|
|
[Jenayah]
Game Over Najib hahahahah..wak yidin akui duit masuk akaun najib
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Kalau kau tu pemimpin negara, dan atas pimpinan kau itu, byk bantu negara2 islam lain didunia.
Tak mustahil ada jutawan arab nak masuk berbillion rm dlm akaun kau kerana menghargai pimpinan kau.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lindungilah kami rakyat malaysia dr segala bala malapetaka dan segala kejahatan ketamakkan manusia.
i love malaysia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
memang dia derma senyap2 begitu je ye. ikhlas betul jutawan arab ni
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hzln posted on 31-7-2015 08:04 PM 
tau takper...isu state glc agih zakat 5 juta melalui cabang2 amk LEBIH BESARRRRR dr isu 2.6 bilion ...
Takda bezanya 4 juta or 42 billion, pokoknya dua-dua tidak berprinsip.
Tidak jujur dan tidak amanah. Yang 4 or 5 juta tu, kalau ada peluang
mungkin satu hari nanti 40 or 50 billion pulak.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bangang sgt alasan sekadar saja2 orang nak bg 2.6 billion... billion ok... jgn jadik bangang sgt lar hai... pesal ntah semua menteri dah jadik bangang2 belaka... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by hzln at 31-7-2015 10:56 PM
tu lah kan? tak jujur dan tak amanah betui, patutnya kalu nak bayar zakat kenalah kasi pusat zakat kan? otherwise, itu dikira menyeleweng...pandai2 lah nanti pusat zakat agih....amalan utk bagi terus kat asnaf ini melalui cabang parti di peringkat akar umbi patut dihentikan 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hzln posted on 31-7-2015 10:54 PM
Edited by hzln at 31-7-2015 10:56 PM
Sebab itu, I must admit my sin, I cuma bayar CUKAI PENDAPATAN
SAJA. Tak pernah bayar Zakat kepada mana-mana negeri. I bagi
jah kat fakir miskin. Contohnya, kami ada tanah pusakat 7.8 hecter
diurus oleh syarikat kerjasama. Biasanya kami bagi zakat kepada
penoreh getah yang digajikan oleh syarikat kerjasama. Sorry, I
don't trust mereka yang mengurus zakat sebab tak pernah keluar
pun laporan tahunan tentang penyelarasan wang zakat. Lebih baik
I bantu mereka yang benar-benar memerlukan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
memanglah bangang jika saja2 nak bagi...macam Najib...mungkin jutawan arab nie suka sangat dgn Malaysia, suka dgn cara pimpinan Najib
yg suka membantu negara islam yg lain didunia, ada pulak pihak2 yg nak menjatuhkannya..mungkin dgn alasan pak arab ini nak membantu najib..
dengan memberi sumbangan kpd najib....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by kucingTomey at 31-7-2015 11:03 PM
mana boleh begitu cik rashiman purata......senang cite dia begini....
ade seorang pemuda biasa...tidak berparti malah takde ape2 kepentingan dalam politik di malaysia ni ..nama dia rashiman bin purata....org atas tol...satu hari ade org masukkan 2.6 billiyon utk dibuat belanja kawen....org yg masukkan tu pulak seorang jutawan arab yg pernah kenal rashiman bin purata melalui yahoo messenger .....itu satu perkara yg biasa....tak terkejut pun sebab siapakah rashiman bin purata pada rakyat malaysia??takde sape2 pun...lagipun duit tu digunakan utk perkawenan rashiman bin purata dengan gadis impian diyana shafiqah....
berbeza dengan kes ni....kes ni melibatkan perdana menteri malaysia yg telah bersumpah memegang rahsia negara....dan dia dapat dana sumbangan bla bla bla peribadi dari tok ereb nun.....itu sudah jadi satu perkara yg menarik minat rakyat utk tahu....2.6 billion ..segala kemungkinan boleh jadi...utk dana pilihanraya...kalau2 ade kaitan dengan jual negara??kalau la...
itu beza dia cik rashiman
p/s: 42 billion pulak 2.6 billion.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tak hadam orang boleh lagi nak anggap menerima duit dana peribadi ke atas perdana menteri malaysia perkara biasa.kat america republican ke demokrat tak boleh terima duit atas nama obama.kena nama party.rasuah namanya kalau dibayar atas nama peribadi.di seluruh negara maju,japan,korea,india,eropah,america.even indon pun tak leh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Determining Illegal Foreign Contribution Is No Easy Matter
By LESLIE WAYNE
Related Articles
Index of Articles on Democratic Fund-Raising
WASHINGTON -- The issue of whether Indonesian business interests made improper donations to the Democratic Party has drawn attention to a vexing problem in campaign finance regulation: how to determine what is a legitimate political donation from an illegal foreign contribution.
Federal law bans political donations from foreign citizens and foreign companies, but allows donations from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies and from resident aliens who have "green cards." Yet in a polyglot country with many diverse names, and with a blurring of business lines in multinational corporations, it has become virtually impossible for federal regulators to police this area.
"Unless someone brings information to the FEC, the commission is blind," said Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, which regulates campaign finance. "Just having a name that is not Smith or Jones is not enough to trigger anything. The FEC has no system to process this."
Republicans, who have had their own problems with foreign donations, have made a campaign issue out of contributions to the Democratic Party from an Indonesian couple and other Indonesian business executives with ties to the Lippo Group, a large Indonesian banking and land development company.
The Democratic National Committee maintains that all the donations were legal. It says that a $452,000 donation in this election cycle from the Indonesian couple, Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata, who had been living in Virginia, as well as the fund-raising efforts of a former Lippo executive, John Huang, and the generous checks from James Riady, son of the chairman of the Lippo Group, were all legitimate since all the donors were American citizens or legal residents.
The Republicans have seized upon the donations to complain of foreign influence-peddling. "The Democrats have set up a structure to suck money through loopholes from foreign contributors," said Edward Gillespie, communications director of the Republican National Committee. "In the process, they are promising undue influence in the White House. That does not happen on the Republican side of the aisle."
In fact, however, Republicans have also taken money from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations and both parties have been rocked by influence-peddling scandals involving foreign donors.
In the mid-1970s, there was the Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who threw lavish Washington parties and freely handed out $850,000 in political contributions to congressmen of both parties. And there was the long reach of Ferdinand Marcos, the late president of the Philippines, who sought to strengthen his nation's ties to the United States with campaign donations from his Philippine friends here.
