A lovely business style dress, very appropriate to the occasion and Maxima wears it well.
I'm glad that beside being a Queen and attending to all the nationalistic duties that come with that role, that she is still able to participate in other global issues that are associated/related with her career and interests before she became queen. It is a perfect match to bring her profile to highlight important issues affecting the world, and also to be a role model to other women and young girls particularly in developing countries who might desire a business career. Rania and Mary also do this very well.
Completely agree. Letizia, Victoria, Mette, they're all cool too.
What about Catherine and Megan??
Totally agree. She and Mary are very good role models. I think they are kind of royals we need in modern world. Royals who just want to look colourful and say as little as possible are so over.
Well, Maxima is sure a busy lady. This D&G dress looks stunning. It is simple but classic.
Beautiful dress and isn't it great that as well as being Queen, Maxima is able to go and speak in her own right at IMF and similar meetings. A real inspiration for young girls to see her involved in something so important and with so much potential impact.
Al vestido le falta unas pulgadas extras para que quede a su medida.
Yes, I agree. There is not much to distract the eye from that detail.
I agree with all the comments made previous to mine about her work ethic and her example to young women and girls. BUT, as beautiful as this dress ifs, it no longer fits her. I can see the outline of all her underwear and all the little bulges that we get. I could care less about a few wrinkles in the dress or the face for that matter but she has a choice about the size of the dress or perhaps the undergarments.
I noticed the same thing about the fit. I am thrilled that she is wearing a simple dress, and even better, that it is not Natan. Sadly, it is too tight. Spanx might have saved the day, but she really should have invested in a new but similar dress that fit her. She is so much better off in classic sillouettes.
I agree recycling clothes fine if still fitting.
I also appreciate that she is able to keep her business skills.
But I don't understand the last sentence and the link with the diplomatic gala dinner. Do you mean that she is overworking?
Sorry I was not clearer. I was comparing only how she looked at the 2 events. Although the nature of the 2 events are totally different she was almost flawless at the gala and almost a mess at this meeting. I'm sure she might be jet lagged, busy, etc., but I am only looking at photos and judging from them.
The hair is not so bad here, is it?
Agree with you Hero. The dress is too tight. The hair is her usual unhealthy messy style.
Le résultat n'est pas très soigné !
I agree with Coralie, the hair here is not so bad; she adopted a very sharp layering or thinning of her hair, a quite modern style. That is her choice, so I disagree with comments referring to unhealthy hair.
The red color is good for Maxima, but I do agree with the comments on the ill-fitting of this dress and the comments regarding her hair looking unhealthy. The ends are very split and that is not healthy looking.
She looks very business like and genuinely dress. A red dress always works, no exception here.
Esta claro que cuando lo compro y extreno la primera vez estaba más delgada. A veces nos cuesta reconocerlo.
Vestido bonito, pero el ajuste es horrible. La ropa interior es inadecuada y se notan michelines por todas partes.
Los méritos de trabajo no pueden ocultar que aquí venimos a hablar de moda.
¿Por qué siempre tiene que ir tan apretada que se le nota toda la ropa interior? Por cierto, estas actividades no tienen nada que ver con Holanda y en nada benefician... y esto es el 40 por ciento o más de sus actividades. No lo entiendo. Mientras el rey no está o está desaparecido salvo dos otres días al año. Una monarquía realmente rara.
Vestido reciclado y bonito pero ya no le queda como la primera vez. Demasiado ajustado.


We insist on offering good quality production with good small business concept, honest income plus the ideal and fast service. it will bring you not only the premium quality solution and huge profit, but by far the most significant should be to occupy the endless market for Portable Indoor Tennis Courts , portable indoor tennis courts , Portable Tennis Court Sports Flooring , We're seeking forwards to establishing long-term business enterprise associations with globally shoppers.
"The business upholds the philosophy of ""Be No.1 in high-quality, be rooted on credit and trustworthiness for growth"", will keep on to serve previous and new prospects from home and overseas whole-heatedly for Portable Indoor Tennis Courts , portable indoor tennis courts , Portable Tennis Court Sports Flooring , In order to meet our market demands we now have paied more attention to the quality of our products and solutions and services. Now we can meet customers' special requirements for special designs. We persistently develop our enterprise spirit "quality lives the enterprise credit assures cooperation and keep the motto in our minds: customers first.


text:
About us What we do Get to know us Clients
Products News Project profiles People profiles Company profiles Pipeline Reports Factiva Datasets
Industries Electric Power Mining & Metals Oil & Gas Infrastructure Water & Waste Petrochemicals ICT Financial Services
Use cases Research Business development Industry perspectives Key account management
Request demo Login
What to expect from Mexico's telecom market in 2022
Bnamericas Published: Tuesday, January 25, 2022
OTT 4G LTE Satellite broadband Mobile broadband Fixed broadband 5g Converged services Internet
Show 3 More Hide 3 Topics
Mexican telecommunications regulator IFT expects all of the market's main segments to expand this year.
In its latest market forecast report, the regulator said bundled offers will be a key growth driver for mobile telephony, mobile internet, fixed internet, fixed broadband and even for fixed telephony.
All these segments saw an expansion last year after a difficult 2020 that was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the report.
"With the results we're seeing, we understand that the country continues to be attractive for investment," said Pablo Terrazas, IFT's strategic planning coordinator, when presenting the report at a press conference.
IFT estimates that the mobile phone segment grew 1.5% last year and will expand 2.1% in 2022, reaching a penetration of 98% at the end of the year.
At the end of September, 125mn mobile phone lines were registered in Mexico, according to the latest IFT figures.
The regulator estimates that mobile internet accesses expanded 1.9% last year and sees growth of 2.3% this year. It expects 2022 to end with close to 106mn accesses and a penetration of 82%.
In the report, IFT said it expects mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) to drive the expansion of mobile services.
At the end of September, MVNOs had recorded year-on-year growth of 51.4% to 3.8mn.
The mobile market is dominated by Telcel with 79.3mn lines at end-September, followed by AT&T and Telefónica.
HIGH DEMAND FOR FIXED SERVICES
IFT said the pandemic caused a displacement of traffic from mobile to fixed networks due to the increase in demand for telecommunication services in the home. In addition, morning traffic increased and traffic demand migrated to suburban residential areas.
It also said that the use of applications related to teleworking has increased and resulting in fixed internet seeing the highest growth of all the segments, with estimated growth of 12.6% in 2021 and 10.9% this year.
Mexico will close this year with 27.4mn accesses, which is equivalent to 75% of the country's households, according to IFT.
The internet expansion is also giving a boost to the contracting of fixed telephony and pay-TV services, according to the regulator.
IFT estimates that fixed telephony saw growth of 4.4% last year and will see an increase of 3.3% this year, closing 2022 with 25.7mn lines. Driven by the bundling of services, the pay-TV segment advanced an estimated 2.6% in 2021 and is expected to grow 2.2% in 2022.
This year will end with 21.5mn pay-TV accesses and a penetration rate of 59%, according to the regulator.
At the press conference, Terrazas highlighted that there is a trend in Mexico for operators to become providers of over-the-top (OTT) services. According to figures from consulting firm Omdia that was shared by IFT, the OTT subscriptions will exceed 35mn by the end of 2025.
The operator with the largest share of the fixed market is Telcel with 43%, followed by Televisa (26%), Megacable (15%) and Totalplay (14%).
Mexico plans to auction spectrum for 5G this year and has launched connectivity plans in areas without coverage. However, some analysts believe these initiatives are not enough to give the sector a significant boost.
Subscribe to the most trusted business intelligence platform in Latin America. Let us show you our solutions for Suppliers, Contractors, Operators, Government, Legal, Financial and Insurance.
News in: ICT (Mexico)
LatAm industrial automation, cyber needs fueling US group Nozomi
The 2013-founded company, backed by Honeywell, Telefónica and others, and which has Enel as its chief customer, has high stakes for the business in...
Spotlight: Foreign direct investment in Latin American ICT
Telecommunications and data centers stand out in the latest FDI report from Eclac.
