Abandon Ship

The MV 1Malaysia may just have hit an iceberg in the form of Tabung Haji Depositors:

1MDB scandal could explode on Umno, says Muhyiddin

More will oppose 1MDB despite PM’s efforts to meet Umno leaders, says ex-minister

Mukhriz: Why did Finance Ministry sell land cheap to 1MDB?

Pemuda Umno mahu penjelasan berhubung pembelian tanah TRX

Tabung Haji chief also 1MDB director, Umno man points out 

Jangan main- main sama Penabung Tabung Haji

Buruk Padahnya

Coincidence?

Ok baca news ni dulu:

Tabung Haji admits to land deal with 1MDB

extract:

'In a statement emailed to the The Malaysian Insider today, Tabung Haji chief executive officer (CEO) Datuk Johan Abdullah said that the fund had invested in a piece of land with the plan of building a residential tower at the price of RM188.5 million'

Now read this news from Reuters via MT:

1MDB SELLS LAND FOR $53M, FIRST ASSET SALE TO CUT DEBT

extract:

'1MDB has a $1.75 billion bond maturing in 2022 with a coupon rate of 5.99 percent. The next half-yearly payment of around $52 million is due on May 11'

OK now at current exchange rate $52 million = RM (52x3.6) million = RM187.2 million, 

thus, this meant that on May 11 2015, 1MDB has to make a half yearly payment of RM187.2 million.

So..... is there any connection between Tabung Haji's investment of RM188.5 million to that half yearly payment that 1MDB needs to make to fulfill their financial obligations?  

Well, I heard that many people asked what 1MDB will do with the money paid by Tabung Haji.

Wallahualam.

So Tabung Haji bought 1 and not 2 plots of land from 1MDB

Ok this Tabung Haji buying 1MDB land thingy gets interesting:

Tabung Haji sahkan pembelian hartanah di Tun Razak Exchange

KUALA LUMPUR: Lembaga Tabung Haji (TH) hari ini mengesahkan telah membeli tanah bagi tujuan pelaburan hartanah di pusat kewangan Tun Razak Exchange (TRX).

Perkara itu dimaklumkan Timbalan Pengarah Urusan Kumpulan dan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif TH, Datuk Johan Abdullah menerusi kenyataan yang dikeluarkan sebentar tadi.

Menurut beliau, langkah ini adalah sejajar dengan strategi pelaburan hartanah TH yang memberikan tumpuan kepada sektor domestik. 

"Pelaburan ini merupakan keputusan komersial yang menepati selera risiko dan telah melalui semua proses penilaian dalaman yang terperinci.

"Pembelian hartanah pada harga RM188.5 juta adalah pada kadar diskaun berlandaskan nilai pasaran semasa dan ia telah dinilai oleh sebuah badan penilai bebas profesional," katanya.

Menurut kenyataan beliau lagi, cadangan pembangunan kediaman itu yang akan dibangunkan oleh TH Properties (anak syarikat TH), dijangka memberi pulangan positif kepada kumpulan itu pada masa hadapan.

Tambah Johan, TH akan terus meneroka peluang-peluang pelaburan yang seumpamanya di dalam pasaran domestik seperti yang digaris dalam rangkakerja Alokasi Aset Strategik.

Sementara itu, dalam kenyataan yang sama, Johan menafikan pembelian Signature Tower (Fasa 2) oleh Kumpulan TH sepertimana yang dilaporkan di dalam blog-blog tertentu.

"Kebocoran maklumat melalui kertas cadangan tidak boleh dijadikan sebagai bukti keputusan muktamad pelaburan tersebut," katanya.

Sebelum ini, Pengerusi Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH), Datuk Seri Azeez Rahim menerusi Twitternya telah menafikan dakwaan pembelian tanah milik 1MDB seperti yang tersebar di media sosial sejak semalam.

Beliau juga telah mengarahkan pihak pengurusan TH untuk segera mengeluarkan kenyataan serta menyerahkan kepada mereka untuk menjawab dakwaan berkenaan.

