Skip to content

A Reading Must For All Patriotic Discerning Malaysians….Need We To Say More?!

May 25, 2015


Published: 25 May 2015 7:00 AM

The backers of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) have argued that because international accounting firms like KPMG and Deloitte have signed off all 1MDB’s accounts from FY2010 to FY2014, this meant no money has gone missing and no fraud has occurred.

This argument has been used to justify the not-so-eloquent silence of the management and board of directors of 1MDB, who have refused to respond to questions posed to them about various transactions and the movements of billions of ringgit.

They hide behind that argument despite the fact that 1MDB has run into serious cash-flow problems and can no longer service its debts, and so many questions have been raised about the whereabouts and nature of the so-called Available-For-Sale Investments valued at RM13.38 billion in its accounts for financial year ended March 31, 2014.

Critics of 1MDB have been asked to back off and let the auditor-general complete his work to review the audit of 1MDB.

The argument that because 1MDB’s accounts have been signed off by auditors meant that no fraud has occurred and that money was not missing is flawed. It shows that these people do not know what they are talking about.

They have badly misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the role of external auditors and they do not understand the meaning of an auditor’s report when the auditors sign off the financial statement of a company.

There are no auditors in this world who will agree that their signing off on an account can in any way or form be interpreted to mean that they confirm or guarantee that the accounts are completely true, accurate and do not contain any misstatements, by fraud or error.

The International Standards for Auditing guidelines for auditors state that the external auditor is responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance that the financial statements, taken as a whole, are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error.

That reasonable assurance is based on the external auditor trusting that the management and board of a company have carried out their fiduciary duties and were not involved in any fraud or have concealed any fraud.

Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable risk that material misstatement may not be detected, even when the audit is planned and performed in accordance with international accounting standards.

The risk of fraud is higher than those of error because fraud usually involves sophisticated and carefully organised schemes designed to conceal it.

Therefore, it is not the role of an external auditor to determine whether fraud has actually occurred. That is the responsibility of the country’s criminal and legal system.

Indeed, auditors call the discrepancy between what the public expects and what auditors do as an “expectations gap”.

Let us now take a closer look at Deloitte’s audit report issued to 1MDB on November 5, 2014, for the financial year ended March 31, 2014. The fact that it was issued more than seven months after the year-end in itself should raise concerns.

Para 2: The directors of the company are responsible for the preparation of these financial statements so as to give a true and fair view. The directors are also responsible for such internal control as the directors determine what is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Para 3: Our (Deloitte) responsibility is to EXPRESS AN OPINION on these financial statements based on our audit… and perform the audit to obtain REASONABLE assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

The above remarks by Deloitte is a standard template statement issued by auditors to most companies. What is important to note are the following:

1. The directors of 1MDB are ultimately responsible for the accounts in so far as they give a true and fair view. The directors are also responsible for internal controls that are necessary to enable the financial statements to be free from misstatements, whether due to fraud or error. This is NOT the responsibility of the auditor.

2. The auditors only express an opinion that they, as external auditors, have done what is necessary to obtain REASONABLE assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

3. Critically, the external auditors DO NOT express an opinion on the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls.

In short, while auditors should be able to detect defective keeping of accounting records, they cannot detect falsified accounting documents. And neither can they question management decisions on, say, an investment that it made.

The questions asked of 1MDB mainly relate to the effectiveness of internal controls and corporate governance:

– Who approved the agreements and the various payments made since 2009?

– Why were funds diverted from what they were approved for? Why was money sent to an account controlled by Jho Low?

– Why did 1MDB overpay for the power assets, the Penang land and the commissions to the bankers like Goldman Sachs?

– Who verified and agreed to pay the US$700 million to PetroSaudi, purportedly as settlement of a loan?

– Why was Jho Low giving instructions to the management on matters of 1MDB?

– Who agreed to the Aabar options and then agreed to a termination settlement that cost 1MDB US$1 billion?