"There is no ethical high horse for either party to get on," said Fred Wertheimer, former president of Common Cause, a citizens advocacy group.
Domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations have long been big donors to American campaigns. One of the biggest of all corporate donors in this election cycle is Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc., the American subsidiary of the Montreal-based distiller. Seagram has given $620,000 to the Democratic Party through June 30 and $435,000 to the Republican Party.
In the same period, the American subsidiary of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a British company, gave $400,000 to the Republicans. News Corp., a media conglomerate whose parent company is Australian and which is headed by Rupert Murdoch, a naturalized American citizen, gave $351,000 to the Republicans. And British Petroleum gave $162,000 to the Republicans and $50,000 to Democrats.
With the election commission unable to monitor foreign donations, the obligation for policing foreign contributions falls to the parties themselves -- a situation that Wertheimer, a critic of campaign finance practices, terms "ludicrous."
Officials of the commission concede it does not have the capacity to detect illegal foreign donations and leaves it to the parties, which have powerful financial incentives to look the other way.
"We have never felt it would be appropriate to start quizzing contributors by the sound of their name," said Scott Thomas, an FEC commissioner. "We do advise the campaigns to build in some checking systems so when they have evidence money has come in from an impermissible foreign source, they at least can look at it.
"But even that is hard for a political party to do," he continued. "They see a check, it's got a foreign-sounding name, but it's drawn on an American bank and they have no reason to suspect there's anything amiss. These things are difficult as contribution money is flowing in the door."
Last month, the Democratic Party returned a $250,000 donation from an American subsidiary of a Korean electronics company when it was found that the contribution from the subsidiary, Cheong Am America Inc., really came from the overseas parent.
In Washington, political action committees and trade groups from the domestic subsidiaries of foreign auto companies have long been big players in the political process. For instance, the Americans for Free International Trade political action committee, which represents auto dealers and employees with foreign car makers, has raised $1.5 million for federal candidates in this election cycle and given most of it away.
"The lines have been blurred between what is domestic and what is foreign interest in our global world," said Kenneth Gross, a Washington lawyer and former enforcement chief at the election commission. "Foreign companies have domestic interests and, from a business standpoint, they can give through their U.S. subsidiaries and that is permissible."
American subsidiaries of foreign corporations can give money as long as the money does not come from the foreign corporate parent and is not controlled by the foreign executives.
As a practical matter, however, determining the lineage of these contributions requires a sophisticated knowledge of the internal accounting relationship between the American company and its foreign parent -- something corporate finance experts say is "incredibly difficult" to figure out.
Keeping track of individual donors is difficult as well, fund-raisers for both parties say.
"If you made a contribution to the Republican National Committee and you were laundering foreign money, would I know that? Probably not," said Howard Leach, finance chairman of the Republican party. "I can't look at your bank account and see where the money comes from. We try to determine the source, but if someone is trying to launder money, no one can help on that."
Prakash Shah, a New Jersey investment banker and fund-raiser for the Democratic Party, said he frequently asked Indian-American donors about their legal status.
"For some people, you know if they are U.S. residents or citizens," said Shah. "And if you don't, you have to make a broad effort to determine it. There are lots of people in transition. they may appear to be a resident, but are not. You have to be very careful, but mistakes can be made."
For the parties, mistakes are harder to catch when the check is for $100 and less so when the check is for $100,000, a level where the donor is probably well-known to party fund-raisers.
"These political committees, when raising huge quantities of money, do the best they can to screen for potentially troubling contributions," said Robert Bauer, a lawyer representing Democratic Party committees. "And from time to time, that screening will fail. It is impossible to police this and never make a mistake."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996 United States campaign finance controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996,[1] China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The Chinese government denied all accusations.
Conten |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
1997 Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns
According to the Senate report, Chinese officials eventually developed a set of proposals to promote their interests with the United States government and to improve China's image with the American people. The proposals, dubbed the "China Plan", were prompted by the United States Congress's successful lobbying of the president to grant a visa to Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui. United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher had previously assured his Chinese counterpart Qian Qichen that granting a visa would be "inconsistent with [the United States'] unofficial relationship [with Taiwan]"[3] and the Clinton Administration's acquiescence to the Congressional resolutions led China to conclude that the influence of Congress over foreign policy was more significant than it had previously determined. When formulating the so-called plan, Chinese officials acknowledged that, compared to other countries, it had little knowledge of, or influence over, policy decisions made in Congress, which had a sizeable pro-Taiwan faction under the influence of a more established "China Lobby" run by the Kuomintang.[4]
The plan, according the Senate report, instructed Chinese officials in the U.S. to improve their knowledge about members of Congress and increase contacts with its members, the public, and the media. The plan also suggested ways to lobby United States officials.[4]
Over the years, China repeatedly denied these lobbying efforts involved financial contributions of any kind:
[S]ome people and media in the United States speculated… about so-called participation by Chinese individuals in political donations during the U.S. elections. It is sheer fabrication and is intended to slander China. [China] has never, nor will we ever, use money to influence American politics — China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, May 1998.[5]
Major fund-raising figures[edit]
Charlie Trie[edit]
The most significant activity by Trie was a $450,000 attempted donation by Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie to Clinton's legal defense fund, which Trie allegedly delivered in two envelopes each containing several checks and money orders. The fund immediately rejected $70,000 and deposited the remainder, but ordered an investigation of the source. The investigation found that some of the money orders were made out in different names but with the same handwriting, and sequentially numbered. The fund then rejected the donation entirely, and returned the deposited funds two months after the initial contribution.[6]
Born in Taiwan, Trie emigrated to the U.S. in 1974. He eventually became an American citizen and co-owner of a restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas where he befriended Clinton, then governor of Arkansas. In addition to the attempted donation to Clinton's defense fund, Trie and his immediate family donated $220,000 to the DNC which was also later returned.[7]
Immediately after the donation to Clinton's defense fund, Trie sent a letter to President Clinton that expressed concern about America's intervention in tensions arising from China's military exercises being conducted near Taiwan. Trie told the President in his letter that war with China was a possibility should U.S. intervention continue:
...[O]nce the hard parties of the Chinese military incline to grasp U.S. involvement as foreign intervention, is [sic] U.S. ready to face such [a] challenge[?]... [I]t is highly possible for China to launch [sic] real war based on its past behavior in [sic] Sino-Vietnam War and Zhen Bao Tao war with Russia – Charlie Trie in a letter to President Clinton, March 21, 1996[8]
After Congressional investigations turned to Trie in late 1996, he left the country for China.[7] Trie returned to the U.S. in 1998 and was convicted and sentenced to three years probation and four months home detention for violating federal campaign finance laws by making political contributions in someone else's name and for causing a false statement to be made to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).[9]
Johnny Chung[edit]
Born in Taiwan, Chung went from being the owner of a "blastfaxing" business (an automated system that quickly sends out faxes to thousands of businesses) in California to being in the middle of the Washington, D.C. elite within a couple weeks of his first donations to the Democratic Party. Called a "hustler" by a U.S. National Security Council (NSC) aide,[10] Chung made forty-nine separate visits to the White House between February 1994 and February 1996.[11] One of his purposes in making these trips was to obtain photographs of himself with the Clintons, which he believed would help him to get business in China by giving people the impression that he had connections and influence in Washington—he used a brochure that included at least ten photographs of himself with Hillary Clinton along with a personal note from her.[12] During one of the Commerce Department trade missions to China, Chung befriended former Chinese Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, then an executive at China Aerospace International Holdings, Ltd. Hong Kong (中國航天國際控股有限公司), which is the Hong Kong-based subsidiary of the government-controlled CASC (中國航天科技集團公司), China's premier satellite launching company. She is the daughter of former General Liu Huaqing.
