Total Pageviews

Friday, 29 July 2016

DAP Penang: If you repeat them enough times ...(PART I)

Last night, for the umpteenth time the DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister boasted yet again that Penang has the lowest debt and claimed credit for it.

MalaysiaKini reported this:

CM: Penang needs some debt so it can ask Najib for money 
Penang's RM1.5 billion in reserves outweigh its federal debt of just RM69 million, boasted chief minister Lim Guan Eng. 
But while the state can easily pay off what it owes Putrajaya, Lim said some debt is necessary. 
"I can call my financial officer right now and tell him, 'Datuk, go to the ATM machine and pay the federal government'. 
"But we have to keep some debt so that we can ask for money from Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak," he said in jest at a fundraising dinner in Kuala Lumpur last night. 
He said that if Penang had no debt, the federal government would assume it was well off and did not need more money. 
Penang's federal debt is the lowest in Malaysia.
Propaganda is all about repeating a half-lies enough times until people start believing it is true.

And DAP is very good at this. They have repeatedly claimed credit for this half truth probably hundreds of times since the year 2011.

Unfortunately, it is a half-truth at best.

Misleading Propaganda 1: DAP Penang is great as it reduced State Debt by 95% due to good governance.

This propaganda has been repeated hundreds of times by DAP. It is a half-lie actually.

Let's look at page 38 of the Auditor-General's Audit Report 2012 on the Penang state finances.

Yes. The Penang state debt was increasing every year until the year 2011 when it mysteriously dropped 95% within a year.

This was because the Penang Government struck a deal with Najib's Federal Government where the Penang Govt gave state assets to the Federal Government and leased it back.

Essentially, the Penang Govt just changed an existing RM655 million loan into a 45 years annual lease where the Penang Govt must pay RM14.56 million to the Federal Govt every year for 45 years.

RM14.56 million X 45 years = RM655.2 million.

Which means, the Penang Govt is essentially PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT!

To the easily-cheated supporters of DAP and gullible Penang people, they would not know the difference - allowing DAP to keep repeating this shameless propaganda over and over again since the year 2011 to cheat the people.

I am not sure how thick-faced you need to be to keep repeating this in public.

If you don't believe me, listen to this fellow who thanked the Federal Govt in the year 2011 for doing this deal.

Chief Minister, YAB Lim Guan Eng said that the Federal Cabinet has approved the restructuring and migration exercises subject to the following terms and conditions:- 
• the state’s outstanding loan of RM655.24 million to the Federal government will be interest-free and rationalized by alienating state land related water assets to PAAB for a period 45 years. PAAB will lease back the water assets to PBAPP for 45 years. PBAPP shall pay PAAB a yearly lease rental of RM 14.56 million and upon settlement of the lease at the end of 45 years, the state land will automatically revert back to the state;
• the funding of Mengkuang Dam expansion project of RM 1.2 billion will be given as a grant by the Federal Government;
When Lim Guan Eng made the above press statement he has pretty much confirmed that it was the Federal Govt taking over Penang State assets and convert  the loan to a lease (which is the same thing as you end up paying the same amount) which has allowed DAP to keep claiming they have reduced 95% of the Penang State Debt due to "good governance".

Not only that, but that same press statement of his also betrayed another long-standing propaganda that the Federal Government does not help the Penang State Govt. Not only has the Federal Govt waived the 3% interest on the previous soft loan but it had also given RM1.2 billion free grant to the Penang Govt for a much-needed dam expansion.

What kind of persons who got helped by someone and then use this help to mislead others and repeatedly over 6 years to whack back the same persons who helped you?

Misleading Propaganda 2: Under DAP, Penang has outperformed Malaysia in economic growth due to DAP's "Good governance"

The following table was released by the Penang State Govt owned Penang Institute last year.

According to DAP MP Zairil Khir when he said Penang will bounce back after the recent mass factories closing , that table is not updated but the actual growth, instead of forecast growth for Penang is higher at 7.4% for 2014 and 6.2% for 2015.

Penang had benefited from the weak Ringgit in 2014 and 2015 as electronics manufacturers exports more - hence the better 2014 and 2015 figures.

Therefore, based on Penang Institute's figures and Zairil's clarification, I have come out with the following table

And these are the official figures from the Penang Govt's Penang Institute themselves here.

Despite DAP's continued propaganda that Penang has enjoyed much better economic growth compared to Malaysia,, the actual official figures do not suggest that.

According to the state-owned Penang institute itself, Penang's economy has under-performed the national average for the entire 2008-2015 period.

Correspondingly, the BN Penang Gov's last two years in charge showed that Penang grew faster than the national average - despite what DAP claims.

Misleading Propaganda 3: Penang govt spending is well-managed under DAP and our state reserves has increased due to our good governance

If you think that there is nothing wrong that Penang Govt now spends almost 4 times as much per year of Wang Rakyat compared to 2008 and that aggressively selling depleting state land and assets to fund this dramatic increase in spending is "good management" then you can stop reading here.

In fact, without selling state land, the Penang Govt would have been in BIG and INCREASINg DEFICITS for the past 5 years straight.

If you want to know more, please read my past article titled "Penang financial management: An unsustainable bloat?" for the details.

Misleading Propaganda 4: Penang is number one state for investment in the entire Malaysia

Lim Guan Eng and DAP used to repeatedly boast (and still do) that they are number one in investments among all the states in Malaysia.

That may be true twice - for the years 2010 and 2011 - but to a large extent was from the good work of the previous BN state government as it takes a few years before a large investment is committed.

At that time, Lim Guan Eng had quoted these figures from the Federal Govt agency MIDA and you can verify the table below from the same information from MIDA here.

Since 2011 though, Penang has not been number one for total investments in Malaysia for 4 years now.

It has lagged further behind other states.

According to MIDA, last year in 2015, Penang was the 5th highest state in new investments at RM6.72 billion and ranked just behind Melaka.

It pales in comparison to Johor which recorded RM31.1 billion or 5 times higher than Penang, and Sarawak at RM11.82 billion.

And in 2014, Penang came in 3rd and drew RM8.16 billion in investments - behind Johor's RM21.18 billion and Sarawak's RM9.64 billion.

Even as Penang's annual state government spending has almost quadrupled, their investments performance has lagged the other states which have surged ahead.

In fact, Johor's combined investment for the two years of 2014 and 2015 totaling RM53 billion is more than the entire combined investments in Penang for the past 6 years of RM42.6 billion.

So far this year, Penang still lags in investments and is 3rd. for the January to March quarter.

Misleading Propaganda 5: The previous BN Penang Govt sold 35 times more land and collected less money compared to DAP

This is one of the most often repeated lies by DAP to justify their continued selling of state land to fund their 4 times increased in yearly state spending. Again this is a lie which you can read about and examine the evidence here in my previous blog post titled "BN sold more land than Pakatan in Penang and collected less' ??

Misleading Propaganda 6: Lim Guan Eng went to jail for defending a Malay girl

Probably the longest repeated allegation despite being corrected dozens of times but DAP don't care and continue repeating this since it sounds nice. In fact, DAP actually apologized in court once for repeating this lie.

You can read more about it and examine the evidence in my previous post titled "Did Lim Guan Eng really go to jail for defending a Malay girl?"

Misleading Propaganda 7: The Bungalow seller Miss Phang made a RM300,000 profit and has no business dealings with the Penang State Govt

This is a new piece of propaganda which is being used to pretend that Lim Guan Eng was falsely charged for corruption. He himself is repeating this in nationwide ceramahs and numerous recent press statements - despite this being subjudice and contempt of court to talk about the case as it is already in the courts which may lead to more court charges against Lim Guan Eng.

