SSSLGE: Lim Guan Eng Explains Why He Is Not Guilty

*All information in here have been publicly available for months and can be easily found with a simple Google search*

On the day that DAP Secretary-General and Penang Chief Minister was charged with two criminal counts of abuse of power and corruption, he held a press conference at the Penang Town Hall situated about 500 meters from the court house.

The press conference was attended by about 1000 people and he went on stage to give a stirring speech and gave the reasons why he is not guilty and why he considers this as a selective persecution.

Lim Guan Eng and Pakatan Harapan have now gone on a nationwide tour which they dubbed Support-Sympathy-Solidarity or SSS-LGE  and will deliver the same reasons to audiences all over Malaysia.

      

This ceramah is also a fund-raising dinner. Table pricing is as follows:

- Platinum sponsorship: RM 3,000/table
- Gold sponsorship: RM 1,500/table
- Silver table: RM 750/table or RM 75/pax

Halal or vegetarian food is available upon request.

This is on top of the RM1.8 million or so that DAP had raised from their supporters for the refundable RM1 million bail money earlier.

The reasons given by Lim Guan Eng broadly fall into 4 categories. They are:

LGE Excuse #1: Charging Lim Guan Eng is an attack on the citizens of Penang 

LGE is trying to equate that he is equal to Penang and any action on him is equivalent to action on Penang in an attempt to take advantage of the emotions of Penang people and stir up sentiments and defiance.

This is of course untrue that "Lim Guan Eng = Penang".

In fact, he is form Malacca and not from Penang.

In fact, Lim Guan Eng himself will tell you that Penang is not your father's land as can be seen in this video where he had scolded the Penang Clan Jetty association chairman earlier this year.

While it is true that LGE bought the property for himself using his own money but it he sells it tomorrow at Market price and makes millions in profits, the money and profits will be his and not for Penang people or even for this party.

This is a personal abuse of power and corruption charges and has nothing to do with Penang or the Penang people at all..

LGE Excuse #2: Buying assets at a big discount is not an offence

Section 165 of the Penal Code is one of the two corruption charges filed on Lim Guan Eng.




"Buying and selling on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis is not a crime" is the most common excuse used by those who support DAP and Pakatan. Other than being used in multiple cartoons and propaganda videos, it has also been used by DAP's Nga Kor Ming in his now deactivated FaceBook page.

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

Unfortunately it is only a half-truth.

While it is not an offence to buy assets at discounts, it is an offence for PUBLIC SERVANTS (which LGE is classified as) to buy assets at a big discount from a seller that has business dealings with the state govt in areas where the Public Servant has involvement and influence over.

This is specifically specified under Section 165 of Malaysia's Penal Code - drafted as far back as 1937 - and is a basic anti-corruption law that all countries in the world has.

If you are not a public servant then this law does not apply to you.

For public officials, buying expensive assets at way below market price is considered a form of bribe. To understand why Malaysia and the rest of the world consider this as corruption and how Lee Kuan Yew acted differently when put into a similar spot as Lim Guan Eng, please read this:

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?

Another common excuse used by LGE supporters is that certain BN leaders live in houses that are more luxurious than LGE and why are they not investigated. 

This charge has nothing to do with how expensive the house is but how you bought it and from who you bought it from. They could have alternative income charges or their own businesses.

For example, Penang EXCO Phee Boon Poh declared that he has 8 properties here and abroad but he is not investigated by MACC or PDRM because there is no evidence he bought any of those properties at a huge discount from a person doing business in the state govt where Phee has influence or control.

LGE Excuse #3: Unlike Khir Toyo's case, Phang Li Koon made RM300k by selling the bungalow 

In this excuse, LGE explains that the big difference with Khir Toyo's case where the seller lost money, Phang Li Koon made RM300k instead of losing money when selling it to Lim Guan Eng.

Untrue. 

Phang Li Koon appears to have lost a lot of money - both actual money losses and losses due to not selling the bungalow at market price.

When she bought the bungalow in the year 2008 for RM2.5 million, she also spent considerable amount of money on renovations, furnishing and extensions. This was admitted by her in her Statutory Declaration dated 22nd March 2016. 

Obviously the renovation and furnishing costs for a 10,600 square feet bungalow is not going to be cheap and for it to look like this:

This is also the reason why Lim Guan Eng and his lawyers say that the visit to his bungalow by MACC officers in May 2016 was not a raid but a routine check.

The MACC was there to check on the extent of the renovations, furnishings and house extensions - perhaps to estimate the cost incurred by Phang.

According to a Penang activist who submitted evidence to the MACC and PDRM, Phang Li Koon also took a housing loan for the house which is believed to be a 90% loan. Just interest cost alone would mean hundreds of thousands of ringgit over 7 years (calculated at RM700k over 7 years on 90% housing loan at 4.2% interest).

If the information given by the Penang activist is wrong then he would be guilty of making a false police report, which is a serious crime. So far, there has been no action taken on this person and we can assume the information is correct.

And this is before all those costs such as legal fees and stamp duties that she had to pay when she bought her property.

According to independent property valuers, the 10,600 square feet Bungalow would cost between RM6 million to RM7 million now. If she sold at this price, she would not have lost money but made money.

Even the official govt JPPH valuation is at RM4.27 million. And it is widely known that official govt valuations always lag the actual market price.

It is certainly unreasonable to believe that Penang prices for prime land in a prestigious suburb only appreciated 11% over a 7 years period.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume she made money when she bought in 2008 for RM2.5 million, renovated and furnished extensively, took a housing loan, and then sell for RM2.8 million seven years later in 2015.

She would easily have lost millions of ringgit (and LGE gained millions in benefits) - same as the Khir Toyo case.

Khir Toyo also claimed it was a selective persecution and he was to be used an example of Govt's anti-corruption efforts.

In fact, he was also prosecuted by the AG Gani then and his bail was initially RM1 million for one too but got reduced to RM750k as compared to LGE's RM1 million for two charges.

But Khir Toyo did not do roadshows.

LGE Excuse #4: Phang Li Koon is not a property developer with active business dealings with the state govt but supplied foreign workers only 

Untrue. Other than owning foreign workers agencies, Phang Li Koon also owns 30% of Magnificent Emblem Sdn Bhd (70% is owned by her boss of 20 years, Tang Yong Chew who also owns KLIDC).

Magnificent Emblem has a record of two real estate development dealings with the Penang State Govt.

