Call for immediate halt to  the parliamentary debate on the 11Malaysia Plan for Najib to make a ministerial statement on his role in the 1MDB scandal followed by a two-day debate tantamount to  whether Najib still enjoy confidence of Parliament

1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB)’s president and group executive director Arul Kanda Kandasamy was supposed to be overseas on an assignment making it impossible for him  to attend the scheduled Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing on the 1MDB scandal yesterday.

However, in the last two days, Arul had been unusually productive and accessible, making three media responses raising the question whether he is really overseas.

The first was 1MDB media statement on Monday in immediate response to  the media conference by the PAC Chairman, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed that in place of the testimony by Arul and the former 1MDB CEO Shahrol Halmi, the PAC would move on to question the three firms that audited 1MDB.

In the statement, Arul reiterated that 1MDB will “extend its full co-operation” to the PAC and that both he and Shahrol “look forward to appearing before the committee and having the opportunity to clarify 1MDB’s position”.

The second was Arul’s statement yesterday refuting reports that 1MDB had only informed the PAC of the 1MDB duo’s no-show at the eleventh hour despite the notice to attend the hearing two weeks ago.

Arul said it was only on May 21 that 1MDB received a letter from the Ministry of Finance, appending the invitation sent by the PAC, raising the question why and who in the Finance Ministry  who sat on the PAC requisition on May 6 summoning the 1MDB duo to the PAC hearing yesterday – and whether the Finance Ministry official concerned would be disciplined.

But it was Arul’s third media statement last evening which “cooked the goose” so to say.

Yesterday, Malaysiakini and The Malay Mail Online raised the question whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had complete control of 1MDB as all the 1MDB’s controversial deals  had to be authorized and consented by him as Prime Minister.

The MMO  report
“Leaked documents show PM”s approval required for all deals under 1MDB precursor”
, by Shazwan Mustafa Kamal, said:

The prime minister has the final say over any “financial commitment” undertaken by 1 Malaysia Development Berhad’s (1MDB) precursor, Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), according to TIA’s Memorandum and Articles of Association agreement.

1MDB was incorporated in 2009, after Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced the decision to turn TIA into a federal agency.

Clause 117 of the agreement inked on February 27, 2009, indicates that the prime minister must give his written approval for any of TIA’s deals, including the firm’s investments or any bid for restructuring.

The clause states that for any avoidance of doubt, none of three things can be executed “without the written prior approval of the prime minister”.

This includes “any financial commitment (including investment), restructuring or any other matter which is likely to affect the guarantee given by the Federal Government of Malaysia for the benefit of the company, national interest, national security or any policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia”.

The clause also stipulates that the government shall have the “final and conclusive” right to determine what constitutes national interest and national security.

Other matters which need the PM’s approval are amendments to the company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and appointments and removal of directors and senior management team of TIA.

Malaysiakin in its exclusive report also highlighted the same issue, pointing out that should Clause 117 of the M&A dated  Sept 2, 2009 remain at status quo until today, it would mean that the prime minister had given his consent to many of 1MDB’s controversial deals.

This would  include the decision to move US$1.1 billion from Cayman Islands to a bank in Singapore, the deal with Mongolia-based company Gobi Coal & Energy Limited (GCE) and the sale of Tun Razak Exchange land to the Lembaga Tabung Haji, among others.

However, alll these doubts and queries have been put to rest by Arul’s third statement in the past two days, where he told The Malaysian Insider yesterday  that “the requirement to obtain the prime minister’s written approval for any financial deals undertaken by 1 Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) was never hidden from public knowledge”.

If true, Najib’s lie in his parliamentary answer about 1MDB’s US$1billion deposit from Cayman Islands in a Singapore bank pales into insignificance in comparison with the public and  parliamentary charade which Najib is guilty of when he claimed that as Chairman of the 1MDB Board of Advisors, he was not responsible for the management of operation of 1MDB, when as Prime Minister, he has to give “written approval” for any of  1MDB’s deals.

This will be the first time in the nation’s history that a Prime Minister has been caught red-handed in such a charade on a grand scale.

In the circumstances, there should be an immediate halt to the parliamentary debate on the 11th Malaysia Plan for Najib to make a ministerial statement on his role in the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, followed by the two-day debate.

This would tantamount to a vote of confidence in Parliament as to whether Najib should continue as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 10:27 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The 21 years of mismanagement that brought MAS to its knees

by Ram Anand

The Malaysian Insider

27 May 2015

Beginning September, Malaysia Airline System Bhd, the company Malaysians know as the national carrier since 1972, will cease to exist.

It would instead be replaced by a new company, Malaysia Airlines Bhd, to be fully owned by Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional before a planned re-listing in Bursa Malaysia by 2019.

This, however, is not the first time MAS has been subjected to a turnaround plan or a bid to save the airline. It has happened several times over the course of 22 years, beginning in 1994.

This is the most comprehensive restructuring plan that MAS has been subjected to though. One that will involve a rigorous cutting down of its air travel routes and its workforce, likely to reduce it to a regional airline.

But this will only work if the government and those helming this restructuring plan heed the lessons of the past.

It all began in 1994 when businessman Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli took loans from several government-linked companies totalling RM1.79 billion and then used the money to buy a controlling stake in MAS, a move that cost the government dearly some seven years later.

Then the CEO of MAS, Tajudin was badly affected by the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the government eventually bought MAS back from Tajudin for RM8 a share – the exact price Tajudin had paid seven years before. The only difference was, this time, MAS was lingering near bankruptcy.

It had bled RM256 million in the fiscal year ending 1998 and by the fiscal year ending 2000, it bled a further RM255.7 million after tax losses. When the government bought back the controlling stake from Tajudin, the share price on the market was only RM3.68 per share.

Government linked company Danaharta eventually opted for an out of court settlement with Tajudin despite winning a legal case over the RM589 million in loans owed by Tajudin to the company.

Back in the government’s hands, MAS reported a loss of RM 1.3 billion in 2005, prompting another turnaround plan that saw them appoint current Performance and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) chief Datuk Seri Idris Jala (pic) as its CEO.

For many, Idris’ tenure was the only silver lining for a company that has otherwise made a habit of bleeding money annually.

In 2007, they recorded a profit of RM852 million, the highest in MAS history, and followed up with RM522 million profit in 2009, just before Idris took over as Pemandu CEO under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s administration.

But for DAP’s Kluang MP Liew Chin Tong, a keen observer of MAS history over the years, the current state of MAS necessitates calling into question the sustainability of what Idris did during his time helming the airline.

“His whole tenure should be called into question. It shows that his turnaround had not succeeded, as what he did was to basically cut the muscle of MAS – he cut the expenditure, killed the morale of the staff, and he killed that talent pool,” Liew told the The Malaysian Insider.

He said that for all of MAS’ troubles, the workers have become an easy “punching bag” for the company.

MAS is expected to sack their entire staff and only retain about two-thirds of them for the new company, meaning that more than 8,000 people stand to lose their jobs.

“The way Idris handled MAS, resulted in a huge number of talented people deciding to move away – it’s a vicious cycle. The current CEO (Christoph Mueller) is doing exactly the same thing,” he said.

Liew said that the company is currently merely “chopping people’s jobs” to have a turnaround of fortunes.

“You have to ask if MAS actually has the talent and the morale to carry on. After all, you are running a service industry,” he said.

Two years after Idris left his post, MAS suffered one of the most historic losses in aviation industry, a staggering RM2.5 billion in 2011.

They made a profit of RM430 million the following year, but lost RM1.16 billion in 2013.

In 2014, they lost two planes – first on March 8, flight MH370, en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, disappeared while leaving Malaysian airspace. What happened to the plane remains one of the biggest mysteries in aviation history.

Just four months later, on July 17, flight MH17, en route to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam, was said to have been shot by a ground-to-air missile while flying 30,000 feet over a conflict zone in Ukraine. None of the 298 passengers and flight crew survived.

These incidents forced Khazanah to finally de-list MAS and take it private last year, paying RM1.38 billion to compensate minority shareholders, before embarking on this major restructuring plan.

The latest state injection into MAS, from Khazanah, will be RM6 billion.

But, this was not the first time the state has injected money into MAS. Over the past 10 years, MAS is estimated to have lost RM10 billion of state money that was injected into it, according to former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Overall, it is estimated that MAS lost upwards of RM20 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1994.

When it recorded its RM1.16 billion loss in 2013, the airline was bleeding between RM4 million and RM5 million daily.

The latest injection may not be the first, but with MAS having suffered such heavy losses for two decades now, the latest revival attempt will likely be a final attempt at putting the national carrier’s accounts back in the black. – May 27, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 May 2015, 6:51 pm and is filed under
Airline
,
Financial Scandals
,
MH 370
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Shafie breaking ranks with the Prime Minister and declaring that he is not prepared to “swim or sink” with Najib on the 1MDB scandal and that if Najib is to drown, he should do it alone without dragging down others?

The statement by UMNO Vice President and Rural and Regional Development Minister, Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal raised eyebrows all round.

It is not just his  repudiating the principle of collective Ministerial responsibility, but even more significant, his striking a posture which is tantamount to Shafie  breaking ranks with the Prime Minister and declaring that he is not prepared to “swim or sink” with Najib on the 1MDB scandal and that if Najib is to drown, he should do it alone without dragging down others.

This is the only interpretation of Shafie’s protest against claims that the entire Cabinet should be held responsible for the 1MDB scandal, saying that it would be unfair to do so when he and his colleagues were just as unclear as the public over the firm’s controversial and opaque deals.

It is shock enough  that a senior three-term Cabinet Minister does not understand the principle of collective Ministerial responsibility but it boggles the minds of Malaysians that Shafie could assert both ignorance and innocence about the enormity of the 1MDB scandal, claiming that he was in the position of the ordinary aggrieved Malaysian on the ground that  he was as  unclear as the public about the 1MDB scandal.