This is an outright blatant lie. Examine the evidence, watch the videos and read about this in my previous blog post titled "SSSLGE: Lim Guan Eng Explains Why He Is Not Guilty."

[Updates to come as I expand this blog post to include other much repeated propaganda]

If DAP is unhappy with my blog post above. they can dispute and point out where it is wrong or they are welcome to sue me.

Other propaganda like DAP's famed "40 years of flooding solved within 9 months" or "we can solve floods within one term".is made to look stupid due to ever increasing flooding in Penang in recent years.

Titles such as "UNESCO Heritage City", "Penang Top Ten most Liveable City" and "Penang being a top electronics manufacturing hub known as Silicon island" which DAP keeps claiming credit for are also something not new.

The Heritage City status was granted in June 2008 - just 3 months after DAP took power in March 8, 2008 and is really the result of efforts by the previous GERAKAN Govt over many years.

It takes many years before such a heritage status is approved, which it was (together with Malacca) in 2008, which Dr Koh Tsu Koon rightly claimed credit for.

Penang has also made it into the list of Most Liveable City for more than a decade before DAP took over,, which you can see in articles such as this when Penang was number six most liveable in 2001.

As for Silicon Island, the late Dr Lim Chong Eu and the past BN Government takes the credit as even in the 1990s, Penang was already among the top 3 electronics exporting region in the world. You can read about this in this year 2000 Bloomberg article titled "Penang's Secret".

Lim Guan Eng would also try to claim credit when a new factory is set-up in Penang but will he also take the blame when Nine major foreign factories in Penang shut down and retrench workers “Silicon Valley in the East” in critical situation as is happening now?

Even the Lonely Planet stating Penang is a top tourist destination last year in 2015 was much trumpeted by Lim Guan Eng but he remained strangely silent about Lonely Planet latest 2016 list which had Ipoh at number 6 of top 10 places to visit while Penang had dropped off the list.

But Lim Guan Eng and DAP do deserve some credit too.

For one, Penang has street murals now. And the streets are cleaner (not hard since they sold so many billions of ringgit worth of land and can easily afford the additional RM10 million per year extra to clean the streets).

Also, the local food Char Kuey Teow and Penang Laksa still remains delicious and was recently endorsed as world's best food destination by a renowned food writer.

If DAP or Lim Guan Eng can prove that they invented these then we can similarly praise them for the food too.

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

The RM60 billion (now RM55 billion) rail link bailout that wasn't

(UPDATE 22 Oct 2016: Since revised down to RM55 billion in budget 2017 or RM88.7 million per km)

Today, the Sarawak Report has accused the government of inflating the cost of the East Coast rail project from RM30 billion to RM60 billion in order to "bail-out" Jho Low and 1MDB - complete with dodgy looking documents.

This is what they wrote:

The PM’s ‘cunning plan’ is to get the Malaysian Government to agree to inflate the actual cost of the East Coast Rail Project from only RM30 billion to RM60 billion, all to be borrowed from the Chinese Government, in order to disguise the payment of 1MDB’s (and Jho Low’s) company debts!

The East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) is a long-planned project that was put under the 11th Malaysian plan which will link Kuala Lumpur and three east coast states in Peninsular Malaysia. It is 620km long involve a “significant amount of underground tunnelling”. The East Coast Economic Region Development Council has established that a rail route connecting the major ports, business centres and towns in Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan was vital to achieve growth in the region.

It is expected to take 15 to 20 years to develop as it will involve a lot of underground work and building tunnels across Banjaran Titiwangsa. It is not a trivial project. Here is the proposed route from SPAD website.

There are multiple problems with Sarawak Report's "expose" though. They are:

1. The project was already projected to cost RM60 billion (not RM30 billion as alleged by Sarawak Report) many years ago.

Here are some links over the years:

18 April 2013 East Coast Rail Line May Cost RM60 Billion
9 October 2013 Rail-related projects to create oasis of opportunities

This project was already discussed heavily in the popular Malaysian forums in LowYat and Skyscraper City in the year 2013 with the RM60 billion cost prominently discussed.

And this RM60 billion estimated cost were as far back as in the year 2013 too - when USD1 = RM3.00 to RM3.30. Now it is more expensive.

Even if it was RM30 billion in 2013, costs  would certainly have risen substantially by now.

Another problem is that this project is a Privately Funded Initiative (PFI) and is to be funded by the private-sector, not by the govt. So, is the private sector expected to go along and bail out 1MDB?

Surprisingly though, Sarawak Report did not similarly do a report on the Penang Govt's Transport plan that was recently confirmed by the state govt that has increased RM19 billion within a year from RM27 billion to RM46 billion.

2. The RM60 billion (now RM55 billion) price tag does not seem to be over-priced

At RM 60 billion, this 620km long project - rail and rolling stock - which cut through peninsular Malaysia's Titiwangsa mountain range will include much hard-rock tunneling and bridges, cost about RM96,7 million per KM.

(UPDATE 22 Oct 2016: Since revised down to RM55 billion in budget 2017 or RM88.7 million per km)

This would be a real bargain compared to the Penang Tunnel project where the Penang Government had signed to pay RM3.5 billion to build a 6.3km undersea tunnel - meaning a cost of RM555 million per KM. 

Tunnelling undersea where the earth is mostly sedimentary based actually cost less than tunnelling hard mountain ranges thus making RM96.7 million a bargain compared to the RM555 million per KM.

In fact, the Penang Govt had even awarded feasibility and detailed design reports for that tunnel and 3 associated roads of about 20.3km long costing RM305 million and already paid for about half of that.

And even more strange is that on top of paying the full cost of the construction of the tunnel, the Penang Govt also signed to allow 30 years toll to be given to the same company awarded and paid to build that tunnel. Probably the weirdest privatized concession agreement in the world.

If there is any project to be investigated for jacking up the cost, then it would be those who approved and signed the Penang Tunnel project - certainly not the ECRL.

Another project that gives us a guide on the pricing is the the Gotthard Base Tunnel which is a railway base tunnel through the Alps in Switzerland. It opened on 1 June 2016 with full service to begin in December 2016. With a route length of 57.09 km, this rail tunnel was completed at a cost of more than USD12 billion (RM48 billion).

Assuming that just 10% of the 620km is going to be tunneling through Banjaran Titiwangsa, or 62km then the RM60 billion price seems reasonable.

And here is another one funded by the Chinese too - the railway line for passengers and cargo transportation between Mombasa, the largest port in East Africa, and Nairobi, the capital city of Kenya.

The 609km-long line began in October 2013 and is scheduled to be completed by December 2017 cost USD13.9 billion (RM56 billion). Not only was work started earlier hence lower construction cost but there is little tunneling work due to the flat African plain lands.

So, do you think RM60 billion for our 620km ECRL spanning 15 to 20 years going thru mountain ranges is inflated?

Also, following from multiple feasibility studies over the years - as the year 2005, SPAD had also issued a market consultation RFI in March this year.

With an open RFI like this, it means that it is very hard to so-called inflate the price by double as alleged by Sarawak Report.

Supporting Sarawak report DAP YB Tony Pua also weighed in and asked "Each kilometre of ECRL to cost RM96.8 million (now RM88.7 million) while Pro Mahathir MP Mahfuz Omar sarcastically asked "Is this the most expensive rail in the world? I don't know, but is it (possible) that the government want to builds a gold rail?"

Mahfuz and Tony Pua also compared the cost with the double-tracking rail projects completed recently by the government. Tony Pua asked "That would mean that the ECRL will cost 120 per cent and 143 per cent more than the northern and southern double-tracking projects respectively,” he claimed.

