IMDB vs skandal BMF dan Forex

February 25, 2019 10:27 pm Dato’ Azwanddin Hamzah

Dato’ Azwanddin Hamzah

Pemakan dedak grade A Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, iaitu A Kadir Jasin, tiba tiba menjadi defensif, takut apabila skandal BMF, forex melibatkan Tun M diungkit.

1. Tulisan A. Kadir Jasin bertajuk “Berjaga-jaga ungkit perkara lama” tidak berapa lama dulu membayangkan sikap defensif dan ketakutannya apabila skandal BMF dan forex melibatkan “boss”nya diungkit dan didedahkan semula.

2. Dalam tulisannya, Kadir mengakui bahawa dia merupakan antara wartawan yang paling awal melaporkan ‘laporan palsu’ dan songsang berkaitan BMF, mungkin kerana kenaifannya mempercayai kenyataan seorang pegawai BBMB atau mungkin juga kerana mahu melindungi “boss”nya.

3. Kadir juga cuba mengaitkan kes BMF dengan Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn dan Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. Namun Kadir lupa bahawa laporan CIA yang didedahkan sama sekali tidak menyebut bahawa kes BMF mempunyai kaitan dengan Tun Hussein dan Ku Li, sebaliknya tanpa sebarang kesipuan dan secara jelas menyebut bahawa ia mempunyai kaitan dengan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

4. Laporan CIA menyebut Mahathir secara jelas mungkin kerana dari segi fakta, penyaluran wang pinjaman ke Kumpulan Carrian dan George Tan terus berlaku setelah Mahathir jadi PM pada tahun 1982 sehinggalah Jalil Ibrahim dibunuh pada tahun 1983.

5. Skandal BMF berbeza dengan isu 1MDB kerana nama Mahathir disebut secara jelas oleh CIA sedangkan dalam isu 1MDB, Jabatan Kehakiman AS (DoJ) tidak berani menamakan MO1. Banyak “cover up” berlaku selepas pembunuhan Jalil dan tiada siasatan secara telus dibuat ke atas BMF sehingga CIA melaporkan dalam laporannya bahawa terdapat kemungkinan pegawai-pegawai Bumiputera yang dipenjarakan telah dikambing hitamkan.

6. Dalam skandal BMF, Jalil Ibrahim dihantar ke Hong Kong kerana terdapat kecelaruan audit sedangkan dalam isu 1MDB, isu audit sama sekali tidak berbangkit malah penyata akaun beraudit 1MDB telah dibentangkan kepada Jemaah Menteri dan didedahkan kepada umum.

7. Dalam skandal BMF, wang negara (wang BMF) dipinjamkan kepada pihak luar untuk projek yang tiada kaitan dengan Malaysia, sebaliknya dalam kes 1MDB, 1MDB meminjam daripada pihak luar untuk projek dalam negara.

8. Dalam skandal BMF, Jalil dibunuh supaya pinjaman kepada pihak luar dapat diluluskan dengan segera sebaliknya dalam kes 1MDB, tiada kes pembunuhan untuk membenarkan 1MDB meminjam daripada bank asing dan tempatan serta melalui instrumen bon dan sukuk.

9. Dalam skandal BMF, siasatan tidak dijalankan secara terbuka dan telus, melainkan siasatan kes jenayah pembunuhan Jalil. Sedangkan dalam kes 1MDB, audit forensik dilakukan oleh Jabatan Audit Negara dan laporan ini telah diteliti secara lebih mendalam pula oleh Jawatankuasa Kira-kira Wang Negara (PAC) yang turut dianggotai Ahli Parlimen pembangkang.

10. Paling penting, tiada ‘bail-out’ untuk menyelamatkan 1MDB. Sebaliknya dalam skandal BMF, menurut laporan CIA, nilai yang lesap akibat pinjaman BMF kepada Kumpulan Carrian adalah sebanyak RM2.255 bilion dan jumlah ‘bail-out’ menggunakan wang Petronas, adalah sebanyak RM2.188 bilion, iaitu RM933 juta untuk membeli saham BBMB dan RM1.255 bilion untuk mengambil alih hutang bermasalah BBMB.

11. Keseluruhan jumlah wang yang ‘lesap’ adalah RM2.255 (pinjaman kepada Kumpulan Carrian) + RM2.188 (‘bail-out’ BBMB) = RM4.443 bilion (mungkin sekitar RM17.8 bilion nilai wang semasa).

12. Berkaitan skandal forex Bank Negara, Kadir berbohong apabila mengatakan bahawa penglibatan Bank Negara dalam forex adalah untuk mempertahankan nilai ringgit. Hakikatnya, Bank Negara telah menceburkan diri dalam kegiatan spekulasi matawang dengan menggunakan rizab wang bank negara bagi menambah nilai rizab tersebut dan membuat keuntungan. 

13. Dilaporkan isyarat bahawa Bank Negara akan bersepekulasi di pasaran pertukaran wang asing disebut di dalam satu syarahan yang disampaikan oleh Gabenor Bank Negara ketika itu, Tan Sri Jaafar Hussein di Delhi pada tahun 1989 yang menyebut bahawa beliau telah menambahkan dimensi ketiga dan keempat kepada pengurusan rizab Bank Negara, iaitu, mengoptimumkan keuntungan dan membangunkan kemahiran berurus niaga di dalam pasaran wang asing, sedangkan sebelum itu, teras utama pengurusan rizab adalah untuk menjaga dan melindungi nilai Ringgit dan mengekalkan kecairannya di dalam pasaran. 

14. Terdapat juga laporan media ketika itu yang menyebut, pada tahap kemuncaknya, Bank Negara pernah berspekulasi di dalam pasaran pertukaran wang asing sehingga RM270 bilion (USD90-100 bilion). Pedagang-pedagang matawang asing Bank Negara amat agresif dan digelar sebagai “market bully”. Penglibatan Bank Negara di dalam perjudian pasaran pertukaran wang asing ini telah dikesan oleh bank pusat Amerika dan Gabenornya ketika itu, Alan Greenspan telah menegur dan menggesa Bank Negara agar menghentikan segera perbuatan itu. Kenapa Kadir menyembunyikan cerita ini?