Telefónica Hispam to up its LatAm fiber bet
Telefónica Empresas develops its own video analytics platform in the cloud
Telcos in LatAm 'getting tired' of high spectrum costs
Digital Realty raises US$350mn in notes offering to finance operations
CAF and GSMA will promote training in the ICT sector in Latin America and the Caribbean
América Móvil drives digital transformation
How mining trucks become a sustainability pillar
American Tower grows Mexican presence with digital community centers
Subscribe to Latin America's most trusted business intelligence platform.
Other projects in: ICT
Get critical information about thousands of ICT projects in Latin America: what stages they're in, capex, related companies, contacts and more.
Project: Digital infovia in Mato Grosso do Sul
Current stage:
Project: Datacenter in Cancun
Project: Datacenter in Guadalajara
Project: MX2 Data Center Expansion (Phase 2)
Project: Microsoft Cloud Region
Project: Second data center for Cloud region
Project: Microsoft Cloud Services
Project: Oracle Data Center in Mexico
Project: South Pacific Submarine Cable (SPSC) (Cable Mistral)
Project: Odata data center in Querétaro (DC QR01)
Other companies in: ICT (Mexico)
Get critical information about thousands of ICT companies in Latin America: their projects, contacts, shareholders, related news and more.
Company: Thales México, S.A. de C.V. (Thales México)
Company: CompuSoluciones y Asociados S.A. de C.V. (CompuSoluciones)
CompuSoluciones y Asociados S.A. de C.V. (CompuSoluciones) is a Mexican firm founded in 1985 with offices in Guadalajara, City of Mexico and Monterrey which offers business deve...
Company: Teléfonos de México, S.A.B. de C.V. (Telmex)
Telephones of Mexico S.A.B. de C.V. (Telmex) is a provider of telecommunications and information technology, subsidiary of Mexican América Móvil. The company offers connectivity...
Company: Microsoft México S.A. de C.V. (Microsoft México)
Company: Hostdime México S.A. de C.V. (Hostdime México)
Company: Grupo 3DPro
The description included in this profile was taken directly from an official source and has not been modified or edited by BNamericas' content team. However, it may have been au...
Company: Grupo Conektame S.A. de C.V. (Conekta)
Company: Techcomm Wireless MX, S.A. de C.V. (Techcomm Wireless México)
Company: Payclip S. de R.L. de C.V. (Clip)
Company: Megacable Holdings S.A.B. de C.V. (Megacable)
Megacable is a Mexican telecommunications company dedicated to the installation, operation, maintenance and exploitation of cable television signal distribution systems, interne...
Peru's 2022 transport infrastructure investments fail to impress
Brazil energy watch: Petrobras, Órigo Energia, Aneel
Brazil's electricity transmission sector facing a 'good challenge'
Brazil preps tender for public services automation
Mexican NGO accuses water infra firm of benefiting from ties to AMLO
Want to read more information about What to expect from Mexico's telecom market in 2022?
Subscribe to BNamericas to find news reports, information on projects and contact information relating to thousands of companies that drive business in Latin America.
Unlock the full potential of BNamericas
Connect with us on our digital platforms!
Address Chile: Alonso de Córdova 5870, Office 413, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The primary difference between a tuxedo and a suit jacket is the presence of satin. Our collection of Silver Tuxedos is made from exceptional fabric and have satin facing on the lapels. We believe that little details are vital, in fact they are not little but rather make the design. Silver Tuxedos are intricately designed and each little detail only serves to add more style and glamour to them.
Nothing but the best quality fabric goes into the making of this Silver Tuxedos.
Remarkable fabric ensures that the jacket is breathable and lightweight and you do not feel like a potato being baked in its own skin.
Silver tuxedos are ultra slim fit.
This means that silver tuxedos are cut to hug the wearer closer around the ribs.


text:
KLIFD: A Glossy Government Sponsored Real Estate Project
The vamped-up Kuala Lumpur International Financial District (KLIFD) launch yesterday serves only to confirm that the project is another glossy government-sponsored real-estate project
After the KLIFD project was announced more than a year ago, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak launched the rebranded financial district, "Tun Razak Exchange" (TRX). The mega property development project is expected to have a gross development value of RM26 billion.
Datuk Seri Najib said that "what has began as an idea for KLIFD has evolved into something larger and more inclusive". However, nothing in his speech indicated how the mega-project has become anything more inclusive. Instead, he hinted at how the project will become even more exclusive with more promised incentives to those intending to participate in th e project.
KLIFD's exclusivity was already established when the Prime Minister who also holds the portfolio of the Finance Minister introduced a 10-year 100% tax exemption for qualified companies located within the KLIFD as well as a slew of other benefits such as stamp duty exemption on loan and service agreements, industrial building allowance and acelerated capital allowance for companies in his Budget speech last year.
In fact, property developers within KLIFD gets exceptional treatment with 70% income tax exemption for 5 years.
Such incentives, especially that for property developers are unheard of and it only goes to show how the KLIFD project is difficult to get off the ground because of a less than viable concept. And it appears that such lucrative incentives are insufficient as Datuk Seri Najib promised further incentives through "a comprehensive review of business regulations in support of TRX".
We fear that the KLIFD will suffer a similar fate as previous mega-property based "themed development" projects launched by the BN government. The entire KLIFD concept is founded on the assumption that financial institutions and related professional services needs to be sited a stone's throw away from one another.
However, such an assumption is completely flawed as telecommunications technology, video-conferencing facilities as well as secure and instantaneous electronic transactions obliterates the need for physical proximity. There is little or no added synergy for example, for the Maybank headquarters to be shifted to the KLIFD compared to its current venue, with the exception of potential tax benefits.
Hence, instead of actually promoting the financial services industry in the country directly, the Government, having already provided the prime land to 1MDB without any open bidding, is further providing unfair crutches for the latter to succeed in the KLIFD real estate play. Such incentives however, given the experience with the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), Bio-Valley and E-Village however, may not be sufficient to ensure its success.
The Government has described the role of KLIFD is to turn Kuala Lumpur into a "new icon for the financial world", "the global financial city of choice" and "bring together world-class names to operate closely in a physical location." Similarly, the Bio-Valley, E-Village and MSC were all sold to Malaysians as transformative projects in their respective sectors and launched with much fanfare.
The Government must learn from its failures of the past. The decision of global financial institutions to site their offices in Malaysia will not be based on short term benefits as a result of the choice of real estate. It will instead be based on the demand for its services and funds, the sophistication of the market instruments and the openness of the economy.
Labels: Economy, Governance
SEDA Financial Rules Breached?
* Note: Please refer to clarification statement below (13/11/13)
Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) spent tens of thousands of ringgit to publish a response to our queries over the suspicious awards of Feed-in Approval Holders for solar energy and yet failed to answer the key questions posed.
In a statement issued last Friday and advertorials taken in most mainstream newspapers on Sunday, the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) said it "regrets the accusations and allegations by Nurul Izzah Anwar and Tony Pua and is of the view that such allegations are clearly unwarranted and unjustified."
However, in defending its award of 32.4% of the solar energy quota to 12 companies owned by Suzi Suliana binti Mohd Sidek and her business partners, SEDA has raised further questions, including clear-cut non-compliance with its own application criteria and license requirements. [* this figure is erroneous, it should be 23.6%]
1. Failure to meet pre- and post-application financial requirements
SEDA argued that "companies that apply have no way of knowing whether they would succeed, so it would be unfair to expect them to make huge investments beforehand… Most of the companies that participate in the [Feed-in Tariff] programme formed a special purpose vehicle and some with RM2 paid-up capital because there is no guarantee they will get the quota."
The above statement comes as a complete shock as the application form which I have forwarded to all the press last week, very specifically states that the companies must have secured financing for the project. In fact, the form states that the Applicant's bank account statement must show "a credit balance of at least 20% of the total capital cost of the renewable energy installation".
Given that every megawatt of solar energy requires at least RM8 million in investment, Suzi Suliana's companies secured 45.9MW of Feed-In Approvals (FiA) which will require investments of RM367 million. A 20% "credit balance" would require Suzi's companies to show at least RM73 million in the company accounts. We challenge SEDA to state that Suzi's companies have fulfilled the RM73 million cash balance requirements for the application by the 12 successful companies.