This is despite the fact that the double-tracking projects runs along pre-existing and established lines and does not involve extensive tunneling or building many new bridges. 

One wonders what kind of mentality these MPs have when they would compare a project that is to upgrade existing lines with one that is entirely new line going through mountain ranges?

However, both Tony Pua and Mahfuz should also ask why projects in Penang cost so much? Even the costs for the feasibility study and design reports for the Penang Tunnel and a 20.2km length highways project cost RM305 million - which the Penang govt says is reasonable.

Perhaps Mahfuz would now say that the Penang projects are going to be made of diamonds instead since they cost more per km?

As proven earlier and also in comparison with those projects in Penang which makes it seem like a real bargain instead, the ECRL costs is inline with similar projects around the world despite the tough task of tunneling through the mountain ranges.

3. The so-called bailout payments by Sarawak Report does not make sense. 

Chief among this is the so-called buyouts of Putrajaya Perdana Berhad (PPB) and Loh and Loh Corp (LLCB) as indicated by Sarawak Report here:

I am not sure what kind of bail-out this would be if the Chinese were expected to buy-out the previously-listed companies LLCB and PPB for the price of 13.5 times and 7.5 times Price-Earnings Ratio (PE Ratio).

Even the listed Gamuda is trading at 18 times PE ratio while Binapuri is trading at 28 times PE ratio.

If this was a bail-out then the price to bail-out two profitable companies with a long track-record is ridiculously cheap and below market value.

The other point that does not make sense is that Sarawak Report also said that the Chinese are supposed to buy out the Air Itam land in Penang for USD850 million (RM3.4 billion).

Another problem is that this Air Itam land is not considered a "missing" asset thus any sales proceeds would go to 1MDB and not to IPIC where assets are alleged to be "missing".

Thus how is money going to 1MDB going to be used to cover "missing" assets in IPIC?

Perhaps Sarawak Report can explain this.


I am sorry, but this Sarawak Report allegation is totally off-base and makes no sense at all.  It does however seem to be an attempt to scuttle a legitimate infrastructure project by China in Malaysia which will provide much needed economic development in the east peninsular Malaysia states.

Why do you want to sabotage Malaysia-China relations and our economic development?

As far as 1MDB is concerned, their focus if on resolving the dispute with IPIC which if resolved, will mean 1MDB has no missing money as described in my previous post.

Works Minister Fadillah Yusof denies the cost was doubled to RM60 billion to pay off 1MDB debts. 
July 27, 2016 PETALING JAYA: Works Minister Fadillah Yusof denied today Sarawak Report’s claim that Putrajaya wants to double the cost of the East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) project from RM30 billion to RM60 billion to pay off 1MDB debts.
“I don’t give a damn about Sarawak Report,” Fadillah told Malay Mail Online.
“It was never discussed in Cabinet.”
The whistleblower site, citing several documents, claimed that the ECRL project would be awarded to the Chinese state-owned company China Communications Construction Company.Sarawak Report claimed that the deal was due to be approved by Cabinet tomorrow at its regular meeting.
The site claimed the deal would allow paying off the debts of companies related to businessman Low Taek Jho (Jho Low).
The East Coast Railway project hopes to develop the East Coast Economic Region.
The 600km rail line will connect Kuala Lumpur with Bentong in Pahang. It will also link Terengganu and Kelantan.

China firm denies 1MDB bailout plot

The China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) has denied involvement in any plot to cover up the alleged multi-billion-dollar corruption scandal at 1MDB by inflating a railway contract. 
The CCCC told The Australian it had “no knowledge of the claims” made in the Sarawak Report about the alleged plot. 
“We will continue to follow those false accusations made by certain media and will take necessary steps to defend our lawful rights,” the CCCC said. 

Saturday, 23 July 2016

US DOJ says "YES" but 1MDB says "NO". Why?

The USA's Department of Justice (DOJ) had alleged that billions were stolen from 1MDB and initiated asset seizures to recover this but 1MDB insist that it had not lost any money and that all its assets are accounted for. 

Essentially, the DOJ says someone stole your money and I will get some of it back for you while 1MDB is saying "No. That one is not my money".

Why is this peculiar situation happening?

Let's follow the money trail - particular the 3 sources of funds that the DOJ explicitly said the alleged stolen money came from.

Alleged source of funds 1: Good Star, as part of the PetroSaudi-1MDB Joint Venture.

What did 1MDB pay:

USD1.83 billion of which USD1.03 billion was transferred to Good Star and USD800 million to PetroSaudi. The ownership and the responsibility of the funds in question had changed when 1MDB paid the money as per the agreements

What happened to the money:

JV was converted to a loan. Loan was repaid by PetroSaudi to 1MDB via USD2.32 billion worth of investment units (Principle + interest/dividends).

What happened to the investment units?

USD1.4 billion was redeemed and used for 1MDB working capital purposes with remaining USD940 million in investment units.

When the Govt Auditor General special Audit report on 1MDB was leaked and published by Sarawak Report, this document also surfaced. It is a 3rd party document between Abu Dhabi and Bridge Capital - meaning it is not under Official Secrets Act (OSA). You can view the full 4 pages here.

This is the Deed of Capital Guarantee where Aabar Investments PJS of the Abu Dhabi explicitly guarantees all the value of the fund units of the Cayman funds run by Bridge Capital.

This guarantee is not by the disputed Aabar in the British Virgin Island but the actual sovereign fund itself owned by IPIC and the Abu Dhabi Govt.

This proves that the USD2.33 billion of payment returned to 1MDB based on 1MDB's total investment of USD1.8 billion in PetroSaudi by Good Star and PetroSaudi is real and has real value.

This also means that it is simply not legally possible for any of 1MDB money to be "stolen" by Good Star/PetroSaudi as 1MDB got back all their money plus a decent profit from the PetroSaudi JV.

This is a significant document and I am surprised that the US DOJ did not highlight this document or perhaps they are not aware of this document during their investigation since they did not bother to meet up with the Abu Dhabi or Malaysian Govt when they did their investigations.

If this document is genuine that means that 1MDB's chances in the arbritration with IPIC is much stronger.

What happened to the remaining USD940 million in investment units?

The entire USD2.33 billion units including the remaining USD940 million units is guaranteed by the disputed Aabar Investments PJS ofin Abu Dhabi (not the disputed one in British Virgin Island (BVI)) and was earmarked for the asset-debt swap arrangement between 1MDB and IPIC which is now in arbitration.

The bottom line:

1MDB cannot say or claim that Good Star or PetroSaudi funds is their money.

What happens next? :


As far as 1MDB is concerned, PetroSaudi has paid back all of 1MDB's investment  plus USD481 million of profits and dividends. There is no money to recover from either Good Star or PetroSaudi.

An interesting nugget here is that if Jho Low and Riza have been named and accused of wrong-doing here for receiving funds from Good Star then it is surprising why both the then Riyadh Governor Prince Turki, who is the 7th son of the then King Abdullah and fellow PetroSaudi founder Tarek Obaid are not similarly reprimanded even though the FBI also stated they received money from Good Star.

Alleged source of funds 2: The disputed Aabar-BVI as part of the Abu Dhabi-1MDB joint-venture

What did 1MDB pay?

USD3.51 billion to Aabar-BVI for collateral, joint investment ventures and options termination agreements. Additionally, there is a USD940 million guarantee of the Cayman investment units and guarantee for the USD1.5 billion GIL fund units recommended by the Swiss-based BSI bank.

What happened to the guaranteed assets and money given by 1MDB.

