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.

The "Skandal LGE Banglo" Statutory Declaration

The seller of the house, Miss Phang Li Koon has signed a Statutory Declaration (SD) in an attempt to relieve pressure on Lim Guan Eng's undervalued purchase of his Bungalow at 25 Jalan Pinhorn Road on Green Lane, Penang Island.

Certainly her SD raises more questions than it answers.

This is the SD:

STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, PHANG LI KOON (NRIC No. XXXXXX-07-XXXX) a Malaysian residing in No. XXX-X, Xxxxx Xxxxx, XXXXX Georgetown, Pulau Pinang solemnly and sincerely declare the following: 

I got to know CM’s family since 2008. I became a close friend to his wife, Betty Chew since then because of her friendly and humble character. 

In 2008, I bought a house at No. 25, Pinhorn Road, Penang for RM 2.5 million and did some renovation with the intention to let my brother live in. However after I heard from CM’s wife that she was looking for a place to rent due to termites problem at her official residence, I decided to offer them my house to stay. A tenancy agreement was entered and signed on 1/7/2009 with 3 years tenure at RM5,000 per month but later the tenure was extended to another 3 years to 30/6/2015. 

At that time I felt very honoured to rent my house to Penang Chief Minister and his family and also able to help them with their house problem. 

However, renting the house to them had caused me much distress and stress from the BN and NGOs alleging untrue stories about me. By then I decided to sell the house. There were also more incidents in later years from demonstrations and funeral rites held in front of the house, to even molotov cocktails bomb thrown into the house compound which make the house so exposed and unsafe. 

There were endless news on the house with its address and pictures splashed all over the newspapers. I felt very uncomfortable that if my relatives or I ever decide to stay there in future, I will not feel safe and secure to stay in such an overly exposed and much publicized house. 

So by early year of 2012, I had orally let CMs wife, Betty Chew know that if they were ready and willing to buy, I will sell them the house at RM2.8 million. I was told by Betty that they were interested but CM was worried that he could not afford buying the house if he was not re-elected as the Chief Minister. So Betty asked whether I would still sell the house to them at the same price of RM2.8 million after the 13th General elections. 

However after the 13th general election in 2013, CM’s wife told me that they still need some time to purchase the property and she requested for an option to purchase at later date when they were ready to do so. In 2014 CM and I then executed an agreement dated 23.6.2014 whereby I agreed to grant him a 5 year option tenure to purchase the said property at RM2.8million in consideration of CM paying me RM100,000-00. Pending exercising of the option, I shall continue to allow CM and family to continue renting the said property. 

Sometime before the extension tenancy was up in 30/6/2015, I had made up my mind to dispose off the property for good. I am a businesswoman and I do not wish to tolerate unnecessary stress and have my name splashed all over the newspapers or social media again and again especially when those insensitive people want to attack CM or raise issue on the Taman Manggis land which I am not involved. I decided to sell the property because it attracts so many unnecessary publicities and allegations from time to time. 

I had again asked CM’s wife, Betty to request CM to exercise the option to purchase. I did not survey the market when I decided to sell to CM in 2015 because I didn’t think it was necessary. I already have CM as a buyer and there was an understanding pursuant to the Agreement dated 23.6.2014 pertaining to the agreed sale price. 

After CM’s wife, Betty told me that they have managed to secure a house loan, we decided to sign the sale agreement at the price we agreed earlier; i.e RM2.8mil. From my records the sale & purchase agreement was signed on 28.7.2015 and the bank released the full loan sum in October, 2015. 

CM and his family had been my good tenants for the last 6 years. To me, CM is a respectable leader and I feel very honoured to sell my property to him. I think Penang has done well under his administration. Most importantly I have sold my property to the person I respect. I have no regret of selling my property to CM at RM2.8million. I have cleared myself of unnecessary headache and stress. 

I do not understand why my agreement to selling the house to CM has been blown up to such a big national issue when I have no business dealings with the state government. Neither have I obtained any benefit from the state government by selling the house to him. 