It was the further clarified by SEDA that "the successful applicant must have a minimum RM200,000 in paid-up capital or two percent of the project cost, whichever higher". Otherwise SEDA said the failure to meet any requirement or milestone would result in a revocation of the FiA.
This is where SEDA's explanations shot itself in the foot and raised more questions than answers. If the applicant must have a minimum of RM200,000 paid up capital after successfully receiving the FiA, why is it that the latest information from the Companies Commission (SSM) showed that at least 9 of the 12 successful companies had paid up capital of only RM100 more than 6 months after they were awarded?
2. Failure to ensure no monopolisation of FiA
SEDA had insisted that the deals were made in a "fair and transparent" manner as the company owned by Suzi and her husband was not the only one that had won more than one of the feed-in tariff (FiT) solar-power contracts.
The above represents a clear admission by SEDA in failing to protect "the need for fair competition and transparency in the implementation of the feed-in tariff system" as specified in the Renewable Energy Act.
The fact that other companies got away with multiple licenses does not in any way absolve SEDA of its award of 32.4% of the solar energy quota to 12 companies owned by Suzi Suliana and her business partners. [* this figure is erroneous, it should be 23.6%]
SEDA has obviously failed to avoid the "monopolisation of the Renewable Energy (RE) quota" as required by the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water. The reason why a cap of 5MW was set for each company was to ensure as many companies as possible have the opportunity to participate in the above programme.
However, by allowing Suzi Suliana and her business partners to circumvent the rules by setting up more than a dozen shelf-companies to secure the FiA, SEDA has either proven itself negligent and incompetent, or worse acted in collusion with the applicants to monopolise the quota. This is despite its promise that "no preferential treatment will be given to any FiT application. All FiT applications will be treated fairly and equally through a transparent application process".
The award has caused a lot of disquiet and unhappiness in the renewable energy industry with many player claiming foul play and favouritism the in award of the quota. Many who are keen on the FiA were not able to secure any license.
Based on the above clarifications by SEDA, it is now imperative that the award for the FiAH must be rescinded, and the solar energy quota redistributed to companies who truly qualified based on the financial commitment and technical criteria laid down both by the Renewable Energy Act 2011 as well as the existing SEDA guidelines.
We call upon Datuk Peter Chin to reprimand Tan Sri Fong Chan Onn, who is the Chairman of SEDA and his board of directors for failing to adhere to the high standards set out in the Act as well as comply with the Authority's very own guidelines.
I wish to clarify that:
In making and/or publishing the above, my statements therein were directed towards the implementation of Feed-in Tariff system implemented and administered by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority ("SEDA");
My intention in making those statements was to question SEDA on issues relating to the Feed-in Tariff application and approval process.
While I had in my statements directed questions and comments against Suzi Suliana binti Mohd Sidek and her husband Todd Michael Morath ("Sun Energy Shareholders") which may suggest that companies associated with them had obtained Feed-in Tariff approvals from SEDA by virtue of their relationship with Suzi Suliana binti Mohd Sidek's father, Tan Sri Mohd Sidek bin Hassan ("Tan Sri Sidek") and/or some form of undue or preference treatment, I now confirm as follows:
Contrary to what may have been suggested, I do not know of any evidence that suggests any foul play involving and/or any undue or preferential treatment to, and/or favouritism to the Sun Energy Shareholders and/or companies associated with the Sun Energy Shareholders by SEDA in the award of any Feed-in Tariff approvals whether by virtue of their relationship with Tan Sri Mohd Sidek bin Hassan or otherwise.
I also accept that I was mistaken and wrong in reporting that the Sun Energy Shareholders and business partners were awarded 32.4% of Feed-in Approvals of the total quota allocated to companies producing between 1MW to 5MW. In particular I recognize that:
(i) the persons mentioned by me as business partners of the Sun Energy Shareholders, namely Lim Boon Huay and Yap Kian Mun were merely incorporators of shelf companies and do not have any association or businesses with the Sun Energy Shareholders;
(ii) the Sun Energy Shareholders have no connection whatsoever with Semangat Sarjana Sdn Bhd, Kenari Pasifik Sdn Bhd Tiara Insight Sdn Bhd, Ambang Fiesta Sdn Bhd, Gaya Dunia Sdn Bhd and Rentak Raya Sdn Bhd; and
(iii) I did not state that the Sun Energy Shareholders' ultimate and only business partner in respect of the Feed-in Approvals obtained was SunEdison, a global player in solar energy, which has significant experience and track record in solar power generation.
I did not contact the Sun Energy Shareholders, Tan Sri Mohd Sidek bin Hassan or Lim Boon Huay and Yap Kian Mun to verify or confirm my statements prior to or after making them.
I wish to repeat and re-emphasise that my statements were at all material times directed against SEDA on issues relating to the Feed-in Tariff application and approval process which I believe were made in the public interest in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, and clarify that I did not mean to disparage the character of or allege any wrong-doing by Suzi Suliana binti Mohd Sidek, Todd Michael Morath and/or Tan Sri Mohd Sidek bin Hassan.
For avoidance of doubt, I retract all insinuations of undue or preferential treatment, foul play and/or favouritism against Suzi Suliana binti Mohd Sidek, Todd Michael Morath and/or Tan Sri Mohd Sidek bin Hassan that may have been suggested in my statements.
In recognition of the above, I shall:
(i) qualify all my statements as published on the internet with reference to my clarifications herein which shall be appended as a note to the same; and
(ii) remove all comments made by visitors to my blog that concern Suzi Suliana binti Mohd Sidek, Todd Michael Morath and/or Tan Sri Mohd Sidek bin Hassan in relation to my statements.
at 10:37 am Links to this post
Labels: Energy, Governance
Crime Statistics Critical To Improving Perception
The first step to improving the public perception on crime and the public confidence in the Government and the police force is to ensure complete transparency in crime statistics
Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said today the public's "perception" of security is more important than the actual crime rate as he attempted to calm growing public scepticism about the government's persistent claims that incidents of crime had fallen.
"For me, what is most important is not so much even the index; the perception, the feeling of the public is all important," said the home minister in a press conference.
We would like to highlight to the Minister that any change in perception will not come from "feel good statistics" but from (i) being entirely transparent with crime statistics and (2) ensuring real tangible changes on the ground.
Despite repeated requests in and out of Parliament, the Ministry of Home Affairs has to date refused to divulge detailed statistics on crime broken down by types according to various districts across the country. What is worse is whatever statistics released by the Government has not only been criticized by the civil society as being "unreal", they've even been discredited by none other than the immediate past Inspector General Police (IGP), Tan Sri Musa Hassan.
The rebuttal by the current IGP Tan Sri Ismail Omar that Tan Sri Musa's criticisms are his personal opinion holds no water because there is no person more qualified to evaluate if the police statistics are honest or manipulated.
The fear of crime is real and if the police cannot ensure the safety of the public, the public should at least be allowed to take the necessary precautions by knowing which areas are hotspots, and what type of crimes commonly occur.
The Royal Malaysian Police must emulate the professionalism of the United Kingdom Police Force by putting up extremely detailed statistics on crime right down to every street and the type of crime instantly accessible via http://www.Police.uk website.
A simple search on said website shows you the statistics on crime that has occurred in a particular month. It also allows you to search right down to a particular street, with a breakdown of the types of crime. Pins on maps are colour-coded to make it easier for the person to scrutinise what type of crime took place, and where. A person can track changes in the crime statistics by just selecting the months for comparison purposes.
The breakdown of crime statistics even include types of crime like "anti-social behavior", "drugs", "criminal damage and arson" as well as "other crime" like fraud and forgery, which are explicitly excluded from our crime index.
What is even more impressive is the fact that the public can immediately review the performance of the police force in that specific area by reviewing the "outcomes". The "outcomes" tab will immediately tell a person the status of all actions taken or being taken by the police at this point of time. For example, in NW10 Greater London for the month of May 2012, 440 cases are under investigation, 96 suspects have been charged, 47 offenders given caution, 12 defendants found not guilty, 16 offenders sent to prison and so on.
The way to increase the confidence of the public in the Government's ability to fight crime is not to conceal statistics and releasing only feel good information. Such opaque behavior immediately gives rise to distrust of the Government especially when their experiences of crime have been anything other than safe.
