could have gone unnoticed and without being investigated? Didn’t alarm bells ring while the investigation was ongoing?
Didn’t it strike the investigators that something was gravely wrong for the loan to have been released before the agreement was even signed? Who authorised this huge loan of RM250m to be released without the agreement duly signed and stamped? Was this line of investigation undertaken?
When money meant for a specific project was channelled into a family firm that has nothing to do with the project, doesn’t it constitute embezzlement? Isn’t embezzlement akin to corruption?
Under whose name(s) are the luxury condos, the land in Putrajaya and the car registered?
Who went on the family holidays and who authorised the use of the loan, meant for a livestock project, for this private purpose?
The timing and the attempt to clear Shahrizat in this debacle is suspect and cannot be explained away as coincidence. Why did the Deputy IGP choose to reveal this during the Umno General Assembly when the investigation is ongoing? It was clearly meant to ‘save’ Shahrizat from prying questions. Some would even argue that it was meant to pull wool over the Umno delegates’ eyes.
When an official from the highest echelon of the police force is perceived to be a functionary of a political party then what credibility is there for the police?
The person in the street is thoroughly disappointed and disillusioned because the police are unable to discharge their duty and responsibility in an impartial and professional manner that would have brought respect and credit to the police force.
Executive committee member
6 December 2011