One is for two large foreign workers complexes to house 9,999 workers project with the Penang Development Corp (PDC) which Lim Guan Eng is chairman and head of tender board.

This 2014 letter signed personally by Phang Li Koon herself is evidence of this:

In April 2016 at the Penang State Assembly meetings, Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P.Ramasamy had confirmed that Magnificent Emblem did indeed participate AND actually won the tender in 2014.

According to the DAP Insider here: The award was later retracted as the company allegedly came back to request to buy the land from the state government outright instead of going into a 30 years lease as per the original Penang PDC Request for Proposal (RFP).

As this was a significant change in the RFP, the Penang PDC tender board could not fulfill this and had to cancel the award and re-issue the RFP.

The reason initially given by P.Ramasamy why the award was cancelled of "the company not being able to fulfill the RFP terms" is certainly not plausible as they were awarded the RFP in the first place.

If they did not fulfill the terms, how were they awarded it in the first place?

Despite multiple requests, the Penang Govt has yet to give the exact reasons or chronology why the award to Magnificent Emblem had been cancelled after being awarded.

The other project which is for a housing development in Balik Pulau where a request to convert the land from agriculture status to residential status was approved by the Penang State Planning Committee which Lim Guan Eng heads.

This is the basis of the 2nd Charge under the Section 23 of the MACC act 2009 on Lim Guan Eng.

In her Statutory Declaration, Phang Li Koon also wrote this:

It is certainly unusual for individuals to sign option agreements for residential properties - including fixing the price for 5 years. Not only was the price then much below market value but the seller has given away any potential appreciation for 5 years.

Just 3 weeks later after that options agreement on 23rd June 2014 was signed, Lim Guan Eng chaired a State Planning Committee meeting on the 28th floor at Komtar, George Town on 18 July 2014.

In this meeting, he approved a land conversion for two plots of land owned by Magnificent Emblem Sdn Bhd, which is 30% owned by Phang and 70% owned by KLIDC owner Tang, from agriculture to residential.

Any such land conversion would probably mean a big increase in the value of the land which could amount to millions - depending on how big the two plots of land are.

It is not certain if LGE had declared his conflict of interest or abstained from the decision making - but for the AG to charge him on this very specific charge would suggest that they have proof he was directly involved in the decision.


So far, the DAP has also not stated that LGE had abstained from such a decision or declared his conflict of interest.

DAP Penang EXCO Chow Kon Yeow had also confirmed in the Chinese press that it was the State Planning Committee (SPC) chaired by LGE which approved the conversion.

After this, Magnificent Emblem also applied for planning permission for a residential project 1 year later which seems to have been approved by most relevant agencies (picture).

Details of the above application by Magnificent Emblem can be found on the official state govt website here:.

Chow said that the project was later put on hold due to technical matters by an agency within the town council but did not specify why.

According to an ex-Councillor, the town council has no powers to overturn any land conversion by the powerful SPC but may stop planning permission based on other matters.

DAP gives the excuse that LGE is innocent because the land conversion was not completed and remains agriculture land hence Phang did not receive any benefits but what is the reason why it is not completed? What technical matters does Chow mean?

In any case, completion of the conversion is not an element within the law to prove abuse of power.

For example, if you bribe a bank manager to approve a loan but your lawyer screwed up and you have not finished all documentation to get your loan disbursed, it does not mean that abuse of power or corruption has not taken place.

Therefore, it is clear that Phang Li Koon is not just a foreign workers suppliers and not a real estate developer like in Khir Toyo case.

Unlike what Lim Guan Eng said in his ceramah, She also has substantial property development interests and active business dealings with the DAP Penang State govt - something which also seems to contradict her statutory declaration.

Even more damaging is the fact that the DAP INSIDER also revealed that Lim Guan Eng's wife Betty Chew also founded a joint company with Phang Li Koon's sisters and later Phang Li Koon herself to do "Property Consulting Services", which may lead to serious questions about conflict of interests as Lim Guan Eng is the EXCO in charge of all property and land related matters for the state government and also the head of the powerful State Planning Committee in charge of land conversion and land related matters.

This is especially true IF that company had clients which deals direct with the Penang state government on property matters.

So far, the DAP Penang Government nor Lim Guan Eng or wife has not revealed what clients that company has or what is the nature of their consultancy business projects.

This is certainly something that needs to be addressed in the interest of Competency, Accountability and Transparency (CAT).

CONCLUSION:

For the AG himself to be leading such a prosecution and for them to very specifically mention such details in the approval of the Magnificent Emblem land conversion means that the AG is very confident of getting a conviction. If not, then the AG will lose a lot of face.

Phang Li Koon (together with Tang Yong Chew) are direct shareholders of Magnificent Emblem whereas only her boss for 20 years Tang Yong Chew is shareholder of KLIDC.

It is probably for this particular reason that if the AG believes that this is a more sure charge, he had decided not to file any charge on KLIDC yet because this comes with the additional burden to prove that Tang had given benefits to Phang over the KLIDC Taman Manggis deal or had instructed Phang to sell the bungalow.

This does not mean that there may be no future charges related to the KLIDC Taman Manggis deal or even the PDC-Magnificent Emblem deal.

It is like taking a test where you do the easy questions first before going to do the harder questions.

However, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and all Malaysians must wait for the court case to be heard and for the prosecution to release all the evidence.

Until that time, let's not make any presumption on guilt or innocence - and this goes for Lim Guan Eng and Pakatan Harapan as well as going around the nation giving half-baked and untrue explanations and bare denials does not mean you are innocent.

In fact, this is bordering on perverting the course of justice.

Let the courts and Lim Guan Eng's large team of 8 different expensive lawyers do their work.

Whatever the excuses in the fiery emotional ceramahs given by Lim Guan Eng and Pakatan Harapan leaders, I think many Malaysians now take these one-sided stories with a pinch of salt.

Let me remind all Malaysians:

1) EIGHT years ago, the PKR and DAP people went around doing ceramahs, jelajah, rallies and collecting donations trying to convince you that Pak Lah and KJ was absolutely guilty of all sorts of abuse of power and songlap even though none of them was charged. 

Then Pak Lah stepped down. There was never any charges and PKR and DAP people pretend nothing happened.

2) THREE years ago, the PKR and DAP people went around doing ceramahs, jelajah, rallies and collecting donations trying to convince you that BN was absolutely guilty of abuse of power and stealing the GE13 elections with blackouts and 40k "Banglas" even though there was never any solid proof but videos and posts done by "anonymous" people. 