How could  this be when the Cabinet at its meeting on 4th  March this year  cleared the troubled fund of wrongdoing, making all the 35 Ministers individually and collectively for the 1MDB scandal!

Immediately after the Cabinet meeting, I had questioned the 35 ministers if they knew what they were doing and if they had understood 1MDB’s dealings in the last six years before issuing a “clean bill of health and integrity” to the company.

I asked: “Were they presented with any Cabinet papers on 1MDB to read and study before the Cabinet meeting?

“Were they given access to the ‘thousands’ of 1MDB transactions and email which London’s Sunday Times and Sarawak Report have said they have obtained access to, despite attempts by 1MDB at the end of last year to call in all of its computers, employee laptops and servers to wipe them clean of such transactions and emails?”

After the Cabinet meeting, where the Ministers were briefed by 1MDB and its auditors Deloitte, Najib said the Cabinet had cleared the state-owned strategic investment vehicle of any wrong; that the Cabinet was satisfied that allegations made against 1MDB were related to transactions by third parties, such as  PetroSaudi International and that the Cabinet had ordered the  Auditor-General (A-G) to verify the fund’s accounts.

How can Shafie, more than two months later, now claim that he was just as  unclear as the public about the 1MDB scandal, and to  use this  to disclaim the applicability of the principle of collective responsibility.

Why then did Shafie joined the rest of the Ministers in issuing  a clean bill of health and integrity to 1MDB at the Cabinet meeting of March 4?

This question is also pertinent to the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who joined the rest of the Cabinet to declare 1MDB clean and healthy, when he was in no position to do so, as illustrated by his speech to four UMNO divisions on May 16 where he warned that although he did not understand the full intricacies of the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, it was “the last straw to break the camel’s back” and would cause the downfall of the UMNO/Barisan Nasional government if a solution is not found quick and fast.

It is clear from the statements from Muhyiddin, Shafie and other UMNO/Barisan Nasional leaders, the Prime Minister and his 35-strong Cabinet have failed the 29 million Malaysians big time, and they are still not prepared to get out of their denial syndrome to put an end to the 1MDB scandal.

I had asked earlier this morning whether there any Cabinet Minister is prepared to “bell the cat” at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow, insisting that Najib should  “tell all” to the Ministers and immediately testify at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on the 1MDB scandal, as it is now established that the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals, transactions and investments.

Malaysians can only await the outcome of the Cabinet meeting tomorrow – whether there is going to be more of the same government irresponsibility, lack of accountability and transparency or whether the Cabinet is prepared to enable the country to start anew where the people can have  trust, confidence and faith in those who govern the country.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2015, 5:19 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Islamist fighters drawn from half the world’s countries, says UN

Jason Burke

Guardian

26 May 2015

Report says there are more than 25,000 ‘foreign terrorist fighters’ from 100 countries in jihadi conflicts, who pose an ‘immediate and long-term threat’

More than half the countries in the world are currently generating Islamist extremist fighters for groups such as al-Qaida and Islamic State, the UN has said.

A report by the UN security council says there are more than 25,000 “foreign terrorist fighters” currently involved in jihadi conflicts and they are “travelling from more than 100 member states”.

The number of fighters may have increased by more than 70% worldwide in the past nine months or so, the report says, adding that they “pose an “immediate and long-term [terrorist] threat”.

The sudden rise, though possibly explained by better data, will raise concern about the apparently growing appeal of extremism. The geographic spread of states touched by the phenomenon has expanded, too.

The report notes continuing problems with understanding the processes of radicalisation, but says, despite a concentration on the internet, social networks in conflict zones and western cities play a key role.

“Those who eat together and bond together can bomb together,” the report says.

The report is the first from the UN to take a global view of the problem of “foreign terrorist fighters”, and includes those in Afghanistan, Africa and other theatres as well as Syria and Iraq.

Officials described the estimate of numbers as conservative and said the true total may be more than 30,000. “The rate of flow is higher than ever and mainly focused on movement into the Syrian Arab Republic and Iraq, with a growing problem also evident in Libya,” the report says.

The security council is meeting on Friday to discuss the problem of foreign terrorist fighters and potential measures to combat the threat.

The report comes amid a fierce debate over western strategies to counter Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

In recent days, Isis has made significant advances in both countries despite months of air strikes, leading to criticism of the US president, Barack Obama, and decision-makers in the region.

The US senator John McCain attacked the president on Sunday for citing climate change as a threat to national security, suggesting that the Obama administration’s focus on environmental issues was detracting from the fight against Isis.

Last week, the militant group seized the city of Ramadi, the capital of the predominantly Sunni Anbar province, its greatest victory in Iraq since its conquest of Mosul last summer and its declaration of a caliphate spanning swaths of Iraq and Syria.

The group also took control of the historic Syrian city of Palmyra and strategic gas fields nearby after a week-long siege that routed forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. The victory has triggered a humanitarian crisis, due to the flight of thousands of residents.

A series of public statements by senior officials in Washington and the Middle East have highlighted disagreements between the US, Iraq and Iran.

Earlier this year, General James Clapper, the director of US national intelligence, told Congress that officials now believed that 3,400 citizens from western nations, including 150 from the US, had travelled to Iraq and Syria to join violent militant groups.

More than 700 British extremists are thought to have travelled to Syria – with about half returning to the UK.

The new report describes Iraq, Syria and Libya as a “veritable finishing school” for terrorists and mentions Tunisia, Morocco, France and the Russian federation as particularly vulnerable to future attacks due to the number of fighters from there.

“Those that have returned or will return to their states of origin or to third countries may pose a continuing threat to national and international security,” the report said.

“Many may reintegrate, abandoning violence. Some have already gone on to organise further terrorist attacks and others will do so in the future.”

In May 2014, a French veteran of the conflict in Syria launched an attack on a Jewish museum in Belgium.

The killer of four people in a Jewish supermarket in Paris in January claimed to be from Islamic State though he was not a veteran of the conflict there. His wife had fled to Syria days before the attack.

Isis has repeatedly called on Muslims living in the west to mount “freelance” or “lone wolf” operations.

Alexander Evans, lead UN expert on al-Qaida and Isis, said there was a danger that the international community was becoming too focused on Syria, Iraq and Libya.

“The risk of people going and people returning is wider,” Evans said.

Afghan security forces estimated in March 2015 that about 6,500 foreign terrorist fighters were active in Afghanistan, the report notes. Most were from groups based in neighbouring Pakistan, though 200 were with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and 150 with the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement which operates in south-west China.

There are fears of an upsurge in violence in Afghanistan as the US reduces its presence in the unstable state.

Volunteers have travelled to conflict zones where Islamic militants are active from countries including Chile, Finland and the Maldives.

“We have spent a lot of time worrying about the countries which have generated hundreds or even thousands of fighters but [there are] countries which may have never faced a terrorist threat of this nature and which have law enforcement and security authorities which are grappling with what is a new problem for them,” Evans said.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2015, 8:31 am and is filed under
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Jho says it ain’t so: Malaysian tycoon denies role in 1MDB ‘heist of the century’

by
Eric Ellis

Euromoney

The saga of scandalized Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB has drawn in many high-profile figures from the country’s establishment. None more so than a flamboyant, Hong Kong-based tycoon. But the self-styled Jho Low denies all involvement in 1MDB. Now he’s ready to publicly defend himself – and point the finger of blame at others.

Low Taek Jho’s high-rise lair in Hong Kong is the stuff of thrillers, appropriately enough for a young Penang-born tycoon cast by his countrymen as a mysterious villain whose shadowy dealings have exposed the secrets of Malaysia Inc.

The intrigues are felt the moment one steps inside the stylish foyer of Jynwel Capital, his family’s private equity investment house based in downtown Central. A receptionist purrs that “Mr Low is expecting you” as a wall magically slides aside to reveal a minimalist ante-room framed by a panorama of the city’s harbour and the promise of China beyond.

Once inside, the aperture silently glides shut behind. An immaculately dressed aide ushers the visitor to a single black leather armchair in the centre of the room. With the visitor seated, attention is diverted to a slick corporate video screening on a monitor emerging from a wall.

Low appears for the first time, starring in a tour d’horizon of his worldwide empire: Caribbean resorts, European fashion, Alaskan resources, Asian property, meetings with Gulf sheikhs, his philanthropic foundation with the UN. The aide reappears to serve coffee in exquisite porcelain. Of course, it’s exactly to taste.

The show over, another wall glides open and this time it’s Low in person, full of bonhomie and beckoning his visitor through another sliding wall.

With Malaysians from all sides urging his prosecution for alleged fraud and money laundering over his dealings with a scandalised sovereign fund, Jho Low, as he likes to be known, might be forgiven for wanting some extra protection after what he calls the most difficult time of his 33-year life.

However, low in the flesh doesn’t quite fit his detractors’ type. Young certainly, even geekily so, he is anxious to get his views across. At times, during a two-hour conversation, it almost seems the experience is cathartic.

“I’m just constantly being gunned down,” Low laments of the furore that has engulfed the government-owned fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). “I’m very frustrated, but I haven’t said anything.”

In fact, since Euromoney sat down with him on March 6, Low has broken his silence in a series of carefully orchestrated interviews with
Hong Kong-based newspaper South China Morning Post
 and television news channel CNBC.

Low is fighting back. “I feel it’s just gotten to a point where it’s just ridiculous,” he tells Euromoney. “There are all these guys with their arrows out on me. There seems to be a very, very coordinated attempt to say: ‘This young Chinaman, it’s all his fault, he caused the failure of 1MDB and apparently he advised the PM and everything is screwed up now’.”