All these major issues that have been raised are about internal controls, decision-making and corporate governance at 1MDB.

Deloitte, in their audit report, had clearly stated they are NOT expressing any opinion on the effectiveness of 1MDB’s internal controls.

So, please stop passing the buck to Deloitte or using the fact that it signed off on the accounts, to say that nothing wrong has happened and that everything at 1MDB is fine.

And since the auditor-general has merely been asked to audit the work of Deloitte, it is most likely the case that his mandate is no more than that of Deloitte.

It is clear. The board of directors is responsible in ensuring the accounts are true and fair. The board is responsible for internal controls to ensure there is no fraud.

The auditor only expresses a reasonable opinion. Nothing more.

The corporate sector, at home and around the world, is littered with many examples of corporate fraud that escaped the scrutiny of auditors. In a few cases, auditors were also culpable, if not outright complicit.

The largest corporate fraud ever in the world was US energy giant Enron, whose US$78 billion market value was wiped out in days. Former Enron president Jeff Skilling is still serving a 24-year jail term.

And its auditors, Arthur Andersen, one of the Big Four accounting firms in the world then, had to cease operations.

Bernard Madoff’s US$65 billion Ponzi scheme is evidence that funds under management, with third-party valuations by international institutions, may also be subject to misappropriations and fraud. Madoff is currently serving a 150-year sentence in prison.

An article was published in the November 20, 2012 issue of Forbes magazine, on how Hewlett-Packard (HP) lost US$5 billion on a US$11.1 billion acquisition.

HP said it had to write down the value of UK software company Autonomy because it was inflated through serious accounting improprieties, misrepresentation and disclosure failures.

That scam tainted all the auditors involved – Deloitte as the auditors for Autonomy and Ernst & Young, the auditors for HP – for not detecting the fraud.

Need we say more? – May 25, 2015.

– See more at:

1-MDB : Rompakan Terdahsyat….Siri 2 (Aset Tenaga)

May 23, 2015

Aset Tenaga 1-MDB: Meminjam RM11.55bilion, tetapi terima RM6 bilion..Kenapa?

23 May 2015 Dzulkefly Ahmad (HarakahDaily)

Setelah 6 tahun, kejayaan 1MDB adalah mengumpul sebanyak RM42 bilion hutang korporatnya.

Malangnya, pelbagai aset diperolehi yang sepatutnya berimpak tinggi, sama ada dalam bidang tenaga dan hartanah, gagal menjana cash-flow atau ‘revenue’ yang boleh melunaskan pelbagai hutangnya.

Kini, aset 1MDB bakal ‘difaraidkan’ untuk menyelamatkan dana pelaburan kedua negara ini.

Khazanah Nasional Berhad, dana berdaulat negara yang pertama, tentunya adalah jenis ‘creature dan DNA’ yang berbeza.

Penulisan ini fokus ke atas bagaimana 1MDB menjalankan pinjamannya dalam sektor tenaga secara lebih terperinci. Penulisan ini tidak memasukkan cerita Projek 3B yang sudah pun diserahkan kembali kepada Suruhanjaya Tenaga (EC), kerana 1MDB tidak mampu meneruskannya.

Sangat pelik bagaimana sebuah dana pelaburan 100% milik Perbadanan Kementerian Kewangan (MOF Inc) terpaksa menstruktur pinjaman yang sebegitu rumit dan lebih penting, terlalu mahal kos pinjamannya. Akal yang waras pastinya penuh syak.

Penulis sengaja dedahkan secara naratif atau pengkisahan, supaya dihujung penulisan ini, pembaca diminta membuat ‘hukuman’ mereka sendiri.

Pada 2012, 1MDB membuat 2 perolehan penjana tenaga bebas (IPP) yakni Tanjung Pls (Ananda Krishnan) pada harga RM8.5 bilion dan Genting Sanyen (Lim Goh Tong) dengan harga RM2.35 bilion atau berjumlah RM10.85 bilion.