Then BERSIH and DAP agreed there is no evidence of any blackouts or foreign voters. There was never charges and PKR and DAP people pretend nothing happened and even said they never said such things. 

3) TWO years ago, the PKR and DAP people went around doing ceramahs, jelajah, rallies and collecting donations trying to convince you that the then Selangor MB from PKR, Khalid Ibrahim was absolutely guilty of all sorts of abuse of power and songlap even though he was never charged. 

Then Khalid stepped down. There was never any charges and PKR and DAP people pretend nothing happened. In fact, PKR gave an unconditional apology in court to Khalid for all these allegations which PKR now say is false.  

4) TODAY, the PKR and DAP people are going around doing ceramahs, jelajah, rallies and collecting donations trying to convince you that Lim Guan Eng is NOT GUILTY of abuse of power and songlap even though he was charged. 

How many times you want to be made a fool of?
Fool me once, shame on you.Fool me twice, shame on me.Fool me thrice, "Am I really this dang stupid?"
Fool me 4 times, then what happens?

This is why the Christian community can vote for the Adenan team with a clear conscience

This article was written to address and correct Stephen Ng's comment piece of a similar title in MalaysiaKini.

I had expected that Pakatan's failing campaign in Sarawak would mean that race/religion incitement will soon make an appearance.

Again, I am proven right - and the issue of Christian vs Islam is used once again by Pakatan propaganda to incite hatred and divide Sarawakains along religious lines just to get a few more votes.

The surprise this time is that it took so long before religion is used in Pakatan's politicking.

The last time around in the Sarawak State elections of 2011, DAP and PKR went to town using the "Kalimah Allah" issue - blaming the Federal Govt of unfairly treating Sarawakians by banning the use of the word Allah for use by non-Muslims.

The respective communities in the whole of Malaysia and Sarawak went up in arms over this issue - causing much anger, division, suspicions and a fraying of ties between religions.

Later on, it was to be found out that this was all for nothing as we were again played by the DAP and PKR politicians and their media agents.

A few year later in the year 2014, pointed out that it was DAP's Lim Guan Eng himself who in the year 2010, signed into law the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Penang) Enactment which prohibited non-Muslims from using 40 words which included "Allah".

Under severe pressure then, Lim Guan Eng finally had to back-down and sheepishly admit that religion and the ban on the use of Allah by non-Muslim is a state issue and nothing to do with the Federal Government.

Backing down, the Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng even went on to say he will defend Islam and uphold the fatwa banning the use of the 40 words by non-Muslim.



You don't believe me that CM Lim Guan Eng is capable of such flip-flopping and double-speak? Read here: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/283870

DAP and PKR were then challenged to reverse such bans in Penang and Selangor. Today, we are still waiting for them to reply as the challenge has been met with silence.

Which is why in this Sarawak elections 2016 you no longer hear of this "Kalimah Allah" issue. Did you not find this strange that DAP and PKR no longer dare raise this anymore?

The case of Roneey anak Rebit is certainly an unique case that does not affect 99.99% of the Christians in Sarawak.

At the age of eight, his parents voluntarily became Muslims by secondary conversion; as a result of which Roneey was automatically made a Muslim.

As you know, although religion is under the state govt where our unique 18 points under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 protects his rights to the Freedom of Religion.

Which is why the 41-year-old Bidayuh man is today a Christian, faithfully attending a church in Sarawak with no fear of prosecution or arrest.

The case of the 8 CDs of Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill and the three boxes of Christian educational material from Indonesian publishers destined for Sabah are already resolved.

These two cases happened in the year 2007 and such incidence have not occurred since - except for the case of "Sabah Pastor" Maklin Masiau in November 2014 who had his CDs and Books with "Allah" briefly held by Customs in KLIA2.

Maklin Masai flew in on AirAsia from Medan, Indonesia and was at KLIA2 on transit to Kota Kinabalu. Because he was on AirAsia, his luggage needed to be checkout when he arrived in KLIA2 and then rechecked in for his flight to Kota Kinabau.

He could easily have booked MAS and his luggage from Medan would have simply made it all the way to KK without the hassle of checking out and checking in 6 large boxes of 574 books (133 titles), 419 CDs and five DVDs as his luggage would be handled in transit by MAS and KLIA - so much hassle avoided.

Maklin also appears to have made inconsistent and suspicious statements that aroused the interest of the customs officer. The Home Ministry had issued a statement that "Initially, the bearer (Maklin) said the materials were for his personal use but he later said they were for use in a church in Sabah,”

If you were a customs officer, you would have checked the contents. If you did not, you would not have been doing your job properly.If you check in and out hundreds of CDs at any customs points in the world, you would have trouble. Try doing that in Australia , the USA or Europe and see.

For the record, Sabah pastor iMaklin Masai was also an opposition politician under the Sabah STAR party and contested and lost in the Sabah DUN seat of Pitas.

In any case, Maklin Masai got back all his 574 books (133 titles), 419 CDs and five DVDs shortly later after the confusion had been sorted out with customs.

Back to the issue of Mr Roneey anak Rebit.

I congratulate Roneey on winning his High Court case to have his identity card corrected.and I understand his unhappiness when the NRD had decided to appeal the ruling.

And I do understand why this happened.

While freedom of religion in Sarawak is under the state but the National Registration Department (NRD) is under the Federal Govt.

However, CM Adenan today has said that he has got PM Najib's assurance to get NRD to drop the appeal. Thus this case is closed - thanks to CM Adenan's quick action.

This quick action is yet another proof of CM Adenan's commitment to be fair to all races and religions in Sarawak - including the Christians in Sarawak.



Perhaps CM Adenan can do one better and work out a long-term solution with PM Najib and Putrajaya to ensure that such cases like Rooney's will no longer happen again for citizens coming for Sarawak?

This and other possibilities exist as long as CM Adenan is fully supported by all Sarawkians to continue his journey to ensure the best for Sarawakians.

All it requires is for CM Adenan to negotiate on a strong platform.

It cannot be denied that under 22 years of Mahathirism, many of Sarawak's rights under the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 were eroded.

Among his many many achievements, it is to Chief Minister Adenan Satem,credit, who in joint-negotiation with Prime Minister Najib Razak,,has successfully claimed back some rights and in the process of claiming back many more.

Rome was not built in one day and neither can Adenan and Najib reverse back 22 years of injustice and damage immediately.

But if given a strong platform, I am sure CM Adenan together with PM Najib will do much more over the next few years to address this injustice from years past.