15. Bank Negara telah mengakui bahawa akibat penglibatannya dalam kegiatan spekulasi matawang ini, kerugian yang direkodkan adalah sebanyak AS$10 bilion atau RM44 bilion nilai semasa.

16. Sama seperti skandal BMF, kerugian RM44 bilion ini dalam spekulasi forex ini juga tidak disiasat secara telus dan tidak dibentangkan kepada PAC seperti dalam kes 1MDB. 

17. Dalam kes 1MDB, tiada wang yang lesap, yang ada hanya pinjaman dan kesemua pinjaman jangka pendek serta sebahagian pinjaman jangka panjang telah dibayar penuh lebih awal dari tempohnya. Hanya tinggal empat bon dan sukuk yang hanya akan matang pada tahun 2022, 2023 dan 2039. Sedangkan dalam skandal BMF sebanyak RM2.255 bilion benar-benar lesap dan RM2.188 bilion ‘lesap’ dalam konteks wang yang digunakan sebagai ‘bail-out’, manakala dalam skandal forex Bank Negara, RM44 bilion benar-benar lesap.

18. Mengambil kira jumlah wang yang lesap dan yang ‘lesap’ kerana digunakan untuk mem’bail-out’ skandal BMF dan Forex ketika pemerintahan Mahathir, iaitu RM61.8 bilion (RM4.44 bilion (skandal BMF) (nilai semasa RM17.8 bilion ) + RM44 bilion (skandal forex)), tidakkah wajar siasatan yang telus dilakukan? 

19. Apa masalahnya sehingga Kadir terlalu takut dan kelam kabut jika “perkara lama” ini disiasat oleh Suruhanjaya Diraja?

Memahami agenda Islam liberal

• MyMetro
• Addin

DR Mohd Farid. FOTO Salhani Ibrahim

Fadly Samsudin

Akar falsafah liberalisme, sekularisme dan humanisme adalah aliran pemikiran yang mempunyai teras yang sangat rapat dengan tamadun Barat.

Ia lahir hasil penolakan orang Barat terhadap institusi gereja pada abad pertengahan.

Prinsip utama liberalisme adalah memperjuangkan kebebasan manusia. Golongan itu mahu manusia bebas dan tidak dikongkong.

Selain itu, tiada sistem nilai, undang-undang dan akhlak yang boleh memaksa mereka berpegang termasuklah agama, mitos dan sistem kepercayaan yang dibawa dalam konteks budaya.

Disebabkan berpegang kepada prinsip dan falsafah kebebasan dan keterbukaan menyebabkan golongan itu bebas menentukan sistem nilai terbaik buat diri mereka dengan menggunakan akal sebagai pertimbangan.

Pengarah Pusat Kajian Syariah, Undang-Undang dan Politik (SYARAK), Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM), Dr Mohd Farid Mohd Shahran berkata, liberalisme membawa beberapa prinsip penting iaitu apabila diterjemahkan dalam sistem hidup manusia mereka membawa semangat persamaan, kesejagatan (universalisme) dan keragaman (pluralisme).

Menurutnya, istilah liberal juga dikaitkan dengan sikap antifeudal iaitu tidak terikat dengan mana-mana kekuasaan politik.

“Ia dikaitkan dengan sifat rasional, bebas dan berfikiran terbuka. Golongan liberal juga menentang undang-undang yang mengekang mereka bersuara terhadap apa yang mereka mahukan.

“Dari segi ekonomi, liberalisme membawa pendekatan pasaran bebas yang membataskan tanpa campur tangan kerajaan yang memerintah. Dari sudut sosial pula, mereka akan memperjuangkan kebebasan wanita.

“Wanita tidak boleh dikongkong dan sebab itu mereka melihat perkahwinan sebagai satu kontrak (partnership). Apabila berkahwin, golongan itu mahukan hak persamaan iaitu kesamarataan jantina dan penghapusan kawalan terhadap individu.

“Dalam konteks agama, sudah pasti liberalisme mempunyai agenda khusus. Bagi mereka, agama menjadi punca mereka disekat serta dicengkam selama ribuan tahun oleh kelompok yang dikatakan sebagai institusi agama,” katanya.

Beliau berkata, liberalisme juga menganjurkan agama itu adalah kebebasan menganut, meyakini dan mengamalkan apa saja yang sesuai dengan kehendak dan selera masing-masing.

“Agama tidak boleh ditentukan oleh kuasa mutlak yang akhirnya membataskan kebebasan manusia. Kalau hendak beragama, agama itu perlu bebas membuka ruang bagi mentafsirkan sumber agama dari sudut pandang apa sekalipun.

“Mereka akan menyempitkan ruang agama sehingga tidak boleh dibawa dalam politik, ekonomi mahupun pendidikan. Agama hanya boleh tinggal di tempat ibadat dan rumah.

“Apabila sampai dalam konteks umat Islam, kita melihat ada kelompok yang cuba membawa aliran liberalisme dengan nama liberal Islam. Misi Islam liberal untuk membebaskan umat Islam daripada dibelenggu fahaman lama dan cengkaman dominasi tafsiran golongan ulama.

“Golongan Islam liberal terbabit mahu menyamakan konteks sejarah yang berlaku dalam agama Kristian iaitu menolak gereja yang menyebabkan mereka maju.

“Malah ‘sifir’ itu juga mahu digunakan dalam Islam untuk menolak apa saja bentuk autoriti agama dan menganggap perkara sama boleh berlaku terhadap agama Islam (maju),” katanya.

Katanya, umat Islam mempunyai institusi ulama, namun asasnya sangat berbeza dengan institusi gereja.

“Ulama asasnya ilmu manakala gereja pula berasaskan kedudukan golongan suci yang dipelihara dan institusi gereja sehingga mereka dianggap sebagai infallible iaitu tidak melakukan kesalahan.