Cakap-cakap dalam pasaran sedia maklum 1MDB membayar hampir RM2.5 bilion melebihi harga sepatutnya.

Itu sudah sejarah dan bukti tidak langsung terdapat pada penyata tahunan 2013, ketika pihak auditor memberi pelupusan sebanyak RM2.5 sebagai penurunan nilai muhibbah atau ‘goodwill’ bagi mengimbangi, antara asset dan liabiliti, dalam neraca kira-kira (balance sheet).

Yang penting sekarang ialah mengapa 1MDB membuat pinjaman melebihi dari yang diperlukannya?

1MDB membuat pinjaman dari pasaran bon yang diuruskan oleh Goldman Sachs. Dua bon diterbitkan bernilai AS$1.75 bilion setiap bon atau AS$3.5 bilion bersamaan RM11.55 bilion.

Pada waktu yang sama, 1MDB membuat pinjaman secara ‘bridging loan’ atau ‘pinjaman darurat’, sebanyak RM6.2 bilion dari satu konsortium bank yang diketuai oleh Malayan Bank Bhd dan RHB Berhad.

Jelasnya 1MDB meminjam RM17.55 bilion untuk membuat perolehan yang berjumlah RM10.85 bilion. Ternyata 1MDB membuat pinjaman sebanyak RM6.9 bilion melebihi dari yang diperlukan.

Persoalannya, mengapa?

Jawapannya kerana 1MDB hanya menerima RM6 bilion dari jumlah yang dipinjam. Kenapa pulak? Sebab RM5.5 bilion adalah pelbagai bayaran ‘kos’ yang perlu dibuat 1MDB! Apakah kos-kos tersebut?

Pertama, 1MDB membayar Goldman Sachs sebanyak AS$393 juta atau RM1.3 bilion sebagai yuran dan komisen untuk menstrukturkan pinjaman ‘canggihnya’ ini.

Pertama, 1-MDB membayar Goldman Sachs sebanyak US$393million atau RM1.3 bilion sebagai yuran dan komisyen untuk menstrukturkan pinjaman ‘canggihnya’ ini. Sebanyak RM4.25 pula digunakan untuk membayar satu ‘deposit sekuriti’ kepada sebuah syarikat namanya International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), Abu Dhabi, yang berperanan menjadi ‘penjamin bersama’ atau ‘co-guarantor’ dalam terbitan bon oleh Goldman Sachs tadi. Sangat mahal deposit sekuriti yang dituntut oleh IPIC melebihi 37% dari jumlah bon. Kenapa dipersetuju Lembaga Pengarah 1-MDB, adalah satu hal yang membingungkan, kalau tidak mencurigakan?

Deposit itu juga berperanan sebagai ‘sekuriti’ kepada IPIC yang ditawarkan satu ‘Put Option’ dalam masa 10 tahun (mudah terjemahan, Pilihan), oleh 1-MDB untuk memilikki sebanyak, maksima, 49% saham dalam ‘entiti tenaga’ (Edra Global Energy Bhd) yang bakal disenaraikan oleh 1-MDB!

Sangat ‘lumayan’ tawaran kepada IPIC yang bertindak hanya sebagai ‘Penjamin Bersama’ atau Co-Guarantor! Mengapa begini sekali yang dipersetujui 1-MDB atau lebih tepat lagi Lembaga Pengarah 1-MDB atau BODnya?! Ini sudah semacam menjadi pinjaman’Ah Long Korporat’ atau “ international loan shark”! IPIC kemudiannya memindahkan hak ‘Option’nya kepada subsidiarinya, Aabar Investments.