In my opinion, I believe Sarawak Christian,should place their full trust in CM Adenan to protect the rights of Christians in Sarawak and be fair to them.

Sarawakians should take comfort from his quick action to resolve Rooney's case, his sterling track-record of fairness as the Chief Minister of Sarawak so far and the fact that although Adenan is a Muslim, he had studied and got a distinction in school for the study of the Christian scriptures.

How many Christians would know the Gospel of Luke, Matthew, John and James, the Act of the Apostle and the life history of Jesus like Adenan even though he is a Muslim?

And these are the reasons why I firmly believe that the Christian community can vote for the Adenan team with a clear conscience..

CM LGE's FAQ on Skandal Banglo Manggis comprehensively picked apart

My replies (in blue) to CM Lim Guan Eng's Taman Manggis/Bungalow Scandal FAQ post today:

The real story behind the sale of Taman Manggis land and the bungalow house controversy (En/Bm/Cn)

CM LIM GUAN ENG·MONDAY, 11 APRIL 2016

Introduction

UMNO and Barisan Nasional have been making various false accusations against the Penang state government and Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng over the sale of Taman Manggis land and the Chief Minister’s house. Through the BN-controlled mainstream media, the state government and the CM have been continuously attacked with false accusations. The following is the true story behind the issue.

Background of Taman Manggis Land

Taman Manggis land is located at the junction of Jalan Zainal Abidin and Jalan Burmah in George Town, Penang. According to a 2001 layout plan submitted by the National Housing Department (under the Housing Ministry) Taman Manggis was designated "for future development". A declassified Penang state EXCO minutes in 2005 shows that the BN state government had wanted to tender out the land to private developers for mixed-development projects with shop houses and government quarters.


LSS: It was a suggestion brought up for discussion that was not even approved. Even if it was approved, it would still be govt quarters with shops on the ground floor- public housing for civil servants - and not sale to a private company. 

The fact that the DAP Penang Govt was still able to sell this land in 2009 shows that this proposal in 2005 did not proceed.



Another EXCO minutes in 2007 shows that the BN state government rejected the federal government's application to build public housing in Taman Manggis.

LSS: This is a blatant lie. The 2007 letter was from the federal govt to take ownership of the land of the ENTIRE Taman Manggis affordable housing project which is a standard practice by the federal govt - not just the 1.1 acres for phase 2. Please read the letter carefully and don't lie anymore.




In 2010, Kuala Lumpur International Dental Centre (KLIDC) had purchased the 1-acre land which was earmarked as “future development” via open tender to build a hospital to promote medical tourism.

For public and affordable housing, the Penang state government has allocated another 11-acre piece of land in Jalan S.P. Chelliah.

LSS: Again this is incorrect. The houses in the Chelliah project starts at RM72,500 +RM20,000 for a carpark. It is not a direct replacement for the PPRT projects in Taman Manggis Phase 2 where houses would be for rental at RM100 per month or sold for RM40,000 each.

In any case, why should it need to be a replacement when both projects can proceed together? Is it because Penang already have too many affordable homes already?


Open tender means awarding to the company that paid the highest price per square foot. KLIDC was the highest bidder in the open tender exercise.

The Penang State Tender Board that granted the bid to KLIDC is chaired by the Penang State Secretary. The Penang Chief Minister is not a member of the Tender Board.

LSS: It was never an open tender. Please know the difference.

A Request for Proposal (RFP) is an invitation to enter into negotiations. When the successful party is chosen, they have been granted the opportunity to negotiate with the owner/developer for the work, but they have not yet been awarded the contract.

In contrast, a call for tenders (or open tender) is a more formal, detailed process that gives the bidders the assurance that if they put forward the best bid, judged according to the criteria set out in the tender, they must, in accordance with the law, be awarded the job.

A RFP would NOT be an open tender.
A RFQ (Request for Quotation) would be an open tender.

In the Taman Manggis case, it is not an open tender at all. To even come close to anything considered as open, they would also have to open up all the bid proposals - whether the winner or the losers - to the public for scrutiny.

And it is also severely restricted in terms of bidders who have experience running a specialised medical center. (see picture)

At best, the Taman Manggis land project can be called a "Restricted Request for Proposal".


Accusation by BN against the Penang state government on the Taman Manggis land sale is not new. In 2012, Penang UMNO Youth Chief Shaik Hussein Mydin had accused Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng of corrupt practices in relation to the sale of Taman Manggis land to KLIDC, but he later apologised before a High Court Judicial Commissioner in his chambers and withdrew the accusation against Lim Guan Eng in open court.

LSS: In 2012, you had not bought your bungalow from a person who was clearly related to the owner of the KLIDC owner at an unbelievably low price compared to both the JPPH and Market valuation.

You bought your no-swimming point bungalow in July 2015 - which is why this is now a big controversy.


Background of Lim Guan Eng’s Bungalow House


1) In 2008, Phang Li Koon bought a bungalow house built in the 80s at No. 25, Pinhorn Road, Penang for RM 2.5 million.

2) On 1 July 2009, a 3-year tenancy agreement was entered with Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and signed at RM5,000 rental per month. The tenure was later extended for another 3 years to 30 June 2015.

3) Because the renting of her house to Lim Guan Eng had resulted in BN and BN-friendly NGOs making false allegations against Phang, it had caused her undue stress. Thus, in early 2012, she gave a verbal agreement to CM’s wife, Betty Chew to sell them the house at RM2.8 million. Betty Chew then verbally requested Phang to give her more time to which Phang agreed.

4) In 2014, Lim Guan Eng and Phang executed an agreement dated 23 June 2014 whereby she agreed to grant him a 5-year option tenure to purchase the said property at RM2.8 million with a deposit of RM100,000.

5) Shortly before the extension tenancy expired on 30 June 2015, Phang decided to dispose off the property for good based on the understanding pursuant to the Option Agreement in 2014 pertaining to the agreed sale price of RM2.8 million. Lim financed the purchase through a bank loan of RM2.1 million and RM700,000 cash down payment.

6) Phang felt uneasy about the demonstrations and funeral rites held in front of the house by pro-BN NGOs as well as Molotov cocktail thrown inside. The sale & purchase agreement was signed on 28 July 2015. The valuation for stamp duty by the federal government was for 27 August 2015 and was set at RM4.27 million.

LSS: Firstly, there is evidence that Phang Li Koon had taken a substantial housing loan. She had also admitted she paid for an undisclosed renovation cost.