“Mereka juga boleh menentukan apa saja bentuk kebenaran serta mengampunkan dosa sesiapa saja bagi pihak Tuhan. Itulah perbezaan yang amat besar sekali berdasarkan konteks sejarah Kristian dan Islam.

“Islam liberal juga menyeru ke arah pembukaan pintu ijtihad, kefahaman Islam yang terbuka dan progresif. Antara tema dalam Islam liberal berdasarkan karya mereka ialah membawa idea seperti Islam ‘warna-warni’ iaitu Islam bukan satu dan mempunyai pelbagai tafsiran,” katanya.

Sementara itu, mengulas mengenai liberalisme dan media baru, beliau berkata, kesan media baru membolehkan setiap orang mampu menjadi ‘pustakawan’ dan ‘penerbit’.

“Dengan bantuan media baru, semua orang mendapat pelbagai maklumat tanpa dikawal dan ditetapkan agenda pembacaannya. Paling bahaya, media baru menawarkan sumber yang pelbagai.

“Kecanggihan media baru yang sifatnya lebih pantas, interaktif dan meluas menjadikan keadaan lebih terbuka. Segala maklumat lebih mudah diakses dan disebarkan.

“Ia membuka peluang kepada liberalisme berkembang kerana berkongsi wawasan dan visi yang sama iaitu keterbukaan dan kebebasan.

“Menerusi media baru juga manusia hilang privasi dan adab. Contohnya, semua orang boleh kritik atau hentam sesiapa di Facebook walaupun individu itu seorang ulama,” katanya.

Penulis wartawan Harian Metro

Artikel ini disiarkan pada : Rabu, 29 Ogos 2018 @ 11:50 AM

Mat Saleh Like Clare Rewcastle Brown Are Kaki Penipu

By Raja Petra Kamarudin Last updated Feb 22, 2019

Why do you think Clare is ‘fighting for the Sarawak people’? Is it because she loves Sarawak? Hell, no! She loves money. If you have been following the Taib Mahmud’s family’s case in Canada you will know she receives a lot of money for attacking logging and oil palm cultivation in Sarawak.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Muka kaki penipu

Clare Rewcastle Brown was born in the former British Crown Colony of Sarawak. Yes, Clare is the child of a British colonialist and the British went to Sarawak to rob what is the third largest island in the world.

The British not only went to Sarawak but to many other places as well — India being just one of them. Read the Aljazeera report below on how the British robbed India and how the Indians were stupid enough to help the British do this. For example, the Sikhs collaborated with the colonialists ‘to maintain law and order’, which means to allow the British to rob the Indians.

Today, Britain is a shit-hole because it has no more countries to rob. And if you have lived in the UK the last ten years like I have, you will know how miserable and pathetic the English are. And Clare is one of those miserable and pathetic Mat Saleh who still think she owns Sarawak.

The British went to Sarawak to rob that state

Why do you think Clare is ‘fighting for the Sarawak people’? is it because she loves Sarawak? Hell, no! She loves money. If you have been following the Taib Mahmud’s family’s case in Canada you will know she receives a lot of money for attacking logging and oil palm cultivation in Sarawak.

Yes, Clare receives millions for attacking Sarawak under the pretence she loves Sarawak and is trying to save that state, just like Pakatan Harapan loves Malaysia and is trying to save the country.

Hello Hindraf, you orang semua sudah kena tipulah! British sudah rompak India lepas itu campak engkau orang kat Malaysia untuk mampus. Sekarang ni, Clare pula tipu engkau orang.

****************************************************************

How Britain stole $45 trillion from India… And lied about it

Jason Hickel, Aljazeera, 19 December 2018

There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.

New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.

It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

How did this come about?

It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way – mostly with silver – as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.

Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.

It was a scam – theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.

Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain’s industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India.

On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they “bought” them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the markup.

After the British Raj took over in 1858, colonisers added a special new twist to the tax-and-buy system. As the East India Company’s monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London.

How did this work? Basically, anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills – a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were “paid” in rupees out of tax revenues – money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not in fact paid at all; they were defrauded.

Meanwhile, London ended up with all of the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports.

This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world – a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century – it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India’s exports was appropriated in its entirety by Britain.

Some point to this fictional “deficit” as evidence that India was a liability to Britain. But exactly the opposite is true. Britain intercepted enormous quantities of income that rightly belonged to Indian producers. India was the goose that laid the golden egg. Meanwhile, the “deficit” meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control.

Britain used the windfall from this fraudulent system to fuel the engines of imperial violence – funding the invasion of China in the 1840s and the suppression of the Indian Rebellion in 1857. And this was on top of what the Crown took directly from Indian taxpayers to pay for its wars. As Patnaik points out, “the cost of all Britain’s wars of conquest outside Indian borders were charged always wholly or mainly to Indian revenues.”

And that’s not all. Britain used this flow of tribute from India to finance the expansion of capitalism in Europe and regions of European settlement, like Canada and Australia. So not only the industrialisation of Britain but also the industrialisation of much of the Western world was facilitated by extraction from the colonies.

Patnaik identifies four distinct economic periods in colonial India from 1765 to 1938, calculates the extraction for each, and then compounds at a modest rate of interest (about 5 percent, which is lower than the market rate) from the middle of each period to the present. Adding it all up, she finds that the total drain amounts to $44.6 trillion. This figure is conservative, she says, and does not include the debts that Britain imposed on India during the Raj.

These are eye-watering sums. But the true costs of this drain cannot be calculated. If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development – as Japan did – there’s no telling how history might have turned out differently. India could very well have become an economic powerhouse. Centuries of poverty and suffering could have been prevented.

All of this is a sobering antidote to the rosy narrative promoted by certain powerful voices in Britain. The conservative historian Niall Ferguson has claimed that British rule helped “develop” India. While he was prime minister, David Cameron asserted that British rule was a net help to India.