Ketika perancangan untuk pensenaraian asset tenaga itu itu gagal – Edra Global Energy Bhd – ada perkara pelik berlaku. Dalam laporan kewangan tahunan penuhnya untuk Mac 31, 2014, (yang hanya dihantar pada November2014) 1-MDB mendedahkan bahawa sebanyak RM4.39 bilion (US$1.22 bilion) yang ditebus (redeemed) dari Cayman Island telah digunakan untuk melunaskan beberapa bayaran hutang, ‘working capital’ dan bayaran kepada Aabar Investment untuk ‘menamatkan’ perjanjian ‘Option’ yang diberikan kepadanya (IPIC asalnya).

Bersambung di sini….

Aung San Suu Kyi – An Icon Of Democracy…is a bust….(BUT…The Nobel Peace Price Winner’s Silence is Defeaning!)

May 19, 2015

 Aung San Suu Kyi is a bust

There was so much hope for her as a moral leader in Myanmar, but power (or politics) has changed her

Tomas Munita/The New York Times

Tomas Munita/The New York Times

In the face of scathing criticism from international human rights groups, supporters of the sainted Aung San Suu Kyi are left with only one way to spin her inaction and silence on the persecution of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar: as cold political calculation on her part.

With national elections coming up later this year, it is arguably expedient to pander to those segments of Myanmar’s largely Buddhist population who would deny political rights to the 750,000 Muslim Rohingyas who inhabit the Rakhine state on the border with Bangladesh. Their numbers are small, and their citizenship status is contested. In crude electoral terms, there is nothing to be gained from espousing their cause and, possibly, much to lose. Yet such crowd-pleasing, whether craven or shrewd, hardly befits the internationally lauded recipient of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.

It could even be said that this “political calculus” rationale is flawed. The last time Myanmar held elections, in 1990, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy won 59% of the vote and 81% of the seats in parliament. In by-elections held in 2012 after her release from house arrest, her party won 43 of 45 seats. So it would appear that she has ample political capital to spend on issues she deems worthy.

And it is hard to think of a worthier cause than the robust repudiation of the ethnic cleansing of more than half the Rohingya minority population from the state of Rakhine in the past few decades, with those remaining suffering brutal pogroms. Thousands have been killed and scores of villages razed. Through all of this, Suu Kyi has remained startlingly mute.

The Rohingya were effectively denied citizenship by a 1982 law that refused to recognize them as one of the 135 “national races” of the country. In the years since, they have been banned from traveling or getting married without a permit, and are limited by law to no more than two children.

In the face of these rights violations, Suu Kyi’s silence or mealy-mouthed equivocation has tarnished her image as an icon of democracy. To suggest, as she does, that atrocities are committed on both sides—by Rohingya and the majority Arakanese in Rakhine state—is a distortion of the truth.

Similarly, to refuse to condemn the atrocities against the Rohingyas on the grounds that condemnation is counter-productive to results, as she does, is disingenuous. Coming from someone whose primary political weapon during her two-decade battle with the junta ruling Myanmar has been her moral authority, it is also grotesquely distasteful.

The simple fact is that as she remains silent, the Rohingya continue to be killed and raped and driven out of their homes. And the climate of hatred and vitriol that has been whipped up against them takes succor from her failure to use her global platform on their behalf.

In one of her most celebrated speeches, Suu Kyi famously said: “It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.” She might well have added: Fear of never gaining power corrupts those who would hold their tongues in the face of savagery. If Aung Suu Kyi is remaining silent on the plight of the Rohingyas because she’s afraid that speaking out would cost her an election, she doesn’t deserve to come to power. And as her silence leads to the deaths of more and more innocent people, she doesn’t deserve our respect either.

Zafar Sobhan is the Editor of the Dhaka Tribune, a daily newspaper published from Bangladesh.

1-MDB/TIA : Siapa Betul, Ahmad Said atau Ahmad Razif?

May 18, 2015
1MDB ‘Frankenstein’ yang bakal musnahkan Najib

Published: 18 May 2015 (TMI)

Dzulkefly Ahmad

Belum reda kontroversi pembelian tanah 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) oleh Tabung Haji, bekas menteri besar Terengganu Datuk Seri Ahmad Said, mendakwa 1MDB pernah hendak mencagarkan minyak dan gas asli di laut Terengganu.