It is very likely that Miss Phang had foregone property appreciation value worth millions and actually lost her own money in the sale to the CM as the cost of her bank loan interest costs of estimated RM700,000 over the 7 years period, legal cost and renovation cost is unable to be covered by the total rental received and the RM300,000 gross profit.

Secondly It she was concerned about the fengshui and the negative experience, she could have put the property on sale on the market to sell to someone else other than the Chief Minister. It is unlikely that the new purchasers who are not the Chief Minister would be receiving similar demonstrations.

Thirdly, according to Section 165 of the Penal code as administered by MACC, it is expressively stated that it is inappropriate that a public servant (which the CM is) pay grossly undervalued prices for property (which is the case) - especially from a related or interested party.

Phang Li Koon is certainly an interested party as:

1) The KLIDC owner, Datuk Tang had admitted that Phang is his employee and later turned business partner for over 20 years and stated that Phang is in charge of his Penang business. KLIDC had received favorable concessions from the Penang Govt that had increased the value of their land.

2) One of her managers in the companies that she co-owns with Datuk Tang, Winbond Management and Consultancy. was made a Penang City Councillor by the state govt in the year 2014-2015

3) One of the other companies that she co-owns with Datuk Tang, Magnificent Emblem Sdn Bhd is involved in property development and has projects which they applied to the State govt and also bid for a project for workers quarters from the state-owned Penang Development Corp in 2014.

7) There was a claim that the Chief Minister said he did not know the value of his house. That was taken out of context. The Chief Minister was asked what he thought of an allegation by UMNO that his house was worth RM6.5 million. It was in response to that question that he said he did not know.

LSS: So, did you or did you not know the JPPH and/or Market valuation? Please state it directly instead of us hearing all those funny excuses.
In Phang’s statutory declaration dated 22 March 2016, she emphasised that she was not pressured or forced by the CM or any party to sell her house at RM2.8 million, a price she agreed to in 2012 and subsequently confirmed in the option agreement in 2014. She sold it at her own free will on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. There was no special benefit gained by her for selling the house to him.


False accusation 1
On 17 March 2016, UMNO MP for Tasek Gelugor, Shabudin Yahya accused in Parliament that Lim Guan Eng had bought his house cheaply and this was connected to the sale of government land in Taman Manggis to KLIDC.


Facts:
Phang Li Koon has never been a shareholder nor a director of KLIDC. Her companies are not subsidiaries of KLIDC and KLIDC is not a subsidiary of her companies. Phang through a statutory declaration dated 22 March 2016 stated very clearly that she is “not a director nor shareholder of KLIDC…...also not involved in the management of the company.”

LSS: Already answered above. You do not have to directly be a director or own shares in or be involved in the management of the company to be "linked" or "related" to the company.

False Accusation 2:
Gerakan claimed that Taman Manggis land was sold cheap at RM11 million and the land could easily fetch RM22.4 million.

Facts:
The Taman Manggis land was sold to KLIDC in 2010 by open tender for RM11.5 million. Two years later, in 2012, Gerakan claimed that the price was RM22.4 million and agreed to buy at that price. Gerakan created a “special purpose vehicle”, Taman Manggis Phase Two Sdn. Bhd which it claimed had the RM22.4 million from unnamed sources to purchase the said land.


The company then paid 1% earnest deposit of RM224,000.00 to the state government but finally could not raise the 99% balance of the purchase price to pay the remainder RM22 million. The RM224,000.00 deposit paid by the Gerakan-owned company was forfeited by Penang state government at the end of 2012.

So far no one knows what happened to the RM22 million which Gerakan claimed to have raised for the purchase.

LSS: Proof of funds was shown in a bank draft for RM22 million . The reason why the deal did not proceed is that the Penang Govt did not even bother to give the terms of sales or give to Gerakan a sales and purchase agreement - a normal practice that the Penang govt signs with other purchasers of state land - despite Penang Gerakan asking for this numerous times.

Further to this, it was discovered that the land was already charged by KLIDC to a bank in the year 2011. It is possible that the Penang State Govt may have committed fraud by attempting to sell and illegally forfeiting the deposit for the sale of something which does not even belong to them anymore.

Here is proof the the SPECIFIC debenture of the bank loan charged in 2011:

False Accusation 3
Now in 2016, Gerakan claimed that the Taman Manggis land was worth RM45.3 million in 2010 based on private valuation comparisons and that the government lost RM 33.8 million from selling the land at only RM 11.5 million.

Facts:

The federal government's Valuation Department in 2009 valued the Taman Manggis land at RM 8.5 million. It is impossible for the value of the land to increase by 500% in just one year from RM 8.5 million to RM 45.3 million in 2010.

If Gerakan doubts the federal government's valuation then they should question the federal government instead of targeting the state government.

However, the best objective test of valuation is by open tenders. Unlike the federal government that does not practice open tenders, Taman Manggis was sold by open tender to the highest bid, which was RM 11.5 million.

LSS: The valuation by the JPPH would be based on what land conditions was existing then. For example, a piece of land with conditions for agricultural use only or with a low plot ratio would be worth a lot less than a piece of commercial land.

Similarly, a piece of land with a condition for public housing use only or for medical use only would be worth a lot less if the conditions were changed to commercial use.

Until today, the Penang Govt does not show us what conditions were pre-existing on the land at the point of their RM8.5 million valuation.

Had the Penang govt changed the use of land at the point of tender to commercial with a high plot ratio, the JPPH valuation would be a lot higher.

Which is why doubts exist why the land use condition was changed from 100% medical facilities use only to 70% commercial just one year after the tender - significantly increasing the value of the land.

Here are some examples of transactions for land designated as commercial which is very nearby the Taman Manggis land (including one just 300m away) in 2010-2011.

One was an official JPPH record stating that a 20,268 sf piece of land (half parking lot and half occupied by an old two story shop) was sold for RM13.5 million (RM661 psf) just 3 months before KLIDC was awarded the land 47,916sf land for RM11.5 million (RM232 psf) just 300 meters away.

And there is also a 2011 advert for sale for another piece of 22365 sq.ft old bungalow land also along Jalan Burma for RM 894.25 psf at RM20.2 million with the seller clearly saying the value of this is in the conversion to commercial land and not the bungalow.

RM661psf to RM894psf vs RM232psf.

False Accusation 4

The previous BN state government accused the present state government of having sold the land that was planned for low cost housing (PPR) and why the land can be used for hospital but not for PPR.