Whether Low should bear the blame for 1MDB being ‘screwed up’ is a much-discussed point in Malaysia. But few disagree that 1MDB is in deep strife, becoming a financial scandal fuelled by a drip feed of embarrassing leaks that threatens Malaysia’s creditworthiness and the continued rule of prime minister
Najib Razak
, who as finance minister and 1MDB chairman is ultimately responsible for the heavily indebted fund.

To hear Malaysians tell it, Low got rich at their expense and spent their money on Cristal champagne and partying with the likes of Paris Hilton. But to hear Low’s version of events, he has been demonized because he is 1) young, 2) made a lot of money quickly and 3) – and perhaps most provocative of all given modern Malaysia’s sensitive racial cocktail – is an ethnic Chinese Malaysian dabbling in the preserve of the politically connected Malay business elite.

1MDB began its controversial life in 2009 after the federal finance ministry took over the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), a provincial sovereign fund that Low, then a green 20-something MBA graduate from Wharton, had set up with the royal family to channel royalties from the oil-rich Terengganu state in peninsular Malaysia’s east.

Malaysia already had a state investment house –
Khazanah Nasional
 – created in the booming
Mahathir Mohamad
 era that gave him a grip over the country’s key assets. But this new house would be different, claimed its government promoters, more dynamic – a brand-new national fund to mark a brand-new era – the Najib Razak era. It was renamed for his ‘One Malaysia’ initiative, which was conceived as a distinct break with Mahathir’s lingering legacy over the country. It also suited that a key source of cash was in federal hands, and not in states like Terengganu, which had been flirting with the opposition.

But 1MDB started out with problems. There was holdover debt, while provincial jealousies festered over Kuala Lumpur’s seizure of TIA.

The assets injected into the new entity were unremarkable; politically fraught land holdings at Kuala Lumpur’s fringes that yielded nothing, and a handful of ageing power stations in need of upgrading.

But actual cashflow has been rare, a problem because 1MDB has quickly accumulated debt now calculated at around $12 billion, some of it from a $3 billion state-guaranteed 2013 bond issued on very generous terms, led by Goldman Sachs. The US investment bank is believed to have made as much as $300 million in fees from that deal alone, although it disputes this figure.

There has been a constantly revolving door of senior executives at 1MDB, and of external auditors too, rare at a state-owned enterprise. Official information about the fund’s deals and its finances is sparse. If Malaysians want to get information about an enterprise they ultimately own, they must laboriously wade through the state companies registry at their own considerable expense. No such information is available from
1MDB’s glossy corporate website
.

After a chequered six years on Najib’s watch, 1MDB has descended into a financial debacle fuelled by a rampant opposition and a drip feed of embarrassing internet leaks, most damagingly from UK-based website, the
Sarawak Report
.

Run by environmentalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, sister-in-law of former UK prime minister Gordon Brown, the site has become something of a Malaysia Wikileaks, posting embarrassing internal emails that detail the murky links and dealings of Low, 1MDB and prominent Middle East associates such as Abu Dhabi’s sovereign Mubadala Development Corp.

One such
report in February by Rewcastle Brown, headlined ‘Heist of the Century’
, highlighted an alleged deal through 2009/10 between Low, 1MDB and a little-known Middle East-based oil exploration company called Petro Saudi International that saw around $900 million spirited into a Low-connected company.

Najib and his family, notably his flamboyant wife Rosmah, have also appeared prominently in leaked correspondence, a boon to Malaysia’s opposition and his enemies within his own party, the long-ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO.) Embarrassed and weakened, Najib is moving to shut the 1MDB mess down, in an attempt to limit its damage to the country’s finances, and to his premiership.

Though relentlessly attacked from all sides, Low has kept his silence about his links to the fund. But as near-daily revelations expose his dealings and his connections to Malaysia’s first family, he tells Euromoney that the time has come for him to talk, to defend himself against his many critics. And it’s time too, he insists, to direct the 1MDB turmoil away from him to where, he claims, it really matters: the competence of those in charge of the fund.

“It’s so frustrating,” he says. “I’ve never faced this kind of attack from all directions. Its just crazy, and these UMNO guys are spinmasters, they know all this sort of nonsense.”

He continues: “All these guys go round and round and round and I say: ‘Guys, it’s very simple, there’s a board, who’s the shareholder?’ Have you ever seen one statement from anyone that talks about the simple governance of a company?

“Are you telling me the prime minister doesn’t make his own decisions? That the ministry, the minister of finance, who is the prime minister – and there are only two to three people in the finance ministry that sign off on shareholder resolutions under law – that none of them… that they just signed without evaluating it?”

Low is on a roll now: “Did the people supposed to be responsible for decision-making (at 1MDB) suddenly decide to absolve all their responsibilities and then create this PR campaign with me as the focus of it?

“No one seems to ask the question who is the ultimate decision-maker on 1MDB? No one asks that. No one ever asks about the shareholder’s role.”

He concludes: “There are so many other people who get away with ridiculous billions and billions and billions worth of projects. But every single time there seems to be a political attack, wow, suddenly Jho is there again.”

Low says six years of silence on the matter have created “a crazy perception. I’ve done nothing wrong (but) no one in Malaysia is interested in our point of view. Then we try to get out of this perception and they launch a gazillion rounds of attacks in a very systematic manner.”

He admits his high-profile lifestyle – the much-photographed celebrity partying in Hollywood and photos with Leonardo DiCaprio through links to the financiers of Hollywood blockbuster ‘Wolf of Wall Street’, hasn’t helped his cause.

“My mistake?” he asks rhetorically. “Young kid, made a lot of money, never thought about the timelines of these events… and then partying, blah blah blah blah… and that’s the part that gets all the attention.”

Low says it was a lethal recipe for adverse publicity. “I made money and I spent it, and it’s: ‘Oh, he must’ve made it from TIA/1MDB.’ I mean that’s basically the accusation. And because there are all these pictures of me and Paris Hilton drinking and all that, then you play to the bumiputra (ethnic Malay) card: ‘Oh, the Chinaman stole all the money and blew it all on alcohol’. And then I’m just like, I must be the dumbest person ever, if I really made money off the government and then to blow it like there is no tomorrow, it’s like about the dumbest thing you can do.”

To make his point, Low says: “I graduated from Wharton. I’m not that stupid. I just didn’t understand politics at that time.”

As for calls for his prosecution, Low says he doesn’t fear arrest on return to Malaysia. “The biggest concern is people fabricating documents. I’ve no proof, there’s so much innuendo,” he says.

But, Euromoney points out, Low has been seen for many years by prospective investors or partners of the embattled sovereign fund as its go-to guy. The rainmaker of 1MDB, to borrow the title of the film with which he is associated.

Low denies this. “Not really, I think they see me as… I think, for me, I have a very good relationship with Abu Dhabi, so any deal they do anywhere in the world, they would first come to me and ask if I want to co-invest. In the Malaysian case, we always say no because it’s politically sensitive.” Euromoney puts the question that everyone wants an answer to: when was the last involvement he had with 1MDB? “I want to define it very clearly,” he replies. “I never get involved with 1MDB. 1MDB never asked me to advise them or pay me a fee or do anything, and I have been very clear on that. If someone at 1MDB wants to call me and say: ‘You know, Jho, what’s your view on the Middle East?’ I’ll give them my view on the Middle East.”

He also admits that if a prospective investor asks his advice about 1MDB, he’ll provide it. “[They ask me:] ‘I want to buy a piece of land in TRX (the Tun Razak Exchange, an undeveloped KL property named after Najib’s late father and owned by 1MDB), what do you think about TRX, can you give me your views, can you connect me with them, can I talk to them?’…”

Much of the speculation around Jho Low’s involvement in 1MDB relates to his role in TIA, the state fund he devised with the Terengganu royals that was taken over by the federal government.

Again, he tries to shift the focus away from him. “It’s factually correct to say that from January to mid-May 2009 I was involved in TIA,” he says. “But then [it’s said] by someone or another I’m the main guy involved and that the other five guys – the other TIA board members – have disappeared? That, in that process, (TIA advisers) Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Boston Consulting and McKinsey all just disappeared, right?”

Asked if he is invested in 1MDB bonds, he is emphatic. “Absolutely not… zero, absolutely zero. I never bought any 1MDB bonds. Let’s make it clear. But they have tried to make this accusation that I profited from Goldman’s fees.”

Low is adamant. “I don’t run 1MDB. I don’t control 1MDB. I don’t decide anything on 1MDB, but if any Middle East entity that I know wants to ask me for my view, I’ll give them my view. And, if they want to get involved with 1MDB, that’s their prerogative.”

But the leaks keep coming, leaks that suggest a more profound role than Low agrees with.

Shortly after Euromoney met Low, the
Sarawak report published
 an email dated December 19, 2009 purportedly from Low to two Petro Saudi officials, Patrick Mahony and Tarek Obaid, that 1MDB chief investment officer Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil “will work with you”, after Mahony had emailed Low to insist that any communications between PSI and 1MDB be confined to just Mahony and Kamil. Doesn’t this suggest that Low’s influence was much greater than he claims?

Low says the situation is such that neither he nor his family can do business in his home country. “I choose not to just because anything and everything is going to be spun and become politicized. There is a perception that I share close links to the prime minister, but I’m not sure what has happened in recent times indicates that. But it has, because we still own a lot of real estate in Penang, which is now run by the opposition.”

For the anti-Najib opposition denied victory in the 2013 elections, despite winning a popular majority, Low and 1MDB are a propaganda gift to pile pressure on a long-ruling UMNO-led coalition beset by scandal.

Low’s personal connections to Najib’s family have also been a useful battering ram for Malaysia’s ageing former prime minister Mahathir, who’d like to see Najib replaced as UMNO leader and PM.

And Low is politically toxic for Najib as well, despite a long friendship dating from his English secondary school days with Najib’s stepson Riza Aziz, a Hollywood movie producer best known for his backing of ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’.