Namun keputusan itu ditarik balik.

Nah, pendedahan itu tiba-tiba menyentak perhatian umum kepada asal usul 1MDB, ‘badan pelaburan berdaulat kedua’ atau ‘second sovereign wealth fund’ (selepas Khazanah). Apa pula kaitan 1MDB dengan Terengganu? Saya kira ini peluang saya merumuskan pengamatan saya dan mengongsikannya di sini.

Bagi memulakan cerita, “Wang Royalti” nama asalnya, yang bertukar menjadi Wang Ehsan, akibat pengkhianatan Kerajaan Persekutuan enggan membayar kerajaan negeri ketika PAS menawan Terengganu, perlu terus diurus. Jumlah royalti sebanyak kurang lebih RM2.5-RM3 bilion setahun.

Selepas berlalu sedikit waktu di mana wang ehsan menjadi semacam “dana politik” milik penguasa politik negeri tanpa pertanggungjawaban, terbit cadangan menubuhkan sebuah badan pelaburan.

Maka terbentuklah ‘Terengganu Investment Authority’ atau TIA pada tahun 2008, yang antara lainnya, pelaburan ‘wang ehsan’. RM3 bilion setahun bukan sedikit. Ramai terlioq agaknya!

Ya, kalau begitu, asal TIA, adalah dana “berdaulat” yang mengurus kekayaan hasil sumber minyak dan gas negeri Terengganu. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad juga tidak sangsi kalau begitu seperti asal.

Dalam pada itu, minat dan nafsu Putrajaya untuk terlibat mengurus dana semakin berahi.

Akhirnya tampil cadangan menjadikan TIA sebahagian entiti “Persekutuan”. Putrajaya lantas membuat “pelawaan”. Sebagai sebuah kerajaan negeri sukar untuk Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Ahmad Said tolak. Maklumlah.

Nyata ketika Menteri Besar Terengganu Datuk Seri Ahmad Razif Abdul Rahman, menafikan kebenaran kenyataan Ahmad Said, esoknya, beliau semacam tidak tahu tentang dakwaan Ahmad Said atau sengaja hendak mengampu bosnya di Putrajaya. Dalam kedua-dua keadaan tadi, Ahmad Razif tampak tidak betul atau salah.

Bersambung baca di sini…..
– See more at:

Rancangan Malaysia ke-11 (RMK-11) dan ‘Najibnomics’ serasi?

May 17, 2015

Rancangan Malaysia ke-11 (RMK-11) dan ‘Najibnomics’ serasi?

Dzulkefly Ahmad (Harakahdaily)

Sesi Dewan Rakyat pada 18 Mei ini bakal menyaksikan perbahasan tentang satu dokumen penting, Rancangan Malaysia Ke-11 (RMK-11). Satu masa dahulu, dokumen pembangunan 5-tahun sekali ini, sangat ditunggu-tunggu.

Kini, ia telah semacam hilang tarikan dan ‘glamour’nya. Sebabnya, mungkin jelas setelah pembaca meneliti penulisan ini.

RMK-10 (2011-2015), akan menutup tirainya pada Mei 2015 tahun ini dan akan disusuli RMK-11 sehingga ke tahun 2016-2020. Tahun 2020 ialah Tahun Keramat yang sepatutnya mengeluarkan Malaysia dari liga ‘negara membangun’ kepada ‘negara maju’

Mantra Negara Maju dan Berpendapatan Tinggi, lebih acap didengari daripada difahami umum.? Semacam wujud satu jurang atau ‘disconnect’ di antara bicara pemimpin negara dengan kehidupan titik-bengit rakyat.