This narrative has found considerable traction in the popular imagination: according to a 2014 YouGov poll, 50 percent of people in Britain believe that colonialism was beneficial to the colonies.

Yet during the entire 200-year history of British rule in India, there was almost no increase in per capita income. In fact, during the last half of the 19th century – the heyday of British intervention – income in India collapsed by half. The average life expectancy of Indians dropped by a fifth from 1870 to 1920. Tens of millions died needlessly of policy-induced famine.

Britain didn’t develop India. Quite the contrary – as Patnaik’s work makes clear – India developed Britain.

What does this require of Britain today? An apology? Absolutely. Reparations? Perhaps – although there is not enough money in all of Britain to cover the sums that Patnaik identifies. In the meantime, we can start by setting the story straight. We need to recognise that Britain retained control of India not out of benevolence but for the sake of plunder and that Britain’s industrial rise didn’t emerge sui generis from the steam engine and strong institutions, as our schoolbooks would have it, but depended on violent theft from other lands and other peoples.

The Political Agenda Overrides Party Loyalty

By MT Webmaster On Dec 13, 2018

So now we need to support Mahathir and not allow Anwar to take over. And if all the Umno leaders need to resign and join PPBM then so be it. PPBM must be strengthened since Umno can no longer do the job. And PPBM will be strengthened once it has more seats than DAP and PKR. And for that to happen PPBM has to ‘steal’ the Umno seats, like what is currently happening.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Most non-Malays and the younger generation (Malays included) do not understand the game of politics — which can also be called the Game of Thrones. In the world of realpolitik, (Realpolitik: politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals) the end justifies the means. Realpolitik thus involves a pragmaticò approach to seeking power with a disregard for ethical considerations.

That is how ‘good’ politics is played. And even DAP plays politics this way. The DAP leaders can condemn Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tun Daim Zainuddin, Anwar Ibrahim, Rafidah Aziz, Muhyiddin Yassin, and many more, for 30 years and then at the drop of a panty can turn around and support them.

The Chinese applied these skills during the Malayan Emergency. At daytime they supported the government and at night they supported the CPM. One Chinese chap explained it by saying why drink one cup of tea when you can drink two? That was the reason the British built new villages and moved the Chinese into these new villages under night time curfew to stop them ‘supporting the CPM at night and drink two cups of tea’.

Terengganu and Kelantan will support anyone who serves the interest of the state

In realpolitik you place the cause above the party. The cause is your objective and the political party is merely the means or vehicle in achieving that objective.

Sabah politicians, on whichever side of the divide, have only MA63 and their oil as their prime objective. If USNO can serve this objective, they will join USNO. If USNO can no longer do it they will jump to Berjaya. If Berjaya falls they will join PBS. If PBS falters under the onslaught of Umno they will join Umno. And if Umno does not deliver they will move to any other party that can.

The Chinese are the same. They supported MCA to keep Umno in check. When MCA compromised itself and appeared to be Umno’s running dog they jumped to Gerakan. When Gerakan turned into just another MCA the Chinese migrated to DAP. Today, DAP Is the new Chinese champion.

The Indians, however, are not as clever as the Malays and Chinese. They stayed with MIC until MIC died and the Indians also died alongside MIC. And now the Indians complain they have been neglected and left behind. They should be grateful they have not been buried in their graves beside MIC’s grave. Anyway, all you need to do is give the Indians plenty of Hindu temples and they will grovel at your feet.

Sabah and Sarawak come first and the political party they support comes second

The Sabah politicians have just demonstrated their ‘true colours’. Sabah comes first and everything else second. If Umno can no longer protect Sabah’s interest then sayonara. The Sabah politicians will just move on, like they have done four times since 1963, to whichever party that can guarantee them the MA63 will be respected and the oil royalty protected.

Terengganu and Kelantan are following Sabah’s example. If Umno can protect Terengganu’s and Kelantan’s interest then they will support Umno. If Umno cannot even help itself, let alone help Terengganu and Kelantan, then sayonara Umno. Terengganu and Kelantan understand realpolitik enough to know if they need to work with Mahathir to protect the state’s interest they will do so.

Many of us supported Najib Tun Razak when Mahathir tried to oust him in December 2014. And we continued to support him right up to GE14 in May 2018. Friends ask how we could support Najib in spite of the 1MDB scandal and so on.

Well, first of all, nothing had been proven yet. Up till today, they are all merely allegations. Najib has not been convicted or sentenced for any crime related to 1MDB. If Lim Guan Eng is considered innocent until proven guilty (and is still considered innocent until today) then why should the same standards not apply to Najib as well? Why is Najib subjected to different rules just because he is not Chinese?

Secondly, there is a far bigger and more important objective than the 1MDB issue. And that issue that overrides 1MDB is to not allow the DAP Chinese to grab power. It does not matter what Najib may or may not have done. What matters is that if Najib falls the DAP Chinese would be in power. So, let it be ten 1MDBs. Who cares? Asal jangan DAP berkuasa!

Today it is no longer about Najib or Umno but about Mahathir versus Anwar

So, back in 2014, Najib needed to be defended. But now Najib has fallen so that is all water under the bridge. DAP is already practically running the government. But DAP cannot be allowed to become stronger. And DAP will become stronger if Mahathir is ousted and Anwar Ibrahim takes over as Prime Minister.

So now we need to support Mahathir and not allow Anwar to take over. And if all the Umno leaders need to resign and join PPBM then so be it. PPBM must be strengthened since Umno can no longer do the job. And PPBM will be strengthened once it has more seats than DAP and PKR. And for that to happen PPBM has to ‘steal’ the Umno seats, like what is currently happening.

Now do you know how realpolitik or the Game of Thrones is played? The end justifies the means or matlamat menghalalkan cara. That is what separates the men from the boys and if you are still a boy pergi main jauh-jauh!