“There is a perception that I have a good relationship with the PM’s wife because of the stepson. I mean, I know the stepson well, but I’m not sure I would agree that I am the wife’s best friend.

“Of course the opposition is attacking the government and they think by attacking Jho Low that the prime minister will get affected because of my 16-year relationship with his stepson,” he says.

Low appears to be almost friendless in Malaysia. But his friend the prime minister is sticking by him. On March 16, a statement was issued in Najib’s name trumpeting the same line as Low proffers: “[He] has never worked for 1MDB and all decisions and dealings of 1MDB was done by the management and board of directors.”

Low would like that to be the end of the matter. He knows it won’t be.

“At the end of the day, something that was supposed to be a good cause just gets screwed – guess what? – because everyone just wants control of the money. It’s really as simple as that.”

As the 1MDB scandal rolls on, there are many Malaysians who continue to say that ‘everyone’ also includes Low Taek Jho.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2015, 1:26 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Speaker should intervene and rule whether PM had abused the  Standing Orders to avoid answering pertinent questions about the 1MDB scandal – which is the first step towards parliamentary reform in Malaysia

The Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia should intervene and  rule whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had abused the Parliamentary Standing Orders to avoid answering pertinent questions about the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal – which is the first step towards parliamentary reform in Malaysia.

Najib yesterday dodged the question by the DAP MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua whether the 1MDB management had only met with PetroSaudi International Limited for the first time on September 23, 2009, five days before both parties inked a deal in London; and whether the agreement was approved by the 1MDB Board of directors at the time.

Najib cited Dewan Rakyat Standing Orders 23(1)(i) to avoid answering the question.

Parliamentary Standing Orders 23(1)(i) states that “a question shall not be asked as to whether statements in the press or of private individuals or financial bodies are accurate”.

Najib said that the issue raised by Pua “is based on news report by a news portal that cannot verify the authenticity of the source of the report”.

This is a blatant abuse of the parliamentary process designed to ensure government accountability and good governance.

Although the whistleblower site Sarawak Report had reported that the entire 1MDB-PetroSaudi joint venture deal was initiated by businessman Low Taek Jho and his team on September 8, 2009, less than a month before the deal was signed, Pua’s question  had not quoted or relied on Sarawak Report, but had specifically asked whether “the 1MDB management had only met with PetroSaudi International Limited for the first time on September 23, 2009, five days before both parties inked a deal in London; and whether the agreement was approved by the 1MDB Board of directors at the time”.

Why is the Prime Minister so shy or reluctant to answer this question – or is it because the facts asked were true, which  the Prime Minister could not deny but he did not want to  admit the truth so as to continue to  stonewall the principles of accountability and transparency in the increasing ;public demand for accountability and  corporate good governance in the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal?

Such an attitude reflects an administration which is not committed to the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance as proclaimed in Najib’s National Transformation Programme, but the very opposite.

What Najib failed to realise is that his dodging of Pua’s question is even more eloquent and damaging than the answer itself.

This is I had tweeted: “Cannot say no, won’t say yes – evade, hide!  What a PM!”

Is Najib’s refusal to be frank, forthright and truthful about the 1MDB scandal an ominous indication that 1MDB executives would also be stone-walling and dodging queries when they appear before the Public Accounts Committee on its hearings on the 1MDB scandal, including queries which Pua had put to the Prime Minister yesterday?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2015, 1:37 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who will “bell the cat” at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow, insisting that Najib should “tell all” to the Ministers and  immediately testify at the PAC hearing on 1MDB scandal as it is now established that  the PM is the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals

Who will “bell the cat” at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow, insisting that Datuk Seri Najib Razak should  “tell all” to the Ministers and immediately testify at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on the 1MDB scandal, as it is now established that the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals?

Will the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, whose speech at an UMNO function on 16th May wanting the 1MDB Board to  be sacked and the police called in  to investigate – whose recording had been visited more than half a million on times on You Tube –  “bell the cat”?

In fact, does Muhyiddin know that the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals – as provided by the company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A) agreement which made  it very clear that the Prime Minister has the final say over any “financial commitment” of the company?

Do the Cabinet Ministers know that the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for all 1MDB’s financial deals?

If  not, how can the Cabinet Ministers allow the Prime Minister to mislead them in such a colossal manner; and if yes, why have they given  the Prime Minister such a “blank cheque”  without any check and balance as to plunge the country into a RM42 billion scandal – despite numerous warnings and queries by DAP MP for PJ Utara Tony Pua and PKR MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli in the past four years, and with  increasing intensity in the past two years since the 13th General Elections on May 5, 2013?

Would the Cabinet tomorrow demand Najib to “tell all” about his decisions as the final approving authority of 1MDB, before requiring Najib to “tell all” to Parliament and the nation.

Or is there nobody in the Cabinet who will “bell the cat” tomorrow?

Under Clause 117 of M&A agreement, the Prime Minister must give his written approval for any of 1MDB deals, including the firm’s investments or any bid for restructuring.

The clause states that for any avoidance of doubt, none of three things can be executed “without the written prior approval of the prime minister”.

This includes “any financial commitment (including investment), restructuring or any other matter which is likely to affect the guarantee given by the Federal Government of Malaysia for the benefit of the company, national interest, national security or any policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia”.

The clause also stipulates that the government shall have the “final and conclusive” right to determine what constitutes national interest and national security.

Other matters which need the PM’s approval are amendments to the company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and appointments and removal of directors and senior management team of the company.

As far as I know, this is the first case of its kind where the Prime Minister is made the final approving authority for any transaction or deal in a company, even a government company.

Why is this the case? If there is to be any final approving authority for a government company, why is it not the Finance Minister but the Prime Minister?

It would appear that the M&A agreement of 1MDB stipulating that the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for any deal, transaction or investment by the company is custom-made for Najib as far as 1MDB is concerned, as the provision was only made after Najib had become Prime Minister.

Are there any other government companies where the Prime Minister, and not the Finance Minister, is the final approving authority for any deal, transaction or investment as in the case of 1MDB?

As the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Najib owes Parliament and the nation an instant answer to this question.

Najib had said in his defamation suit against Tony Pua that 1MDB’s Advisory Board, of which he is the chairman, had no role in its daily operations as it was run by its board of directors and management.  Najib is not totally honest, as he failed to reveal that as provided in the 1MDB M&A Agreement, he as Prime Minister is the final approving authority for any deal, transaction or investment by 1MDB.

As Najib is the final approving authority for any deal, transaction or investment by 1MDB, he should stop procrastinating and should begin to answer the thousand-and-one questions about the 1MDB scandal, starting from the beginning about 1MDB’s involvement, including the following eleven issues:

•	the initial USD1 billion investment in Petrosaudi International Limited;

•	the additional USD1billion in loans extended to Petrosaudi;

•	the US$1.16 billion (RM4.2 billion) which went into the account controlled by Jho Low (made up of payments of first US$700 million  in 2009,  then US$160 million in  2010 and finally US$300 million  in 2011 – all to Good Star Limited, a company controlled by Jho Low);

•	the siphoning of  USD260 million from 1MDB  for the acquisition of 53% shareholding in Utama Banking Group (UBG) from the latter’s substantial shareholder, Sarawak Governor Tun Taib Mahmud’s family vehicles;

•	the raising of  bonds amounting to USD6.5 billion by paying fees in excess of 10 per cent to Goldman Sachs International;

•	the costly guarantee sought from Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) for USD3.5 billion of these bonds.

•	the decision to move US$1.1 billion from Cayman Islands to a bank in Singapore;

•	the deal with Mongolia-based company Gobi Coal & Energy Limited (GCE);

•	the sale of Tun Razak Exchange land to the Lembaga Tabung Haji;

•	the source of RM2 billion 1MDB used to pay back several debts owed local banks early in the year; and

•	the perennial  1MDB struggle to service its mountain of debts amounting to some RM2.5 billion annually.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2015, 8:49 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet should be given adequate time for Ministers to understand and study the Save 1MDB roadmap before a Cabinet decision is taken while Najib should “tell all” about his 1MDB dealings in the past six years

The Second Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah announced yesterday that the Finance Ministry will present a roadmap for 1MDB to the Cabinet today to solve the problems plaguing the 1MDP and to counter negative perceptions on the strategic investment fund company.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the second Finance Minister Husni should be fair to their ministerial colleagues in the 35-strong Cabinet, who should be given adequate time to understand and study the Save 1MDB Plan before a Cabinet decision is taken as all the Ministers have to bear collective responsibility for the success or failure  of the  Save 1MDB Plan once it is approved by the Cabinet.

The Cabinet should not repeat the farce of its March 4 meeting when the Ministers went through the motions of being briefed by 1MDB and its auditors Deloitte, with few Ministers understanding what was going on,  but the Cabinet still prematurely and foolishly cleared the troubled fund of wrongdoing and issued 1MDB with a clean bill of health and integrity.

Without  comprehensive Cabinet papers for the Ministers to understand the 1MDB scandal, without access to the thousands of 1MDB transactions and email which London’s Sunday Times and Sarawak Report said they had obtained access to, despite attempts by 1MDB at the end of last year to call in all of its computers, employee laptops and servers to wipe them clean of such transactions and emails, how could the Cabinet clear the 1MDB of any wrongdoing?

This has led to the shocking spectacle of the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, declaring after more than two months after the Cabinet meeting which cleared 1MDB of wrongdoing that the 1MDB Board should be sacked and the police called in to investigate 1MDB.

In a leaked video of the speech to four UMNO Divisions in Janda Baik on May 16, Muhyiddin lashed out at 1MDB’s huge debts and demanded that its entire board including the CEO should be sacked and the police called in to investigate.

In the video, Muhyiddin said the 1MDB scandal was the “last straw to break the camel’s back” and would cause the downfall of the UMNO/BN Government.