Between 1994 and 1996, Chung donated $366,000 to the DNC. Eventually, all of the money was returned. Chung told federal investigators that $35,000 of the money he donated came from Liu Chaoying and, in turn, China's military intelligence.[10]
Specifically, Chung testified under oath to the U.S. House Committee investigating the issue in May 1999 that he was introduced to Chinese Gen. Ji Shengde, then the head of Chinese military intelligence, by Liu Chaoying. Chung said that Ji told him: "We like your president very much. We would like to see him reelect [sic]. I will give you 300,000 U.S. dollars. You can give it to the president and the Democrat Party."[13] Both Liu and the Chinese government denied the claims.[14]
Chung was eventually sentenced to 5 years probation and community service following an agreement to plea guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion, and two misdemeanor counts of conspiring to violate election law.[15] Chung asserts that, after his guilty plea, the Chinese government attempted to assassinate him with "hit squads" three times, but the efforts were foiled by the FBI.[16]
John Huang and James Riady[edit]
John Huang (pronounced "Hwä[ng]"), was another major figure convicted. Born in 1945 in Nanping, Fujian, Huang and his father fled to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Civil War before he eventually emigrated to the United States in 1969. A former employee of the Indonesian company Lippo Group's Lippo Bank and its owners Mochtar Riady and his son James (whom Huang first met along with Bill Clinton at a financial seminar in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1980), Huang became a key fund-raiser within the DNC in 1995. While there, he raised $3.4 million for the party. Nearly half had to be returned when questions arose regarding their source during later investigations by Congress.[17]
According to U.S. Secret Service logs, Huang visited the White House 78 times while working as a DNC fund-raiser.[18] James Riady visited the White House 20 times (including 6 personal visits to President Clinton).[19]
Immediately prior to joining the DNC, Huang worked in President Clinton's Commerce Department as deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs. His position made him responsible for Asia-U.S. trade matters. He was appointed to the position by President Clinton in December 1993. His position at the Commerce Department gave him access to classified intelligence on China. While at the department, it was later learned, Huang met 9 times with Chinese embassy officials.[20]
Huang eventually pleaded guilty to conspiring to reimburse Lippo Group employees' campaign contributions with corporate or foreign funds.[21] James Riady was later convicted of campaign finance violations relating to the same scheme as well, and was sentenced to pay a large fine. Shortly after Riady pledged $1 million in support of then-Governor Clinton's campaign for the presidency, contributions made by Huang had been reimbursed with funds wired from a foreign Lippo Group entity into an account Riady maintained at Lippo Bank and then distributed to Huang in cash. Also, contributions made by Lippo Group entities operating in the United States were reimbursed with wire transfers from foreign Lippo Group entities.[15]
An unclassified U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report issued in 1998 stated that both James Riady and his father Mochtar had "had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency." According to journalist Bob Woodward, details of the relationship came from highly classified intelligence information supplied to the committee by both the CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[22]
The most well-known of John Huang's fund-raisers involved Vice President Al Gore, Maria Hsia, and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in California.
Maria Hsia[edit]
Taiwan-born Maria Hsia (pronounced "Shyä"), a long time fund raiser for Al Gore, California immigration consultant, and business associate of John Huang and James Riady since 1988, facilitated $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions through her efforts at Hsi Lai Temple, a Chinese Buddhist temple associated with Taiwan in Hacienda Heights, California. This money went to the DNC, to the Clinton – Gore campaign, and to Patrick Kennedy. After a trial, she was convicted in March 2000.[23][24]
The Democratic National Committee eventually returned the money donated by the Temple's monks and nuns. Twelve nuns and employees of the temple, including temple abbess Venerable Yi Kung (who resigned her post after being subpoenaed), refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment when they were subpoenaed to testify before Congress.[25] Two other Buddhist nuns admitted destroying lists of donors and other documents related to the controversy because they felt the information would embarrass the Temple. A Temple-commissioned videotape of the fund raiser also went missing and the nuns' attorney claimed it may have been shipped off to Taiwan.[26]
The Temple event became particularly controversial, because it was attended by the Vice President Gore. In an interview on the January 24, 1997 edition of the Today show, Gore said:
I did not know that it was a fund-raiser. But I knew it was a political event, and I knew there were finance people that were going to be present, and so that alone should have told me, 'This is inappropriate and this is a mistake; don't do this.' And I take responsibility for that. It was a mistake.[27]
The Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California
In response, the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that investigated the controversy said:
The Vice President's staff... knew that the Temple event was a fundraiser. In March 1996, Deputy Chief of Staff David Strauss had helped arrange a meeting in the White House with the founder of the temple, Hsing Yun – a meeting which Strauss believed would 'lead to a lot of $.' The White House staff repeatedly referred to the event as a 'fundraiser' in internal correspondence, and assigned to it a 'ticket price' of '1000–5000 [dollars per] head'.[28]
John Huang's memo to Vice President Gore's assistant Kimberly Tilley specifically mentioned the Temple meeting was a fund-raising event. Mr. Gore later acknowledged he had known the visit was "finance-related."[29][30]
In the U.S., religious organizations enjoy a tax exempt status. Political activity is prohibited for such tax exempt entities. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee also said they learned that Hsia had served as an "agent" of the PRC government.[28] Hsia denied the claim.
