Is the Deputy IGP whitewashing a misappropriation?
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.
P. Ramakrishnan, The Malaysian Insider
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 RM250 million 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 RM250 million 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 RM6.9 million each;
• That RM3 million discount was given to a family-owned company;
• That RM3.3 million 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 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?