He said he had asked Najib how the issue should be solved as the people needed to be shown that the Government was transparent and viewed the 1MDB scandal seriously with a government-owned company saddled with liabilities of RM42 billion in such a short time.

He said the sacking of the board and calling in the police to investigate was what he would do if the company was his, and he “woke up to reports of such an extraordinary event, with the CEO making an issue by borrowing up to RM10bil, and every month I have to pay interest of RM100mil to RM200mil.”

Muhyiddin was not the only one in the Cabinet who was quite  lost in the maze of the 1MDB deals and  transactions, as another UMNO Vice President and Rural and Regional Development Minister, Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal yesterday confessed that he and his Ministerial colleagues were just as unclear as the public over 1MDB’s controversial and opaque deals.

I dare say without fear of contradiction that the overwhelming majority of the 35-strong Cabinet are quite ignorant  as to what is happening in the 1MDB scandal, although they are collectively responsible for it.

I do not think anyone of them is  prepared to face either the DAP MP for PJ Utara Tony Pua or the PKR MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli in a public debate or dialogue on the 1MDB scandal.

Would the Cabinet be allowed to decide by vote whether the majority support the Muhyiddin formula of sacking the entire 1MDB board and calling in the police investigate, to prove that the Cabinet government is serious about the RM42 billion MDB scandal?

The 35 Ministers in the Najib Cabinet should be given adequate time to understand and study what the Save 1MDB Roadmap imply, especially as they had so far  been kept in the dark about the most vital aspect of the 1MDB scandal – that the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals, transactions and investments in the past six years.

We have the most anomalous and ludicrous situation where on the one hand, Najib could claim that as Chairman of the 1MDB Advisory Board, he has no role in the daily operations of 1MHD while on the other hand, as Prime Minister, he is the final approving authority for any 1MDB deal, transaction or investment under Clause 11 of the 1MDB M&A Agreement.

Why was this important aspect of the Prime Minister’s direct role as final approving authority of any 1MDB deal, transaction or investment not brought to the attention of the Cabinet, Parliament and the public?

To assist the Cabinet to decide on whether to approve the Save 1MDB Roadmap presented by Husni, Najib as the Prime Minister as well as the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals, transactions and investments under the 1MDB M&A Agreement, should “tell all” to the Cabinet about his 1MDB dealings in the past six years, including:

(i)	the number of times each year since 2009  that Najib had acted under Clause 117 of the 1MDB M&A Agreement which stipulates that the Prime Minister must give his “written approval” for any 1MDB deals, including the firm’s investments;

(ii)	the details of every such decision of the Prime Minister under Clause 117 of the 1MDB M&A Agreement;

(iii)	whether Najib had personally given “written approval” under Clause 117 of the 1MDB M&A Agreement for the following deals:

•	the initial USD1 billion investment in Petrosaudi International Limited;

•	the additional USD1billion in loans extended to Petrosaudi;

•	the US$1.16 billion (RM4.2 billion) which went into the account controlled by Jho Low (made up of payments of first US$700 million  in 2009,  then US$160 million in  2010 and finally US$300 million  in 2011 – all to Good Star Limited, a company controlled by Jho Low);

•	the siphoning of  USD260 million from 1MDB  for the acquisition of 53% shareholding in Utama Banking Group (UBG) from the latter’s substantial shareholder, Sarawak Governor Tun Taib Mahmud’s family vehicles;

•	the raising of  bonds amounting to USD6.5 billion by paying fees in excess of 10 per cent to Goldman Sachs International;

•	the costly guarantee sought from Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) for USD3.5 billion of these bonds.

•	the decision to move US$1.1 billion from Cayman Islands to a bank in Singapore;

•	the deal with Mongolia-based company Gobi Coal & Energy Limited (GCE);

•	the sale of Tun Razak Exchange land to the Lembaga Tabung Haji;

•	the source of RM2 billion 1MDB used to pay back several debts owed local banks early in the year; and

(iv)	The actual relationship between Najib and Jho Low in the entire history of 1MDB.

Jho Low was very patriotic in returning to Malaysia during the 13th General

Elections trying to  wrest Penang state from Pakatan Rakyat for Barisan Nasional – resulting in 1MDB acquiring 234 acres (94.69ha) of land in Penang purportedly for development.

Najib should inform the Cabinet, Parliament and the nation whether his ties with Jho Low were so close and aboveboard that he could ensure that Jho Low would appear before the PAC hearing on the 1MDB  scandal within the next 30 days  to throw light on 1MDP’s past, present and future.

.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 May 2015, 6:03 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Google I/O is latest round in escalating high-tech arms race

Jon Swartz, Jessica Guynn and Marco della Cava

USA TODAY

May 28, 2015

SAN FRANCISCO — Google fired the latest salvos Thursday in an escalating arms race among tech’s Big 4 for the hearts, minds and coding of developers.

At the eighth annual I/O conference here, Google laid out a futuristic road map to throngs of 5,000 software developers, its infantry in the war against Apple, Facebook and Microsoft.

The tech titans are locked in a worldwide skirmish to make devices of all kinds smarter — whether smartphones and tablets, wearable devices, Internet-connected televisions, cars or virtual reality.

With most people on the planet within an arm’s length of an electronic device, the quartet is vying to become the primary vendor supplying technology underpinning five key battlefields — the Internet of Things, autos, virtual reality, mobile payments and wearable devices – worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

The I/O conference, which kicked off this morning with a two-hour-plus keynote, was a fire hose of hardware and software candy for developers. Among the goodies:

— Mobile payments. Android Pay, the company’s answer to Apple Pay, lets users make purchases with their connected devices, as payments generally shift away from cash and even plastic and towards secure mobile options. Facebook and Microsoft are in hot pursuit of mobile payments, as well.

— Autos. Cars from automakers such as Audi and GM were on display at I/O showcasing Android Auto, hammering home the point that car manufacturers today sell their models more on their interconnectivity than their horsepower. Apple and Microsoft, too, have been especially aggressive.

— Android Wear. With Apple Watch capturing most of the wearable spotlight these days, Google was keen to point out that some 3,500 apps are now available for a range of smartwatches powered by Android.

— Internet of Things. Google’s interest in the category is anchored to its purchase last year of Nest, the thermostat and smoke detector company. It was buttressed Thursday with the announcement of Brillo and Weave, new Internet of Thing protocols aimed at making it easier for developers of connected devices to have their gadgets work seamlessly together.

Apple and Microsoft have long pursued this market, with Samsung Electronics making a big push of late.

— Virtual reality. In what just might be the biggest “wow” of the keynote, Google unveiled an upgraded Cardboard project that intends to bring virtual reality to the masses. Google is teaming with camera company GoPro, which built a special 16-camera array that allows anyone to film a spherical video. Google said its new Jump video will be available on YouTube, starting in July.

Microsoft and Facebook this year made eye-popping inroads with HoloLens and Oculus, respectively.

I/O is a chance for the Internet giant to showcase its latest innovations and enlist software developers to work on its Android software, which commands 78% of its market, compared to 18% for iOS, in the first quarter of 2015, according to researcher IDC. There are more than 1 billion smartphones worldwide.

Android helps Google make more money from its search engine and other services such as maps which are usually built into the devices. That drives more visitors to Google and gives the company more opportunities to sell ads.

“This was really all about Android, where previous I/O keynotes were all over the place — Glass, self-driving cars,” says Holger Mueller, principal analyst at Constellation Research. “It was badly needed. Intuitive usability is the key reason Apple users stay with iOS.”

Developers are increasingly important in Google’s competition with Apple. They make devices powered by the company’s Android software more appealing to consumers. Apple’s dueling conference for software developers takes place in San Francisco on June 8. Facebook and Microsoft held their developers’ conferences earlier this year, also in San Francisco.

Analysts say Google will have to prove that it can attract consumers to new platforms after pulling Google Glass and mixed results for devices that run Android Wear.

“(Intelligent personal assistant) Google Now and Photos reflect a true breakthrough in artificial intelligence and deep learning,” says Mark Hung, an analyst at Gartner. “The use of contextual information was impressive.”

For today, at least, Google made its case for developers with a barrage of products and services.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 May 2015, 7:00 am and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


As Save 1MDB Roadmap is in fact Save Najib Roadmap, did Najib excuse and absent  himself from yesterday’s Cabinet decision on the 1MDB Roadmap because of personal conflicts of interest?

On Thursday, the second Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Husni Hanadzlah said he would table a roadmap for 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) to the Cabinet on Friday to  strengthen and solve the problems plaguing 1MDB and that the roadmap would be made public after it is tabled in the Cabinet.

The Save 1MDB Roadmap has not been made public after the Cabinet meeting as promised, only the announcement by Husni that 1MDB will receive US$1 billion (RM3.67 billion) from Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to repay a US$975 million loan maturing in August but which a consortium of German lenders is  seeking an early settlement due to a breach of covenant in the loan agreement by 1MDB.

But the Malaysian public have not been told what 1MDB’s USD$1 billion Abu Dhabi lifelife would cost Malaysia as  everybody should know of the truism that there is no free lunch in the world.

Malaysians have also  not been informed of the other details of the agreement with International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) and its Aabar Investments unit, which are said to include “further measures to comprehensively address the various financial asset and liability transactions between the parties” or aspects of the rationalisation plan of 1MDB.

Have these details of the Save 1MDB Roadmap been presented to the Cabinet yesterday or were  the Cabinet Ministers  as usual asked to give a blank cheque approval for the Save 1MDB Roadmap without any details to allow the Ministers to discuss and decide  on the viability and sustainability of the of the Roadmap and whether to approve the conditions to save 1MDB – even though the Ministers will have to be collectively responsible for the Save 1MDB Roadmap?