Ted Sioeng[edit]
Ted Sioeng, an Indonesian entrepreneur who donated money to both Democrats and Republicans, was the sixth individual whose donations were investigated by the Senate committee. Suspect contributions associated with Sioeng include $250,000 to the DNC and $100,000 to Republican California State Treasurer Matt Fong. Fong returned the money in April 1997.[31]
Sieong sat with Bill Clinton or Al Gore at two fund-raising events.[32] Sioeng also joined Fong at a meeting with then Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich in mid-1995. Gingrich called the meeting a "photo-op".[33] Gingrich was the guest of honor at a Sioeng-organized luncheon the day after a Sioeng family company gave the $50,000 think-tank donation, solicited by a Gingrich adviser.[34]
Attorney General Janet Reno and the directors of the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) told members of the Senate committee they had credible intelligence information indicating Sioeng acted on behalf of China. A spokesman for Sioeng denied the allegations.[35] Sioeng left the country shortly thereafter, and no charges were filed.[36]
Investigations[edit]
Department of Justice investigation[edit]
Attorney General Janet Reno
The Justice Department opened a task force in late 1996 to begin investigating allegations of campaign fund-raising abuses by the Clinton/Gore re-election campaign. It expanded its internal investigation to include activities related to President Bill Clinton's legal defense fund in December 1996.[37]
President Clinton announced in February 1997 that he thought there should be a "vigorous" and "thorough" investigation into reports that the People's Republic of China tried to direct financial contributions from overseas sources to the Democratic National Committee. The president stopped short of calling for an independent prosecutor, saying that was the decision of the Justice Department.
"[O]bviously it would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds to one of our parties for any reason whatever," President Clinton said.[38]
By July 1997, the administration determined that no evidence of any such thing had yet been proven.
"We have received the relevant [FBI] briefings," White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said. "We believe there's no basis for any change in our policy toward China, which is one of engagement."[39]
"I do not know whether it is true or not," President Clinton stated. "Therefore, since I don't know, it can't... and shouldn't affect the larger long-term strategic interests of the American people in our foreign policy."[39]
Members of Congress of both parties reached opposite conclusions. According to the Washington Post, Senator Fred Thompson (a Republican from Tennessee) and chairman of the committee investigating the fund-raising controversy, said he believed the Chinese plan targeted presidential and congressional elections while Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman and John Glenn said they believed the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections."[39]
Congressional investigations[edit]
Representative Dan Burton (Republican-Indiana)
A House investigation, headed by Republican Dan Burton focused on allegations of campaign finance abuse, including the contributions channeled through Chung, Huang, and Trie. The investigation was lengthy, spanning both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and according to a Democratic report had cost over $7.4 million as of August 31, 1998, making it the most expensive Congressional investigation ever (the Senate Watergate investigation cost $7 million in 1998 dollars).[40]
Norman Ornstein, a Congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute said in May 1998, "Barring some dramatic change, I think the Burton investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to do a congressional investigation and as a prime example of investigation as farce."[41] In a May 5, 1998 letter to other Republicans on the committee, Burton admitted that "mistakes and omissions were made" in tape transcripts released to the public of phone calls made by Webster Hubbell. A committee investigator who was an advocate of releasing the tapes resigned at Burton's request.[42]
The U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs also held public hearings into the campaign finance issues from July to October 1997. During the hearings, there was considerable acrimony between the chair Fred Thompson and the ranking minority member John Glenn, which reached a level of public disagreement between the two leaders of a Congressional committee seldom seen in recent years.[43] The Thompson committee adopted a Republican written final report on a straight party-line 8-7 vote in March 1998. Thompson described the findings as "There's not any one real big thing. It's a lot of things strung together that paint a real ugly picture." The Democrats published a minority report dissenting with most of the conclusions of the final report, stating the evidence "does not support the conclusion that the China plan was aimed at, or affected, the 1996 presidential election."[44]
Congressional investigators said that the investigations were hamstrung due to lack of co-operation of witnesses. Ninety-four people either refused to be questioned, pled the Fifth Amendment, or left the country altogether.[25][45][46]
Calls for an independent counsel[edit]
FBI Director Louis Freeh
President Clinton's FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in a 22-page memorandum to then Attorney General Janet Reno in November 1997 that "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel."[47]
In July 1998, the Justice Department's campaign finance task force head, Charles La Bella, sent a report to Janet Reno also recommending she seek an independent counsel to investigate alleged fund-raising abuses by Democratic party officials.[48] The media reported that La Bella believed there was clearly an appearance of a conflict of interest by Reno.[49] In his report to Reno he wrote: " [A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House—including the President's and First Lady's offices—concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort." Additionally, La Bella stated: "If these allegations involved anyone other than the president, vice president, senior White House or DNC and Clinton-Gore '96 officials, an appropriate investigation would have commenced months ago without hesitation."[50]
Robert Conrad, Jr., who later became head of the task force, called on Reno in Spring 2000 to appoint an independent counsel to look into the fund-raising practices of Vice President Gore.[51]
Janet Reno declined all requests:
I try to do one thing: what's right. I am trying to follow the independent counsel statute as it has been framed by Congress. If you had a lower threshold, then any time somebody said 'boo' about a covered person, you'd trigger the independent counsel statute — Janet Reno, December 4, 1997.[52]
A CNN/TIME poll taken in May 1998 found 58 percent of Americans felt an independent counsel should have been appointed to investigate the controversy. Thirty-three percent were opposed. The same poll found that 47 percent of Americans believed a quid pro quo existed between the Clinton administration and the PRC government.[53]
f |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow the money: Indonesian political parties and democracy
May 22, 2014
15
22
0
Reddit0
Google +0
1
Author
Prof. Thomas Reuter
Professor Thomas Reuter is a Future Fellow of the Australian Research Council at the Asia Institute, University of Melbourne
Related Articles
Jokowi tipped to win, but Prabowo also claims victory
How a Jokowi landslide became a cliffhanger
How the next Indonesian President sees the world
Indonesia has tightened election participation rules in recent years, and consequently the number of political parties eligible to contest dropped from 48 in 1999 to 12 in 2014. This has prevented a proliferation of small parties and thus avoided the classical problem of fragmentation made notorious in political history by the Weimar Republic. On the downside, it has vastly increased running costs for parties.