Read more here.

Some comments:

1. So TH only bought 1 plot (the cheaper one) of land instead of 2 (I don't want to go into the buy cheap from Gomen and then sell high to TH argument, thats passed,TH say its a great investment what).

2. The leak documents is unprecedented and the leak board documents from the blog is genuine as TH did not say it was faked.

3. The leaked blog document alleges a total sale price of RM772 Million for 2 plots of land (RM194 juta (RM2,860 sekaki persegi) RM578 juta (RM3,900 sekaki persegi), hence perhaps the leaked document had influence on the final outcome of the TRX sale. 

4. The leak documents is a leak at the highest level and its intention is obvious...I think there are some good people out there who loves this blessed country of ours. I thanked them from the bottom of my heart, hope you guys don't get caught ok...you are doing a morally right thing.

Having said that,

Perhaps..

...1MDB would like to tell Malaysians what they are going to do with the money from the sale?

...TH can tell us what they are going to do with the rumah yang tidak akan mampu dimilik many Malays/Muslims  that they are going to built in TRX?

Wait there's more:

ABIM heret transaksi 'ragu' Tabung Haji ke balai polis

It ain't Over until the Fat Lady Sings

Is Tabung Haji money being used to bail out debt ridden #1MDB

Using my money in Tabung Haji now eh? well done, jawab lah kamu semua di akhirat nanti:

A new deal for Malaysia - TABUNG HAJI and 1MDB

Tabung Haji the pilgrims fund that manages billions of ringgit of depositors money appears to be bailing out PM Najib's scandal ridden sovereign debt fund 1MDB.

read more here.

I hope Tabung Haji Chairman will come out to make a press statement, true or not?

#1MDB - Kalau dah pemimpin Bahagian UMNO pun dah berbunyi

Kalau dah Pemimpin Bahagian UMNO pun dah berbunyi:

Source here

I think silence and or refusal to answer the 1MDB questions by el Presidente is no longer a viable option.

1MDB....Apabila Perkasa pun sudah berbunyi

Apabila Perkasa pun sudah berbunyi:

“The 1MDB issue, according to many reports and statements, can be classified as a big CBT case that may involve many parties,”

Perkasa’s monitoring and integrity bureau secretary, Muhammad Azrul Akmal Sharudin

1MDB MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST, PERKASA SAYS

I believe that the people in 1MDB better start talking, as the elephant in the room has got much, much bigger already, lets give the people involved with 1MDB a help, disregard for awhile whatever TunM said about the 1MDB  perhaps answer these Questions asked by Mr. P Gunasegaram:

 

10 things 1MDB should disclose

excerpts from the above:

Now let’s look at its business. Property development at two prime sites acquired cheaply from the government – the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) and Bandar Malaysia. And Energy; buying over established Malaysian power companies, Tanjong Energy, Genting Sanyen and Jimah Energy. And, that’s it.

Next a quick look at its financials from its annual reports: assets of some RM51 billion, liabilities of RM48 billion, borrowings of RM42 billion (RM46 billion if we include some forms of payables which look like debt) as at March 31, 2014. If not for revaluation of properties – acquired cheaply from the government – by some RM4 billion over the years, it would not have made profits at all.

Onwards to Jho Low, the whizz-kid (who may no longer be much of a kid any more) billionaire who has so much influence over 1MDB decisions, according to e-mail revelations by Sarawak Report which have not been denied by 1MDB yet and whose companies reportedly received at least US$1 billion from 1MDB.

The other development from Sarawak Report is that some US$1.1 billion in 1MDB’s funds from Cayman Islands, said to be kept in Singapore, may not be there because the records for those are said to be falsified.

That should be enough background. On to what 1MDB should be disclosing

Disclosures

1. Explain why there was a need to borrow RM42 billion at least when the energy assets only cost some RM13 billion and TRX and Bandar Malaysia are merely in the development stage.