Are the Ministers in the same position as members of the Malaysian public, or to use the words of UMNO Vice President and Minister for Rural and Regional Development, Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal on Wednesday, that the Ministers were just as unclear as the public over the 1MDB’s opaque deals?

In any event, the ineluctable  reality is that the Save 1MDB Roadmap is in fact  a Save Najib Roadmap, as the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals.

Under Clause 117 of the 1MDB Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A) Agreement, the Prime Minister must give his written approval for any of 1MDB deals, including the firm’s investments or any bid for restructuring.

The clause states that for any avoidance of doubt, none of three things can be executed “without the written prior approval of the prime minister”.

This includes “any financial commitment (including investment), restructuring or any other matter which is likely to affect the guarantee given by the Federal Government of Malaysia for the benefit of the company, national interest, national security or any policy of the Federal Government of Malaysia”.

The clause also stipulates that the government shall have the “final and conclusive” right to determine what constitutes national interest and national security.

Other matters which need the PM’s approval are amendments to the company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and appointments and removal of directors and senior management team of the company.

Under the circumstances, how can Najib escape responsibility or  liability for all the major 1MDB decisions in the past six years.

This was why I had suggested  at the Cabinet meeting yesterday, Najib should “tell all” to the Ministers about his 1MDB dealings in the past six years, including:

(I) the number of times each year since 2009 that Najib had acted under Clause 117 of the 1MDB M&A Agreement which stipulates that the Prime Minister must give his “written approval” for any 1MDB deals, including the firm’s investments;

(ii) the details of every such decision of the Prime Minister under Clause 117 of the 1MDB M&A Agreement;

(iii) whether Najib had personally given “written approval” under Clause 117 of the 1MDB M&A Agreement in the major 1MDB deals whether involving Petrosaudi Interrnational Limited, Good Star Limited, Utama Banking Group (UMG), Goldman Sachs International, IPIC, Cayman Islands transaction, Mongolian-based company Gobi Coal and Energy Ltd and the sale of Tun Razak Exchange land to Lembaga Tabung Haji.

Did Najib report to the Cabinet yesterday all the 1MDB deals which he had given “written approval” in the past six years or no Cabinet Minister had dared to ask?

As Najib is the final approving authority for 1MDB deals, and the 1MBD Board or management would be committing grave offences of criminal breaches of trust, negligence and abuse powers if they had carried out major 1MDB deals without the “written approval” of the Prime Minister, did Najib excuse and absent  himself from yesterday’s Cabinet decision on the 1MDB Roadmap because of personal conflicts of interest?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2015, 1:47 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians should seriously consider the possibility of a new political configuration to “Save Malaysia” which is post-BN and post-PR, based on principles and national interests and not opportunism or self-interests

More than two months ago have passed since  I  first broached the idea of a new political alignment in the country to form a new coalition Federal Government which is post-BN and post-PR with a new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia”  to resolve the debilitating  multiple political, economic, educational, social and  nation-building crisis plaguing the country.

Since mid-March, the  crisis in both political coalitions, UMNO/Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have worsened  with no light at the end of the tunnel.

The war between the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the former longest-serving Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir,  whether directly or through proxies, has reached a new pitch.

Today, I read of a new NGO threatening to sue Mahathir for RM100 billion losses as a result of  the numerous  financial scandals during Mahathir’s  22-year premiership from 1981 to 2003.

Just before the 13th General Elections on February 23, 2013, I had declared that  if Pakatan Rakyat was to capture Putrajaya in the general elections, we should re-open investigation not only on Mahathir’s  RM30 billion Bank Negara forex scandal of 1992, there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the RM100 billion losses suffered by the country in the financial scandals of the 22-year Mahathir era.

I stressed that my objective was not to see Mahathir in jail, but to ensure that there is full accounting for the RM100 billion losses from the financial scandals during the 22-year Mahathir era, a dark era in Malaysian history which saw key national institutions in the country like the Judiciary, the civil service, Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Police, the Anti-Corruption Agency , the Election Commission compromised and subverted to serve the behests of one man, the Prime Minister and from which disaster Malaysia has not yet fully recovered.

I said that it was only with Malaysia accepting not only the “dark” past, but  learn the lessons as to how it could happen, that Malaysia can start afresh on a new page – to build a great Malaysian nation which is united, harmonious, competitive, progressive and prosperous.

I therefore find the new NGO re-opening the issue of the RM100 billion losses suffered by Mahathir’s financial scandal – the Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal, Maminco, Perwaja, Bank Negara, Malaysian Airlines System, etc – a pleasant surprise and most refreshing.

But there is one caveat.

As much as there should be a full inquiry into the RM100 billion losses as a result of Mahathir’s financial scandals in his 22-year rule, this should not be used as a weapon to “cover up”  or condone the current financial scandals under the present Prime Minister.

The way the new NGO presented the issue of the RM100 billion losses from financial scandals in the Mahathir era gives the impression that it is being used as a form of political blackmail to get Mahathir to shut up on Najib’s financial scandals, like RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, if he does not want his own financial scandals in his 22 years as Prime Minister to be spotlighted.

It is sad to see Malaysian politics going through such twists and contortions, which devalue the noble profession of politics as a vehicle to serve the best interests of the people and nation.

This is why the time may have come for a new political configuration  in the country to form a new coalition Federal Government which is post-BN and post-PR with a new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia” but such a new political alignment must be based on principles and national interests and not on base opportunism or self interests.

This “Grand Coalition” idea has nothing to do with the ‘”Unity Government” (UG) concept of UMNO and PAS and has nothing to do with “Save UMNO” or “Save Najib” but is about “Save Malaysia”.

It is based on the premise that Malaysia will enter a new political landscape when it is not possible to salvage both political coalitions of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat and the Malaysian Federation is faced with a survival test for the first time since its formation 52 years ago with the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and the 1963 Malaysia Agreement facing their greatest challenge with the latest UMNO-PAS power play over hudud implementation.

If these pre-conditions for a new political landscape do not exist, then the basis for a Grand Coalition which goes beyond  present political coalitions and parties, but based on MPs from both sides of the political divide as well as both sides of the South China Sea, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia, to defend constitutionalism and rule of law with a new Prime Minister and a new Malaysian Government, does not exist.

Do the conditions for such a new political configuration post-BN and post-PR exist?

After more than two months since I first broached the idea, there are more grounds for Malaysians to give more thought to this proposal – as it might be the only way to achieve two important objectives:  the restoration of the important principle of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and the judiciary and the restoration of the independence, credibility, professionalism and integrity of national institutions.

(Speech at the DAP Ceramah at Batu Kawa, Kuching on Friday, 29th May 2015 AT 10 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2015, 3:27 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s choice is clear when he had to choose between holding support of BN’s 48 MPs in Sarawak and Sabah or wooing PAS’ 21 MPs

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is fighting for his political life, with the former longest-serving Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir leading the charge in the campaign for Najib to step down as Prime Minister to save UMNO and Barisan Nasional (BN) from defeat in the next general elections.

Lines are being drawn in Najib’s titanic life-and-death battle as the sixth Prime Minister and UMNO President, but there is no reason for Pakatan Rakyat to take sides whether to throw Najib a life-line or to support Mahathir’s campaign to save UMNO/BN as Pakatan Rakyat’s objective must surely, firmly and unswervingly remain on the larger objective to save Malaysia and Malaysians and not to save any one political party or even one person!

This is UMNO/BN’s weakest moment in the federal government coalition’s history. In fact, the UMNO/BN had already lost majority support of the Malaysian voters in the recent 13th general elections as it is Pakatan Rakyat and not Barisan Nasional which had secured the majority support of the electorate in the national polls two years ago and the Malaysian Prime Minister of the day should have been Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and not Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Unfortunately, Pakatan Rakyat is itself at its weakest in its 7-year history, and it is unable to take advantage, let alone full advantage, of the turmoils in UMNO/BN.

We have even allowed Najib’s plotters and strategists to make considerable headway in their long-term conspiracies to sow division and conflict among the Pakatan Rakyat parties, to the extent that the survival of Pakatan Rakyat has become as immediate and pressing as the question of the survival of Najib as Prime Minister and UMNO President.

The two issues Najib’s plottters and strategists have used to “dangle, divide and destroy” Pakatan Rakyat are  the issues  of  UG (Unity Government)  – not  Malaysian unity but Malay unity government of UMNO and PAS – and the implementation of PAS Kelantan hudud enactment.

But Najib’s choice is clear when he had to choose between holding support of BN’s 48 MPs in Sarawak and Sabah or wooing PAS’ 21 MPs.

Is Najib prepared to lose the support of BN’s 48 MPs in Sarawak and Sabah (nine Sarawak and Sabah MPs are from Pakatan Rakyat), and lose majority support in Parliament as well as  the Prime Ministership so as to support the private member’s bill motion of the PAS President on the implementation of the Kelantan PAS hudud criminal enactment to woo PAS’ 21 MPs?

Under the circumstances, it is no surprise that PAS President’s private member’s bill motion has not even appeared on the parliamentary order paper for the current parliamentary meeting!

(Speech at the Gawai Gathering at DAP Singai Community Centre, Mas Gading on Friday, 29th May 2015 at  8.30 pm)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2015, 7:57 am and is filed under
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sarawak and Sabah should have one-third of the parliamentary seats which is  not only be in the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 but a crucial safeguard to preserve and protect the fundamental principle of the constitution of Malaysia as a secular nation with Islam as the official religion

Malaysia wants to become a developed nation in five years time in 2020.

In the developed nations in Europe, the rural areas would enjoy basic infrastructures and amenities like piped water, electricity supply, as well as the most elementary  educational, economic and health facilities which are  non-existent for rural areas in Malaysia, particularly in Sarawak and Sabah.