The cost of staffing offices in numerous provinces and in many hundreds of districts – as the law now requires - is very high. The cost of community projects and campaigning is also immense and rising, as campaigns become more professional.
The commercialization of local campaigning is humorously illustrated by the fact that the same hired bands of young men on loud motorcycles now roam the streets of Java ‘campaigning’ for different parties on different days, and profiting handsomely (see picture above). As the founding chair of the Democrat Party, Budisantoso, told me in an interview:
“In America campaigns are not as expensive as in Indonesia, they can simply invite people to watch it on TV or read it in a newspaper, and most will. We however, have to mobilise the masses, feed them, and pay for their transport …. So the cost of doing politics in Indonesia is very high, beyond our capacity. The rules on … party contributions are not appropriate, businesses can only give up to 7 Billion Rupiah (690,000 AUD).”
Campaigns can involve vote buying with gifts or even cash. In Surakarta, for example, several individuals independently reported to me that they were offered Rp50,000 by so-called ‘success teams’ to vote for a specified party. In Bali several people reported that villages had received payments collectively. The Asia Foundation’s Sandra Hamid found (link is external) that "more than 35 percent of voters confessed that they, or their families, had experienced vote buying". Indeed, a cynic might say that, in such a transactional political system, why should the public be the only ones to miss out on a payment?
Incumbents have an advantage because a cheaper option available to some of them is intimidation. Some government employees told me they were pressed hard by the regency administration to vote for the ruling party or face redeployment to a remote location. Other reports speak of pressure being put on students (link is external).
There are three sources of legitimate funding for political parties in Indonesia.
1) Members’ contributions, though these are hardly a significant factor any more because parties worldwide have lost their mass base in recent decades. Party members in the DPR (House of Representatives) and ministers also must surrender about 15% of their wages.
2) Parties in most countries also receive some funding from the state, and on this count Indonesian parties are comparatively poorly provisioned. In 2001, the payments were Rp1,000 (less than 10c) per vote, but this amount was reduced by 90% in 2005 to Rp21 million per seat, or some Rp100 per vote. During the same period there was a fivefold increase of campaign costs (link is external) (PDI-P figures). In short, state support is now negligible.
3) The 2011 party law also allows for donations - Rp1 billion per annum ($A100,000) from individuals and up to Rp7.5 billion from corporations. Actual donations clearly do not conform to these limits. Nor should one ever assume that such donations are given free of strings attached.
Current law requires parties to disclose donations, income and expenditures only in a single report endorsed by their own auditor, rather than having to open their accounts to public scrutiny. Illegal contributions and spending thus cannot be traced. Titi Anggraeni, executive director of the Association for Elections and Democracy (AED) says its research found (link is external) that legal sources of income covered less than 15 per cent of the operating expenses for political parties. So what about the other 85 per cent?
My findings so far suggest there are three models for securing private funding to be observed across different political parties in Indonesia, as follows:
1) What could be called partai milik pribadi, a party created for the purpose of serving as a political tool for a private individual who wants to gain power within the DPR or as president, or both. Examples are Gerindra, founded by Prabowo Subianto and his billionaire younger brother Hasyim; the National Democrat Party, founded by Metro Group media tycoon Surya Paloh; and the Hanura Party of wealthy former general Wiranto and his media tycoon friend Hary Tanoe Soedibjo. Similarly, billionaire and Lion Air owner, Rusdi Kirana, is now deputy chair of PKB.
Berlusconi in Italy and, in Australia, billionaire Clive Palmer’s PUP remind us that we are not far behind in this trend toward having billionaires declare themselves openly as political players, thus making money politics more obvious.
2) This model is based on a practice called ‘sewa kendaraan, whereby an established party is ‘hired to serve as a [political] vehicle’ for a rich individual. When I asked him to comment about the way billionaire businessman Aburizal Bakrie had become Golkar’s presidential candidate, even though he was an outsider, Akbar Tanjung told me in an interview that:
“The politics of this is very much influenced by pragmatism and transactionalism, and the presence of money poltics. Hence it is possible sometimes for a person who was not raised in the environment of the party and who did not rise through the ranks to stand for nomination, with the aim of gaining a key position and thus to use that political party. These negotiations or political deals here also certainly require money.”
It is hardly a secret that nominations for chairperson or presidential candidate in the large established parties involve transactions. The reverse costs for Golkar, in this case, are quite high, however. Bakrie’s response to the 2006 Lapindo disaster (link is external) has made him widely unpopular – in short, he has very low electability, and hence Golkar was a no starter in the presidential race.
The Bakrie case shows why the use of poor but popular candidates as front men can be an attractive alternative in today’s media driven society. Indonesians also aren’t much used to billionaires in politics yet, because for so long it has been the playground of generals.
3) The PDI-P presents a somewhat different case, a heritage party with a mass base in society. Megawati’s hold on her party – the successor of her father’s Indonesian Nationalist Party – is based on dynastic political capital, which still does play a large role in Indonesia. The elite family of Prabowo Subianto as another example. Nevertheless, Megawati too has been able to draw on the immense wealth of her former husband, Taufik Kiemas, a business tycoon, and on the support of other rich individuals whose interests she has served.
Solutions: How to Reduce Money Politics
The KPK, the DPR’s ethics committee and NGOs like AED have all been suggesting reforms are needed (link is external) to increase the state funding for political parties, and thus reduce their dependency on billionaire sponsors. These calls are also echoed by academic commentators such as Markus Mietzner, in his recent book on political parties (link is external) in Indonesia.
Would this work? I would say ‘no’ or, more precisely, it will not work on its own. Providing parties with public funding is no guarantee against double dipping – taking public money as well as private sponsors’ money. In the competitive environment they inhabit there is simply no such thing as a political party with too much money.