2. Reveal exactly where and at what rates of return are the rest of the money of RM29 billion at least being kept, including the Singapore/Cayman funds. Tell us what is the amount recoverable from this and how you propose to recover them. Also explain why 1MDB was scrambling for cash to repay a loan of RM2 billion recently to local banks. Tell us too what was tycoon T Ananda Krishnan’s role in all of these.

3. Explain why such high fees of several hundred million US dollars was paid to Goldman Sachs for bonds floated and what was the nature of their role in such deals. While normal rates for arranging such financing is closer to 1 percent, why the need to pay 10 percent for these?

4. Explain how keeping RM29 billion in deposits and for-sale assets overseas is strategic and helps in bringing foreign direct investments or FDI into Malaysia.

5. Was there hanky panky in the fundraising process whereby bonds were mispriced, allowing those who got the bonds to cash out in the secondary market to gain billions of ringgit? Was this the reason why the debts were ramped up repeatedly? If not explain why the bonds were mispriced and who were the beneficiaries, in other words who got first bite at the bonds.

6. With RM42 billion of borrowings and an average interest rate of 6 percent, annual interest payments before repayments amounts to over RM2.5 billion. Considering that 1MDB has been making cash losses since inception, explain how 1MDB proposes to obtain the interest payments and repayments in future especially since energy assets are now worth below cost.

7. Explain the business model for 1MDB. How does it propose to get decent returns when its cost of borrowing may be 6 percent or higher, especially for huge borrowings of at least RM42 billion and as high as RM46 billion.

8. Explain how the property developments are “strategic” and why we need foreign partners to develop these when Malaysia has considerable expertise in property development. What about causing a glut of office space in Kuala Lumpur and squeezing out private developers? Explain how that is strategic.

9. Explain to us what is the oversight of the board and senior management over all these issues, especially in the light of Sarawak Report disclosures – which have not been firmly denied – that outside parties played crucial roles in decision-making.

10. Tell what exactly was Jho Low’s (right) role in 1MDB, when it started, how big was it and at whose behest did he have such a powerful pull over decisions made at 1MDB.

Read in full here. 

I hope the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will answer, because if he does not, BN and UMNO will need more than a wing and a prayer to ensure this would not happen:

In GE14, BN may lose seven states but recapture Kelantan, Kit Siang predicts 

PKR Selangor Exco YB Elizaberth Wong is wrong?

'Your PKR Exco is making misleading statements Azmin, so how?'

Me

From the Malay Mail: 

Elizabeth Wong is wrong ― Concerned Lawyers for Justice

APRIL 26 ― Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ) refers to the Malay Mail Online news report of 21 April 2015 titled “Churches may operate in commercial areas without permits, Selangor exco says”.

CLJ notes that the news report quotes Elizabeth Wong, a Selangor executive councillor and co-chair of the Selangor state committee on non-Islamic affairs (HESI) stating that the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MBPJ) has been allowing churches to operate without permits since 2008 (the starting point presumably being when the Pakatan Rakyat state government came to power in Selangor) and that all such churches have since then only needed to notify HESI, supposedly in accordance with Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship. The same news report quotes her as contradicting an earlier stand taken by MBPJ public relations officer Zainun Zakaria that churches operating at commercial premises need to obtain a permit before they can do so according to law.

CLJ condemns the statement of Elizabeth Wong in this regard as it misleads the public, particularly in relation to the contents of Article 11 of our Constitution. CLJ would like to remind Elizabeth Wong that as an elected officer of the state, she is duty bound to uphold the rule of law, in particular the Federal Constitution and must not misrepresent the same. Even a cursory glance of Article 11 would reveal that freedom of worship and the right of religious organisations to own and manage any place of worship is not absolute but must be done in line with the law. Article 11(3)(c) in particular states that every religious group has the right to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

CLJ would also like to bring to the attention of Elizabeth Wong the applicable law in this regard, namely Subsection 70(12) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 which reads as follows:-

“Any person who uses any building or part of a building for a purpose other than which it was originally constructed for without the prior written permission from the local authority shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand ringgit and shall also be liable to a further fine not exceeding five hundred ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after a notice to cease using for other purpose has been served on such person.”

