QUESTION TIME In my small circle of friends and family, everyone thinks that Prime Minister Najib Razak should step down over that RM2.6 billion, now by some accounts revised to RM4.2 billion, donation that went into his personal bank accounts.

Why? None of them believes that story about the “donation” coming from rich Saudi Arabian benefactors who are so impressed by what Najib is doing that they gave him RM2.6 billion to do with it what he pleases.

Just like former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who expressed grave doubts over the generosity of Arabs who he tapped for funds before quite unsuccessfully, they are more inclined to believe that the money somehow or other came from 1Malaysia Development Bhd or 1MDB, our sick, self-styled strategic development company.

But if indeed that “donation” did come from the Saudi Arabian royal family and no link could be established between the giving of the money and any specific action that Najib took in relation to that money, does it mean Najib should stay on as prime minister?

No matter what the legal position, from a moral and ethical point of view the answer has to be a clear “no!” because by taking that money - and admittedly a very large amount at that - the prime minister has irreversibly compromised his position by making himself subject to undue influence.

And even legally speaking it may not be entirely certain that Najib is in the clear even if it indeed were a “donation” because the MACC Act stipulates that a donation to a public official should be construed as a “gratification” unless it is proven to be otherwise. It may well be a case for the courts to decide.

Coming to Lim Guan Eng, chief minister of Penang and DAP secretary-general, it is useful first to establish the facts. For the facts only, we rely mainly on this article in Malaysiakini and some others.

Tasek Gelugor MP Shahbudin Yahaya of Umno last month alleged in Parliament that Lim was involved in corruption, accusing him of purchasing a bungalow from Phang Li Koon at below the market price.

Shahbudin linked it to the state's government sale of land in Taman Manggis to a private company in 2012, which BN also claimed was sold at below the market price. The 0.4-hectare plot was sold for RM11 million to Kuala Lumpur International Dental Centre Sdn Bhd (KLIDC) in 2012.

The bungalow is at 25, Jalan Pinhorn in Green Lane. Lim bought the 10,161 sq ft property on July 28 last year for RM2.8 million, at about RM276 per square foot. The previous owner, Phang, bought it at RM2.5 million, or RM246 psf, on Sept 27, 2008. She had renovated the property and later rented it to Lim for six years at RM5,000 a month.

Umno blogs have compared Lim's purchase to another newly-renovated property on Jalan Pinhorn, which has a plot size of 4,983 sq ft and was sold for RM3.6 million or RM722 psf in 2014, to claim Lim's purchase was way below market. If the 2014 transaction is to be a benchmark, Lim's property should be worth about RM7.3 million.

Meantime, Penang Umno Youth chief Rafizal Abdul Rahim submitted a document to the MACC which he claimed showed Lim's unit to have been valued at RM4.27 million. Rafizal said the document was a copy of the property transfer assessment declaration from the Inland Revenue Board.

DAP’s political credibility at stake

Lim agreed that he knew that the stamp duty valuation for the house was RM4.2 million. Using RM4.27 million as the value of the bungalow, Lim underpaid by RM1.47 million, a significant sum. If we use the RM7.3 million valuation, the underpayment works to about three times at RM4.5 million.

Lim was definitely aware of the RM1.47 million underpayment and if he was a reasonable man, which we assume he is, he would have checked to see the value of similar properties. In all likelihood the underpayment was greater than RM1.4 million but less than RM4.5 million.

Phang, a businesswoman, declared that she did not check the value of the bungalow as she had agreed to sell it to Lim under an option agreement although questions can be asked as to why the option agreement was so favourable to Lim.

The point is that Lim was aware that he got the bungalow at a price at least RM1.47 million below the market price as assessed for stamp duty. So what does this difference constitute? It is definitely a benefit that he gets, it may in effect be a donation, or a gratification.

Some legal opinion seems to indicate that this “gift” or whatever else it may be called, needs to be tied back to a definite corrupt act, but others think that it may be something for the courts to decide.

Malaysiakini reported that according to documents from the Companies Commission, Phang is the co-director of Windbond Management & Consultant Sdn Bhd, holding a 20 percent stake. Her partner in the company is Tang Yong Chew, who controls the remaining 80 percent of the company.

Significantly, Tang is also the majority shareholder of KLIDC, which bought the Taman Manggis land, holding a 60 percent stake in the dental company. That establishes Phang as an associate of the businessman who effectively controls the dental company.

However, Lim pointed out that the Taman Manggis land was sold based on open tender. Furthermore, Lim was not part of the tender committee, which was chaired by the state secretary, which awarded the bid.

But it would be difficult to deny Lim’s influence as chief minister. For instance, the prime minister does not sit on most tender committees but few people, especially those from the opposition, believe that he has no influence in the awarding of large contracts.

What is clearly established from facts is that Lim has received a benefit from the sale and he was aware of it. He may have to prove in a court of law that it is not a “gratification” under the MACC Act which includes in this category money, donation, gift, loan, fee, reward, property or interest in property, etc.

That Lim has knowingly accepted a significant benefit/gift/gratification/etc of at least RM1.47 million while chief minister raises serious questions as to whether he has compromised that high office. That implies he needs to step down and if he does not, for DAP to force him to do so. Otherwise, DAP’s political credibility is at stake.

There can’t be one standard by which the DAP judges Najib and another by which it judges Lim. Yes, the severity of the offence matters - RM1.4 million is less than a thousandth of RM2.6 billion but it is nevertheless significant, more than most Malaysians earn in their lifetime.

Former editor P GUNASEGARAM, now an independent consultant, trainer and writer, believes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Contact him at t.p.guna@gmail.com .