Take the Australian situation as an example: The public purse’s contribution to political parties is now $2.48 for both House of Representatives and Senate votes - seven times higher than it was in 1984. This was well intentioned to remove the incentive for money politics and stop private money distorting the contest. It did not achieve this aim because the legislation did not cap spending or limit private donations. So private donations grew enormously (link is external). The current inquiry into political corruption in NSW also shows how links between politics and business may open the door to abuses of power.
Therefore, I propose adequate public funding of parties needs to be supported by the following additional measures (and this applies not just to Indonesia):
1) Most important, it should be a licensing condition that free access to media coverage be guaranteed to all parties on all TV and radio channels carrying news, as well as in newspapers, perhaps with a larger quota for parties that achieved more than say 5% in the previous election; with time/space quotas moderate between campaigns and high during campaign periods; and with equity rules imposed on voluntary additional coverage given to particular parties by news media beyond this quota. As it is, public space is too expensive for parties to compete in, against the prevailing political current of big money.
2) Strict rules limiting donations to parties, making both donors and parties liable for violations, instead of pursuing individual party members only. Conflicts of interests due to activities before, during or after a politician’s term in office should be avoided.
3) Disqualification of candidates (caleg) convicted of vote buying or intimidation.
4) Strict limits on media ownership consolidation. (Australia presents a striking example of how easily public opinion can be turned against governments, on either side of politics, if there is very high media ownership concentration; Indonesia currently is still in a slightly better position with about 7 major media owners).
5) Voter education on what can be expected of political parties in a democracy.
6) Efforts by parties to (re-)establish a mass base in civil society, and to set up internal procedures to ensure candidates are selected on the basis of merit.
Meanwhile social media is providing an affordable avenue to access public space for smaller political parties in Indonesia– reminiscent of use of new media in the Obama campaign.
Between 1998 and 2008, households with a television increased almost threefold, but by June 2013 Indonesia also had almost 64 million active Facebook users and about 30 million Twitter users. In 2012 Jakarta became the world’s most tweeted city (link is external), ahead of London, New York and Tokyo. A recent EU decision to maintain the freedom of the internet as a largely rent-free public space can be seen as a recognition of the key role of free media space to the future fate of democracy.
In conclusion, money politics in Indonesia leads to a system whereby major financial interests maintain an order that is to their liking, while also making concessions to the interests of the wider public.
Some may say it is ok if money rules the roost, but this begs the question: how ethical and responsible is its rule? In the end it is the degree of ‘trickle down effect’ voters in Indonesia use to measure the performance of political parties operating in a transactional framework, whoever their owners or backers may be, as do Australian voters.
The problem is that such voter transactionalism often encourages extreme short-termism and bias in state policy. This policy deficit prevents us from responding rationally to the urgent resource challenges humanity now faces and sets the scene for a race to the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Clintons' Other, Truly Bodacious Mine Boondoggle
By Jack Cashill
The New York Times reported this week on the unseemly transfer of cash from parties interested in a major uranium deal to the Clintons. The Canadian company selling Uranium One to the Russians donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. And Russians tied to the deal gave Bill Clinton $500,000 for a Moscow speech.
The deal had global consequences. It would put one fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States under Russian control. So critical was the deal that it needed the approval of the U.S. State Department. State approved the deal, and it managed to so without fanfare. Hillary had failed to disclose the Canadian donors to Obama’s White House – this despite her presumed agreement to do just that.
As outrageous as this deal sounds, however, it was not the Clintons’ most egregious adventure in mining skulduggery. That adventure climaxed nearly twenty years ago – September 18, 1996, to be precise – when then President Bill Clinton unilaterally transformed a 1.7-million-acre slice of southern Utah into a new national monument.
“We’re saying, very simply, our parents and grandparents saved the Grand Canyon for us,” Clinton told the cheering crowd. “Today, we will save the Grand Escalante Canyons and the Kaiparowitz Plateaus of Utah for our children.” Less than two months before the 1996 presidential election, the national media chose not to ask why Clinton had made so astonishing a move.
The answer could be traced back to the November 1994 midterms. On that black Tuesday, Democrats lost fifty-two seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Mario Cuomo lost. House speaker Tom Foley lost. Popular Texas governor Ann Richards lost to underdog George W. Bush. Newt Gingrich now loomed as Speaker of the House.
Bill and Hillary Clinton caught the blame. After days of anger and self-pity, they began to focus again on the one principle that had directed their lives to date: getting Bill re-elected. Not by chance, just a week after the election, the Clintons were heading to the one place in the world most capable of nurturing a comeback: Indonesia, the home base of the Riady family.
The Riadys had bailed Clinton out as governor when he mismanaged Arkansas’s Teacher’s Retirement Fund. They had rescued him with cash twice on the 1992 campaign trail. They had seemingly bought off Clinton aide Webster Hubbell before he had to seek a deal with Whitewater prosecutors. Soon enough, Clinton would reciprocate.
The mood on the Indonesia trip was sour from the beginning. On the seemingly endless flight over, then adviser George Stephanopoulos reported, “The president and Hillary rarely left their cabin.” This could not have been Bill’s idea. What transpired in that cabin is unrecorded – in Hillary’s memoir, Living History, there is no trip to Indonesia – but from this moment on, the presidency would assume a much sharper edge, and Hillary was doing the sharpening.
It was with this trip, for instance, that the CEOs accompanying the Clintons saw their $100,000 donation to the DNC morph from a discreet expectation into the price of admission. With this trip, too, shadowy figures like Gene and Nora Lum, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Thai citizen Pauline Kanchanalak began to operate in the open. All would later be charged in one scandal or another.
In Jakarta, Bill Clinton quickly got down to business. He chided Democrats for their historic “adversarial” relationship with business and Republicans for their “inactive” one. Boasted Clinton, “We have unashamedly been an active partner in helping our business enterprises to win contracts abroad.” Unashamedly? As to human rights, Clinton made clear that there were different rules for Indonesia from those for South Africa or Serbia. “We do not seek to impose our vision of the world on others,” he groveled. “Indeed, we continue to struggle with our own inequities and our own shortcomings.”
The CEOs, like John Bryson of Mission Energy, had more important things on their minds than human rights. Bryson wanted the White House to lean on the Asian Development Bank to support a massive new coal-fired electric plant for Indonesia called the Paiton project. Although Paiton was hailed as the first “private” electric plant in Indonesia, “private” had a different meaning in Indonesia from what it means elsewhere. In this case, it meant owned and operated, at least in part, by the “Indo ruling family,” the Suharto clan.