If Umno can no longer deliver then it is time to move on

Mat Sabu Angry With PAS For Blocking The Vote Of No Confidence Against The PM

By Raja Petra Kamarudin Last updated Feb 18, 2

Mat Sabu said Anwar is guilty of sodomy. Mat Sabu also said Anwar cannot stop himself from buggering young men and boys. “Sudah jadi satu penyakit,” said Mat Sabu. Mat Sabu used to call Anwar ‘Anwar Al-Juburi’ and said, “Anwar suka makan kunyit.”

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The story that Anwar Ibrahim is planning a vote of no confidence in Parliament against Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been circulating since last year. Today, that story has finally come out into the open, triggered by the visit of a number of senior PAS leaders to the Prime Minister’s office last Friday.

People were curious as to why these senior PAS leaders visited the Prime Minister. The PAS leaders said it was to discuss administrative issues. Other said these ‘administrative issues’ were actually regarding the RM1.5 billion oil royalty for Terengganu and Kelantan, which the Prime Minister approved last year but which Lim Guan Eng refuses to release.

The Prime Minister himself said the purpose of the meeting was for PAS to promise not to help or work with Umno in the Semenyih by-election and that this promise was made in writing. But then this is Mahathir: just like when he said, tongue-in-cheek, that Malaysia is bankrupt because he was the most corrupt Prime Minister for 22 years from 1981 to 2003.

The meeting between PAS leaders and the PM last Friday triggered talk of an impending vote of no confidence against him in Parliament

The President of PAN a.k.a. Amanah was furious. This was what Malay Mail Online reported:

Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu reportedly threw his “kopiah”, or skullcap, in anger as he related the sacrifices of former PAS leaders while its current leadership were allegedly receiving funds from rival Umno.

In several media reports, the former PAS deputy president known as Mat Sabu was worried about how the accusation would hurt the image of Islam, accusing the Islamist party of being a “party of lies” for their leaders’ previous denials over the issue.

Yes, the last time Mat Sabu threw the microphone to the ground. This time he threw his white cap to the ground in anger. And the reason Mat Sabu is angry is because PAS is giving Islam a bad name.

Mat Sabu got caught tangkap basah in room 121 Hotel Perdana on 31st January 1995 but escaped punishment

Hello…PAS is giving Islam a bad name? Was is not Mat Sabu who was caught in close proximity or ‘tangkap basah’ with Norma, a former police officer’s wife, in room 121 in Hotel Perdana, Kota Bharu, on 31st January 1995?

There were four witnesses who confirmed that Mat Sabu was alone with Norma in the hotel room and that he had only a towel around his waist. But then when the case went to trial one of the witnesses suddenly suffered amnesia so only three witnesses testified. And because it was only three witnesses and not four witnesses, Mat Sabu was discharged.

How much do you think Mat Sabu paid one of the witnesses to lose his memory? The rumour at that time was it was only RM20,000.

More importantly, it made a mockery of Islam. From that day on, non-Muslims made fun of Islam and said that it is okay to rape a woman because as long as you do not have four witnesses nothing will happen to you. Hence Islam allows rape as long as no one witnesses the rape.

Mat Sabu said Anwar is guilty of sodomy and yet he wants Anwar to take over as PM

Yes, this is how non-Muslims mock Islam and it is all because Mat Sabu escaped on the technicality of having only three witnesses and not four. So, if Mat Sabu is angry with PAS for ‘hurting the image of Islam’, he should be angry with himself. He has done more damage to the image of Islam than 100 other people could ever have done.

And what about his penchant for G-strings and his ‘talk dirty’ conversations with young girls? He talks about Islam and throws his white cap to the ground but he is as horny as a toad.

You want to talk about ‘hurting the image of Islam’, then let’s talk about ‘hurting the image of Islam’.

Will Anwar have the numbers in his vote of no confidence move in Parliament?

Mat Sabu said Anwar is guilty of sodomy. Mat Sabu also said Anwar cannot stop himself from buggering young men and boys. “Sudah jadi satu penyakit,” said Mat Sabu. Mat Sabu used to call Anwar ‘Anwar Al-Juburi’ and said, “Anwar suka makan kunyit.”

Today, Mat Sabu supports Anwar in his plan to push for a vote of no confidence against Mahathir in Parliament so that Anwar can take over as Prime Minister. Supporting a kaki bontot to take over as Prime Minister is not hurting the image of Islam? Apalah Mat Sabu ni. Dah mabuk G-string ke?

Kita tidak lagi mewah, contohi ahli PAS, Najib beritahu ahli Umno

FMT Reporters

 -

February 16, 2019 10:34 PM

Najib Razak berkata, kerjasama dengan PAS kritikal, tetapi Umno hanya boleh bangkit semula dengan sokongan masyarakat lain.

PEKAN: Bekas presiden Umno, Datuk Seri Najib Razak menggesa ahli parti itu supaya menerima kenyataan sebagai pembangkang, dengan berkata, ia bukan lagi kerajaan dan tidak mempunyai wang yang banyak untuk membiayai kegiatannya.

Bercakap kepada ahli Umno Pekan hari ini, 9 bulan selepas peletakan jawatan beliau daripada semua jawatan dalam parti berikutan kekalahan Barisan Nasional (BN) dalam pilihan raya umum 9 Mei tahun lepas, Najib memuji dedikasi ahli PAS dalam menyokong parti itu dari segi kewangan.

Katanya program PAS dibiayai oleh ahlinya sendiri.

“PAS tidak ada kuasa. Kegiatanya dibiayai melalui derma. Sedangkan apabila kita buat program, kita bertanya sama ada ada sponsor atau tidak.

“Kita mesti ubah paradigma Umno. Masa kita mewah sudah berlalu. Kita sudah dapat banyak kesenangan. Ini adalah peluang untuk memberi balik kepada parti dan tunjukkan kasih sayang kepada parti,” katanya ketika berucap kepada pemimpin bahagian dan ahli parti itu di ibu pejabat Umno Pekan.

“Ia ialah tentang apakah yang boleh kita sumbang kepada parti, bukan apakah yang kita boleh dapat daripada parti.”