It is my decision at what price I want to sell to the CM. I stress that I was not pressured or forced or under any undue influence by CM or any party to sell the house to CM at RM2.8 million. I sold at my own free will on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. 

I also wish to clarify here that I am not a director nor shareholder of KLIDC company which has successfully bid for the Taman Manggis land under an open tender. I am also not involved in the management of the company. I reserve my right to legal action against any party should they try to make unnecessary connection to complicate the matter and drag me into this controversy.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960. 

Subscribed and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
at Georgetown )
in the state of Penang ) ……………………………
on this 22nd day of March 2016 ) PHANG LI KOON
Before me,

…………………………………….
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

The entire SD represents nothing more than a bare denial with the key essence being "willing buyer willing seller" and a denial that she is linked to KLIDC, the company that won the tender for the Taman Manggis state land under controversial circumstances and dubious pricing.

To be sure, the ex-Menteri Besar of Selangor Khir Toyo had also used the "willing buyer, willing seller" excuse on 6 Dec 2010.

"Willing buyer, Willing Seller" excuse did not help Khir Toyo escape jail.

But as we know, that didn't help him one bit. Khir Toyo was eventually convicted for corruption under Section 165 of the Penal Code. He went to jail and his house was confiscated.

Miss Phang had also mentioned that in early 2012, she had already agreed to verbally agree to sell the house to Lim Guan Eng for RM2.8 million - a mere 8% appreciation after 2 years from her original cost of .the house in late 2012 of RM2.57 million (RM2.5mil + RM69,000 stamp duty excluding legal fees).

Miss Phang also said that Lim Guan Eng were very good tenants who probably paid the rental on time. But it is important to note that the majority of the rental was paid for by the Penang State Government and not Lim Guan Eng.

She then mentioned that she signed an option agreement with Lim Guan Eng in 23rd June 2014 where she agreed to grant a 5 year option to purchase the house at RM2.8 million in return for an options fee of RM100,000.

This is of course an unusual arrangement where there is a call option (not sure if there is also a put option) with an options fee too. It's like they are trading oil futures - very rare in real estate transactions where the price typically goes up and up.

To me, whether the sale consideration was legally sealed in 2014 or 2015 makes no difference as even in June 2014, the RM2.8 million price was severely undervalued already.

For example, no. 34 Pinhorn road, barely 4 houses diagonally opposite of Lim Guan Eng's house on the same road was transacted just 4 months later at RM722 psf compared to the RM275 psf price for Lim Guan Eng.

It is certainly not possible for the property price to jump almost 3 fold within 4 months.

JPPH transacted valuation of LGE's neighbout at 34 Jalan Pinhorn

Miss Phang also said that "she does not have any business dealings" with the Penang State Govt -which is not exactly true.

As a 20% owner of Winbond Management and Consultancy Sdn Bhd with an office on Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah, Penang, she was the contact person listed in State-owned agency Invest Penang website as one of the authorized foreign workers supplier in Penang.

It would be interesting to see if she had also supplied manpower to any state-owned companies and what is the volume and profitability of such business dealings.

But it is the majority 80% shareholder of Winbond Management, Datuk Tang Yong Chew, that is interesting.

Since she was listed as the contact person for Winbond, it is reasonable to assume she holds an executive or management position in Winbond and that her boss would be the majority shareholder and probably chairman Datuk Tang Yong Chew - since Datuk Tang owns 80% and she only owns 20%.

Datuk Tang also appears to be Miss Phang's boss in at least two other companies - Magnificent Emblem Sdb Bhd and Magnificent Emblem Properties Sdn Bhd.

As you can see in these two other companies, both are the only two shareholders and Datuk Tang's shareholdings is vastly greater than Miss Phang's minority shares - meaning the element of control is clearly in Datuk Tang's hands.

Their company is not a small company with RM75 million in sales.

While Miss Phang denies she is a shareholder or manager in KLIDC which won the Taman Manggis land tender from the Penang state govt., she did not however state that her boss and fellow shareholder in multiple companies is the 70% majority owner (60% under his name and 10% under wife Sally's name) of KLIDC too.