I can still remember that more than half a century ago in the early sixties, there would be delegation after delegation of Sarawakians and Sabahans visiting Peninsular Malaysia because  the Prime Minister at the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman, his deputy Tun Razak  and other Ministers in the  Cabinet in Kuala Lumpur wanted to convince Sarawak and Sabah leaders the advantages of the formation of Malaysia, promising that Sarawak and Sabah would be as advanced and developed as Malaya if Sabah and  agreed to  the formation of the new  federation of Malaysia together with Malaya and Singapore.

Malaysia is now 52 years old since its formation in 1963, and the promises half a century ago that Sarawak and Sabah would be as developed as Peninsular Malaysia have still to be met,  or tens of thousands of Ibans would not have to leave Sarawak to seek greener pastures in Johor Baru –  which is why we are having a Gawai celebration in Johor Baru tonight.

Putrajaya has a great responsibility to ensure that the promises made for the establishment of Malaysia in 1963 are honoured, and urgent steps are taken to ensure that the people of Sarawak and Sabah, in particular their indigenous people, the Dayak and Kadazandusun communities, do not continue to be left behind in the backwaters of development.

Putrajaya also has a responsibility to preserve, protect and promote  the cardinal nation-building principles in the Malaysia Agreement 1963, one of which is that Malaysia is a secular state with freedom of religion for Malaysians although Islam is the official religion of the Federation.

As such, any implementation of hudud law would not only be inappropriate and unsuitable for a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation like Malaysia, it would be against the Malaysia Agreement 1963 as well as the Merdeka Constitution 1957.

Sarawak and Sabah are  among the bulwarks of the nation to preserve, protect and promote the basic principles and  pillars of the Constitution and the nation.

For this reason, Sarawak and Sabah  should have one-third of the parliamentary seats in the country which will not only be in the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 but be a crucial  safeguard to preserve and protect the fundamental principle of the constitution of Malaysia as a secular nation with Islam as the official religion where there is constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion for Malaysians.

At present, Sarawak and Sabah only account for 57 of the 222 parliamentary seats, which is far short of the one-third figure, which is 74 parliamentary seats.

The Election Commission should convene an All-Party Constituency Redelineation Conference on the democratic principles which should be the basis for a redelineation of electoral constituencies in the country, which should not only take into account the democratic principle of  one-man, one-vote and one-valu, but also incorporate the  constitutional principle of Sarawak and Sabah  constituting one-third of all the parliamentary seats in the country as a crucial safeguard of the character and integrity of the Merdeka Constitution 1957 and Malaysia Agreement 1963.

[Speech (2) at Hari Gawai celebrations organized by DAP Johor Jaya in Johor Baru on Saturday, 30th May 2015 at 9 pm]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 31 May 2015, 12:04 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Elections
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The PR Common Policy Framework, repudiated by PAS President, should form the basis of a Grand Coalition, post-BN, post-PR to “Save Malaysia”

PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang has said that the  PAS party elections at the  2015  Muktamar beginning on 4th June is the choice between PAS loyalists and DAP sympathisers.

This attracted a rejoinder from the Perak PAS Deputy Commissioner and former PAS Perak Mentri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin whether the PAS delegates are being asked to choose “UMNO puppets” instead.

The DAP has firmly and steadfastly refused to be drawn into the PAS party elections as we do not want to interfere or to get dragged into what is essentially PAS internal affairs  to decide on the PAS leadership and its future directions.

Yes, the DAP is concerned about the outcome of the PAS party elections next Thursday but DAP will not interfere or meddle  in PAS party elections.

The issue before the PAS Muktamar next week is not about DAP but Pakatan Rakyat – whether firstly, it is possible to restore the close working relationship of three PR component parties which have brought PR to the doorstep of Putrajaya; and secondly, whether it is possible  to restore the trust of the people of Malaysia regardless of race, religion or region which have resulted in the support of majority of the electorate in the 13th General Elections.

DAP had spared no efforts to salvage Pakatan Rakyat for two reasons:

Firstly, we believe that the PR Common Policy Framework is a workable basis to Save Malaysia and for the country to  start afresh on a new page – to build a great Malaysian nation which is united, harmonious, competitive, progressive and prosperous.

Secondly, the support, trust and hopes of Malaysians in Pakatan Rakyat, with Malaysian voters giving PR majority support in 13th general elections. In fact, DAP, PAS and PKR achieved their best parliamentary and state assembly results during their tripartite co-operation in the 1999, 2008 and 2013 general elections.

What then is the  crisis afflicting PR and why has the PR Leadership Council only met twice in the past 12 months?

It is not possible for the PR Leadership Council to hold another meeting after the two PR Leadership Council meetings because the first PR Leadership Council meeting in the past 12 months proved that minus the PAS President, the PAS representatives to the PR Leadership Council had no authority to bind the party as the PAS President had the veto power, which could be exercised without reference to the PAS Central Committee, to overrule and override what PAS leaders had agreed upon in the name of PAS at the PR Leadership Council.

The second meeting of the PR Leadership Council in the past 12 months proved that the PR Leadership Council could not depend on the promises and commitments personally made by PAS President at the PR Leadership Council  as the PAS President had no qualms in breaking such solemn undertakings and commitments.

How can the PR Leadership Council meet again if political parties and their leaders cannot be trusted on their promises, undertakings and commitments made at the meeting?

In March, I had broached the idea of a new political alignment in the country to form a new coalition Federal Government which is post-BN and post-PR with a new Prime Minister to “Save Malaysia”  to resolve the debilitating  multiple political, economic, educational, social and  nation-building crisis plaguing the country –  if the crisis gripping the two political coalitions could not be resolved.

As my proposal had been likened to the “UG” government proposal of  a Malay unity government of UMNO and PAS, I wish to debunk the fallacies of such a comparison.

My  “Grand Coalition” proposal is completely different with the ‘”Unity Government” (UG) concept of UMNO and PAS, which is not only exclusive but retrogressive, moving back from promoting Malaysian unity to fostering Malay unity.

My idea of a “Grand Coalition” is post-BN, post-PR in going beyond the existing two political coalitions and present political parties if they are  unable to resolve the multiple national crisis facing the country.

It will be  based on MPs from both sides of the political divide as well as both sides of the South China Sea, Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia, to defend constitutionalism and rule of law with a new Prime Minister and a new Malaysian Government.

The Grand Coalition must be inclusive, to represent all races, religions and regions and not exclusive like the “UG” concept, retreating to the Malays to unite Malays at the expense of non-Malays.

The Grand Coalition must not be an opportunistic get-together but must be based on a programme of principles and the national interests.

I had in fact spelt out these principles and national interests which should be protected by the post-BN, post-PR Grand Coalition, which are to be found in the series of statements I made in March and April.

In essence, the platform for the Grand Coalition, post-BN and post-PR,  should be based on the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework which the PAS President had reneged and repudiated after the 13th General Election, causing the crisis in the Pakatan Rakyat today.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 31 May 2015, 4:58 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Mahathir knuckle under the threat of RM1 million reward for information about his wrongdoings as Prime Minister for 22 years causing RM100 billion losses to Malaysia from his various financial scandals and fade from the political scene?

I read today of a new NGO which has offered a reward of up to RM1 million for information about the wrongdoings of Tun Dr. Mahathir during his 22 years as Prime Minister causing RM100 billion losses to the country from his various financial scandals.

As one of the few who had stood up in and out of Parliament to consistently and persistently criticise and oppose the series of financial scandals and abuses of power during Mahathir’s premiership from 1981 – 2013  – and paying a heavy price of being detained for a second time for 18 months under the Internal Security Act during Operation Lalang where Guan Eng and I were the first to be detained but the last to be released – I find the report of a RM1 million bounty for information about Mahathir’s wrongdoings both amusing and  interesting.

Why wasn’t such a RM1 million bounty offered during Mahathir’s 22-year tenure as Prime Minister from 1981-2003?  Was it because such an offeror would find himself in incarceration even before the ink of such an offer could dry?

Why was such a  RM1 million bounty offered only 12 years after Mahathir had stepped down as the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia?  Were they sleeping for the past 12 years and could not pluck up the courage for such a public-spirited offer?

Has the RM1 million bounty any connection with Mahathir’s stepping up of his attacks on Datuk Seri Najib Razak as Prime Minister of Malaysia, whether on the RM42 billion 1MDF financial scandal or the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, which will bring it within the zone of a proxy war in the escalation of the Najib-Mahathir titanic battle?

Although this new NGO has subsequently said that it will extend its search for Malaysia’s misappropriated funds to include the fifth and sixth Prime Ministers, Tun Abdullah and Datuk Seri Najib Razak, this after-thought elaboration has no  credibility whatsoever as it was clearly designed to distract suspicion about its genesis.

What is a very tell-tale sign of its genesis  is the NGO’s total trust in the anti-corruption and enforcement institutions, regarding them as pristine organisations to uphold the rule of law and battle corruption particularly in high political places – which is the reserve of those who are walking the cooridors of power today.

The NGO has only itself to blame if its RM1 million bounty spawned speculation as to its bona fides and genesis, as only those who dabble in  tens and hundreds of millions  and even billions of ringgit,  whether as assets or debts, and regard RM1 million as just “loose change”, would think of such gimmicry as a million-ringgit bounty for information about Mahahir’s wrongdoings since the eighties.

There are not many Malaysians in the league of those who dabble in tens and hundreds of millions or even billions of ringgit, and I can think of one such person to fit the bill. I do not know whether my guess is right but all this is in the realm of speculation.

But the millon ringgit bounty has spawned interesting questions,  firstly, whether such a NGO is genuinely concerned about promoting a culture of accountability, transparency and integrity, particularly in high public places like the Prime Minister.

Secondly, whether Mahathir will knuckle under such a threat of RM1 million reward for information about his wrongdoings as Prime Minister for 22 years causing RM100 billion losses to Malaysia from his various financial scandals as to pipe down and end his campaign to get Najib to step down as Prime Minister, allegedly to save UMNO and Barsian from downfall in the next general elections.