The entire USD6 billion of payments and guarantees was identified as assets for the 1MDB-IPIC asset swap agreement in exchange with IPIC based on the following:

Assets from 1MDB:
  • USD 3.5 billion cash deposits paid to Aabar BVI.
  • USD 1.5 billion GIL funds (Fund Manager introduced by BSI and guaranteed by Aabar BVI)
  • USD 940 million Brazen Sky fund units (Guaranteed by Aabar Investments ABU DHABI - not the disputed Aabar BVI - this is in the AG report and the PAC report)

Assets from IPIC:
  • Assume 1MDB's USD 3.5 billion bond principal
  • Assume 1MDB's USD 1.5 billion future bond interest
  • USD 1 billion in cash (paid to 1MDB in June 2015)

IPIC is now disputing that Aabar-BVI is their company and has cancelled the Asset swap agreement but 1MDB insist that the Aabar-BVI is an IPIC company. Therefore, it is now in dispute.

The case is now in the London Court of International Arbitration where initial proceedings had started last month.

Why did 1MDB even transfer or deal with Aabar-BVI in the first place when according to IPIC and Aabar Abu Dhabi, it is not owned by them?

When 1MDB signed the Joint-Venture agreement with Aabar Investments PJS in Abu Dhabi. The discussions was with Aabar's duly-authorized Chairman, Khadem Abdullah al-Qubaisi and their Managing Director Mohamed Badawy Al-Husseiny - both of whom are also indicted by the FBI together with Jho Low.

During the agreement signing, 1MDB also engaged their internal and external lawyers to certify that Aabar Investments PJS Ltd in the BVI is owned by the Aabar Investments PJS in Abu Dhabi.

The attached document which came from here, is the Certificate of Incumbency issued by the incorporation of the disputed Aabar in BVI. This certificate is issued by Hong Kong based Offshore Incorporations Limited (OIL)- he leader in international incorporations and corporate services.

The Certificate of Incumbency states the two directors of Aabar Investments PJS Ltd in the BVI to be the Chairman and Managing Director of Aabar Investments PJS and the sole shareholder to be the Abu Dhabi based Aabar Investments PJS.

Headquartered in Hong Kong, OIL has offices in the BVI, Singapore, Taiwan, Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, UK, Cyprus and Dubai and has around 220 employees.

OIL is a group company of Vistra Group, which has 2,300 employees in 40 jurisdictions; its global headquarters are in Hong Kong.

If the official incorporation documents, the Chairman of the parent company, the Managing Director of the parent company and both the internal and external lawyers engaged in the joint-venture due diligence tells 1MDB that Aabar Investments PJS Ltd in the BVI is legitimately owned by Aabar Investments PJS in Abu Dhabi, then what else could 1MDB have done differently to certify that this is not a fake company?

The ownership of Aabar-BVI and the associated transfers were also verified through successive audits by external auditors KPMG and Deloitte's over the next few years and no alarms were raised then. Both auditors would have certainly met or contacted Aabar in Abu Dhabi to verify the transactions too.

However, for reasons still unknown, IPIC agreed to the swap deal, paid USD1 billion, paid the interests on the USD3.5 billion bonds,and then only said in April 2016 - an amazing 10 months after the swap deal was signed and years after 1MDB had stated they had paid all those money to Aabar in publicly available financial statements.

But whatever the case, when 1MDB paid those money to Aabar-BVI or Aabar PJS in Abu Dhabi, the ownership and responsibility of the money has transferred to Aabar.

The bottom line:

1MDB cannot say or claim that the money that was transferred from Aabar BVI to Jho Low, Red Granite, Khadem et al as alleged by the US DOJ is theirs. As far as 1MDB is concerned, Aabar BVI is legitimate and owned by IPIC. If money from here was stolen then it was stolen from IPIC and not 1MDB.

For 1MDB to claim that the money is theirs would mean that the entire London arbitration case between IPIC and 1MDB will collapse and 1MDB will end up losing billions while Abu Dhabi's IPIC will get away blameless - despite both of IPIC's most senior executives, their former Managing Director Khadem from 2007 to 2015 and Aabar PJS's Managing Director Mohamed Badawy Al-Husseiny being named as part of the DOJ case and asset seizures.

What happens next? :

1MDB will need to focus on winning their arbitration case by proving that the two senior executives of Aabar and IPIC had acted with full authority of the board and that all checks had shown that Aabar-BVI had legally belonged to Aaabar Investments PJS Abu Dhabi and IPIC.

1MDB believes it has enough evidence and a strong case in winning this case since it deliberately refused to pay for the scheduled interest payments on the bonds despite having RM3 billion in the bank then and allowed the two 1MDB bonds guaranteed by IPIC to default thus triggering the guarantee by IPIC, which forced IPIC to pay up.

If 1MDB wins this case then USD4.5 billion in assets can be recovered from IPIC. If this is the case, it is likely that IPIC will take-over the USD3.5b bonds and allow 1MDB to keep the USD1 billion which they had paid earlier. IPIC will then be the party responsible for reclaiming the USD4.5 assets in Aabar-BVI.

Alleged source of funds 3: The USD1.5 billion invested by 1MDB in BSI Bank investment funds.

What did 1MDB pay?

USD1.5 billion invested in registered investment funds recommended by the Swiss-based BSI Bank. This USD1.5 billion was part of the proceeds of the 2013 USD3 billion bond (also known as the 1MDB GIL money) that was raised as part of the proposed joint-venture with Aabar to develop Bandar Malaysia in the year 2013. The remaining USD1.5 billion was used by 1MDB as part of their working capital towards development of TRX, Bandar Malaysia and the power plants business.

Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, General Sheikh Mohammed Zayed Al Nahyan, witnessed the signing ceremony in 2013.
The proposed Bandar Malaysia JV signed in March 2013 was planned to be an arrangement where 1MDB would raise USD3 billion and Aabar would raise USD3 billion and both parties would contribute to the 1MDB-GIL company to develop Bandar Malaysia.

As Aabar failed to raise their USD3 billion in time and the JV eventually did not take off, 1MDB then decided to use half of their money as working capital while investing the unused portion in an investment fund to avoid negative carry (or paying interest on unused funds raised from a loan).

What happened to the money in the investment funds?

The money is still invested in the funds and was originally also planned to be used as part of the asset swap with IPIC since it is guaranteed by Aabar-BVI.

What happens next? :

Since the asset swap is now in termination, this fund is already in the redemption phase. However, redeeming a unit of USD1.5 billion is not like withdrawing money from a bank. The fund itself would have to sell their investments before paying 1MDB. It is believed that this process is close to completion.

How much of actual "Wang Rakyat" was used by 1MDB so far?

The paid-up capital is RM1 million paid for by the Malaysian Govt. The rest of the funding that went up to RM42 billion at one time was raised from bonds and bank borrowings.

How much in loans does 1MDB still have?

Other than 3 bonds, all the remaining borrowings, lines of credit and other bonds have been paid off by 1MDB during the debt rationalization exercise started in the year 2015.

Since the beginning of 2015, 1MDB has cleared and removed all the following loans from its book:

  • fully paid RM3.5 billion Powertek loan from a consortium of banks
  • fully paid RM1 billion standby credit from the govt
  • fully paid USD150m EXIM bank loan
  • RM2.4 billion Bandar Malaysia sukuk taken over by 60% buyer of 1MDB.
  • transferred RM800 million Socso loan into project financing for TRX. This loan is self-amortizing and is already significantly repaid.
  • removed RM6 billion of legacy power debts previously assumed, as part of the Edra sale
  • fully paid RM2 billion Marstan loan arranged by Ananda Krishnan which was used to repay the RM2 billion Maybank bridging loan
  • fully paid USD975m Deutsche Bank loan

After all these other loans had been paid of, 1MDB is still left with RM2.3 billion in cash but has the following renaming bonds.
  1. RM5 billion 2009 long-term bonds that matures in the year 2039- these bonds are tied to the continued development of TRX and is matched to the cashflows of this development.
  2. USD3.5 billion 2012 bonds guaranteed by IPIC that matures in the year 2022. (if 1MDB wins the arbitration then these bonds will likely be taken up by IPIC)
  3.  USD3 billion 2013 bonds that matures in the year 2023. - these bonds are tied to the continued development of Bandar Malaysia, which 1MDB still owns 40% of, and is matched to the cashflows of this development.