Miss Phang's boss, Datuk Tang is the 70% majority controlling shareholder of KLIDC

Given the close business relationship between both persons, it is strange that she said she is not a shareholder nor in the management of KLIDC but did not mention her relationship with the 70% controlling majority shareholder.

At least say lar "I know the boss of KLIDC as he is also my boss in at least 3 other companies!"

Now, under Section 165 of our Penal Code (the same section that Khir Toyo was convicted of), this was stated in regards of corruption or abuse of power regarding Public servants:

Certainly, Lim Guan Eng as the Chief Minister of Penang, the Chairman of the State Planning Committee as well as the Penang State EXCO in charge of land affairs and land development fits the description of "Public Servant" - exactly what Khir Toyo was.

And certainly there is enough evidence (including the stamp duty that Lim Guan Eng paid for the property) which proves that the property he purchased was deeply undervalued - thus fulfilling the "inadequate consideration term".

Therefore the last key part is up to MACC and the Attorney General to determine if Phang Li Koon fits the description under law of being a person who is "interested in" or "connected person" to Datuk Tang Yong Chew, the 70% majority controlling shareholder of KLIDC which won the Taman Manggis tender under controversial circumstances and pricing by virtue of Miss Phang's executive position in at least Winbond Management and her close and long-standing legal relationship with Datuk Tang.

That last crucial part would be up to the legal eagles to determine but if indeed this part is also proven then Lim Guan Eng may end up being charged with a possibly similar fate as Khir Toyo.

But in the meantime, Miss Phang's statutory declaration is yet another bare denial that does not seem to offer anything new other than much praises for Mr Lim Guan Eng and a repeat of Lim Guan Eng's "willing buyer willing seller" excuse with the added spice that because of her deep respect and honour for Lim Guan Eng, she is willing to forego millions of ringgit in potential profits thus she does not even bother checking the recent valuation of her property.

Given that, this SD is as pointless as the open house to media event and the one-to-one "be here or be square" coffee invitation with Datuk Shabudin "at my office".

Regardless, to help Miss Phang Li Koon who is the cousin of Penang DAP EXCO Phee Boon Poh strengthen her SD story even more and to prove she was telling the full truth in the SD, she should volunteer the following information:

1. Disclose who paid for the renovation and furnishing of the house and how much was such cost prior to you renting out and selling to YAB Lim Guan Eng - this is to prove that you did not in fact sold at a loss to YAB Lim. 
2. Disclose if any extensions were made during the renovation period and if such extensions received the relevant council approvals
3. Disclose the original tenancy agreement including the stamping date, stamp duty paid receipts and stamp duty numbers.
4. Disclose the renewal of the tenancy agreement including the stamping date, stamp duty paid receipts and stamp duty numbers.
5. Disclose her bank account statements to show the rental payments by Lim Guan Eng every month (you can hide other details and the account balance).
6. Disclose the 23 June 2014 sales option agreement including the stamping date, stamp duty paid receipts and stamp duty numbers.
7. Show us proof of your bank accounts that RM100,000 was paid by Lim Guan Eng into your account after signing the options agreement
8. Show us proof of your bank accounts that RM700,000 was paid by Lim Guan Eng into your account in 2015 after selling the house.
9. Show us proof of the RM2.1 million payment from the bank being deposited into your accounts as balance of the house sales proceeds.

Certainly her SD raises more questions than it answers.

In the interest of transparency and to help the exalted Chief Minister of Penang clear his name, please do consider revealing the above.

In the meantime, there are now various allegations of possible tender fraud related to the Taman Manggis land sale to KLIDC being circulated including a police report of this here where "'It's like buying a Proton then changing it to a Merc' 

And certain confidential state documents being exposed by RPK here which may shock the rakyat.

The de-facto RBA-in-Chief

Reading Mahathir's blog post yesterday titled "Najib's achievements", I am struck by the amount of half-truths, spins and outright lies in it.

As I have been on FaceBook for 2 1/2 years, I am deeply familiar with the Red Bean Army's (RBA) propaganda. For those who do not know, the RBA was a termed coined to describe cybertroopers loyal to the DAP prior to the 13th General Election to spread mis-truth and incite hatred towards the government.