It is thus manifestly clear that

it is illegal and an offence for any person,

including a religious organisation, 

to convert any residential or commercial property for any other use, 

including for any place of worship, 

without first obtaining prior written permission from the relevant local authority. 

It is also not within the competence nor jurisdiction of Elizabeth Wong nor HESI to ignore or waive a requirement that is clearly provided for in validly passed and enacted Federal legislation which clearly comes within the ambit envisaged by Article 11(3) of the Constitution.

Therefore, CLJ views with disquiet the supposed practice of the Selangor local authorities and HESI in not requiring written permission in respect of the operation of churches since 2008 and urges the relevant authorities to investigate this matter. 

As for Elizabeth Wong, CLJ calls upon her to retract her statement immediately and enforce the law as it stands on religious organisations and management of places of worship. CLJ is of the considered opinion that the practice of HESI and the Selangor state government since 2008 pertaining to the operation of churches is untenable, and must be halted immediately to ensure due respect is accorded the rule of law.

Read more here.

Bicara Negarawan, Kuala Lumpur, 25 April 2015

Bicara Negarawan Kuala Lumpur 25 April 2015:

TunM you are not alone......

'Hotels, restaurants must display service charge notices or face fines' - Very Good!

After the introduction of the GST on 1st April 2015, I have always felt that extra charges, such as Service Charges not mandated by Law should not be part of the bill that we the customers are being charged for.

Finally something is moving which gives customers a choice to pay or not to pay service charges:

Hotels, restaurants must display service charge notices or face fines, says report

Restaurants and hotels with service charges that fail to display notices informing customers of their fees could face a fine of up to RM100,000 starting next Friday, The Star reported today.

The notices must be visible to potential customers and contain the words “all prices or charges are subject to __% service charge” in capital letters, with the height of the lettering at least 5cm.

“The notice must be in Bahasa Malaysia followed by a translation of the expression in any other language,” Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry secretary-general Datuk Seri Alias Ahmad was quoted as saying in the report.

Alias reportedly said the order, gazetted on Thursday, was in accordance with Section 10 of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act.

“The order comes into operation on May 1, 2015.

“Any business owner who does not comply with this order is committing an offence and can be fined up to RM100,000,” he was quoted as saying in the report.

On Wednesday, Putrajaya announced that businesses such as hotels and restaurants can continue to collect service charge from consumers, ending confusion as to whether the fee was still allowed after the implementation of goods and services tax (GST).

Alias had said the decision had to be made because many of the workers are still earning salary as low as RM350.

Meanwhile, The Star said the ministry, under Ops Catut, would now shift its focus on GST-related offences in rural areas.

“After over 20 days since GST has been implemented, we have conducted 152,129 checks under Ops Catut and opened 30 cases,” Alias was quoted as saying.

“From now on, we will be shifting our focus to small businesses in rural areas such as small towns, villages and Felda settlements.

“We have received many complaints that our ministry is not doing enough checks but the fact is, we have conducted over 150,000 so far.

“We will also be conducting checks on manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors."

He said the ministry would set up mobile complaints centres in vans stationed near supermarkets and hawker bazaars.

“Customers can lodge complaints at these mobile centres and the officers can even launch investigations immediately,” he was quoted as saying. – April 25, 2015

Read more: here

Mind you I am a good tipper, and I do give good tips if the service is good.

Taman Medan - If Local Authority had done their job sooner, there won't be so much angst

The only way to solve the Taman Medan issue and others like it in the future...... is not by going after the demonstrators  or to disparage them and their religion, such actions will only make the situation more worse than it actually is. (future? yes..if you think that this kind of problem will go away if you whack the daylights out of the demonstrators then you are severely mistaken)

First we need to find out why the people protest, and contrary to what many says Malaysia is still a very tolerant and peaceful nation. Just because 50 of 30 Million Malaysians( 0.00016%) protest, that can't make 30 million people intolerant can it?