Will Mahathir now fade from the political scene?

Just before the 13th General Elections on February 23, 2013, I had declared that  if Pakatan Rakyat was to capture Putrajaya in the general elections, we should re-open investigation not only on Mahathir’s  RM30 billion Bank Negara forex scandal of 1992, there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the RM100 billion losses suffered by the country in the financial scandals of the 22-year Mahathir era.

I stressed that my objective was not to see Mahathir in jail, but to ensure that there is full accounting for the RM100 billion losses from the financial scandals during the 22-year Mahathir era, a dark era in Malaysian history which saw key national institutions in the country like the Judiciary, the civil service, Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Police, the Anti-Corruption Agency , the Election Commission compromised and subverted to serve the behests of one man, the Prime Minister and from which disaster Malaysia has not yet fully recovered.

I said that it was only with Malaysia accepting not only the “dark” past, but  learn the lessons as to how it could happen, that Malaysia can start afresh on a new page – to build a great Malaysian nation which is united, harmonious, competitive, progressive and prosperous.

As much as there should be a full inquiry into the RM100 billion losses as a result of Mahathir’s financial scandals in his 22-year rule, this should not be used as a weapon to “cover up”  or condone the current financial scandals under the present Prime Minister.

The way the new NGO presented the issue of the RM100 billion losses from financial scandals in the Mahathir era gives the impression that it is being used as a form of political blackmail to get Mahathir to shut up on Najib’s financial scandals and abuses of power, like RM42 billion 1MDB scandal or the truth about the murder of the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, if he does not want his own financial scandals  and wrongdoingsin his 22 years as Prime Minister to be spotlighted.

It is sad to see Malaysian politics going through such twists and contortions, which devalue the noble profession of politics as a vehicle to serve the best interests of the people and nation.

(Speech at Hari Gawai celebrations organised by DAP Johor Jaya in Johor Baru on  Saturday, 30th May 2015 at 9 pm)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 31 May 2015, 10:35 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Have all Ministers accepted collective responsibility for the 1MDB scandal to “sink or swim” with Najib on the issue?

Have all Ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and the Minister for Rural and Regional Development, Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal accepted collective responsibility for the 1MDB scandal to “sink or swim” with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, on the issue?

This question becomes pertinent when two UMNO-owned newspapers, Utusan Malaysia and New Straits Times reported in prominence the online portal
Malaysia Today
 article last night that the Prime Minister had told his Cabinet members at Friday’s meeting to resign if they do not support him on the 1MDB issue.

The Malaysia Toda
y article  headlined
“NAJIB ASKS HIS CABINET MEMBERS NOT WITH HIM TO RESIGN”
 reported:

Anyway, after Second Finance Minister Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah presented the Ministry of Finance’s plan for 1MDB to the Cabinet on Friday, Najib looked at all the Cabinet members and asked them who were not with him. Those not with him can tender their resignation and walk out the door.

Nobody spoke. Most looked down at their shoes as if they suddenly needed to check whether their shoes were clean or not. A couple glanced at Shafie Apdal as if to say, “Well, since you are not with the PM are you going to resign and leave?” But not a single cabinet member said he or she does not agree with the 1MDB plan or are not with the PM and would like to resign from the cabinet.

So let us see what they say now. That they do not know what is going on? That they do not know what is happening in 1MDB? That they have not been informed about the affairs of 1MDB? That they do not agree with 1MDB? That they are not with the Prime Minister?

On Friday the Prime Minister gave the entire cabinet a chance to distance themselves from 1MDB and show that they do not support the Prime Minister by resigning. But not a single cabinet member did that, not even Shafie Apdal.

Does this mean that Cabinet Ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Shafie, who are on record in expressing disagreement with the 1MDB scandal, have now swallowed their reservations so as to continue to be members of the Najib Cabinet?

Are all 35 Ministers in the Najib Cabinet prepared to announce publicly that they accept full collective responsibility for the 1MDB scandal and will “sink or swim” with Najib on the issue?

The answers from all the 35 Cabinet Ministers are particularly pertinent and relevant as it is doubtful that the Cabinet had been presented with the entire 1MDB Roadmap on Friday, or  there will not be the current controversy as to whether “1MDB will be wound down by next year and its operations transferred to three separate firms” as reported by the government mouthpiece Bernama after the Friday Cabinet meeting but denied subsequently by the second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Husni Hanadzlah.

Before the Cabinet meeting on Friday, Husni said he would make public  the roadmap for 1MDB after it had been tabled in the Cabinet.

This has not been done, as Husni had merely announced that 1MDB will receive US$1 billion (RM3.67 billion) from Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to repay a US$975 million loan maturing in August but which a consortium of German lenders is  seeking an early settlement due to a breach of covenant in the loan agreement by 1MDB.

But the Malaysian public have not been told what 1MDB’s USD$1 billion Abu Dhabi lifelife would cost Malaysia when  everybody know that there is no free lunch in the world nor other details of the agreement with IPIC and its Aabar Investments unit or other aspects of the rationalisation plan of 1MDB.

Have these details of the 1MDB Roadmap been presented to the Cabinet on Friday or were  the Cabinet Ministers  as usual asked to give a blank cheque approval for the 1MDB Roadmap without any meaningful details to allow the Ministers to discuss and decide  on the viability and sustainability of the of the Roadmap – even though the Ministers will have to be collectively responsible for the 1MDB Roadmap?

Are the Ministers again in the same position as members of the Malaysian public,  to use Shafie’s words, of being as unclear as the public over the 1MDB’s opaque deals?

The 1MDB Roadmap is really a Save 1MDB Roadmap to save Najib, as the Prime Minister is the final approving authority for all 1MDB deals. As such the 1MDB Roadmap is no different from being a Save 1MDB Roadmap or Save Najib Roadmap.

Are all Cabinet Ministers aware last Friday  when they decided on the 1MDB Roadmap that  they were in fact deciding on a Save Najib Roadmap?

Did Najib give a full report to the Cabinet on all his 1MDB dealings in the past six years as the final approving authority for 1MDB deals, transactions and investments and have all Cabinet Ministers understood how 1MDB could pile up RM42 billion debts in six years and endorsed all the 1MDB decisions taken by Najib as the final approving authority for all these transactions?

As Najib is the final approving authority for 1MDB deals, and the 1MBD Board or management would be committing grave offences of criminal breaches of trust, negligence and abuse powers if they had carried out major 1MDB deals without the “written approval” of the Prime Minister, did Najib excuse and absent  himself from yesterday’s Cabinet decision on the 1MDB Roadmap because of personal conflicts of interest?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2015, 11:52 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The young boy who ‘shook’ Malaysia

Khoo Ying Hooi

The Malaysian Insider

1 June 2015

My diary on May 30 was marked as this, “Joshua Wong, Dubook Press, 9am”.

I was eager to meet Joshua in person when I found out about his road tour in Malaysia. Then my “dream” was crushed as he was barred from entering Malaysia on the morning of Tuesday, May 26.

I was keen to hear his talk. Apart from him being a high-profile teenager, I wanted to meet him in person, as I wanted to know how a young boy at his age manages to mobilise or influence his peers to engage in acts of civil disobedience.

What fascinates me is his persistence in fighting what he thinks he should, despite the immense pressure and intimidation on him.

Joshua, a Hong Kong student activist who founded Scholarism in 2011, needs no further introduction. He and his group played a significant role in last year’s Occupy pro-democracy movement. That’s precisely how he gained his “superstar” status.

Here are some quotes by the international media on Joshua. The Telegraph wrote this, “At 15, he organised a hunger strike and a 120,000-strong protest that succeeded in foiling Beijing’s plans to implement patriotic education in Hong Kong’s schools.”

While The Guardian said this: “Joshua Wong is too young to drive or buy a drink in a bar – let alone vote – yet has become the face of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.”

He has also named as top 10 in the World’s 50 Greatest Leaders 2015 by the Fortune Magazine, Time’s Most Influential Teens of 2014 and 100 Leading Global Thinkers 2014 by Foreign Policy.

Having said that, there has nonetheless criticism that Scholarism gained popularity, especially in the Western media, solely due to the fact that it is an anti-China group. However, what’s more significant in this is that similarly as other student groups, Scholarism too faces challenges to sustain itself.

For Scholarism that has gained instant popularity, their key members are under tremendous pressure. However these young teenagers have, to a certain extent, managed to transform these pressures to source of strength.

Unfortunately back home, the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said that Joshua is an “undesirable element” to the country due to his anti-China sentiment.

Following that, Hong Kong legislative council member Leung Kwok-hung, famously known as “Long Hair,” was also barred from entering Malaysia.

The point is, the Putrajaya needs to understand that there is no point to bar a person nowadays. We are in the information age, where information could be obtained with just one click. Ultimately, the road tour proceeds “virtually” through tele-conference and subsequently replaced by his comrade, Prince Wong.

In the past, we have barred several other activists or controversial figures. For example, William Bourdon, the French lawyer for the controversial Scorpene case in France. Similar “treatment” went to Australian Senator Nick Xenophone and anti-Lynas activist Natalie Lowrey.

Last October, Putrajaya denied the entry of Indonesian Muslim scholar Dr Ulil Abshar Abdalla who was supposed to speak in the 3rd International Conference on Human Rights and Peace and Conflict in Southeast Asia.

Take the case of Ulil for instance, he tweeted, “As sad as this ban might be, it won’t work. Authority might ban my entrance to Malaysia. But Islamic progressive ideas can’t be stopped.”

We should remain open to legitimate political discourse on issues, including the dissenting voices. After all, these people are not terrorists.

On what basis do we “claim” they are threats to national security? – June 1, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 June 2015, 8:49 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.