Let me explain and rebut you like how I answer any common RBA troopers.

Che Det's writing in italics, my responses in blue.

1) He seeks the permission of the Singapore PM for the building of the bridge to replace the Malaysian part of the causeway. Later he asked the Singapore PM when he wanted to build the high-speed train. In both cases he was rejected. He doesn’t seem to be in full charge of the affairs of his own country.

That dang crooked bridge again!  The Sultan of Johor in an interview in December 2015 said:

"Both of us be­lieve that Jo­hor and Malaysia will ben­e­fit from the on­go­ing de­vel­op­ment and when the Kuala Lumpur-Sin­ga­pore fast train is built, the ben­e­fits will be enor­mous. 

I do not want to dig up the past nor do I wish to take a swipe at any politi­cian, ac­tive or re­tired, but the PM un­der­stands and ap­pre­ci­ates the need to work closely and not to re­peat the past. 

I find it hard to un­der­stand the ra­tio­nale or ir­ra­tional­ity of any Malaysian leader who wants Malaysia to quar­rel with Sin­ga­pore. It’s what I called crooked thinking."

Perhaps Mahathir should listen to His Royal Highness' advice and give up on your crooked thinking. Give up on your dendam and irrational hatred and learn to work together with our neighbours. 

Just because Singapore had embarrassed you by refusing to loan Malaysia USD5 billion even though you had publicly asked for it to save our country from the 1998 Asian Economic Crisis, doesn't mean that you must hate them forever.

If Malaysia had managed our economy well in the 1990s and not go on an unrestrained building binge and if we had not lost RM30 billion of BNMs reserves by your gambling on FOREX speculation then we would not have to be put into such a situation that we had to meekly and publicly ask our neighbours for help despite Mahathir whacking Singapore for decades.

When you build a bridge that joins two countries, I think it is logical to assume that you will need their approval too. What happens if we build only our side and the other side refuses to allow us to join the bridge to them or just close off the bridge permanently? Or bring the case up for international arbitration? Such a scenario would also embarrass us further.

2) He employed European consultants to advise him on the policies for the nation. This cost Malaysia RM 7 billion. These consultants did not understand the multi-racial character of Malaysia and the sensitivities of the people. The result is greater racism and tension between the races in Malaysia. The Chinese who before supported the BN, rejected him completely in 2013.

The much-bandied about figure of RM7 billion figure for consultants was for ALL consultants - local and foreign and includes such services for consulting engineers, consulting physicians, local accounting firm special audits etc - like what you did when you engaged Price Waterhouse to do a special report on Perwaja's RM15 billion losses.

RM7 billion is certainly not all for your "so-called European consultants" alone - but for services that the entire government spent for the 5 years period on 

And like any RBA, when challenged on this, I am pretty sure you would not be able to list down and justify your RM7 billion figure.

And to take it into perspective, RM7 billion is for the 5 years period between 2009 to 2013 - where the average govt budget spending per year is RM200 billion - making it a total of about RM1 trillion.

RM7 billion out of RM1 trillion would just be 0.7% of all spending.

Using absolute figures (rather than taking figures into perspective) and outright lies are a favourite RBA tactic.

Now you are blaming Najib for the drop in Chinese votes in GE13? 

It is mostly thanks to DAP demonizing PERKASA and PERKASA's many racial-tinged attacks against the Chinese and non-Muslims.

Did Mahathir forget that he was the patron of PERKASA and Ibrahim Ali's boss?

If you don't understand, here's a simple cybertrooper style graphics.

3) He actually employed Europeans to work in the PM’s department. Their influence over him led to his becoming insensitive to local conditions.

Here, you are probably referring to the APCO Worldwide case - which was to hire consultants for international public relations. Why would hiring foreign people who are familiar with the international market be a problem for you?

When Proton took over Lotus, did you also replace the foreigners working in Lotus? In fact, after you became Chairman of Proton in the year 2014, a new CEO was hired for Lotus Cars. 