The way to do it is for the Government to come clean to ensure that Malaysians in every street and every city knows exactly the state of crime in their neighbourhood. While an excellent system such as that on Police.uk may take some time to be developed and made available to Malaysians, we call upon the Royal Malaysian police to immediately publish all detailed crime statistics on a monthly basis, categorized by types of crime, by month and by districts and make them available for download on any of the Government's websites.
Labels: Crime
Speech @ "Tony Pua vs SYABAS" Dinner
Labels: Economy, Fund Raising, Governance, Privatisation, Selangor, Toll Concession
SYABAS: A Threat to National Security
Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (SYABAS) has become a threat to our national security by threatening 7 million consumers in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya with water rationing where there is no shortage of water.
When SYABAS insisted on low water levels, visits by the Selangor State Executive Committee members Ronnie Liu and Xavier Jeyakumar to the various damns across the state yesterday proved that the dams are full and there is no shortage of raw water.
Now SYABAS has officially admitted yesterday that there is no shortage of raw water, but instead shifted the goal post to claim that there is now shortage of treated water.
This is essentially an admission that the SYABAS treatment plants are either operating inefficiently or there are not enough treatment plant capacity at existing water reservoirs.
SYABAS has to date been lobbying hard for the new "mega" Langat 2 treatment plant to be built, which will only be ready by 2014 at the earliest, but even then, the plant is meant to treat water sourced expensively from Pahang instead of the existing available raw water supply.
It is hence clear that the costly Langat 2 plant is not necessary. Instead, what is needed is a thorough review of the existing water treatment plants operated by the concessionaires – Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd, Syarikat Pengeluaran Air Sungai Selangor Holdings (SPLASH) and Konsortium ABASS.
If required, Selangor Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has already promised build additional capacities at the existing treatment plants, and these measures will take less than a year to complete compared to the Langat 2 project.
The Menteri Besar has also highlighted the fact that Syabas has failed to reduce non-revenue water below the contractual threshold of 20 percent; owes nearly RM3 billion to its water treatment facility operators; and has failed to invest in facilities and infrastructure to fulfill its responsibility of supplying adequate water to the state.
The entire "water-rationing" threat is a ruse to frighten the people of Selangor into forcing the approval of the Langat 2 project which has nothing to do at all with the alleged low levels of treated water.
It is a fear-mongering tactic used by SYABAS which is 70% owned by Puncak Niaga, firstly to help Barisan Nasional win Selangor in the next general election in order to perpetuate their control over water rights in the state.
Secondly, it is an excuse to try and force the state government to agree to the RM3.94 billion Langat 2 project to source raw water from Pahang which is much more expensive than the existing raw water as well as other available means. The Selangor government has refused permission for the Langat 2 project as it is not only unnecessary as shown by the overflowing dams in the state, it will raise the cost of water supply to the people of Selangor and hence add to the burden shouldered by the Rakyat.
The privatization of SYABAS has resulted in the interest of the people of Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya being severely compromised. SYABAS can now act with impunity to threaten the security of the nation by holding the people and the state government to ransom. Such threats to our national security must be dealt with utmost urgency and without compromise. We call upon the Federal Government and Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara (SPAN) to immediately censure SYABAS for unilaterally threatening water rationing without prior consultation and review with the Selangor state government and other relevant authorities.
We also call upon the Federal Government to use the powers vested in the Minister of Energy, Green Technology & Water to complete the restructuring exercise of the water industry in Selangor in accordance to the spirit of the Water Services Industry Act (2006), which is to place water services under the control of the state government, to ensure that the rights of the people to quality and affordable water are fully protected. The BN government must stop pandering to its cronies and put the rakyat's interest first.
Labels: Economy, Privatisation, Selangor, Toll Concession
PNSB - Spectacular Turnaround Under Pakatan Rakyat
Contrary to the frivolous allegations by Datuk Chua Tee Yong, the financial performance of Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (PNSB) has improved by leaps and bounds under the Pakatan Rakyat leadership
Last week Datuk Chua Tee Yong has continued his crusade against the Selangor state government over the Talam "scandal" by alleging that the Selangor state wholly-owned subsidiary Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (PNSB) was forced to take a supersized RM230 million loan to acquire land from Menteri Besar (Incorporated) as part of the Talam debt settlement agreement.
The question we are asking Datuk Chua and his merry men is what exactly is wrong with taking a RM230 million to acquire RM450 million worth of land assets, as audited, valued and recognized in the PNSB 2010 financial accounts? Where is the impropriety in that?
As highlighted in my press conference last week, and in case Datuk Chua isn't aware, PNSB is a property development company. It has to acquire land to develop and construct, in order to sell and make a return for the company. It is no different from any property development company, privately held or publicly listed or government owned. Hence the acquisition of land for future potential development is the normal course of business for a property development company! Where exactly is the "scandal" in the above transaction?
However, by thrusting PNSB into the limelight, it gave me an opportunity to review the financial performance of PNSB in detail. To my pleasant surprise, the performance of PNSB has improved by leaps and bounds under the new Pakatan Rakyat leadership, beyond even my cautiously optimistic expectations.
A quick look at the profit and loss statements of PNSB showed that it made losses for 4 consecutive years since 2005 including the transition year of 2008.
However, as the above chart illustrates, that PNSB has been increasing its after tax profits (税后利润) 3 consecutive years in a row from RM8 million to RM23.4 million to RM28.4 million in 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively. This also means 2 consecutive years of record profits for PNSB in 2010 and 2011.
How is it that a Chartered Accountant (特许会计师) with qualifications from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) (墨尔本皇家理工大学) can accuse PNSB of being forced to be indebted, when its financial turnaround (财政周转) from the days of Barisan Nasional has been nothing short of spectacular?
Datuk Chua accused PNSB of depleting its cash reserves (现金储备) which stood at RM76.0 million in 2008 and RM77.6 million in 2009. However, the accounts of PNSB clearly showed a massive increase in cash reserves to RM167.0 million as at December 2011.
Datuk Chua accused the State Government of causing PNSB to increase its debts by RM230 million to acquire properties in Bukit Beruntung and Bestari Jaya. However, Datuk Chua must certainly be impressed with the fact that the total assets (总资产) of PNSB has increased by leaps and bounds from RM111.4 million in 2008 to RM761.0 million and RM823.8 million in 2010 and 2011 respectively.
In addition, and probably more tellingly, the Net Tangible Assets (有形资产净值) of PNSB has improved by 17.7% from RM11.55 per share in 2009 to RM13.59 per share in 2011.
I have never been trained in accounts whether in school or in university and I don't claim to be a qualified accountant or accounting analyst. So, despite the initial rejection by Datuk Chua Tee Yong, I hope that he will reconsider the offer to debate the Talam debt "scandal" which he has raised, perhaps at least to teach me how to do proper accounting.
He should also take up the debate mantle to erase the damage to his reputation as a double-counting accountant and justify once and for all that Selangor under Pakatan Rakyat has committed a RM1 billion bailout of Talam Corporation, instead of him committing a billion ringgit blunder.
If Datuk Chua prefers a neutral venue instead of holding the debate at Wisma MCA, we can do it at The Star auditorium so that his allegations can be given maximum reach and coverage.
It would be a shame for him to turn down his very first invite to a public debate, unlike the MCA President Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek who had courageously faced DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng in live debates not once, but twice.
Once again, I very much look forward to Datuk Chua's favourable reply.
Labels: Goverment Link Corporations, Governance, Pakatan Rakyat, Selangor
Fong Chan Onn: Clueless or Not Truthful?
Together with Nurul Izzah Anwar, MP for Lembah Pantai, we have exposed in our press conference last Tuesday that 45.9MW or 32.4% of the allocation to supply solar power has gone to 12 companies owned by Suzi Suliana bt Mohd Sidek and her husband, Todd Michael Morath, as well as 2 business partners. Their ownership is hidden via a complex layer of holding companies and joint ventures. Suzi Suliana happens to be the daughter of Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, the recently retired Chief Secretary to the Government, and newly appointed chairman of Petronas Bhd. [this figure is erroneous, it should be 23.6%] Their combined allocation is much larger than established companies of Cypark and Petronas Power which received 9.2% and 7.1% of the allocation respectively.