According to Commerce Department notes from John Huang’s file, a certain percentage of this project was set aside for a management company owned by Suharto’s daughter. The cut for her and other relatives was to be a $50-million upfront loan to be paid back through presumed profits generated by the plant. This arrangement troubled the ADB, which was reportedly “skiddish” (sic) about offering what amounted to a $50-million bribe to the family of a corrupt oligarch, paid, at least in part, by the U.S. taxpayer.
John Huang met with the CIA on the Paiton project as well. What the CIA did not know is that after the meeting, according to the Thompson Senate Committee, Huang repaired to “a secret office” and placed a three-hour call to his former employer, the Riadys’ Lippo Group.
Lippo had a lot at stake. Mission Energy, as it turns out, was part of a larger consortium known as Edison International, and Edison was a Lippo partner. There is more. Suharto’s family had secured an exclusive, no bid, no-cut contract to supply clean coal to the Paiton power plant. The family’s financial backer in his Indonesian coal mining business was none other than Mochtar Riady. The Lippo Group controlled one of the only two commercially viable low-sulfur coalmines in the world, this one conveniently located near the Paiton plant in Indonesia.
The other one just happened to be located in Southern Utah. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer reported that the people of Utah were “furious” with Clinton for signing away their future. They claimed that the move was “a land grab” by the federal government “at the economic expense of the state.” Blitzer raised the issue of coal – perhaps $1 trillion’s worth of clean, low-sulfur coal – that would never be mined. Said the president of this grand environmental gesture, “We can’t have mines everywhere and we shouldn’t have mines that threaten our national treasures.”
In her memoir, Living History, Hillary does not talk about the deal. Bill gives it a paragraph in his memoir, My Life. “My action was necessary to stop a large coal mine that would have fundamentally changed the character of the area,” said Clinton. “Most of the Utah officials were against it, but the land was priceless, and I thought the monument designation would bring in tourism income that over time would more than offset the loss of the mine.”
In a stroke of the pen, Clinton had handed the Riadys a monopoly on the world’s supply of low-sulfur coal. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots between Utah and Indonesia. The FBI had made the connection as well. Consider the following field notes from an FBI interview with Huang:
HUANG laughed in response to questions concerning J.RIADY’s interest in Utah coal restrictions. J. RIADY’s coal interests were minimal. Indonesia had significant infrastructure problems which prohibited the development of its coal resources.
Huang was lying. The Riadys had a powerful interest, and they would exploit it for all it was worth. In fact, at the Paiton plant, the price of the coal exceeded the price of the electricity produced. Each kilowatt generated drove the plant deeper into debt. Of course, this meant there were no profits, which meant Suharto’s family members did not have to pay back their up-front $50-million loan. If this plot sounds familiar, it is because it is nearly identical to that of Mel Brooks’s play and movie, The Producers.
PLN, the state Indonesian power company, caught the drift of the plot. In 1999, the company sued the Clinton administration. Its attorneys charged that U.S. officials knew the Paiton power plant contract to be awash in “corruption, collusion, and nepotism” from the beginning. In December of that year, an Indonesian court ruled in its favor. The PLN estimated that it had lost over $18 billion in total from Suharto corruption inside U.S. government-sponsored power plant contracts.
In September 1996, even if the media had been interested, Bill Clinton made his move too close to the election to allow for serious scrutiny. In April 2015, Hillary Clinton is much more exposed, much too early. If need be, her allies will bury her before it’s too late.
Fire in the hole!
The New York Times reported this week on the unseemly transfer of cash from parties interested in a major uranium deal to the Clintons. The Canadian company selling Uranium One to the Russians donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. And Russians tied to the deal gave Bill Clinton $500,000 for a Moscow speech.
The deal had global consequences. It would put one fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States under Russian control. So critical was the deal that it needed the approval of the U.S. State Department. State approved the deal, and it managed to so without fanfare. Hillary had failed to disclose the Canadian donors to Obama’s White House – this despite her presumed agreement to do just that.
As outrageous as this deal sounds, however, it was not the Clintons’ most egregious adventure in mining skulduggery. That adventure climaxed nearly twenty years ago – September 18, 1996, to be precise – when then President Bill Clinton unilaterally transformed a 1.7-million-acre slice of southern Utah into a new national monument.
“We’re saying, very simply, our parents and grandparents saved the Grand Canyon for us,” Clinton told the cheering crowd. “Today, we will save the Grand Escalante Canyons and the Kaiparowitz Plateaus of Utah for our children.” Less than two months before the 1996 presidential election, the national media chose not to ask why Clinton had made so astonishing a move.
The answer could be traced back to the November 1994 midterms. On that black Tuesday, Democrats lost fifty-two seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Mario Cuomo lost. House speaker Tom Foley lost. Popular Texas governor Ann Richards lost to underdog George W. Bush. Newt Gingrich now loomed as Speaker of the House.
Bill and Hillary Clinton caught the blame. After days of anger and self-pity, they began to focus again on the one principle that had directed their lives to date: getting Bill re-elected. Not by chance, just a week after the election, the Clintons were heading to the one place in the world most capable of nurturing a comeback: Indonesia, the home base of the Riady family.
The Riadys had bailed Clinton out as governor when he mismanaged Arkansas’s Teacher’s Retirement Fund. They had rescued him with cash twice on the 1992 campaign trail. They had seemingly bought off Clinton aide Webster Hubbell before he had to seek a deal with Whitewater prosecutors. Soon enough, Clinton would reciprocate.
The mood on the Indonesia trip was sour from the beginning. On the seemingly endless flight over, then adviser George Stephanopoulos reported, “The president and Hillary rarely left their cabin.” This could not have been Bill’s idea. What transpired in that cabin is unrecorded – in Hillary’s memoir, Living History, there is no trip to Indonesia – but from this moment on, the presidency would assume a much sharper edge, and Hillary was doing the sharpening.
It was with this trip, for instance, that the CEOs accompanying the Clintons saw their $100,000 donation to the DNC morph from a discreet expectation into the price of admission. With this trip, too, shadowy figures like Gene and Nora Lum, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Thai citizen Pauline Kanchanalak began to operate in the open. All would later be charged in one scandal or another.