How much of actual "Wang Rakyat" has actually been lost so far due to the DOJ civil suit?

None so far. Since the amounts alleged "stolen" are from the loans that 1MDB took above and the loans are not due, no actual Malaysian money has been lost as yet. This is assuming that the IPIC dispute can be settled in 1MDB's favour and the USD1.5 billion GIL bonds is redeemed.

It is also important to note that other than the USD3.5 billion bonds which are in dispute with IPIC, 1MDB have not defaulted on any loans or bonds. In fact as pointed out above, many loans have been completely repaid or settled. 

The final bottom line. 

It must be noted that all 3 sources of funds which the DOJ report listed were all direct dealings with the governments and royal families of two different Arab countries and 1MDB paid directly to accounts instructed by them. If 1MDB was to be scammed, then these countries would have helped to scam 1MDB.

Or if 1MDB itself was a scam then those countries pakat with 1MDB to help scam.

But the real bottom line is this:

If 1MDB manages to win the IPIC arbitration and also redeem the USD1.5 billion GIL funds then 1MDB can truly say that none of their money was missing or stolen.

This means that it is impossible for  Jho Low, Riza, Khadem, Malaysia Official 1 (ie PM) or anyone else for that matter to have stolen any money from 1MDB to buy or invest all those assets that the FBI now wants to seize.

But it could mean that someone else would have been cheated instead. It could be Abu Dhabi's IPIC or it could be legitimate profits made from fund investment ventures.

But whose money would that be then that was used to buy art, gamble, buy properties?. It could be Abu Dhabi's IPIC money, Saudi Arabia money or it could be legitimate profits made from fund investment ventures.

*22nd April 2017 UPDATE* 

The Straits 

Much have been talked about Jho Low and Riza being named in the DOJ civil suit to seize assets. Also named as their so-called co-conspirators to seize assets are IPIC and Aabar's Khadem Al-Qubaisi and Mohamed Ahmed Badawy.

Given the recent revelations that 1MDB holds documentation showing that Aabar (which among many other investments, was the largest single shareholder of Daimler-Benz) guaranteed the Cayman investment units held by 1MDB from the PetroSaudi profits and also that the two directors of the Aabar-BVI which IPIC now disputes, let's learn a bit more about these two persons:

H.E Khadem Abdulla Kadem Butti Al-Qubaisi served as Managing Director, Chief Executive, and Director at International Petroleum Investment Company PJSC, since May 2007.

He is a close confidante of IPIC Chairman Sheikh Mansour, who is the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, minister of presidential affairs and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the half brother of the current President of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Khadem was named at number 14th spot in Gulf Magazine’s 2014 list of the Top 100 World’s Most Influential Arabs, and included in the Oil & Gas Power Middle East top 50 in 2011.

He received the Arabian Businessman of the Year for 2009 in the UAE, and also received the coveted #1 Award as the ICIS Power Player of the Year 2009.

He served as the Managing Director of IPIC from 2007 to 2015 and served as the Chairman of Aabar Investments PJSC from 2012 to 2015..

H.E. Al-Qubaisi served as Managing Director at National Central Cooling Company PJSC since May 2011.

He serves as Chairman of Compania Espanola de Petroleos S.A. and Aabar Properties LLC. H.E. Al-Qubaisi serves as Co-Chairman of First Energy Bank. He serves as the Chairman of First Gulf Bank PJSC.

He has been the Chairman of Supervisory Board of NOVA Chemicals Corporation since January 1, 2011. He served as the Chairman of Supervisory Board of Arabtec Holding P.J.S.C., since May 2012.

He served as the Chairman of First Energy Bank B.S.C.(c) until March 2016. He served as the Chairman of Arabtec Holding P.J.S.C. from May 08, 2012 to May 2015. He served as the Chairman of the Board at NOVA Chemicals Inc.

He served as the Chairman of the Board at NOVA Chemicals Corporation since January 01, 2011 and served as its Director from January 01, 2011 to April 22, 2015.

He served as the Chairman of Hakkasan Limited until April 14, 2016. He served as the Chairman of Supervisory Board at Borealis AG from March 5, 2010 to April 2015.

He served as the Chairman of National Central Cooling Company PJSC and Falcon Private Bank Ltd. He served as Chairman of Abu Dhabi National Takaful Company P.S.C. until August 5, 2014.

He served as the Chairman of Gulf Energy Maritime PJSC until June 2008. He has been a Deputy Chairman of Supervisory Board at OMV Bulgaria OOD since May 2010. He has been a Vice Chairman of Duqm Refinery and Petrochemical Industries LLC since July 2012.

He served as Deputy Chairman of the Board of Supervisory Board of OMV Aktiengesellschaft from May 26, 2010 to May 10, 2012 and served as its Member of Supervisory Board. He served as Vice Chairman of Supervisory Board at Borealis AG.

He served as Vice Chairman of UniCredit S.p.A. from May 2012 to October 2012 and served as its Director until October 2012. He served as a Member of Supervisory Board at Borealis AG from March 5, 2010 to April 2015.

He served as a Member of Supervisory Board of AMI Agrolinz Melamine International GmbH and Borealis Agrolinz Melamine GmbH. H.E. Al-Qubaisi serves as a Director of ChemaWEyaat and Board Member of Emirates Investment Authority.

He serves as a Director of Abu Dhabi National Chemicals Company. He served as a Director of Arabtec Holding P.J.S.C., from April 28, 2012 to May 2015. H.E. Al-Qubaisi served as a Director of First Gulf Bank PJSC, National Central Cooling Company PJSC and Hyundai Oilbank Co., Ltd.

Mr. Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny, CPA, served as the Director of Falcon Private Bank Ltd. Previously, Mr. Al-Husseiny served as the Chairman of Falcon Private Bank Ltd.

He served as the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aabar Investments PJS from March 2010 to April 2015. Mr. Al-Husseiny served as its Chief Financial Officer since April 2007 and previously served at the firm since its inception in April 2005.

Mr. Al-Husseiny serves as the Member of the Board of Directors at Powertek Energy Sdn Bhd, EDRA Global Energy Berhad and Equity Group Foundation International (EGFI). He served as Chief Financial Officer at Dalma Energy.

Mr. Al-Husseiny served as a Director of Dalma Energy LLC. Mr. Al-Husseiny served as Chief Financial Officer at MB Petroleum Group for six years since 1997.

Mr. Al-Husseiny served as a Board Member of First Energy Bank B.S.C.(c) until March 2016.

He served as Deputy Chairman of alizz islamic bank SAOG from November 20, 2011 to April 4, 2013. Mr. Al-Husseiny served as a Director of NOVA Chemicals Corporation since September 7, 2012.

He served as an Independent Director of Arabtec Holding P.J.S.C. since April 28, 2012. He served as a Director of UniCredit S.p.A. until October 15, 2015. He served as Director of Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A.U. since August 2011.

The two persons above are certainly no light-weight and came with impeccable reputation at the time when 1MDB met them in the year 2011.