Facts:
One of the earliest documents is a plan by the National Housing Department (Jabatan Perumahan Negara) in 2001 which marked the Taman Manggis land as “Future development”. In other words, there was no specific low-cost PPR project planned.

However, minutes of Penang State EXCO meeting on 28 September 2005 shows that the BN state government wanted the land tendered out to private developers for a mixed development project with shop houses and government quarters.

According to the 2005 EXCO minutes, the then EXCO from Gerakan, Teng Chang Yeow proposed that the Taman Manggis land be allocated for a mixed development project with “shop houses and government quarters”. The Chief Minister at that time, Koh Tsu Koon agreed and called for the land to be tendered out to private developers so that the state government did not have to bear the high construction cost.

Finally, on 28 March 2007, during an EXCO meeting, the BN state government officially rejected the federal government's application to build public housing in Taman Manggis.

The density for commercial development is always higher compared to housing, not just in Penang but throughout Malaysia. Former federal Minister for Housing and Local Government Chor Chee Heung said the minimum size of land for public housing should be at least 2 acres. Hence, it is normal that commercial development such as hospitals enjoy higher density and height limit not available to housing schemes.

LSS: Already well explained above. As for the development density, did you know that for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the housing project on 4.9 acres of land, the density would only be 120 units for 1 acre? That is well within allowable limits of public housing and certainly lower than the 160 units per acre that the Penang Govt had recently approved for two condominium blocks City of Dreams project  in Tanjung Pinang.

In any case, the development density is what the Penang State Govt says it is as the Penang Govt, for some unexplained reason, has been unable to gazette and approve the Penang Local Plan yet - despite the plans being 8 years overdue and having promised one almost every year since 2008.

False Accusation 5
UMNO/BN claimed that the DAP-led state government has neglected building public housing in Taman Manggis.


Facts:

There was no plan for public housing in the 1-acre Taman Manggis land even by the previous BN administration. In 2013, an 11-acre land at Jalan SP Chelliah was provided by the present state government to build 2,093 units of affordable housing (following federal government guidelines). It is about 10 times the size of the Taman Manggis land. Construction started in March 2015 and it is already 20% completed as of March 2016.

LSS: I do not have the figures for this but I would like to once again stress that RM72500 +RM20,000 carpark homes at Chelliah is not a direct comparison with RM40,000 homes in Taman Manggis.

False Accusation 6
On 23 March 2016, Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government, Abdul Rahman Dahlan claimed that there is a sub-sale of the Taman Manggis land by KLIDC to "flip" it to a third party for profit.


Facts:
The land search title shows that the land title is still registered to KLIDC. If there is any attempt to sell the land to a third party, KLIDC has to get consent from the state government. Not only was no such consent given, there was no application by KLIDC to the state government.

LSS: Again you are lying to the rakyat again. Since the year 2014, KLIDC no longer had any employees, any other business or any other assets save for the piece of Taman Manggis land. It was essentially a shell company holding only the land. Rahman Dahlan had accused ans shown the signed and stamped agreements dated November 11, 2015 that was selling 100% of the shares of the two companies holding the land and project at a price of .RM70.6 million.

Such change in share-holdings of the company owning the land would not be reflected in the land titles which would still show the company as being the owner of the land. 

However, since this was a privatization agreement, the Penang govt would have to give approval for the change of shareholder. Whether such approvals were given or not is up to the Penang govt to say.

But the hard facts are these:
- Land previously allocated for public housing had been sold in 2010 in a selective RFP for an undervalued RM11.5m.
- No development on land until today but the project was not cancelled. even though it had broken the concession agreement terms
- There were attempts to flip the land and project for RM70.6m - a gain of RM59.1m

Since there are few vacant commercial lots still available on the main Jalan Burma road which the KLIDC land is, it is hard to find a direct comparison. However, I found another plot of land nearby that was listed not too long ago in Sept 2015.

This plot has many similarity with the KLIDC land but have some key differences.

It is only slightly smaller in size, also zoned as commercial and is also leasehold 99 years. The asking price in Sept 2015 was for RM47 million for 45,193 sq ft or RM1,040 psf.

If the slightly larger 48,438 square feet KLIDC land was to use this price, it would already be worth RM50,347,000.

But this KLIDC land should be worth more compared to the advertised land for the following reasons:
1) The location is better as it is actually fronting the main Jalan Burma road and opposite the New World shopping complex compared to the advertised land which is slightly off the main road.
2) This land has received building approval and the necessary permits and licenses
3) The land had recently been renewed and extended to the maximum 99 years leasehold tenure.
4) The approved plot ration is quite high as it has been approved for at least 24 floors (down from 30 floors previously).

A plot with a higher plot ratio will have greater potential to generate higher value, as it could build more gross floor area to generate higher income. So, investors do not just rely on purchasing a large piece of land but look at the approved plot ration too.

Thus from a property valuation point of view, the KLIDC land is certainly worth more than RM50 million. 

A RM59.1 million profit is for a piece of vacant land that still remains a piece of vacant land is certainly not bad.

But the potential profit is actually much higher as the land was allowed by the state govt to be charged to the bank soon after the RFP was awarded and a full loan of RM11.5m was given. 

So the total cost of ownership would really just be the interest costs for 5 years.

Assuming a 20 year 6% loan for RM11.5m, the interest costs for 5 years would be RM3.77m.

Thus costs could be RM3.77 million which will give you an asset worth RM70.6 million now - an almost 19 times return or a profit of RM66.6 million!

Not a bad piece of private business at the expense of a low-cost housing project affecting 272 poor families.

As proven above, Miss Phang Li Koon's boss certainly got a very good deal courtesy of the Penang State Govt.

False Accusation 7
On 5 April 2016 Abdul Rahman Dahlan changed his stance and now says that it was not the Taman Manggis land which was sold to a third party but rather the owner of KLIDC sold his shares in the company to a third party.

Facts:
Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) record shows that there is no change in KLIDC shareholding.

LSS: Rahman Dahlan did not change his stand. It is still a share sales agreement. Many people had laughed when Lim Guan Eng and the Penang EXCO had held up outdated CCM documents from August 2015 to try to prove a share sales agreement dated November 2015

Even MalaysiaKini had pointed this out (and probably laughed at you too) - forcing you to admit that it was a stupid idea to show up outdated CCM documents - especially since updates to CCM may take month and that the share sales would probably have been aborted after BN had exposed this deal.