Sebagai contoh, dapatan dari Bancian Pendapatan Isirumah dan Kemudahan Asas (Household Income and Basic Amenities –HISBA) tentang isi-rumah. Apabila purata isirumah sebulan pada 2012 adalah RM5000 diumumkan, angka atau statistik itu sangat tidak releven atau ‘tidak touching’.

Baca setersunya di sini….

Penindasan Rohingya: Data dan fakta penting (Projek Dialog)

May 16, 2015

SIIWE, Myanmar (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Dalam tempoh dua tahun kebelakangan ini, pemerhatian dunia telah terfokus pada isu Muslim Rohingya di barat Myanmar. Mereka adalah golongan minoriti yang dikatakan oleh Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (PBB) sebagai terasing daripada etnik dan komuniti berlainan agama dan bahasa di Myanmar.

Di sini adalah sedikit fakta mengenai mereka.

Siapakah orang Rohingya?

* Mereka adalah golongan Muslim minoriti yang hidup di Myanmar (dahulunya Burma) yang mana majoriti penganutnya beragama Buddha. Kebanyakan Rohin berada di kawasan barat Rakhine dan bilangan mereka, menurut Kementerian Imigrasi adalah seramai 1.33 juta orang.

* Rohingya mendakwa mempunyai susur galur keturunan selama berabad lamanya di Rakhine. Walaubagaimanapun, Undang-undang Kerakyatan 1982, yang dikuatkuasakan oleh kerajaan tentera dahulu telah mengecualikan mereka daripada senarai lebih 100 kumpulan yang diiktiraf sebagai etnik minoriti. Pengecualian ini menyebabkan kebanyakan daripada mereka tidak mempunyai kerakyatan. Sejak itu, mereka tidak mendapat Kad Pengenalan, yang diperlukan untuk pelbagai urusan daripada persekolahan, perkahwinan, pekerjaan sehinggalah kepada sijil kematian.

* Majoriti daripada mereka berada di utara daerah Rakhine (NRS – Northern Rakhine State) yang terdiri daripada 3 bandar utama – Buthidaung, Rathedaung dan Maungdaw – dan bersempadan dengan Bangladesh. Rohingya merupakan 91peratus daripada jumlah penduduk NRS yang dianggarkan leih kurang 1 juta penduduk. Ia juga merupakan salah satu kawasan yang paling terpencil, miskin, dan padat di negara itu. Akses media dan bantuan ke NRS amatlah dihadkan.

Bagaimanakah kehidupan mereka? 

* Rohingya di NRS mengalami pelbagai halangan. Mereka tidak dibenarkan berhijrah, berkahwin atau mencari rawatan tanpa kebenaran rasmi, yang sangatlah mahal dan tidak terjamin. Kumpulan-kumpulan pembela hak asasi mengatakan  Rohingya turut menghadapi dakwaan, pemerkosaan, dipaksa menjadi buruh, rampasan harta dan diberi akses yang terhad terhadap perkhidmatan awam.

* NRS terduduk di bawah standard bagi negara yang mempunyai markah rendah dalam kebanyakan kajian sosio-ekonomi. PBB mengatakan, kematian kaum ibu adalah sebanyak 380 kematian per 100,000 kelahiran hidup di Maungdaw – yang berganda daripada jumlah kematian di 200 negara dalam kajian UNICEF. Kematian bawah 5 tahun adalah sebanyak 135 orang per 1000 kanak-kanak di Maungdaw berbanding bilangan bagi negara sebanyak 77 orang.

* Tinjauan telah menunjukkan bahawa kes-kes kurang zat makanan di NRS secara berterusan sebanyak 15 peratus lebih tinggi daripada garis maximum yang diletakkan oleh World Health Organization (WHO). Pada tahun 2008, masalah kurang zat makanan adalah sebanyak 22.7% di bandar Buthidaung dan 20.2 % pada tahun 2009. Analisa pada tahun 2011 menunjukkan 45 % tidak mempunyai akses makanan yang meyakinkan.

Mengapakah mereka sering dipapar kaca berita kebelakangan ini? 