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

SSSLGE: Sebab-sebab Yang Diberi Oleh LGE Mengapa Dia Tidak Bersalah

*Semua maklumat di sini sudah boleh didapati secara umum sejak beberapa bulan dan boleh diperolehi dengan mudah dengan carian Google*

Kalau tidak larat untuk membaca yang panjang-panjang dibawah, boleh tonton rumusan video sini:

Pada hari Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang dan Setiausaha Agung DAP didakwa atas dua tuduhan jenayah penyalahgunaan kuasa dan rasuah, beliau mengadakan sidang akhbar di Dewan Bandaran Pulau Pinang terletak kira-kira 500 meter dari kamar mahkamah.
Sidang akhbar itu dihadiri kira-kira 1,000 orang dan dia naik ke atas pentas untuk memberi ucapan gempar dan memberikan sebab-sebab mengapa dia tidak bersalah dan mengapa dia menganggap ini sebagai pendakwaan terpilih.
Lim Guan Eng dan Pakatan Harapan kini telah pergi ke seluruh negara yang mereka gelar Support-Sympathy-Solidarity atau SSS-LGE dan akan menyampaikan alasan yang sama kepada penonton di seluruh Malaysia.


Ceramah ini juga merupakan majlis amal makan malam. Harga meja adalah seperti berikut:
- Tajaan Platinum : RM3,000 / meja
- Tajaan Gold : RM1,500 / meja
- Tajaan Silver: RM750 / meja atau RM75 / seorang
Makanan halal atau vegetarian disediakan atas permintaan.
Ini di sebalik RM1.8 juta atau lebih yang DAP telah kutip dari penyokong mereka untuk RM1 juta wang jaminan sebelum ini yang akan dikembalikan.
Alasan yang diberikan oleh Lim Guan Eng secara luasnya tergolong dalam 4 kategori:


Lim Guan Eng cuba untuk menyamakan bahawa dia adalah Pulau Pinang dan apa-apa tindakan ke atasnya adalah bersamaan dengan tindakan ke atas negeri Pulau Pinang dalam usaha untuk mengambil kesempatan daripada emosi rakyat Pulau Pinang dan membangkitkan sentimen dan penentangan.
Ini sudah tentu tidak benar bahawa "Lim Guan Eng = Pulau Pinang".
Malah, dia berasal dari Melaka dan bukan dari Pulau Pinang.
Malah, Lim Guan Eng sendiri akan memberitahu anda bahawa Pulau Pinang 'bukan tanah bapa kamu' seperti yang dapat dilihat dalam video ini di mana beliau telah memarahi Pengerusi Persatuan Jeti Clan Pulau Pinang awal tahun ini

Sementara sememangnya benar Lim Guan Eng membeli hartanah untuk dirinya sendiri menggunakan wang sendiri tetapi jika dia menjual hartanah itu esoknya pada harga pasaran dan membuat berjuta-juta keuntungan, wang dan keuntungan itu menjadi kepunyaannya dan bukan untuk rakyat Pulau Pinang malah bukan untuk parti DAP.
Ini adalah dakwaan penyalahgunaan kuasa dan rasuah individu dan tiada kaitan dengan Pulau Pinang atau rakyat negeri ini langsung.


Seksyen 165 Kanun Keseksaan adalah salah satu daripada dua tuduhan rasuah yang difailkan pada Lim Guan Eng.

"Jual beli atas dasar pembeli-sanggup-penjual-sanggup bukan satu jenayah" adalah alasan yang paling biasa digunakan oleh mereka yang menyokong DAP dan Pakatan. Selain daripada digunakan dalam pelbagai kartun dan video propaganda, ia juga telah digunakan oleh Nga Kor Ming DAP di halaman Facebook beliau yang kini telah dinyahaktifkan.

Section 165 law clearly states PUBLIC SERVANT. This corruption law does not apply to everyone. 

Malangnya ia hanya separuh benar.
Walaupun ia tidak menjadi satu kesalahan untuk membeli aset pada harga diskaun, ia adalah satu kesalahan bagi PENJAWAT AWAM (yang Lim Guan Eng diklasifikasikan sebagai) untuk membeli aset pada harga diskaun yang besar daripada penjual yang mempunyai urusan perniagaan dengan kerajaan negeri dalam bidang di mana Penjawat Awam tersebut mempunyai penglibatan dan pengaruh ke atasnya.
Ini secara khusus yang dinyatakan di bawah Seksyen 165 Kanun Keseksaan Malaysia - digubal seawal 1937 - dan merupakan undang-undang asas anti-rasuah yang dimiliki oleh semua negara dalam dunia.
Jika anda bukan seorang penjawat awam maka undang-undang ini tidak terpakai kepada anda.
Bagi para penjawat awam, membeli aset mahal jauh di bawah harga pasaran dianggap satu bentuk rasuah. Untuk memahami mengapa Malaysia dan seluruh dunia menganggap ini sebagai rasuah dan bagaimana Lee Kuan Yew bertindak secara berbeza apabila berada dalam posisi yang sama seperti Lim Guan Eng, sila baca ini:
Why is it an offence for a public official to buy a property at a discount or below market value from a person who is doing business with the govt considered a corruption offence?

Satu lagi alasan yang biasa digunakan oleh penyokong Lim Guan Eng adalah bahawa pemimpin tertentu BN tinggal di rumah yang lebih mewah daripada Lim Guan Eng dan mengapa mereka tidak disiasat.
Pendakwaan ini tidak ada kena mengena dengan bagaimana mahal rumah itu tetapi bagaimana anda membelinya dan dari siapa anda membelinya. Mereka boleh mempunyai pendapatan alternatif atau perniagaan sendiri.
Sebagai contoh, EXCO Pulau Pinang Phee Boon Poh mengisytiharkan bahawa dia mempunyai 8 hartanah di sini dan di luar negara tetapi dia tidak disiasat oleh SPRM atau PDRM kerana tidak ada bukti beliau membeli mana-mana aset pada harga diskaun yang besar dari individu yang menjalankan urusan perniagaan dengan kerajaan negeri yang mana Phee mempunyai pengaruh atau kawalan.


Dalam alasan ini, Lim Guan Eng menjelaskan bahawa perbezaan besar dengan kes Khir Toyo di mana penjual kerugian wang, Phang Li Koon pula mendapat RM300 ribu dan bukannya kehilangan wang apabila menjualnya kepada Lim Guan Eng.
Tidak benar.
Phang Li Koon nampaknya telah kehilangan banyak wang - kerugian wang sebenar dan kerugian akibat tidak menjual banglo pada harga pasaran.
Apabila dia membeli banglo itu pada tahun 2008 pada harga RM2.5 juta, dia juga menghabiskan sejumlah besar wang pada pengubahsuaian, perabot dan pembesaran. Ini diakui oleh beliau dalam Akuan Bersumpah bertarikh 22 Mac 2016.