SEDA Chairman Tan Sri Dr Fong Chan Onn had insisted that "the selection was above board as it was done through an online system". More specifically, Tan Sri Dr Fong explained that "the companies had met all the necessary technical criteria as well as financial commitments".
However, I had further highlighted the fact that at least 8 out of 12 companies successful companies were set up on 11 November 2011, exactly 3 weeks before the 2nd December 2011 application deadline. The rest of the companies were all set up less than 6 months before the deadline.
What is worse is the fact that 9 of the above companies had paid up capital of only RM100 each! Hence the obvious question to ask SEDA and its honourable chairman is, how is it that brand new companies with only RM100 paid up capital had met "all the necessary technical criteria as well as financial commitments"?
Instead of disclosing how these technical criteria and financial commitments were met, Tan Sri Dr Fong Chan Onn had threatened to sue me for defamation.
He further added, "the lawyers are looking into it. I mean if you have a company, you registered yesterday and apply today, I can't reject (your application) right?"
Based on the above reply, I am only more certain than ever that he is either completely clueless or is not telling the truth to the public.
The 18-page Feed-in Approval Application Form (Solar PV >72kWp) specifically requires a "site use agreement" for the proposed site to farm the solar energy (Page 2).
In addition, the application requires very specific financing compliance, that is either in the form of "conditional letter(s) of approval from the entity(ies) who will be providing financing to the Applicant for the project" or a "bank account statement showing a credit balance of at least the total capital cost of the renewable energy installation". In addition, even if the project is to be financed, "the Applicant's bank account statement showing a credit balance of at least 20% of the total capital cost of the renewable energy installation."
Can a company which is freshly set up only 3 weeks before the application deadline meet the above fairly onerous requirements? What's more for a company which is only set up a day before the deadline as clarified by Tan Sri Dr Fong.
What is worse is the fact that we are not talking about 1 company securing a small allocation of say, 1MW. What we are seeing here is the fact that the Feed-in Approval Holders have been awarded to 12 different newly set up companies with no track record and no employees, belonging to the same set of shareholders, taking up 32.4% of the solar energy quota.[this figure is erroneous, it should be 23.6%] Of course, it is a mere coincidence that the key shareholder happens to be the daughter of our recently retired Chief Secretary to the Government and newly appointed Petronas Chairman, Tan Sri Sidek Hassan.
Regardless of whether Tan Sri Dr Fong Chan Onn or SEDA decides to proceed with the legal suit against me, they both owe an honest explanation to Malaysians as to how these companies were "successful" with their applications, while many other qualified companies were not even able to secure a single license.
13 November 2013:
Labels: Goverment Link Corporations, Governance
Talam Debt Recovery: A Testament of Pakatan Good Governance
The Selangor administration led by Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has proven that its integrity, accountability and good governance in managing the state's finances and serves as a preview of how Pakatan Rakyat will run Putrajaya
The recent "egg-in-the-face" expose by Datuk Chua Tee Yong over an alleged RM1 billion land scandal in Selangor has instead allowed the state administration to showcase our integrity and accountability in managing the rakyat's money, in stark contrast to the Barisan Nasional (BN) government.
The facts which has surfaced over the past few days since Datuk Chua's sensational expose that was given front page treatment by BN-owned mass media has proven that Datuk Chua not only could not tell the difference between debit and credit columns of a balance sheet, he had the uncanny subtraction ability of "two minus one equals three" (2 – 1 = 3).
The records show that Talam Corporation Berhad was allowed to incur debts of RM392 million to the Selangor government during the BN administration before 2008. These debts were never properly documented or recorded in the books of the state government companies – Universiti Industri Selangor (UNISEL), Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor and Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (PNSB). What is worse was the fact that there was no effort made by the BN administration to collect these debts.
However, the new Pakatan Rakyat state led by Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has demonstrated that with political will, no company will be able to escape from paying its debts to the Government. Within a year after discovering the discrepancy in the state-owned companies' financial records, Tan Sri Khalid has via the Menteri Besar (Incorporated) (MBI) recouped every sen of the RM392 million debt from Talam Corporation in the form of cash and properties.
The most remarkable thing about the entire exercise was the fact that the Selangor government did not have to suffer any haircuts in the debt recovery exercise despite the fact that Talam itself was just recovering from severe financial difficulties. On the contrary, the state government was able to RM676 million of property assets which was valued by an independent valuer to be worth more at RM685 million.
On the whole, despite having spent hundreds of millions of ringgit more in terms of welfare subsidies and grants for the people of Selangor, such as the RM130 million 20m3 free water subsidy for every household each year, the Mesra Usia Emas Programme for the elderly and the RM300 million infrastructure grant from MBI, the state financial reserves have increased from only RM733 million in 2008 when Pakatan Rakyat took over, to a whopping RM1.9 billion as at May 2012.
This stands in stark contrast with the BN federal government which continues to fund itself with debt and deficit. Instead of collecting in full the court-ordered judgement of RM589.15 million from Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli, the BN administration has chosen to write off the debt in its entirety, causing massive losses to the rakyat of Malaysia.
What rubs salt to wound is the fact that these debts were incurred as a result of the privatization of Malaysia Airlines System (MAS) to Tan Sri Tajudin and his subsequent bailout which cost tax-payers more than RM3.2 billion. MAS had then ratcheted up more than RM8 billion in debt before it was handed back to the Government in 2001.
As a result of such massive bailouts as well as write off of debts owed by crony companies, the Federal Government debt has increased by leaps and bounds from RM242 billion in 2007 to RM363 billion in 2009 and RM456 billion in 2011. This represents an 88.4% increase in Federal Government debt in just 4 years! The above has yet to take into account the unseen debts guaranteed by the Federal Government which stands at RM117 billion as at December 2011.
The above examples offers incontrovertible testimony that Pakatan Rakyat will be much better managers of the country's finances compared to BN. We will ensure that all debts are collected and are utilized to the benefit of the rakyat. We will stop bailouts of political cronies and ensure that brakes are applied to the runaway debt train.
There is no question that by ruling the country with the principles of competency, accountability and transparency, as showcased in the examples above, Pakatan Rakyat is the proven coalition to allow Malaysians to achieve their full unrealized potentials.
Labels: Governance, Malaysia Chinese Association, Pakatan Rakyat, Selangor
"Tony Pua vs SYABAS" Fund-Raiser: Mission Accomplished!
The DAP would like to make an official announcement to declare that we have collected sufficient funds from our "RM1 for Water Rights: 100,000 Malaysians Support Tony Pua vs Syabas" Campaign! The campaign is an overwhelming success, and we will end the online fund-raiser today.
As at 4pm 13/7/12 (Fri), the online donation campaign has raised RM143,256, a remarkable achievement of small contributions from tens of thousands of Malaysians in less than a week.
The KL High Court has ordered Tony Pua to pay RM200,000 in damages plus interest plus costs. SYABAS is claiming RM80,000 for costs, but this is amount being negotiated.
The Party will be able to raise the balance of the required funds from our sell-out fund-raising dinner on 17/7/12 (Tue) Dewan Sivik MBPJ. The dinner has sold more than 100 tables.
Any excess funds from the collection will go into the DAP General Election Fund.
We would like to thank all Malaysians for the generous support and this only proves that is we act together, we can change the nation!
Background of this issue:
Selangor state government launched a campaign in 2009 to buy-back the privatized water concessionaires in order to provide quality water at affordable prices.
Tony Pua campaigned hard for the above and was sued for defamation by SYABAS. The High Court awarded RM200k in damages to SYABAS.
Hence we are calling for 100,000 Malaysians to contribute as little as RM1 each to support Tony Pua in his effort to battle with SYABAS and to continue to speak up for the Rakyat in this issue.
Tony has appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal but he has been asked to pay the damages to SYABAS first. If the appeal is successful, the money collected in this campaign will be channeled to DAP General Election preparation fund.
Labels: Fund Raising, Governance, Privatisation, Toll Concession
What's PNSB's Debt Got To Do With Talam?
