Where did the money go? — File photo
IF you are a Malaysian born 23 years ago, you were born at a time when your country was losing a lot of money through its dealings in the foreign exchange market.
You were born at the wrong time but at the right place. Wrong time – you became a debtor because your country had incurred an enormous national debt and you were expected to help pay back part of it eventually. Right place – this is a good country, so stay put, whatever happens.
One good thing about this country is that a lot of our people are like elephants: they have a long memory. What happened many years ago is still of interest to them. From time to time they take out the skeletons from the cupboard; from time to time they ngiling tikai (fold up the mat) and discover a lot of things that had been swept under it.
For instance, early this year, a former assistant governor of Bank Negara revealed that the national bank had “suffered US$10 billion in foreign exchange market losses in the early 1990s”. And this was RM1 billion more than that revealed by Bank Negara (Bernama report – June 25).
Have fun by converting that figure into our own money; using the present exchange rate of RM4.30 to the US$1, doesn’t it amount to a whooping RM40 billion plus?
Wait a minute! This is more than what was allegedly reported by the Bank Negara earlier – by RM1billion!
Toothless taskforce
A lot of money lost, how come? In February, without many people knowing about all this, a special taskforce consisting of seven senior former government servants was quietly assembled in order to peep into the size of the loss of public money – by making a preliminary investigation of the total loss; by determining whether there were any attempts to conceal the actual loss; and by making recommendations including the setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) should the preliminary investigation reveal something obviously suspicious.
As it transpired, in carrying out its task, the STF found itself in a difficult situation. Like our proverbial elephant, it had no teeth. It could not compel people who would be able to give answers to questions to come forward voluntarily.
A number of luminaries did indeed cooperate and volunteer to talk. However, still many others who should have come forward also, voluntarily, did not do so.
In the Bernama report of June 25, the chairman of the STF was reported as saying to the effect that there was a need for the formation of another body to carry out further investigation. He added, “Therefore, an RCI is the only way for a complete understanding. If this is not done now, the matter will prolong. In the future, five or ten years from now, it will crop up again.”
Too right! Ada orang tidak semudah itu lupa – some people do not forget easily all right.
A waste of effort
Some people say it was a waste of time to appoint the taskforce and to call it ‘special’, when at the end of the day, it could not do much on its own steam. I think the STF so constituted has done a good job – first step towards a full scale investigation under another body with full power and authority. Let’s support the formation of this other body and see what happens.
The RCI will enquire into those dealings in the foreign currencies through the banking system, asking, ‘why, and how’ the dealings went bad.
The commission would be also able to find out who among the trustees of our funds were responsible for the losses; whether there was any element of crime or wrongdoing in those transactions.
Equally importantly, it would be good for the commission to not only pinpoint mistakes or poor judgment on the part of those responsible for the loss of the people’s money but equally important if that outfit could also exonerate the innocent officials, if any.
The creation of an RCI should enjoy the confidence and support of many fair-minded citizens of Malaysia. As the chairman of STF has rightly said, the people need “an explanation on the matter, and the government had decided to conduct an investigation. Therefore, an RCI is the only way for a complete understanding. If this is not done now, it will crop up again”.
You bet, the matter will be revisited even after 100 years from now. An RCI is necessary provided that it is free to probe every aspect of the matter under investigation and is not to be restricted by its terms of reference drawn up by someone else.
By all means find out: why was it necessary, in the first place, for the government of the day during the material period (1980s and 1990s) to deal in money business. Was it speculation or a sure money-making venture?
Who or what institution was given the authority to carry out the business involving public money; find out who were the clients or trading partners involved. Find out, if there was any criminal element in the transactions, and who committed it, and in collaboration with whom.
At the end of the investigations, tell us about the outcome, bad or good.
Incidentally, still on the subject of RCIs in general, how can we fail to be reminded by the memory of the notorious Projek IC carried out in Sabah? How many of the recommendations of the RCI have been implemented, one wonders?
We are looking forward to hearing about the appointment of another Royal Commission of Inquiry soon – before the General Election, if possible.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].