Jelas sekali pengubahsuaian dan kos perabot untuk banglo 10,600 kaki persegi tidak akan menjadi murah dan ia kelihatan seperti ini:

SPRM berada di sana untuk memeriksa sejauh mana kerja-kerja pengubahsuaian, hiasan dalaman dan sambungan rumah - mungkin untuk menganggarkan kos yang ditanggung oleh Phang.
Menurut seorang aktivis Pulau Pinang yang menyerahkan bukti kepada SPRM dan PDRM, Phang Li Koon juga mengambil pinjaman perumahan untuk rumah yang dipercayai sebanyak 90% pinjaman. Kos faedah sahaja sudah bermakna ratusan ribu ringgit lebih untuk 7 tahun (dikira pada RM700 ribu lebih selama 7 tahun 90% pinjaman perumahan pada kadar faedah 4.2%).

ika maklumat yang diberikan oleh aktivis Pulau Pinang adalah salah maka dia telah melakukan kesalahan membuat laporan polis palsu, yang merupakan satu jenayah serius. Setakat ini, tidak ada sebarang tindakan diambil ke atas orang ini dan kita boleh menganggap maklumat ini adalah betul.
Dan ini adalah sebelum semua kos-kos seperti fi guaman dan duti setem yang dia terpaksa bayar apabila dia membeli hartanahnya.
Menurut penilai hartanah bebas, banglo seluas 10,600 kaki persegi akan berharga antara RM6 juta hingga RM7 juta sekarang. Jika dia jual dengan harga ini, dia tidak akan tanggung kehilangan wang tetapi membuat keuntungan sebaliknya.
Malah penilaian rasmi kerajaan JPPH adalah pada RM4.27 juta. Dan secara meluas diketahui bahawa penilaian rasmi kerajaan sentiasa ketinggalan dari harga pasaran yang sebenar.
Sudah pasti tidak munasabah untuk mempercayai bahawa harga tanah utama di pinggir bandar yang berprestij di Pulau Pinang meningkat 11% saja dalam tempoh 7 tahun.
Oleh itu, tidak munasabah untuk menganggap dia membuat wang apabila dia membeli banglo pada tahun 2008 pada harga RM2.5 juta, diubah suai dan dilengkapi perabot selengkapnya, mengambil pinjaman perumahan, dan kemudian menjual semula untuk RM2.8 juta 7 tahun kemudian pada tahun 2015.
Dia dengan mudah akan kehilangan berjuta-juta Ringgit (dan Lim Guan Eng mendapat berjuta-juta Ringgit dalam manfaat) - sama dengan kes Khir Toyo.
Khir Toyo juga mendakwa ia adalah satu pendakwaan terpilih dan beliau dipergunakan sebagai satu contoh usaha-usaha anti-rasuah oleh kerajaan.
Malah, beliau juga didakwa oleh Peguam Negara Gani Patail ketika itu dan jaminan awalnya RM1 juta juga, tapi dikurangkan kepada RM750 ribu berbanding Lim Guan Eng dijamin RM1 juta bagi dua pertuduhan.
Tetapi Khir Toyo tidak melakukan 'road show'.


Tidak benar. Selain daripada memiliki agensi pekerja asing, Phang Li Koon juga memiliki 30% daripada Magnificent Emblem Sdn Bhd (70% dimiliki oleh bosnya selama 20 tahun, Tang Yong Chew yang juga memiliki KLIDC).

Magnificent Emblem mempunyai rekod dua urusan pembangunan hartanah dengan Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang.
Satu adalah untuk dua kompleks besar pekerja asing untuk menempatkan 9,999 pekerja projek dengan Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang (PDC) yang Lim Guan Eng adalah Pengerusi dan Ketua Lembaga Tender.

Surat pada tahun 2014 ini ditandatangani sendiri oleh Phang Li Koon adalah membuktikan ini:
Pada bulan April 2016 pada mesyuarat Dewan Undangan Negeri Pulau Pinang, Timbalan Ketua Menteri II P. Ramasamy mengesahkan Magnificent Emblem memang mengambil bahagian dan sebenarnya memenangi tender pada tahun 2014.

Menurut DAP Insider: Anugerah tender itu kemudiannya ditarik balik kerana syarikat itu didakwa datang semula dengan permintaan untuk membeli tanah itu daripada kerajaan negeri secara terus daripada pajakan 30 tahun seperti dalam Permintaan untuk Cadangan (RFP) asal PDC Pulau Pinang.
Oleh kerana ini adalah perubahan yang ketara dalam RFP, Lembaga Tender Pulau Pinang PDC tidak dapat memenuhinya dan terpaksa membatalkan anugerah tender dan mengisukan semula RFP.
Sebab "syarikat itu tidak dapat memenuhi syarat-syarat RFP" yang diberikan awalnya oleh P. Ramasamy tentang mengapa anugerah tender itu dibatalkan sudah pasti tidak munasabah kerana mereka telah pun dianugerahkan RFP terdahulunya.
Jika mereka tidak memenuhi syarat-syarat, bagaimana boleh mereka dianugerahkan tender pada awalnya?
Walaupun banyak permintaan, Kerajaan Pulau Pinang masih belum memberikan sebab tepat atau kronologi mengapa anugerah tender kepada Magnificent Emblem telah dibatalkan setelah diberikan.
Lagi satu projek adalah untuk pembangunan perumahan di Balik Pulau di mana permintaan untuk menukar tanah daripada status pertanian kepada status kediaman telah diluluskan oleh Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Pulau Pinang yang diketuai Lim Guan Eng.
Ini adalah asas pendakwaan ke-2 di bawah Seksyen 23 Akta SPRM 2009 ke atas Lim Guan Eng.

Dalam Akuan Bersumpah beliau, Phang Li Koon juga menulis ini:

Sudah pasti luar biasa bagi individu untuk menandatangani perjanjian opsyen untuk hartanah kediaman - termasuk menetapkan harga untuk 5 tahun. Bukan sahaja harga terdahulu di bawah nilai pasaran tetapi penjual telah melepaskan potensi kenaikan nilai untuk 5 tahun.
Hanya 3 minggu kemudian selepas perjanjian opsyen itu pada 23 Jun 2014 telah ditandatangani, Lim Guan Eng mempengerusikan mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri di tingkat 28 di Komtar, George Town pada 18 Julai 2014.
Dalam pertemuan itu, beliau meluluskan penukaran tanah untuk dua lot tanah milik Magnificent Emblem Sdn Bhd, yang 30% dimiliki oleh Phang dan 70% dimiliki oleh pemilik KLIDC Tang, daripada pertanian kepada kediaman.
Sebarang penukaran tanah seperti itu mungkin bermakna peningkatan yang besar dalam nilai tanah yang boleh berjumlah berjuta-juta - bergantung kepada berapa besar kedua-dua plot tanah.
Tidak pasti jika Lim Guan Eng telah mengisytiharkan konflik kepentingannya atau berkecuali daripada membuat keputusan - tetapi untuk Peguam Negara mendakwanya khusus ke atas tuduhan ini akan mencadangkan bahawa mereka mempunyai bukti beliau terlibat secara langsung dalam keputusan itu.
Setakat ini, DAP juga tidak menyatakan bahawa Lim Guan Eng telah berkecuali daripada keputusan tersebut atau mengisytiharkan konflik kepentingan beliau.
EXCO DAP Pulau Pinang Chow Kon Yeow juga mengesahkan dalam akhbar Cina bahawa Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri (SPC) yang dipengerusikan oleh Lim Guan Eng lah yang meluluskan penukaran.
Selepas itu, Magnificent Emblem juga memohon kebenaran merancang untuk projek kediaman 1 tahun kemudian yang seolah-olah telah diluluskan oleh kebanyakan agensi-agensi berkaitan

Butir-butir permohonan di atas oleh Magnificent Emblem boleh didapati di laman web rasmi kerajaan negeri di sini.