Dalam ucapannya itu Najib juga menyuarakan keyakinan bahawa Umno akan bangkit semula dan keluar daripada zaman gerhananya sekarang.

Katanya walaupun kerjasama dengan PAS kritikal, Umno tidak boleh mengabaikan masyarakat bukan-Melayu, termasuk rakyat Sabah dan Sarawak.

“Kita perlukan sokongan orang Cina dan India. Jangan kita jadi ekstrem. Jangan kita kata tidak perlukan mereka,” katanya.

We’re no longer rich, let’s emulate PAS members, Najib tells Umno

FMT Reporters

 -

February 16, 2019 9:43 PM

Najib Razak says cooperation with PAS is critical but the party can only rise again with support from other communities.

PETALING JAYA: Former Umno president Najib Razak has urged party members to come to terms with the reality of being in the opposition, saying as it is no longer the government, it does not have a big war chest to fund its activities.

Addressing Umno members in Pekan, Pahang today some nine months after his resignation from all party posts following Barisan Nasional’s fall from power, Najib praised the dedication shown by PAS members in supporting the party financially.

He said programmes by the Islamist party were funded by their members.

“PAS doesn’t have power. Its party events are funded through donations. Whereas whenever we hold an event, we ask if there is a sponsor or not.“We must change Umno’s paradigm. The times when we were rich have passed. We have experienced all the comfort. But this is our opportunity to give back to the party and show love to the party,” Najib said in his speech to Umno divisional leaders and members at the Pekan Umno headquarters.

“It’s what we can give to the party, not what the party can give us.”

In his speech, Najib also expressed confidence that Umno would rise again and come out of its current “eclipse”.

He said although the cooperation with PAS was critical, Umno must not lose sight of the non-Malay communities including in Sabah and Sarawak.

“We need support from the Chinese and Indian communities. We should not be extreme and say we don’t need them,” said Najib.

Tony Pua's latest attack on 1MDB titled "Only the financially illiterate will believe that there is no bailout for 1MDB"

Sunday, 10 January 2016

Dear Tony: This is not your father's land

I really wanted to tell you "This is govt land and not your father's land" - exactly what Lim Guan Eng recently scolded the Chew Jetty residents in Penang, but I shall refrain since it is rude for non-Tokong class people to say such things. 

But it is a nice phrase so I shall keep it as the blog post title

Tony Pua is good at misleading his followers with hyperbole, hypocrisy and selective facts. He is doing what he is doing best - to mislead those followers of his who placed their blind trust in Tony allowing him to easily dupe them.

Let me pick-apart Tony Pua's latest attack on 1MDB titled "Only the financially illiterate will believe that there is no bailout for 1MDB"

His allegations in Red italics, My reply is in Blue:

TONY: In an interview with The Edge this week, 1MDB President Arul Kanda boasted that 1MDB was not bailed out by the government like in the cases of national carrier Malaysian Airline System Bhd (MAS), or national carmaker Proton.

In the case of MAS, the bailout already cost upwards of RM20 billion of losses - money that will never be recovered and it is still not over yet as we embark on yet another bail-out run which started from Tun Mahathir's ill-advised decision to privatized to his crony and bail him out at double the market price.

In the case of Proton, the company was built on the backs of the Rakyat suffering from high car prices due to high duties and taxes. Besides the human lives costs that was incurred if Malaysian had been able to afford safer cars in the past, it is estimated the actual losses from the Rakyat in terms of financial costs is estimated at upwards of RM300 billion - not inclusive of higher interest charges arising from financing a higher amount than necessary.

Again, this is money that will never be recovered.

Now what Proton's sales have plummeted in recent years due to stronger competition from cheaper car prices as a result of Najib's policies, Proton is now needing free money from the government - up to RM2 billion, which Najib has so far refused to give despite Mahathir being made the Chairman in April 2014.

In 1MDB's case, other than guarantees and a higher than normal return from land profits, not a single sen of Rakyat's money was used in any bail-out of 1MDB.

Only a politician who is willing to deceive himself and deceive the rakyat would even dare say that 1MDB is worse than MAS or Proton.

In fact, after these 3 major rounds of rationalization, 1MDB is left with an estimated asset value (net of debts) of RM13 billion which is poised to grow further. 

You are free to dispute these hard numbers here.

TONY: He claims, “now that we have legally binding agreements for the IPIC swap, Edra sale and Bandar Malaysia, we don’t need to take any money from the government. There is no question about a bailout.”

Arul Kanda perhaps has been a little too quick to forget that the Najib administration granted RM950 million of emergency credit to 1MDB in February last year, despite having promised the Parliament that the Government would not bailout 1MDB.

Then a month later, the Government provided 1MDB with another “letter of support” to borrow another US$150 million (RM650 million) from Bank Exim.

I am not quite sure how you would term letter of support and a line of credit as a bail-out. These are financial assistance for sure - unless you forgot that 1MDB has always been 100% owned by the government and that the total actual cash investment by the govt in 1MDB is only RM1 million.

Letters of support is necessary to allow 1MDB to borrow at the best rates. In fact, such letters of support were also used for all those infrastructure projects you see such as the MRT and LRT extensions. It is normal for the govt to help out their own 100% owned companies (which are essentially part of govt too) to reduce borrowing costs.

Lines of credit and loans received using support letters have to be repaid. In the case of the RM950m and USD150m lines of credit, both can already be repaid - if not already done so by 1MDB already.

Not an additional sen of hard cash from your GST money or from govt finances was given to 1MDB to repay these loans.

Then in last August, Tenaga Nasional (TNB) took over a 2,000MW power plant concession from 1MDB which the latter failed to deliver, after the Government allowed TNB to revise upwards the electricity tariffs to be paid for power supplied by the new plant.

This is the part that I find most shameful. Because of continuous attacks by you and Tun Mahathir, TNB was asked to take-over the 2000MW Jimah East power-plant projects as 1MDB was unable to get loans to finance the project nor able to get injections of capital from the govt to continue with it.