His name is Jean-Marc Gales.

Such a RBA behaviour that you can do but others can't.

4) He set up agencies outside the Government to direct the affairs of the Government and disregarded the EPU and ICU in the planning and implementation of Malaysia’s development.
5) He paid these agencies, of which Pemandu is a major one, salaries and perks not in accordance with the Government salary scheme i.e. very much higher. He did not follow Government procedures and disregard the relevant authorities when doing this.

Your previous EPU was famous for awarding lop-sided IPP concession agreements. PEMANDU was introduced to provide transformation programs for the nation. So far, most international agencies have praised PEMANDU for the work they have done for Malaysia and PEMANDU is even now being hired by other country governments to help them. 

Let me just cite two of the chief contributions arising from PEMANDU's Economic Transformation Program. One is the Pengerang RAPID project, the downstream project that is now proving to be a saviour for our oil and gas industry jobs since upstream activities such as oil production and exploration has slumped. 

Read this:   As jobs dry up, oil and gas workers rely on Petronas’ Pengerang project for a lifeline

The other one was that PEMANDU identified that we would have needed to cut subsidies and wean Malaysia out of huge dependence on oil and gas revenues. Thus from 2009 where 42% of our govt revenues came from oil and gas we have come to a mere 14% reliance - thus sparing Malaysia of the pain that countries such as Brunei, Venezuela and the Middle East countries are facing now due to the oil price slump.

The EPU and ICT have their purpose and their importance is still relevant in what they do. It is just that PEMANDU does different things.

As for not following Govt procedures, what are you talking about? 

This is the government of the day and what working procedures that they implement IS the proper procedure.

Or do you mean that the current Govt is not following YOUR procedures?

Typical RBA tactic to use half-truth to try and incite anger in civil servants without acknowledging that the change has indeed brought benefits to the country.

6) He increased the budget of the Prime Minister’s Office very many times more. There are so many Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Office. His cabinet is the biggest in Malaysian history.

This is yet another favourite RBA tactic to fool others to think that the PM spends most of the money of the government.

Please understand the difference between PMO and the Prime Minister's Department.

The PMO's budget It is not just Najib alone lah.  The PMO has many many different units.

The budget is allocated here so it can be centrally controlled at the PMO level. Much of the budget are then passed thru to the various ministries and agencies for implementation.

The following are all under the PMO:

Commissions:
1. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
2. Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (SPRM)
3. Public Services Commission (SPA)
4. Education Service Commission (SPP)
5. Judicial Appointments Commission (SPK) JAC
6. Land Public Transport Commission (L.P.T.C)
7. Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission EAIC
8. Election Comission of Malaysia

Central Agencies
1. Public Service Department (JPA)
2. Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU)
3. Economic Planning Unit (EPU)
4. Malaysia Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU)
5. Public Private Partnership Unit (UKAS)

Department and Agencies
1. Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (APMM)
2. Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU)
- Malaysian Legal Aid Department (JBG)
- Malaysia Department of Insolvency (MdI)
3. Maritime Enforcement Affairs Division (BHEPMM)
4. Ceremonial and International Conference Secretariat Division (BIUPA)
5. Cabinet, Constitution and Inter-Government Relation (BKPP)
6. Property and Land Management Division (BPH)
7. Research Division
8. Public Complaints Bureau (BPA)
9. National Civics Bureau (BTN)
10. Judicial and Legal Training Institute (ILKAP)
11. National Audit Department
12. Malaysia Department of Syariah Court (JKSM)
- Mahkamah Syariah Wilayah Persekutuan (MSWP)
13. Malaysia Department of Islamic Development (JAKIM)
- Jabatan Agama Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI)
14. Parliament of Malaysia
15. Department of Statistics
16. Department of National
17. Attorney General Chambers
18. Department of Awqaf, Zakat and Haji (JAWHAR)
19. Advisor Board
20. Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board
21. Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board
22. National Security Council (MKN)
23. Prime Minister's Office
24. Chief Government Security Office (KPKK)
25. Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan
26. Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan
27. Pejabat Penasihat Sains
28. Prime Minister's Department
29. Unit Inovasi Khas
30. National Palace of Malaysia
31. Office of the Keeper of the Rulers' Seal the Conference of Rulers'
32. Secretariat Office of Ex-Prime Minister Y.A.Bhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad
33. Secretariat Office of Ex-Prime Minister Y.A.Bhg Tun Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi
34. Pejabat Seranta Felda
35. Office of Federal Secretary, Sabah
36. Office of Federal Secretary, Sarawak
37. Bahagian Pendidikan Awal Kanak-Kanak
38. Unit Kawal Selia Felda (UKSF)
39. Performance Management & Delivery Unit PEMANDU
40. Protection Division UPS
41. Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM)
42. Federal Territories Director Of Lands And Mines Office