Chow berkata, projek itu kemudian ditangguhkan disebabkan perkara-perkara teknikal oleh agensi di dalam majlis bandaraya tetapi tidak menyatakan mengapa.
Menurut seorang bekas Anggota Majlis, majlis bandaraya tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk mengubah apa-apa penukaran tanah oleh SPC yang kuat tetapi boleh menghentikan kebenaran merancang berdasarkan perkara-perkara lain.
DAP memberi alasan bahawa Lim Guan Eng tidak bersalah kerana penukaran tanah itu tidak selesai dan kekal sebagai tanah pertanian oleh itu Phang tidak menerima apa-apa faedah tetapi apakah sebab mengapa ia tidak selesai? Apakah perkara-perkara teknikal yang Chow maksudkan?
Dalam mana-mana kes, penyelesaian penukaran bukanlah elemen dalam undang-undang untuk membuktikan salah guna kuasa.
Sebagai contoh, jika anda merasuah seorang pengurus bank untuk meluluskan pinjaman tetapi peguam anda tersilap dan anda belum selesaikan semua dokumen untuk pinjaman dikeluarkan, ia tidak bermakna bahawa penyalahgunaan kuasa atau rasuah tidak berlaku.
Oleh itu, adalah jelas bahawa Phang Li Koon bukan hanya pembekal pekerja asing dan bukan pemaju hartanah seperti dalam kes Khir Toyo.
Tidak seperti apa yang dikatakan oleh Lim Guan Eng dalam ceramahnya, Phang Li Koon juga mempunyai kepentingan besar dalam pembangunan hartanah dan urusan niaga yang aktif dengan Kerajaan Negeri DAP Pulau Pinang - satu perkara yang juga bercanggah dengan Akuan Bersumpah beliau.
Yang lebih merosakkan adalah hakikat bahawa DAP Insider juga mendedahkan bahawa Betty Chew, isteri kepada Lim Guan Eng juga menubuhkan sebuah syarikat bersama dengan adik Phang Li Koon dan kemudiannya Phang Li Koon sendiri untuk menjalankan "Khidmat Perundingan Hartanah", yang boleh membawa kepada persoalan serius mengenai konflik kepentingan kerana Lim Guan Eng adalah EXCO yang bertanggungjawab ke atas semua hartanah dan tanah yang berkaitan dengan kerajaan negeri dan juga ketua Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri yang berkuasa yang bertanggungjawab bagi menukar syarat tanah dan perkara-perkara berkaitan tanah.
Hal ini terutama benar JIKA syarikat itu mempunyai pelanggan yang berurusan secara langsung dengan Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang mengenai perkara-perkara hartanah.

Setakat ini, Kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang mahupun Lim Guan Eng atau isteri tidak mendedahkan siapa pelanggan syarikat itu atau apa jenis projek perniagaan perundingan mereka.

Ini sudah pasti sesuatu yang perlu didedahkan demi dasar Kecekapan, Akauntabiliti dan Ketelusan (CAT).


Bagi Peguam Negara sendiri untuk mengetuai pendakwaan dan bagi mereka untuk secara khusus menyebut butiran seperti dalam kelulusan tukar syarat tanah Magnificent Emblem bermakna Peguam Negara sangat yakin akan membuat sabitan. Jika tidak, air muka Peguam Negara akan jatuh.
Phang Li Koon (bersama-sama dengan Tang Yong Chew) adalah pemegang saham langsung Magnificent Emblem manakala hanya bos Phang selama 20 tahun Tang Yong Chew adalah pemegang saham KLIDC.
Mungkin atas sebab inilah jika Peguam Negara percaya bahawa ini adalah pendakwaan yang lebih pasti, beliau telah mengambil keputusan untuk tidak memfailkan apa-apa dakwaan ke atas KLIDC lagi kerana ini datang dengan beban tambahan untuk membuktikan bahawa Tang telah memberikan manfaat kepada Phang dari urusan KLIDC-Taman Manggis atau telah mengarahkan Phang untuk menjual banglo.
Ini tidak bermakna bahawa mungkin tiada pendakwaan pada masa hadapan yang berkaitan dengan perjanjian KLIDC-Taman Manggis atau perjanjian PDC-Magnificent Emblem.
Ia seperti mengambil satu ujian di mana anda menyelesaikan soalan mudah terlebih dahulu sebelum mahu selesaikan soalan-soalan sukar.
Walau bagaimanapun, semua orang dianggap tidak bersalah sehingga dibuktikan bersalah di mahkamah undang-undang dan semua rakyat Malaysia mesti menunggu kes mahkamah didengari dan bagi pihak pendakwaan untuk menunjukkan semua bukti.
Sehingga masa itu, mari kita tidak membuat apa-apa anggapan bersalah atau tidak bersalah - dan ini juga ditujukan kepada Lim Guan Eng dan Pakatan Harapan yang menjelajah ke seluruh negara memberi penjelasan separuh masak, tidak benar dan penafian kosong, tidak bermakna anda tidak bersalah.
Malah, ia adalah bersempadan dengan menyalahgunakan proses keadilan.
Biarkan mahkamah dan pasukan besar pembelaan Lim Guan Eng terdiri daripada 8 peguam berbeza yang mahal melakukan kerja mereka.
Apa jua alasan dalam ceramah emosi berapi-api yang disampaikan oleh Lim Guan Eng dan pemimpin Pakatan Harapan, saya rasa ramai rakyat Malaysia kini mengambil cerita-cerita berat sebelah seperti itu dengan skeptikal.
Biar saya mengingatkan semua rakyat Malaysia:
1) LAPAN tahun lalu, orang-orang PKR dan DAP pergi merata menyampaikan ceramah, jelajah, perhimpunan dan mengutip derma cuba untuk meyakinkan anda bahawa Pak Lah dan KJ adalah benar-benar bersalah atas pelbagai penyalahgunaan kuasa dan songlap walaupun tiada seorang pun daripada mereka didakwa. 
Kemudian Pak Lah meletak jawatan. Tidak pernah ada apa-apa pendakwaan dan PKR serta DAP berpura-pura tiada apa yang berlaku.  
2) TIGA tahun lalu, orang-orang PKR dan DAP pergi merata menyampaikan ceramah, jelajah, perhimpunan dan mengutip derma cuba untuk meyakinkan anda bahawa BN adalah benar-benar melakukan penyalahgunaan kuasa dan menipu pilihan raya PRU13 dengan 'blackout' dan 40 ribu 'Bangla' walaupun tidak pernah ada bukti kukuh kecuali video dan posting yang dilakukan oleh orang-orang "tidak diketahui". 
Kemudian BERSIH dan DAP bersetuju tidak ada sebarang bukti 'blackout' atau pengundi hantu. Tidak pernah ada dakwaan jenayah dan orang-orang PKR serta DAP berpura-pura tiada apa yang berlaku dan juga berkata mereka tidak pernah mengatakan yang sedemikian. 
3) DUA tahun yang lalu, orang-orang PKR dan DAP pergi merata menyampaikan ceramah, jelajah, perhimpunan dan mengutip derma cuba untuk meyakinkan anda bahawa MB Selangor ketika itu dari PKR, Khalid Ibrahim adalah benar-benar bersalah atas pelbagai penyalahgunaan kuasa dan songlap walaupun dia tidak pernah didakwa. 
Kemudian Khalid meletakkan jawatan. Tidak pernah ada apa-apa pendakwaan dan orang-orang PKR serta DAP berpura-pura tiada apa yang berlaku. Malah, PKR membuat permohonan maaf tanpa syarat di mahkamah kepada Khalid untuk semua tuduhan-tuduhan ini yang kini PKR katakan adalah palsu. 
4) HARI INI, orang-orang PKR dan DAP pergi merata menyampaikan ceramah, jelajah, perhimpunan dan mengutip derma cuba untuk meyakinkan anda bahawa Lim Guan Eng TIDAK BERSALAH terhadap jenayah salah guna kuasa dan songlap walaupun dia DIDAKWA di mahkamah.
Berapa kali lagi?

*This is the Malay translation done by unknown parties from my original blog post titled:  SSSLGE: Lim Guan Eng Explains Why He Is Not Guilty