Salleh Said Keruak
The main criticism against the Prime Minister is that Malaysians are not being given details about 1MDB’s exposure of RM42 billion. Some even do not understand the difference between exposure and loss and think that RM42 billion is what 1MDB lost.
As Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, whether money has been lost or not is not the issue because during his time also money had been lost. In fact, during Dr Mahathir’s time the government lost more than RM42 billion. The Forex losses alone came to RM58 billion at today’s value and added to the RM20 billion MAS disaster that comes to RM78 billion.
Incidentally, yesterday, BBC, Aljazeera, etc., gave wide coverage regarding Malaysia’s national airlines, MAS, going bankrupt and the 20,000 employees that are expected to soon lose their jobs. So, for the third time, MAS and Malaysia are yet again in the news.
Anyway, is there any point in the Prime Minister doing what everyone is asking him to do: that is to explain what is happening in 1MDB? Even when he does the critics are still going to reject the explanation.
Take the investment from Abu Dhabi as one example. Everyone in the industry knows that 1MDB chief Arul Kanda Kandasamy has good links with Abu Dhabi. So this means it is not a problem for him to attract investments from there.
But then, when it is explained that billions of investments from Abu Dhabi is coming in with a first payment of US$1 billion, Tony Pua from DAP accuses 1MDB of borrowing money from loan sharks.
Then 1MDB explains that the money from Abu Dhabi is not a loan and Tony Pua asks, “If USD1b from Arabs is not a loan, what is it?”
So you see, 1MDB’s critics do not seem to accept any explanation. They insist that RM42 billion has disappeared into thin air and that there is an attempt to ‘bail out’ 1MDB. Even when 1MDB explains that it is not a bailout the critics still insist it is a bailout.
Is there any point for the Prime Minister to waste his time entertaining the critics when whatever he says is not going to be accepted because the critics are criticising for the sake of criticising and not for the sake of hearing the truth?