If there's something to take home positively from the series of "exposés" from Datuk Chua Tee Yong and his band of Selangor MCA cheerleaders, it is that he will doggedly persist with making increasingly ludicrous allegations against the Pakatan Rakyat state government, even if it is at the expense of exposing himself as a half-baked accountant.
To date, he has not even responded to the billion ringgit mega-blunder he has made, or other alleged scandals over the land asset recovery by the Selangor state which were exposed as unscandalous. He now alleges that the Selangor state subsidiary Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (PNSB) was forced to take a supersized RM230 million loan to acquire land from Menteri Besar (Incorporated) as part of the Talam debt settlement agreement.
Firstly, it does not at all make any sense for PNSB to take a RM230 million loan just to recover outstanding debts of RM22 million from Talam. Secondly, Datuk Chua himself admitted that he was not able to ascertain that PNSB had taken the hefty loan to purchase the plots of land in the Hulu Selangor constituency as the state firm's 2011 audited accounts are not yet available. Hence he's really just shooting in the dark!
But even if we were to assume that he is spot-on, that a RM230 million loan was indeed taken by PNSB to acquire RM450 million worth of land assets, as audited, valued and recognized in the PNSB 2010 financial accounts, where is the impropriety in that?
In case Datuk Chua isn't aware, PNSB is a property development company. It has to acquire land to develop and construct, in order to sell and make a return for the company. It is no different from any property development company, privately held or publicly listed or government owned. And if Datuk Chua isn't familiar, it's a concept called "land-banking". Hence the acquisition of land for future potential development is the normal course of business for a property development company! Where exactly is the "scandal" in the above transaction?
What's more, as a trained accountant, Datuk Chua should know that getting into debt is not in itself an adverse event for the company. Otherwise, Malaysia's largest property developers SP Setia Bhd, Sunway Bhd or IOI Corporation Bhd must be among the worst run companies because they carry debts of RM2.44 billion, RM2.42 billion and RM5.46 billion respectively in their books.
What is important is whether the liabilities that a company undertakes are sufficiently backed by its assets, and whether these assets can generate higher returns than the cost of funds. In this particular case, it is clear that the RM450 million of additional assets as pointed out by Datuk Chua himself, is worth nearly double that of the debt. So what's the problem?
Will Chua Tee Yong Accept Debate on Talam Debt?
Datuk Chua has become an embarrassment for the MCA as he stumbles from one mega-blunder to another. I call upon Datuk Chua to end his misery once and for all, with a public and open debate in any language, at a time and place of his choosing, even if it is held at Wisma MCA over the "Talam Debt Recovery: A Billion Ringgit Bailout or a Billion Ringgit Mega-Blunder".
Given Datuk Chua's unwavering confidence over the issue, and the dedicated support of The Star in highlighting all of his press conferences on the front page of the paper, I am certain that the public will be looking forward to see how the rising star of MCA demolish, once and for all, the reputation of the Pakatan Rakyat state government in Selangor.
While the MCA Presidential Council has barred its President from further debates, I am confident that there is no blanket ban against all MCA leaders from participating in debates against DAP leaders. I very much look forward to Datuk Chua's favourable reply.
Labels: Forum, Governance, Malaysia Chinese Association, Selangor
Tony Pua vs SYABAS: Latest Update 12/7/12
Labels: DAP, Fund Raising, Privatisation, Toll Concession
SEDA Fails to Explain Dubious Approval to Sidek's Daughter's Companies
The explanation by Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) Chairman Tan Sri Fong Chan Onn that the selection process for Feed-in Approval Holders (FiAH) to supply solar energy is "above board" beyond belief and insults the intelligence of ordinary Malaysians
The Sustainable Energy Development Authority of Malaysia (SEDA Malaysia) is a statutory body formed under the Sustainable Energy Development Authority Act 2011. The key role of SEDA is to administer and manage the implementation of the feed-in tariff (FiT) mechanism which is mandated under the Renewable Energy Act 2011.
Under this mechanism, individuals and companies with factories and open land as well as companies in the renewable energy sector could apply to SEDA to become a Feed-in Approval Holder which then gives them the right to sell power generated from renewable energy sources to Tenaga Nasional Berhad.
In our press conference held on Tuesday, we have pointed out that 45.9MW or 32.4% of the allocation to supply solar power has gone to 12 companies owned by Suzi Suliana bt Mohd Sidek and her husband, Todd Michael Morath, as well as 2 business partners. [* this figure is erroneous, it should be 23.6%] Their ownership is hidden via a complex layer of holding companies and joint ventures. Their combined allocation is much larger than established companies of Cypark and Petronas Power which received 9.2% and 7.1% of the allocation respectively.
Suzi Suliana happens to be the daughter of Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, the recently retired Chief Secretary to the Government, and newly appointed chairman of Petronas Bhd.
The Star reported that SEDA Chairman Tan Sri Dr Fong Chan Onn had claimed that "the selection was above board as it was done through an online system". More specifically, Tan Sri Dr Fong explained that "the companies had met all the necessary technical criteria as well as financial commitments".
If the above is indeed the case, then SEDA under Tan Sri Dr Fong's chairmanship must be extremely incompetent because all of the companies which were awarded the combined total of 45.9MW of solar generated electricity were set up only a few weeks before the 2 December 2011 application deadline. In fact, at least 8 out of the 12 of companies which was successful was set up only on 11 November 2011.
A random check on two companies – Synergy Must Sdn Bhd and Trinity Creations Sdn Bhd – showed that they had only RM100 in paid-up capital each.
How is it that these companies with no capital, no track record and in all likelihood no employees as at the point of time of application, met "all the necessary technical criteria as well as financial commitments"? Hence the only conclusion we can arrive at given Tan Sri Dr Fong's reply, is that he is either completely blind, or is lying through his teeth.
What is scandalous is the fact that the quota for solar energy supply is much sought after by industry players due the more lucrative feed-in tariffs offered by the Government. In fact the demand far outstripped the available quota to the extent that the quota was fully taken up within 2 hours of the application being open.
The Renewable Energy Act 2011 had sought to protect "the need for fair competition and transparency in the implementation of the feed-in tariff system" while the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water wants to "avoid any monopolisation of the Renewable Energy (RE) quota".
And yet what we see is the complete opposite where companies set up by a kin of a top Government official being given the opportunity to secure the largest chunk of the lucrative solar energy supply quota.
We call upon SEDA to re-open the bidding process for the solar energy quota to ensure that all players are given fair treatment, while those who can't possibly meet "all the necessary technical criteria as well as financial commitments" are knocked out from the qualification process
I wish to clarify that: In making and/or publishing the above, my statements therein were directed towards the implementation of Feed-in Tariff system implemented and administered by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority ("SEDA");
Chua Tee Yong Needs To Do Better Homework
The latest RM57 million "overpayment" alleged by Datuk Chua Tee Yong proves not only the fact that he doesn't do his homework, he also cannot read and count
#1. Datuk Chua can't read and count
MCA today accused the Selangor government of "overpaying" RM57.3 million to Talam Corporation Bhd for 53.74 hectares of land in Danau Putra, Selangor.
Datuk Chua had claimed that the land was over-valued, because it was 80 percent submerged under water. He asked "Why is the PR Selangor government buying land which is 80 per cent submerged underwater and requires more than RM50 million to fill up before they can commence development?"
Referring to the exact same document which Datuk Chua was using to demonstrate his knowledge during the press conference, the land valuation report by Chartwell ITAC International indeed highlighted the fact that "the cost of filling is estimated of about RM51,500,000".
However, Datuk Chua seems to have failed to read in the same paragraph of the report (page 77 of the Talam Shareholders' Circular dated 15 March 2012) that Chartwell has already "made further adjustment to our valuation by excluding the estimated cost of earth filling of the area under water".
After deducting the above, Chartwell arrived at a professional valuation of RM93.5 million for the land which is even higher than the valuation of RM87.7 million given by state government. Hence Datuk Chua's accusation that the state has failed to take into account of the submerged land and overpaid as a result, is another simple case of double-counting. Datuk was basically trying to deduct the cost of filling the land again, even after it has been taken into consideration by the professional valuer.