Statutory Bodies
1. Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA)
2. Pilgrims Fund Board (LTH)
3. Penang Regional Development Authority (PERDA)
4. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan
5. Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM)

Corporations
1. Institut Integriti Malaysia (IIM)
2. Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology
3. Talent Corp
4. TERAJU
5. PEMANDU Corporation
6. UNIK Corporation

Yes, even Mahathir's own office (32. Secretariat Office of Ex-Prime Minister Y.A.Bhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad) is budgeted under the PMO's budget.

It is sickening to see that the Mahathir is using such an often-repeated RBA piece of propaganda - which is entirely misleading.

7) He created jobs with high salaries for people he retired from service so that they will support him irrespective of his wrongdoings.

Who do you mean by this? More information needed. Or is it like how you put your brother-in-law as Chairman of Tabung Haji after he retired? 

Don't just make accusation like any RBA. Back your accusation up!

8) He had a lavish life-style and spent well beyond the means of a Malaysian Prime Minister for his daughter’s wedding.

Like any common RBA, you become personal and attack family members - despite being told multiple times that it was the in-laws who paid for the wedding.

Did you expect Najib's in-laws to be poor?

Najib's son-in-law Daniyar's mom, Maria, was married to Bolat Nazarbayev, the brother of long-time Kazakhstan president, for more than 10 years.

Bolat is super-rich and has a virtual monopoly of Kazakhstan fertilizer industry and also owns banks.

During their divorce court hearings in New York, the media reported that the court papers had stated that Maira had once purchased USD75 million (RM311 million) worth of jewelry and paid for it using Bolat's money.

A Mar 12, 2014 divorce settlement allowed Maira to keep US$50m (RM207m) in jewelry and a US$20m (RM83m) New Jersey house - a total worth of RM300 million - but had to give up custody of her son with Bolat.

I am also sure that Maira herself had money saved from her 10 year wedding too but this was not disclosed.

Daniyar is the only other son of Maira and I do not see any issues with Maira giving a few million ringgit to Daniyar to purchase presents or hold his own grand weddings or that Daniyar had been funded by his mom to do business and make his own money.

The next dozen or so of Mahathir's allegations are his recycled allegations regarding 1MDB where his accusations have progressively gone down from RM42 billion lesap to RM27 billion missing and suddenly to "a few billion" missing.

I don't want to bother answering this as these have been answered dozens of times already by various people and 1MDB itself. You can search my blog for those replies.

You ask, you get answered but you pretend not to hear and ask again. Yet another pretend-dumb, cannot see tactic of the RBA to keep asking the same questions and repeating the same allegations despite being answered multiple times before.

We move on to this.

24) He denied at first; then admitted, saying that it was a gift; then that it was a donation to ensure he won the election; then it was a donation from Arabs who appreciated his fight against Muslim terrorists; and finally that it was a donation from the late Saudi King. The source of the money is still not proven.
25) Now a Saudi Minister said there is no record of a gift, that probably it was a Saudi investment. The amount was not so big, he said.

Najib never denied receiving funds in his accounts at all. Not even once. All he said was that the funds were not from 1MDB or songlap money and it was not for personal use - so stop fitnah him and put words into his mouth (yet another RBA tactic).