Please remember that the share sales agreement which are now admitted to have been signed by KLIDC owners had a final payment date of 22nd March 2016 - whereas Tasek Gelugor MP Datuk Shabudin had exposed your undervalued bungalow and Taman Manggis scandal in parliament on 17th March 2016 - meaning that in all probability, BN had stopped this back-door deal from conclusion.

False Accusation 8
Abdul Rahman Dahlan also claimed that the state government has changed the Taman Manggis development to 30% hospital and 70% commercial purpose.

Facts:
The land title clearly states the expressed condition as only for development of hospital (66%) and service suites/hotel (34%) to cater for patients and their families, which can only be rented out and not to be sold.

Penang is currently the top medical tourism destination in Malaysia, catering to about 50% of medical tourists in the whole country. According to the federal government, about 1,000 patients a day come to Penang to seek medical treatments. Hence, there is a need to expand medical tourism facilities in the state.

LSS: It is not a false claim. There are official letters from for this where the state government had changed the land conditions in 2011 - just one year after the tender was awarded. The Company then went ahead with this revised land conditions to apply and got for a loan from AmIslamic Bank.

Please prove that these documents exposed by RPK are false:

Those documents clearly show that the initial land condition was 100% medical facility which was then shockingly changed to 70% commercial. It was only after those documents were exposed at that time did the Penang Govt changed the terms down to 66% medical facility and 33 % hotels/service apartments - still an improvement in commercial value from the original 100% medical facility.

Also, it is incredible that the Penang State Govt had allowed the project to continue to be idle land after almost 6 years. Based on the privatization agreement (leaked by Datuk Huan Cheng Guan in "Why special favours for KLIDC ??"), this project should already have been cancelled a long time ago and the land taken back.

Conclusion

This is clearly an attempt to smear the impeccable reputation and run down the clean administration in Penang which has received praise by the annual Auditor-General Reports for its yearly budget surpluses and reduction in the state debts by 90%. Penang owes the least debt to the federal government, at RM69 million, compared for example, to Pahang's RM2.9 billion. Furthermore, Penang is the only state government in Malaysian history to be praised by Transparency International in 2009 for practicing open tenders.

LSS:  The crux of the matter is that the Penang Chief Minister had bought a house from a person who has employee-boss relations spanning over 20 years with the owner of a company awarded a state project at a price that is shockingly undervalued. 

This already seems to fulfill many conditions of Section 165 of the Penal Code. Whether you have committed any wrong-doing, we will leave it to MACC to finish their investigations.

There are still many unanswered questions of whether there were other business dealings with Phang Li Koon's other companies with the Penang Govt and why was KLIDC Sdn Bhd seemingly getting favorable treatment in terms of changes to land use conditions, no termination of their contract despite not completing their project over 6 years, still allowing KLIDC to receive planning and building approvals even though they no longer had any employees and were technically bankrupt and many more.

But in the meantime, I disagree that the DAP Penang Govt has an impeccable reputation.  Far from it. 

For example, the Penang Govt owes very little to Federal Govt now because the Federal Govt had agreed to take over your water assets in the year 2011 and forgive your debt in return for a 45 years long rental payment of RM15 million a year - it is still a commitment.Essentially, you changed the outstanding bank loan into a hire purchase loan.

Did you know that the year 2009 is 6 years ago now and was way before the above shady Taman Manggis land deal? 

In the year 2010 and 2011, Penang was tops in investment too but have fallen drastically - but you don't mention it. Have a look:

Also, the Penang State Spending has increased up to 400% since 2008 and the Penang Govt had to continue selling whatever land and assets that it has to cover.  Anybody can sell assets to cover out-of-control operational spending - but it is certainly not a sustainable long-term strategy.

Read and dispute this post here of Penang's financial management being an unsustainable bloat.

As for the Taman Manggis land sale scandal,  did you realize that this is just the very tip of the iceberg of land deals done by the Penang State Govt?

What else lies beneath?

-----
PS. I do hope that the Chief Minister does have a read of what I wrote to give him an idea of our concerns.

But I know he won't reply as he had recently said 

"Saya tidak mahu buang masa de­ngan penulis blog. Ini buang masa. Saya nak tangani perkara ini di peringkat menteri. Saya tidak mahu buang masa.  

“Hormatlah saya sebagai Ke­tua Menteri. Saya nak jawapan daripada pihak menteri bukan daripada pihak bukan-bukan,” katanya. 

I am just a pihak bukan-bukan and you are the Chief Minister. I understand why you won't reply. 

But respect should be earned and not demanded.

Malaysia's Dr. Mahathir takes on the Wall Street Journal's lies

by Mary McCourt 

Executive Intelligence Review - Volume 13, Number 41, October 17, 1986

Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Sri Mahathir Mohamad bearded the lions in their den Oct. 1 and 2, when he said in New York City that his government was going to expand its fight against drug trafficking and the liberal media. Dr. Mahathir told the United Nations General Assembly Oct. 2 that his nation would continue to hang drug traffickers, whatever their color or creed . "We would rather be unpopular in certain quarters than be hypocritical," Mahathir told the U. N .

Malaysia, along with Singapore, is the only nation in Asia actually fighting the drug plague, despite the massive growth of heroin addiction throughout Asia. Cheap heroin is flooding Asia as cocaine has taken over the U . S. drug market; Thailand, with a population one-fifth that of the United States, has just as many heroin addicts-500,000, according to an Oct. 6 cover story in Newsweek's international edition. Super-abundant heroin is reportedly cheaper than beer in Bangkok.

Malaysia has some 110,000 addicts, and Australia 30,000 - among them, the daughter of Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who so self-righteously denounced Malaysia's execution of two Australian drug traffickers in July.

The fight is expanding. Mahathir announced at a U.N.­ sponsored conference in Kuala Lumpur that a bill would be introduced at the October session of Parliament to allow courts to seize the proceeds from drug trafficking. "The proposed legislation, when passed by Parliament, will leave the traffickers with nothing," Mahathir said. Malaysia's drug laws have since 1975 included a mandatory death penalty for anyone convicted of trafficking in 15 grams or more of heroin or morphine, 1,000 grams of opium or 400 grams of cannabis.

To date, 41 people, including two Australians and six from Singapore, have been hanged. Another 130 people, 21 of them foreigners, are on death row. 

Fighting for development

Malaysia is also fighting for economic development in the midst of international collapse. Dr. Mahathir took this fight right into Lower Manhattan, telling an Oct. 2 businessmen's meeting there that the Wall Street Journal has been conducting a sustained campaign to sabotage the Malaysian economy. The meeting was sponsored by the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority and a private group, the American ASEAN Trade Council.