#2. Datuk Chua failed to do his homework again
Datuk Chua had asked "How come [one of the four parels of] land was auctioned off? And why was the aforesaid plot priced at 2.86 times the auction amount and, assuming the price was RM5.20psf, why did the Selangor government overpay by RM57 million?"
He further added that due to some legal complications, the land was auctioned off on Sept 7 that year. However, Chua admitted that he did not know state the nature of the legal action that led to the property being auctioned.
Datuk Chua has failed to secure information with regards to the legal "complication" above which might have protected him against making another wild unsubstantiated allegation against the Selangor state government.
A look at the publicly available January 2012 Talam Corporation Bhd Annual Report will immediately disclose the history of the legal complication. Bangkok Bank Bhd (BBB) had erroneously auctioned the above said property on 7 September 2010 despite being aware that the land is part and parcel of properties being disposed to Menteri Besar (Incorporated) (MBI) under a settlement agreement entered into on 12 March 2010.
Talam has taken legal action against the bank to recover the losses from the land, where the bank auction purchaser bought for RM15 million, well below the transacted value with MBI of RM48.7 million.
However, what proves to be a stroke of business savvy and negotiating genius of the Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim-led MBI was the fact that regardless of the outcome of the legal dispute, the interest of the state in collecting the outstanding debt is not at all compromised. Talam has disclosed in the Annual Report that "the disposal of this property will not have any significant impact on the MBI settlement agreement". The Company stated that "if necessary, the Company will identify a piece of land to replace the abovementioned to MBI".
(Page 124 in the Notes to Financial Statement of the 2012 Annual Report)
This proves that the State Government will not lose a single sen over the above transaction unlike what was alleged by Datuk Chua Tee Yong. It would perhaps have been more productive if he starts shifting his focus to how Talam was able to amass such a huge RM392 million debt with the state government, and perhaps he might be able to find some mud against BN then.
We have shown clearly with facts, figures and documents to prove that all the alleged scandals raised during Datuk Chua's press conferences were completely without basis. Datuk Chua has proven to be an incompetent leader of the MCA Young Professionals Bureau, making mistakes after mistakes during press conferences. Datuk Chua should perhaps stop the attempts to dig a deeper hole for himself while attempting to cover up his RM1 billion mega-blunder.
Labels: Governance, Malaysia Chinese Association, Scandal, Selangor
Chua Tee Yong's RM1 Billion Mega-Blunder
Datuk Chua Tee Yong has on 3rd July made headlines in all media by accusing the Selangor state government of committing a RM1 billion land scandal, bailing out financially stricken property developer Talam Corporation.
Since then we have showed clearly that there was not only no bailout, Talam was forced to repay its debts to the state government amounting to RM392 million which were all accrued during the Barisan Nasional regime.
We have also proven that Datuk Chua not only could not tell the difference between debit and credit columns of a balance sheet, he had the uncanny subtraction ability of "two minus one equals three" (2 – 1 = 3) which resulted in the impossible figure of RM1 billion mega-blunder.
However, since then, Datuk Chua has failed to respond or clarify on his mega-billion ringgit blunder. He only said during his press conference on 5th July 2012 that he'll reply "once he has gathered further information".
"I will give you (the answer) when I receive further information, as I am receiving some on that," he said.
As of today at 11 July 2012, Datuk Chua has still not responded to or corrected his mega-blunder and this only proves that there was never a RM1 billion scandal and the Selangor state government never bailed out Talam as accused by Datuk Chua and MCA.
Never before in the history of Malaysia has a Deputy Minister "exposed" a RM1 billion "scandal" which subsequently become a RM1 billion mega-blunder, and Datuk Chua Tee Yong will suffer the ignominy of becoming the very first in the country.
Labels: DAP, Fund Raising, Governance, Privatisation, Toll Concession
Tan Sri Sidek Hassan's Daughter Won Lion's Share of Solar Energy Quota
The Sustainable Energy Development Authority of Malaysia (SEDA Malaysia) is a statutory body formed under the Sustainable Energy Development Authority Act 2011. The key role of SEDA is to administer and manage the implementation of the feed-in tariff (FiT) mechanism which is mandated under the Renewable Energy Act 2011. The authority comes under the purview of the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water.
The FiT is to encourage and develop the use of renewable energy in the country and is funded by the public via the consumer through a 1% increase in electricity rates for those consuming more than 300kWh. Under this mechanism, individuals and companies with factories and open land as well as companies in the renewable energy sector could apply to SEDA to become a Feed-in Approval Holder which then gives them the right to sell power generated from renewable energy sources to Tenaga Nasional Berhad.
For solar power generated with photovoltaic, approximately 80% of the quota set is awarded to companies to each produce 1MW up to 5MW of electricity per 6 months. The rest are awarded to individuals and small companies producing less than 500kW. The limit to each company is set to protect "the need for fair competition and transparency in the implementation of the feed-in tariff system" as stated in the Act.
The Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water further adds that "in order to avoid any monopolisation of the Renewable Energy (RE) quota, SEDA Malaysia's online system will track the RE installation/plant's milestones via the submitted work plan".
It also states that "no preferential treatment will be given to any FiT application. All FiT applications will be treated fairly and equally through a transparent application process".
On the surface, no one particular company secured more than 10% of the quota allocation. Out of 32 companies awarded, the biggest recipients are Cypark Resources Bhd (9.2%) and Petronas Power Sdn Bhd (7.1%), and they are established players in the power industry.
However, upon closer scrutiny, 32.4% of the allocation has gone to 12 companies owned by Suzi Suliana bt Mohd Sidek and her husband, Todd Michael Morath, as well as 2 fellow shareholders*. Their ownership is hidden via a complex layer of holding companies and joint ventures.
Suzi Suliana who is also the daughter of Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, the recently retired Chief Secretary to the Government, and newly appointed chairman of Petronas Bhd.
Suzi Suliana (99.999%) and Todd Morath (0.001%) together owns 100% of Sun Energy Ventures Sdn Bhd, which then owns 98% of 3 companies – Hundred Tech Sdn Bhd, Indo Eagle Sdn Bhd and Sharp Crest Sdn Bhd, which holds 51% stakes in 9 companies which secured 32.6MW of the total quota allocated to companies given allocation between 1MW to 5MW.
According to SSM records, Suzi Suliana's fellow shareholders of Diversified Harvest, Corporate Season and Silverstar Pavillion, Lim Boon Huay and Yap Kian Mun* then separately owns 100% of Semangat Sarjana Sdn Bhd, Kenari Pasik Sdn Bhd and Tiara Insight Sdn Bhd, which then owns 99.999% of 3 companies – Ambang Fiesta Sdn Bhd, Gaya Dunia Sdn Bhd and Rentak Raya Sdn Bhd – which secured 13.3MW of the solar power quota.
Together they control 45.9MW or 32.4% of the total quota allocated to companies producing 1MW to 5MW, much larger than established companies of Cypark and Petronas Power.
What is more shocking is the fact that all of these companies except for Sun Ventures (May 2010) and Uptown Sdn Bhd (September 2011), all the other companies involved were set up only in November 2011, or less than 1 month before applications for the permits were supposed to have been given out on the 2nd December 2011.
This only proves that none of these companies have any track record or experience with solar power generation, but they were still given the lion's share of the lucrative solar power quota.
The award has also created a lot of disquiet and unhappiness in the renewable energy industry with many player claiming foul play and favouritism the in award of the quota. We call upon Tan Sri Fong Chan Onn, who is the Chairman of SEDA as well as Datuk Peter Chin, who is the Minister in-charge to explain the above award, which has raised doubts about the integrity and competency of the newly establish SEDA.
*Note: Lim Boon Huay and Yap Kian Mun has since sought to clarify that they are merely in the business of selling shelf company which were initially registered in their names, and are not related in anyway to the businesses set up by Suzi Suliana. As of today, their names remains as shareholders of the above named companies, and we'll update accordingly as and when the "real" shareholders of the companies - Semangat Sarjana Sdn Bhd, Kenari Pasik Sdn Bhd and Tiara Insight Sdn Bhd - surfaces.
at 10:47 pm Links to this post
Labels: Energy, Governance, Scandal
SYABAS Insists on RM200k Payment by 16 July 2012
I would like to thank all supporters who have donated RM32,140 as at 10.30am on 9/7 (Mon) so far to help me fight for affordable water in Selangor.