* Dua peristiwa keganasan masyarakat pada tahun 2012 telah membunuh sekurang-kurangnya 192 orang dan membuatkan sejumlah 146,000 orang hilang tempat tinggal. Kebanyakannya adalah Rohingya. Ada puluhan ribu yang berada di kem-kem penempatan sementara di luar Sittwe ibukota Rakhine.

* Seramai 86,000 orang meninggalkan Rakhine menggunakan bot antara Jun 2012 hingga April 2014 untuk memulakan hidup baru, dan pejuang hak asasi mengatakan jumlah ini akan semakin meningkat.

* Mereka yang tidak boleh meninggalkan terpaksa bergantung pada bantuan daripada pelbagai agensi dari segi keperluan seharian, menyebabkan datangnya tuduhan daripada nasionalis Buddha di Rakhine dan juga Myanmar, mengatakan ianya tidak adil.

* Médecins Sans Frontières-Holland (MSF-H) dan Malteser International, dua organisasi yang telah memberikan bantuan kesihatan yang besar di NRS dan di kem pelarian, telah dihalau daripada Rakhine pada Febuari dan Mac, setelah adanya kempen menentang mereka daripada golongan pelampau beragama Buddha. Pada 24 Julai, kerajaan Myanmar mengumumkan bahawa badan-badan tersebut dibenarkan untuk kembali untuk memberi bantuan, tetapi keadaan keselamatan mereka tidak terjamin.

* Walaupun kesusahan yang mereka hadapi, masih tidak banyak simpati yang berjaya diraih untuk golongan Rohingya di Myanmar. Sentimen anti-Rohingya tersebar luas, dan pihak berkuasa memanggil mereka ‘Bengalis’, untuk menyamakan mereka dengan pendatang asing daripada Bangladesh. Gerakan demokrasi di Myanmar, termasukalah penerima anugerah Nobel Aung San Suu Kyi, masih tidak menyatakan pendirian yang berpihak pada Rohinya. 

Sumber : World Food Organization, UNHCR, UNOCHA, Fortify Rights, Human Right Watch, The Arakan Project, The European Comission.

Penterjemahan tidak rasmi FACTBOX – Facts and figures about Myanmar’s Rohingya.” Diterjemah oleh Noor Amalina Rosli.

TRX land sold to 1MDB at bumi’s expense (MKini) (once held by Perbadanan Hartanah Bumiputera Berhad)

May 15, 2015

2:00PM May 15, 2015

The prime Tun Razak Exchange land which 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) is now selling in parcels to repay its debt was initially sold to the firm at the expense of bumiputeras.

PAS research centre director Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (photo) pointed out that prior to 1MDB’s ownership, the TRX land was held by Pelaburan Hartanah Berhad (PHB), formerly known as Pelaburan Hartanah Bumiputera Berhad

“The land was granted to PHB (land development right) during former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s time with the intention to develop the land and for the bumiputera community to have the opportunity to own prime real estate through shares that PHB would issue (ie REIT) ,” he said.

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in a blog posting on May 8, had mentioned that the land was initially meant for a “bumiputera trade centre” but did not elaborate.

“Why and who instructed and made certain that PHB’s trophy asset is sold to 1MDB?” asked Dzulkefly.

PHB is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yayasan Amanah Hartanah Bumiputera, a foundation created under Abdullah and owned by the government.

Dzulkefly pointed out that the widely reported RM194.11 million paid by 1MDB for the land also did not entirely go to the government as some of the cost was used to clear a caveat on the land.

1MDB had purchased the entire 70 acres from the government-owned entity for a mere RM194.1 million.

It recently began selling off the land in parcels, which included the sale of 1.56 acre to Lembaga Tabung Haji for RM188.5 million.

This translates to a purchase of RM2,773 per square foot by Tabung Haji, compared to 1MDB which bought the land for only RM64 per square foot from the government.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66,607 other followers