In Jakarta, Bill Clinton quickly got down to business. He chided Democrats for their historic “adversarial” relationship with business and Republicans for their “inactive” one. Boasted Clinton, “We have unashamedly been an active partner in helping our business enterprises to win contracts abroad.” Unashamedly? As to human rights, Clinton made clear that there were different rules for Indonesia from those for South Africa or Serbia. “We do not seek to impose our vision of the world on others,” he groveled. “Indeed, we continue to struggle with our own inequities and our own shortcomings.”
The CEOs, like John Bryson of Mission Energy, had more important things on their minds than human rights. Bryson wanted the White House to lean on the Asian Development Bank to support a massive new coal-fired electric plant for Indonesia called the Paiton project. Although Paiton was hailed as the first “private” electric plant in Indonesia, “private” had a different meaning in Indonesia from what it means elsewhere. In this case, it meant owned and operated, at least in part, by the “Indo ruling family,” the Suharto clan.
According to Commerce Department notes from John Huang’s file, a certain percentage of this project was set aside for a management company owned by Suharto’s daughter. The cut for her and other relatives was to be a $50-million upfront loan to be paid back through presumed profits generated by the plant. This arrangement troubled the ADB, which was reportedly “skiddish” (sic) about offering what amounted to a $50-million bribe to the family of a corrupt oligarch, paid, at least in part, by the U.S. taxpayer.
John Huang met with the CIA on the Paiton project as well. What the CIA did not know is that after the meeting, according to the Thompson Senate Committee, Huang repaired to “a secret office” and placed a three-hour call to his former employer, the Riadys’ Lippo Group.
Lippo had a lot at stake. Mission Energy, as it turns out, was part of a larger consortium known as Edison International, and Edison was a Lippo partner. There is more. Suharto’s family had secured an exclusive, no bid, no-cut contract to supply clean coal to the Paiton power plant. The family’s financial backer in his Indonesian coal mining business was none other than Mochtar Riady. The Lippo Group controlled one of the only two commercially viable low-sulfur coalmines in the world, this one conveniently located near the Paiton plant in Indonesia.
The other one just happened to be located in Southern Utah. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer reported that the people of Utah were “furious” with Clinton for signing away their future. They claimed that the move was “a land grab” by the federal government “at the economic expense of the state.” Blitzer raised the issue of coal – perhaps $1 trillion’s worth of clean, low-sulfur coal – that would never be mined. Said the president of this grand environmental gesture, “We can’t have mines everywhere and we shouldn’t have mines that threaten our national treasures.”
In her memoir, Living History, Hillary does not talk about the deal. Bill gives it a paragraph in his memoir, My Life. “My action was necessary to stop a large coal mine that would have fundamentally changed the character of the area,” said Clinton. “Most of the Utah officials were against it, but the land was priceless, and I thought the monument designation would bring in tourism income that over time would more than offset the loss of the mine.”
In a stroke of the pen, Clinton had handed the Riadys a monopoly on the world’s supply of low-sulfur coal. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots between Utah and Indonesia. The FBI had made the connection as well. Consider the following field notes from an FBI interview with Huang:
HUANG laughed in response to questions concerning J.RIADY’s interest in Utah coal restrictions. J. RIADY’s coal interests were minimal. Indonesia had significant infrastructure problems which prohibited the development of its coal resources.
Huang was lying. The Riadys had a powerful interest, and they would exploit it for all it was worth. In fact, at the Paiton plant, the price of the coal exceeded the price of the electricity produced. Each kilowatt generated drove the plant deeper into debt. Of course, this meant there were no profits, which meant Suharto’s family members did not have to pay back their up-front $50-million loan. If this plot sounds familiar, it is because it is nearly identical to that of Mel Brooks’s play and movie, The Producers.
PLN, the state Indonesian power company, caught the drift of the plot. In 1999, the company sued the Clinton administration. Its attorneys charged that U.S. officials knew the Paiton power plant contract to be awash in “corruption, collusion, and nepotism” from the beginning. In December of that year, an Indonesian court ruled in its favor. The PLN estimated that it had lost over $18 billion in total from Suharto corruption inside U.S. government-sponsored power plant contracts.
In September 1996, even if the media had been interested, Bill Clinton made his move too close to the election to allow for serious scrutiny. In April 2015, Hillary Clinton is much more exposed, much too early. If need be, her allies will bury her before it’s too late.
Fire in the hole!
Share Share | Share on twitter Twitter
| Share on facebook Facebook
| 258 Comments | Print | Share on email Email
by TaboolaSponsored LinksYou May Like
BrandPost: Mobile ROI: Myths and Reality
CIO for Citrix
Is the Beautiful Model Alyzza Agustin in Trouble
Coconuts Manila
GST Survival Guide:
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/a ... .html#ixzz3hTyEmptA
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ini bukan rahsia negara, ini bukan melibatkan dana negara atau duit rakyat...
ini urusan peribadi pak arab dengan najib dan atas najiblah sama ada dia nak guna sumbangan tersebut utk diri dia sendiri atau untuk partinya atau untuk rakyat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sayang_mulut posted on 31-7-2015 02:54 PM
nak tanye sket.. tak sure kau ni serius ke apa.. tapi bagus la ada funder yang sangat berjiwa besa ...
Alahhhhhhhhh............biolah Pak Erab nak masokkan duit
berbillion ke dalam akaun Najib. Apa salahnya.................?????
Lepas ni nanti, bolehlah Yahudi & Amerika masokkan duit dalam
akaun Anwat. Jutawan Taiwan & Hongkong masokkan duit ke dalam
akaun Lim Guan Eng. Billiawan India masokkan duit ke dalam akaun Gobind
Singh Deo................ALLS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mana boleh....najib dikenali sebab di perdana menteri malaysia....kalau dia bisnesman ade syarikat besar macam kingdom holding company tu mmg saya tak kesah..sume org tak kesah...tapi najib razak merupakan perdana menteri malaysia......kalau dia dapat duit tu sebelum dia jadi pm dan itu atas urusan bisnes dia ...itu ok la...tapi dia dapat masa dia jadi pm...jgn la nak samakan dengan kes saidaina uthman ....itu mmg harta dia....dan dia tak campur dalam urusan negara.....apetah lagi parti.....
mesti buat2 tak paham kan...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PAC di tubuhkan utk apa macai sekalian?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 31-7-2015 10:19 PM