And when you mention the Saudi Minister, you forgot to mention that  the Saudi Arabia foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir  himself. confirmed that the money into Najib's accounts came from Saudi Arabia and was quoted to say this:

"In Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that he accepted the (Malaysian) attorney general’s opinion that there had been no wrongdoing, but he also said that he did not think that the money had come from the Saudi government or that it was a political donation.

And your continued attacks on Najib also failed to cite that the office of the Swiss AG spokesman Andre Marty had told the Nikkei Asian Review "In the ongoing criminal proceeding of the OAG, Mr Najib Razak is not one of the public official under accusation,"

Yet another favourite RBA tactic of ignoring other credible and key pieces of information.

27) Money in any person’s account, whether from profits or borrowed or gift must be declared to the income tax department even if it is not subject to income tax. Apparently the Internal Revenue Board is not able to verify from official records about how the acquisition or existence of this money was done. There is also no clear report about the money by Bank Negara to determine whether it is being laundered.
Like what LHDN said.

Political donations are not subjected to tax, said Inland Revenue Board (IRB) chief Mohd Shukor Mahfar as quoted by news portal Malaysiakini. “To me, if the income is subjected to tax, (then we can tax). If income not subjected to income tax, then we cannot tax,” he was quoted.

And if you believe Wall Street Journal and your buddy Clare Brown at Sarawak Report, you would also have believed that the majority of the RM2.6b was returned shortly after within months (and within the same tax year) - with the remainder being used for political or CSR expenses.

And since there was no balance after the return and expenses that did not benefit Najib personally, what is there to tax?

BNM had already given their recommendations on 1MDB to AG which AG declined to prosecute and gave his reasons why. 

Those recommendations to AG was for revocation of approvals that BNM gave 6 years ago based on the basis that the forms were not filled in properly. NONE was for money laundering The AG gave his reasons why BNM's case was weak then: 

All three approvals given by BNM for remittance applied by 1MDB was given within the duration of not more than three days,” said Apandi during a press conference held here today. 

He also explained that based on the relevant ECM forms, namely 09A and 06B it had did not required the applicant to supply the names of the beneficiary owners during application. 

“Bank Negara should examine the applications. It is evident that BNM has not requested for further information,” said Apandi. 

“If Bank Negara Malaysia has not requested for specific information, why should 1MDB be blamed when they have filled in the information and answer the questions needed?” he asked.

Yes. BNM's investigations did not lead to any allegations of money-laundering when passed to the AG.

36) Malaysians are ashamed that Malaysia is rated as among the ten most corrupted country in the world and Najib is regarded as the most incompetent Finance Minister.

Another RBA tactic of labeling Malaysia as ten most corrupted country in the world. From your Deklarasi Mahathir, you gave your "proof" why you said Malaysia is top ten most corrupted.

Here it is:

"Fasal 3. Di bawah pentadbirannya negara jatuh tersenarai sebagai salah satu daripada 10 negara yang paling banyak mengamalkan rasuah mengikut laporan Ernst and Young Asia Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013. Malaysia juga telah jatuh empat anak tangga Indeks Persepsi Rasuah 2015, dari 50 ke 54."

Let me explain:

According to them, Malaysia is top ten most corrupt and their main evidence is the Ernst and Young Asia Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013.

Firstly, nama sudah "Asia Pacific" only - so how can be top ten most corrupt?

And worse.. this Report only covers 8 countries.

Read for yourself: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/2013_Asia-Pacific_Fraud_Survey/$FILE/EY-Asia-Pacific-Fraud-Survey.pdf

Survey of EIGHT countries means Malaysia is top TEN most corrupt?

Where you go to school ah?

Their second evidence is this: " Malaysia juga telah jatuh empat anak tangga Indeks Persepsi Rasuah 2015, dari 50 ke 54."

You already say no. 54th - so where the top 10 comes from? This little piece of fact already CONTRADICT your own point!!!

And worse again.. it is actually 54th CLEANEST out of 167 countries as listed by the Corruptions Perception Index 2015: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table

What kind of people would actually put their signature on a document like this knowing full well it contains obvious lies that even a kid can find out?