No need to go berserk like the English newspapers here, here, here. These people they just want to sell their newspapers. I don't read many of the rubbish their 'journalists' whipped up.

I like and in fact agree to what Ibrahim Ali has to say about it:

Mengapa bantah salib bukan gereja, soal Ibrahim Ali 

Excerpts:

Datuk Ibrahim Ali mempersoalkan tindakan penduduk Taman Medan, Petaling Jaya yang mendesak salib diturunkan dan bukannya membantah gereja yang dilaporkan beroperasi tanpa permit sejak Ogos lalu.

Presiden Perkasa itu berkata, tiada masalah bagi penganut Kristian untuk mempamerkan salib kerana ia tidak bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memberi kebebasan beragama.

“Bagi Perkasa, saya tiada masalah. Kalau isu semata-mata kerana salib, saya tak setuju. Kalau orang faham saya, saya bukan macam yang orang tuduh.

“Dalam konteks salib, tiada undang-undang mengatakan salib tidak boleh diletakkan di batang pokok kelapa atau di kedai.

“Penduduk protes salib. Oleh kerana itu, saya tak setuju dengan penduduk ini. Kalau mereka protes premis tak ada permit, itu boleh,” katanya kepada The Malaysian Insider.

Ibrahim berkata, dalam kes bantahan salib di kawasan majoriti Melayu-Islam itu, pihak yang terbabit iaitu 

gereja, 

Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ), 

dan 

penduduk setempat yang perlu dipersalahkan.

Katanya, sekiranya pihak gereja dan MBPJ mengambil langkah awal, insiden bantahan penduduk berkenaan dapat dielakkan.

“Pertama, pihak gereja guna rumah kedai untuk rumah ibadat, kedua MBPJ tidak ambil tindakan, ketiga baru kita salahkan mereka yang membantah kerana satu dan dua.

“Jika tiada tindakan pertama dan kedua, maka tiada ketiga. Jika gereja tidak dibuat di rumah kedai atau MBPJ ambil tindakan, tak timbul masalah ini.

“Gereja dan MBPJ terlebih dahulu perlu pelihara sensitiviti agama dan kaum. Kita kena salahkan mereka (MBPJ). Mereka dah tahu tak ada lesen. Kalau tak ada lesen melanggar peraturan, mengapa diam, tak ambil tindakan sebelum ini?” katanya.

Beliau berkata ekoran tiada tindakan awal daripada MBPJ, pihak gereja membuat keputusan untuk meletakkan salib.

Katanya, penduduk Taman Medan seharusnya melakukan bantahan ketika gereja itu mula dibuka, bukannya ketika salib dinaikkan di kawasan itu.

“Maka bila sebelum ini tiada tindakan, mereka naikkan salib. Bila gereja dah berjalan, mereka letak salib, baru orang Islam pergi bertindak, pun tak betul juga.

“Bertindak dari awallah. Dah tahu itu gereja mengapa tak bantah? Mengapa baru bantah bila letak salib? Adakah kerana gereja boleh, yang tak bolehnya salib, begitu?

“Kalau isu wujud gereja tanpa lesen, itu salah. Letak salib itu kebebasan beragama, kebebasan yang dijamin dalam Perlembagaan,” katanya.

Read in full here.

Anyway the issue is now blown up...I hope reasonable neutral Malaysians Leaders would come out and say something to calm things down, no , no, not the investigate the demonstrators for sedition or make fun of their religion...something more calming lah and more neutral.

I offer no unsolicited solution for the Taman Medan problem but Next time I hope the Local Authorithies would enforce the Law quickly. If the Church is illegal, take action immediately like what the Local authorithies did here. 

Had this been done the people in Taman Medan would not have demonstrated or protested  the way they did.