1MDB had spent RM83.68mil on developing this project and Tenaga took it over for a mere RM46.98mil. - causing a loss to 1MDB. 

If 1MDB had been able to finance this project, it would certainly be worth much more than  a mere RM46.98mil for a 2000MW IPP project which 1MDB won fair and square against YTL in an open tender.

And to add insult to injury, TNB also requested and got an upward revision of tariff as TNB believed they could not make money as the tariff awarded to 1MDB was too low.

I AM GLAD YOU ADMIT THIS NOW AND I HOPE YOU HOLD UP YOUR HANDS AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BEING PART OF THIS.

The final tariff for this 25 years concession to TNB will be 26.67 sen/kwh which is 1.34 sen higher than the initial tariff of 25.33 sen/kwh awarded to 1MDB.

I estimate this increase to eventually cost the rakyat a total of RM8.6 billion - all thanks to the political attacks on 1MDB.

Would you be compensating any of this RM8.6b loss to the rakyat?

And if 1MDB had given in to your rants in early 2013 (USD1=RM2.96) to bring back the USD2.31 billion Cayman funds (which forms part of the IPIC-1MDB asset-debt swap) to Malaysia, today (USD1=RM4.33) 1MDB would have been looking at a forex loss of up to RM3.2 billion too.

Would you also be compensating for that potential loss?

For its entire existence, 1MDB's energy division was always the lowest qualified bidder for each new and every new or renewal power purchase agreements. 1MDB wanted to make less money so that the Rakyat does not have to pay more. 

There is no doubt that 1MDB has transformed the Malaysian IPP industry since they entered this area in later 2011 and until its exit - in the process, saving billions of ringgit each year for the govt. 

The subsidized gas price (RM/mmBTU)_for electricity generation from Petronas went up from RM10.70 in 2010 to RM18.20 to 2016, a 70% increase. The market price is above RM40. 

Traditionally, about 60% of Malaysia's electricity generation is from gas. 

For the first time in history, Malaysia had an open tender for PPA in Sept 2012. 1MDB was able to participate in this due to its entry into the industry in late 2011. 

In Oct 2012, Maybank Investment bank commented that this PPA open tender  resulted in the end of IPP "sweetheart deal" where the IRR have dropped to mid single digits. 

A tariff difference by even a single sen makes a huge difference over a 20-year concession period, for one IPP plant a single sen difference can reduce tariff costs by RM2.9 billion. 

These savings from better IPP deals have gone to reduced gas subsidies and increased gas revenues (in the billions per year) for Petronas without a similarly high increase in electricity prices. 

There is little doubt that 1MDB had helped shake up the IPP industry with it's aggressive bidding in the first ever open tender for PPA in 2012 and also subsequent IPP bids where 1MDB was always the lowest qualified bidder for every IPP project it went into.
These savings from paying the previously very lucrative IPPs were then channeled into higher revenues for Petronas and eventually to the government instead of to the profits of the IPP private owners. 

The Life-Line Tariff for consumers who use up to 200 kWh/month affecting 70% of households have not changed since 1997. It is also GST-free.
Any change in your electricity bill is probably because you use much more electricity compared to before. 

From the year 2010 onward, households with electricity bills below RM20 no longer pay a single cent.  This benefit is still on-going. 

Those are the facts.
--
Pro-Rakyat (the group formerly known as Pro-Tun M) and Pakatan people will keep asking "Who you sell the IPPs to?" 

They will not ask who you buy the IPPs from? 

To all ordinary Malaysians, I think it is better that foreigners own the IPPs but with much lower power tariffs than it is for local cronies to own the IPPs with much higher tariffs.

TONY: How can Arul Kanda say with a straight face that there hasn’t been a bailout?

In fact, even his argument that 1MDB did “not take any money from the government” because 1MDB has “legally binding agreements” with IPIC for the debt-asset swap, the Edra sale and Bandar Malaysia is glaringly flawed.

The projected RM18 billion debt-asset swap with IPIC hasn’t been completed and there is no certainty that 1MDB would be able to cough out RM18 billion of assets to swap the equivalent amount of debt with IPIC by June 2016.

In fact, the debt-asset swap agreement signed in June 2015 was only possible because the Ministry of Finance indemnified IPIC of any losses. In effect, the Government has provided an indirect guarantee to IPIC to bail out 1MDB – if 1MDB fails to fulfil its part of the obligations, the Malaysian tax-payers will have to fork out cash to compensate IPIC. Will that not be a bailout?

First of all, how does Tony Pua know that 1MDB does not have the financial assets to complete this swap deal?

In fact, in your PAC inquiry of 1MDB, the largest auditing firm in the world clearly told you that they stand by their valuation of 1MDB's financial assets.

“Deloitte told us that they have seen the bank statements pertaining to the RM13.4bil of assets in BSI Bank. They can verify the value of the assets in question as they did a test on whether the assets were at fair value at that point in time for FY14,” PAC chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan said at a press conference after the inquiry. 

“As of March 31, 2014, Deloitte said they had gotten independent valuation of these assets of RM13.4bil and the valuations tallied. Deloitte had not done any work for FY15, as they only did it up to March 31, 2014,” PAC member Tony Pua, who was also present, said.

And here is where you neglected to mention the "vice-versa" term and that this is a standard contract term - all in the hopes of misleading your follower:

"YB Tony Pua has deliberately misled the public by failing to mention the crucial 'and vice versa' clause in relation to the 'indemnity', i.e. the indemnity applies both ways – to IPIC as well as 1MDB – in relation to performance of obligations by the parties. 

"Such a two-way indemnity is a standard clause in commercial transactions to ensure neither party is 'out of pocket' for non-performance by the other. 1MDB confirms that it fully intends to perform its obligations under the binding term sheet."

Absolutely disgraceful of you.