Tak malu ke? 

For the remaining points, it is time for me to also use familiar RBA tactics of using copy-paste graphics and meme.

For not suing WSJ, let me remind you of what you said.

And when you said you can swear on your allegations against Najib, let me remind you how many times you said you will swear on your holy book in the mosque but have never actually done so - not even once!

Heck, even when the Police came to question you TWICE on your multiple allegations and asked you to prove it, you refused to answer both times and lamely said you will only answer in court should they ever charge you.

What is this? If you have the proof then please answer the police. You make the allegation but you refuse to provide your proof to the relevant authorities.

And if indeed the police charges you for criminal defamation, then you will say that you are being victimized.

When others ask you why you don't make police reports against Najib, you say you have no evidence!!

I believe more and more people are getting tired of your antics to remove Najib. It is getting really desperate recently.

After your son Mukhriz was asked to resign as Kedah Menteri Besar and your lackey Tan Sri Muhyiddin was suspended from UMNO, your actions have betrayed your motives.

These desperate actions have shocked and revolted many people including:

- keeping quiet when Wan Azizah said you are weak and that it is Pakatan assisting you and not the other way around.

- Rafizi Ramli saying that you read from their script and that he is using you to help Pakatan win more Malay votes to beat UMNO

- becoming the ultra-hypocrite when you work with the person you once called the ultra-chauvinist racist Lim Kit Siang.

- attending a Pakatan Harapan event where one of their chief goals was to call for the release of Anwar Ibrahim.

- completely ignoring our Federal Constitution and following the colonial British tactics of calling for a referendum to remove a Prime Minister.

Malaysians are no longer fooled by you saying you are doing it for the Rakyat but they know your desperation and shocking behaviour is to protect your son and elevate him as the future Prime Minister.

How else can you explain the following that all happened IMMEDIATELY after your son was removed as Kedah Menteri Besar despite saying before you will not work with opposition just a few months ago?

Najib is close to completing 7 years as Prime Minister and he has done a pretty decent job so far. Our economy is transforming in the right direction and he has successfully helped us navigate the 2008-2009 Great Global Recession and the oil price slump. Our economy is still growing, our unemployment rate has not jumped (in fact we want to import more workers) and there is no mass closing of shops, collapse of conglomerates or Danaharta or Danamodal needing to be set-up like your 1998 crisis (which you refused to resign even then).

Now let me remind Mahathir of his first 7 years.

From 1981 to 1998 by the end of his first 7 years in power, Mahathir had doubled our unemployment, ran the highest budget deficits in Malaysian history, doubled our debt above the key 100% Debt-to-GDP ratio, doubled our foreign debt, more than doubled our unemployment rate, plunged our country into recession, seen our stock market drop by half, misused Maminco and destroyed the tin industry - our main export industry, mismanaged the tragic Memali incident resulting in the deaths of 18 civilians and police officers, forced the resignation of his deputy PM, his finance minister, sacked 3 other cabinet ministers (including Pak Lah) and 4 deputy ministers during ramadhan, destroyed the judiciary system, cheated billions of Bumiputra shares from EPF via Makuwasa, allowed BMF to collapse under RM2.5b of debt, almost allowed a full-blown racial riot before throwing more than 100 persons in jail under ISA for Ops Lalang,, closed 4 major newspapers including Sin Chew, Watan and The Star, split UMNO cleanly in half and caused it to be declared illegal.

And during that time, not one but TWO ex-PM - Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn, his Deputy PM and his Finance Minister thought he was useless.

And Mahathir now says Najib's first 7 years is no good and wants to save UMNO and save Malaysia?

But the evidence show that Mahathir's first 7 years was a complete disaster compared to Najib. 

Other than the other mishaps listed, here are some hard data:

(any Mahathir loyalist willing to dispute the above?)

Save Malaysia from what, actually?

I sincerely hope that Mahathir will stop using RBA-style topics and use his twilight years resting and enjoying life.

There are enough lies and propaganda from the RBA out on social media already. We do not need Mahathir acting like the de-facto RBA-in-Chief adding to the clutter.