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? :

Nothing. 

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.

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:

ALASAN LGE #1 : PENDAKWAAN KE ATAS LIM GUAN ENG ADALAH SERANGAN KE ATAS RAKYAT PULAU PINANG.

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.

ALASAN LGE #2 : MEMBELI ASET PADA HARGA DISKAUN YANG BESAR TIDAK MENJADI SATU KESALAHAN.

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.

ALASAN LGE #3 : TIDAK SEPERTI KES KHIR TOYO, PHANG LI KOON MEMBUAT KEUNTUNGAN RM300 RIBU DARI PENJUALAN BANGLO ITU.

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:

Ini juga merupakan sebab mengapa Lim Guan Eng dan peguam-peguamnya mengatakan bahawa lawatan ke banglo berkenaan oleh pegawai SPRM pada Mei 2016 bukan satu serbuan tetapi pemeriksaan rutin

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'.

ALASAN LGE #4 : PHANG LI KOON BUKAN SEORANG PEMAJU HARTANAH DENGAN URUSAN PERNIAGAAN AKTIF DENGAN KERAJAAN NEGERI TETAPI MEMBEKAL PEKERJA ASING SAHAJA.

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).

KESIMPULAN.

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

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..