The Journal, whose editor, Robert Bartley, is a member of the Trilateral Commission, has been publishing articles "in order to undermine our economy," Mahathir said. Dr. Mahathir said that the Malaysian government had noticed a "special trend" in which the Wall Street Journal published "scurrilous" articles whenever international meetings were taking place that might affect investment in Malaysia.

In response to the most recent Journal attacks, Malaysia expelled two correspondents of the Asian edition of the Journal on Sept. 26, and banned it from Malaysia for three months.

When asked whether the expulsion of the two journalists would have an effect on Malaysia's efforts to stimulate U. S. investment, Mahathir said, "It will have a very negative effect, which is what the Wall Street Journal wants to do."

He said that the Asian Journal had published a negative article about Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin, just before a meeting last year of the Asian Development Bank:. Another was published just before a meeting of the IMF, and the four current articles, published just before the IMF meeting in Washington, reported "nothing factual," he said. Dr. Mahathir has also long been critical of the reporting policies of the New York Times.

One of the "issues" exposed by the Asian Journal was the tin bought by the Malaysian government between mid-1981 and early 1982 in an effort to support prices. Dr. Mahathir announced Sept. 18 that Malaysia had tried to comer the market, but its efforts were undermined by a group of members of the London Metal Exchange (LME) who deliberately pushed down the tin price by selling forward at a lower price. 

"The LME cheated by changing the rules of buying and selling when the time came for its members to make good their promises," Mahathir said. 

Malaysia is said to have lost more than US$400 million and was left with 60,000 tons of unwanted tin.

"If Malaysia is suffering now, it is not because of our policies," he said. "It is because all commodities have now undergone a radical structural change.

"We are a small country, but we bow to no one," he continued. "I know that efforts will be made by the press, the editors, to pressure the Malaysian government to do this and that," he said. "We will not be bludgeoned into submitting to this kind of pressure even if it means that the development of our country is going to suffer."

Dr. Mahathir has not only condemned the international press. On Sept. 18, he said in Kuala Lumpur that he feared that some local journalists and newspapers had been "brainwashed" by foreign mass media. "It is no longer necessary for the foreign press to subvert our life and values and culture.

We ourselves have taken over this role," he said. In other countries, he continued, racialists, racists, and chauvinists were generally condemned by the foreign press. But for Malaysia, these same newspapers supported the racialist and racist parties like the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Pan Malaysian Islamic Party or Parti Islam Semalaysia (PAS).

He said that foreign Zionist-owned media were found to have helped the non-Malay racialist parties disseminate statements overseas, attempting to undermine the Malaysian government.

Wall Street's revenge

The Journal's reaction has been vicious. An editorial Sept. 29, titled "Mugged in Malaysia, " lists the Malaysian policies which it claims "keep such countries as Malaysia needlessly poor." These policies-the Malaysian New Economic Policy-"all come down to massive government interference in the market, whether the commodity is tin, stocks or information," the Journal said. The Malaysian government has "tremendous discretionary powers over the resources of their country," the Journal complains, and especially has limited the equity of foreign investors in major businesses! 

The editorial concludes that Dr. Mahathir will not do well "courting capital in the great financial centers of the world," if he is going to defy the liberal press. "He would do better to skip New York and go take a look at the economic stagnation of Rangoon, Burma. That's where he's headed anyway." With the same arrogance that has fueled Wall Street's presiding over the destruction of the U. S. economy , 

Journal associate publisher Peter Kann, also president of the Dow Jones International Group, said that, "It begs credulity that the Wall Street Journal should be involved in some sort of campaign to undermine investment in Malaysia, or any other country. We are a news organization, and all we seek to do is cover the news fairly and accurately."

Their "fairness" is well demonstrated in the next line of attack against Dr. Mahathir: "anti-Semitism."

In its so-called news article on the reporters' expulsion, the Journal Sept. 29 accuses Mahathir of, in July 1980, telling his party convention that "Jews controlled the Asian Journal," which he said was trying to give Malaysia a bad name. 

"Dr. Mahathir has referred to Jewish or Zionist plots to overthrow the government," the Journal said, "but he has never produced evidence to support his claims." The Journal also derides a commentary in the government-allied New Straits Times of Malaysia, which, it reports, said the Asian Wall Street Journal "was Jewish-influenced and may have obtained information from Mossad."

A commentary in the International Herald Tribune Oct. 9, by London School of Economics faculty member Michael Leifer, accuses Dr. Mahathir of "obsession with interrelated Zionist-Jewish influence." First, Leifer cites Mahathir's support for Palestinian nationalism, accusing Mahathir making political hay of being a Muslim in predominantly Muslim Malaysia. 

Actually, Mahathir's UMNO roundly defeated the fundamentalist Pan-Malayan Islamic Party in national elections. 

The basis for the anti-Semitic charges against the Mahathir government include statements by Deputy Minister for Home Affairs Megat Junid in September that the government had reason to believe that some members of some organizations, possibly linked to "the international Zionist movement" may have been receiving financial assistance from abroad to include anti-government statements in newspaper articles. 

In addition, Dr. Mahathir condemned Israeli policy in the Middle East in his speech at the Non-Aligned Summit in Harare.

The Wall Street Journal has only one real argument with Dr. Mahathir-and it is about his economic policy and nothing else. 

When he appointed a new cabinet in early August, Mahathir announced that its top priority will be to revitalize the national economy, with the two most important issues, unemployment and investments. Mahathir said that commodity prices were beyond the government's control and he expected them to remain at low levels so long as there are quarters manipulating prices in the international market. As it is, the government has to look to other areas to strengthen the national economy.

However, the Mahathir government has made changes in order to encourage foreign investors. On Sept. 30, Dr. Mahathir said that for new investments, from October 1986 through December 1990, companies can now be 100% foreign-owned, if they export 50% or more of their products from Malaysia, or 50% or more to Malaysia's free-trade zones. 

Foreign companies that employ 350 or more Malaysian workers will be able to hold whatever level of equity they apply for. However, if foreign equity is less than 100%, the proportion to be held by Malaysians should conform to previous rulings under the NEP (New Economic Policy), which calls for Malays to hold 30% of equity capital.

Also, the family of Malaysian Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin has signed an agreement to sell off its 50.58% interest in the United Malayan Banking Corporation to the government investment agency Pernas. 

The Zainuddin family interest in the bank, the third-largest local bank in Malaysia, has been used to scandal-monger against the Malaysian government.