TONY: The Edra Global sale cannot, by any measure, be deemed a success because 1MDB suffered at least RM2.2 billion of losses on the investment. 1MDB acquired the power companies for RM12.1 billion and sold them for RM9.83 billion. If that is good business, then I’m not sure what Arul Kanda would describe as bad business.

This is the easiest of all to dispute. Edra bought for RM12.1b and sold it for RM9.83b 4 years later.

Don't tell me during these 4 years that there was NOT A SINGLE SEN in profit from Edra?

Of course there was, easily RM2.2billon worth. If there was no profit, no one would be paying billions to buy these assets off 1MDB.

Which is why, on top of helping transform the IPP industry as mentioned earlier, Arul Kanda clearly said that 1MDB essentially broke-even on Edra.

There is no need for Tony Pua to mislead on this. A clear examination of the Profit-and-loss statements of Edra over the past few years would clearly show this.

Unless of course Tony says that accountants and auditors cannot be trusted.

TONY:  Furthermore, the sale of Bandar Malaysia at a massive profit only happened because the Federal Government sold the land to 1MDB at heavily discounted bargain basement prices. 1MDB bought the land parcels for RM1.6 billion in 2012, and recently sold 60% of the land for a purported RM7.41 billion despite not having laid a single brick on the land.

The money received from the sale should have gone into the national treasury to help the man-on-the-street cope with rising costs of living. Instead, it went to 1MDB to help 1MDB pay down its debts.

This Bandar Malaysia part was where I really really wanted to say "This is not your father's land", just like CM Lim Guan Eng - but I MUST resist.

Anyway, this is an amazing statement from Tony. Just six months ago in June 2015, Tony Pua had claimed very loudly that the govt's RM11b valuation for the Bandar Malaysia land was massively over inflated!

“We want to know if the second minister of finance was spewing gibberish and just plucked these new outlandish valuations out of thin air to present an optimistic picture of 1MDB. 

“How were these new valuations arrived at? Or are there more sinister reasons why the values have been massively inflated?” asked Pua just 6 months ago.

Very strange. At that time Tony Pua said the valuation was massively over-inflated and now today he is questioning if the price paid by the 60% buyer via an international open tender is lower than announced.

What exactly do you want, Tony Pua? Price too high, you complain and scold others (giberrish, outlandish, pluck from thin air) . Price is lower you complain and scold others "boo hoo and liar".

There is no doubt that the Bandar Malaysia land sale price - which was entirely determined via open-tender based -  is higher and had allowed 1MDB to make profits and completely pay off the RM42b debts.

1MDB had paid RM1.6 billion and also had to buy the land for, build and equip eight military bases as part of the sale price - it wasn't just cash alone.

But then again, there would be very few private companies in Malaysia willing to spend billions on this project, relocate the 8 military bases then and still not able to get vacant possession of the land for at least 5 years until the bases are completed and the Sg Besi airfield was relocated.

And remember that these are military bases so giving such a project to private companies would be a tricky defense situation.

Not to mention that 1MDB had to fund the interest costs for these 5 years and take-up the construction risk and delay risk too.

And while true, to say that 1MDB did not lay a single brick on this land is very misleading as 1MDB did work on the other 8 military bases where many bricks were laid - something that Tony failed to mention.

1MDB also had to spend money to design the development, make sure the HSR and MRT stations are properly situated and get development approval on top of any land conversion or legal costs attached to it.

And get this: 1MDB is a 100% govt company and is in fact ALLOWED to make money on projects such as these as it brings the vision of the project nearer to its vision.

Even today, 1MDB still owns 40% of the project and will reap returns way into the future - which the govt will be the beneficiary too.

Earlier, you and your colleague Liew Chin Tong had accused 1MDB of selling the country to the Chinese even though the China company's stake is only 24%.

I then asked DAP why then wasn't the 100% ownership sale of 20 acres of Penang land and also a 49% stake sale of a RM11b GDV penang project to Singapore's Temasek by the Penang State Govt's 100%-owned Penang Development Corp company was not similarly called selling the country by you people and you had all kept quiet about it.

And now, Lim Guan Eng had just confirmed my accusations but said although the land was sold at cost price, it was necessary to draw foreign investments and create jobs (as if the Bandar Malaysia project doesn't draw foreign investments or create jobs - it does too).

Perhaps then you could also help me ask these questions to your DAP boss if you are truly for the Rakyat :

1) How much did PDC pay the Penang State Govt to buy the 20 acres of land sold to Jebel and for the 6.8 acres of land for the Temasek project?
2) How much money did PDC receive from Temasek in order to give Temasek a 49% ownership of the land?
3) Was the valuation and sale price of these pieces of land determined via international open tender - just like how the Bandar Malaysia valuation was determined? Why did you have to sell it at "cost price"?

TONY: Indeed, President Arul Kanda might be right that 1MDB was not bailed out by the government like in the cases of national carrier Malaysian Airline System Bhd (MAS) or national carmaker Proton. 1MDB’s case is far worse, far bigger as it involves tens of billions of ringgit, far more devious, and much more opaque.

Only the financially illiterate would believe Arul Kanda or any of the Cabinet Ministers that rescuing 1MDB did not involve taking money from the tax-payers.

As can be seen from my explanations above which clearly busted all your accusations, I put it to you that only the knowledge-impaired and naive DAP leaders and supporters would believe Tony Pua's continued attacks on 1MDB.

And only a politician with a personal agenda wishing to mislead others would write what you wrote today.

I strongly believe you are not happy that 1MDB's RM42b debt has been solved. But live with it as it is now reality. 

Arul and PM Najib had delivered on their promise and your current attacks now are really looking like a whole bunch of sour grapes that were probably grown on the top floor of Penang Komtar.

PS. By the way YB Tony, shouldn't you be spending more time to prepare to defend your defamation suit by PM Najib over your 1MDB allegations instead of throwing out even more allegations?

The next hearing is just 8 days away on Jan 18th, 2016 where you strangely want to strike out the defamation case instead of taking this opportunity to "grill" Najib in court over 1MDB?

Lim Sian See at 01:11