SYABAS has demanded that I make the payment of RM200,000 plus interest and costs by 16 July last week, even when the case is pending appeal. I had immediately requested for a short 2 weeks extension to raise the money. However, I've been informed to day that my request was rejected, so technically, I have another 6 days to raise the money.
We'll also be holding a fund-raising dinner for the cause on 17/7 (Tue), so please share the details are here: http://www.facebook.com/events/437795402921104/.
Thanks so much for the support!
Labels: Privatisation, Selangor, Toll Concession
Selangor Did Not "Overpay" for Talam Land
Datuk Chua Tee Yong had on 5th July 2012 claimed that the Selangor state government has "overpaid" for a piece of land taken over from Talam Corporation Berhad. This piece of 2,263.53 acres of leasehold land in Bestari Jaya was valued at only RM139.09 million by an independent professional valuer although the State government had valued it at RM181.08 million. Hence the accusation that Selangor has overpaid by RM41 million.
Datuk Chua's accusation is not only cheeky, it is deliberately misleading by using selective statistics. Just as there were some pieces of land which the valuer Mitra Valuers & Property Consultants Sdn Bhd had valued lower than the state valuation, there were also many other pieces of land which was valued higher than the state valuation.
For example, the state government valued a 341acres piece of Bukit Beruntung 2 freehold land at RM89.1 million, Mitra had valued the same piece of land for RM100.8 million or RM11.7 million "gained" by the state.
Similarly, another piece of land, 686.93 acres of Bukit Beruntung 2 freehold land was valued at RM179.5 million by the state, but was valued by Mitra to be much higher at RM198.9 million. That's a "gain" of RM19.4 million to the state.
Why did Datuk Chua Tee Yong not praise Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim for his astute business sense over these pieces of land?
What is important however, isn't whether each of these 13 pieces of land taken over from Talam Corporation are valued higher or lower than the independent professional valuer. What is important is that the overall value of all 13 pieces of land taken over by the state as settlement for the Talam debts are fair in value.
In this case, the state has measured the combined value of these parcels of land to be RM676.1 million. However, the very same Mitra Valuers had valued these 13 parcels of land to be worth RM685.2 million, which means that they are worth more than the value the state has attached to these properties!
In fact, despite many of these properties having been acquired in the 1990s, the book value of these properties in Talam's financial statement is an even higher figure, RM690.2 million. This means that the state government got these pieces of land at a RM14.1 million discount to Talam's book value of these assets. The above information is publicly available on Bursa Malaysia, in the Circular to Shareholders on the Debt Settlement Proposal issued on 15 March 2011.
Datuk Chua in his anxiety to discredit the Selangor state government has completely missed the woods for the trees. Or he has decided to shoot blindly, before he was able to obtain all relevant information.
As an accountant, Datuk Chua should be giving praise to the Selangor state government for not only being able to recover all its RM392 million debt with Talam, it was able to do so by taking over assets at a lower value that what they are worth as measured by an independent professional valuer, accepted by the Securities Commission!
It would perhaps be more productive for Datuk Chua to scrutinise the other land transactions which took place during the Barisan Nasional (BN) administration where state land was alienated to their cronies at prices way below market value.
Can Datuk Chua investigate or explain how the Tanjong Karang Umno Division paid a premium of only RM130,244 for a piece of 1.2ha commercial land in April 2002 despite the market valuation by the state government being fixed at RM3.3 million?
Or can Datuk Chua demand accountability and transparency from the former BN state government for alienating another piece of land to Tanjong Karang Umno Division for only RM47,039 when the 0.437ha land is worth more than a million ringgit based on the state's own valuation?
These dodgy land deals have been exposed by the DAP Sekinchan state assemblyman in the last 2 days. They proved that while the Pakatan Rakyat government seeks to maximize returns to the rakyat by securing more than what is valued, the BN government was the complete opposite by giving away enormous premium discounts to its cronies.
We have over the last 2 days responded to and refuted every single one of Datuk Chua Tee Yong and the Selangor MCA leaders allegations. None of their accusations of abuse could hold any water. Hence it is time for Datuk Chua and his cohort to be brave and courageous in facing up to their mistakes, publicly concede that they were mistaken and apologise to the Selangor state government for tainting the good name of the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government.
Did Selangor Bail Out Talam?
Datuk Chua Tee Yong is confused. He is aware that Talam owes the Selangor government RM392 million. If that is the case, then why would the Selangor government "acquire" RM676 million of assets from Talam?
He alleged that "this is a clear cut case of bailout whereby PR Selangor Government used the Rakyat money to help a listed company by buying a lot of its assets."
What the Selangor government did was to have Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI) legislated to takeover the debts Talam owed to UNISEL (RM255 million), Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Bhd (RM115 million) and Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (RM22 million). This means that MBI will do the collection for the above debts amounting to RM392 million directly from Talam.
These debts were not previously accounted for, and no efforts were made by the respective Selangor subsidiaries to collect these debts. Hence to ensure that all outstanding debts due to the state government are collected, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim himself has made it his personal mission to ensure that the Selangor rate-payers will not be shortchanged.
So how did MBI collect the debt?
After months of hard-nosed negotiations, Talam had agreed to make the full payment of RM392 million in the form of cash and assets, in 2 tranches. The first tranche was in 12 March 2010, while the second was in 9 April 2010. The settlement of Talam debt to MBI was fully disclosed in Bursa Malaysia and the related financial documents are publicly available on the above dates on Bursa's website.
In summary, Talam paid RM12.7 million in cash and settled the balance in property assets. Were we shortchanged by the assets?
Some of these assets still had outstanding balances with the bank. This means that if the state were to take over these assets, the state will need to "settle" these outstanding loans. In this case, MBI took over RM676 million of assets from Talam, which had RM266.2 million of loans outstanding and RM30.5 million of other fees to be paid. Hence the net value accruing to MBI for these properties after deducting the loans and fees, will be RM379.2 million.
By adding RM379.2 million to RM12.7 million, Talam would have settled in full its debts of RM392 million. This means that MBI had collected RM392 million worth of additional cash and assets as part of the exercise.
I would like to ask Datuk Chua who is not only a trained accountant, but a former Chief Financial Officer of a Government-linked Company, where is it in the above debt recovery exercise has the rakyat's money been abused?
Datuk Chua in his statement, accused that "… the PR Selangor Government has acquired RM676 mil of assets to bailout TALAM." Datuk Chua must enlighten me as to how taking RM676 million worth of property with net asset value of RM379.2 million bailing out Talam? We are taking assets away from Talam, not giving them more assets!
If I were Talam, I would be mighty upset because under the BN reign, I didn't need to pay back a single sen to the state government agencies, but under PR, I'm forced to give up hundreds of millions of assets in order to settle my debts.
Datuk Chua also said that "from this deal, TALAM walked away with cash over RM266 mil which is paid to Talam bankers. The exact figures I have not worked out yet." I can only assume that Datuk Chua hasn't "worked [it] out yet" because he hasn't got a clue what is going on.
In fact I'm completely stunned because surely he could have worked out that even though Talam managed to "settle" the RM266 million outstanding with their bankers for the loans they took for the properties, Talam gave up RM676 million worth of assets to MBI in return? And based on the Mathematics we learnt in school, I believe RM676 million is far larger than RM266 million.
Datuk Chua attempted to confuse the public even further with his own blunder and confusion by arguing that "instead of just recovering RM392 mil debt, PR Selangor Government bought up to additional RM284 mil worth of assets from TALAM to assist the company."
I will conclude that Datuk Chua failed to differentiate between "buying" assets and "taking over" assets as part of a debt recovery exercise.
I strongly suggest that Datuk Chua and his team of Selangor MCA leaders, including MCA Selangor Youth Chief Dr Kow Cheong Wei, MCA Selangor Public Services and Complaints Chairman Dato' Theng Bok and veteran comeback politician, Datuk Yap Pian Hon, who stood with him over these baseless and frivolous allegations, to publicly apologise for misleading the Malaysian public with their inadequate understanding of corporate finance.
They should stop making a complete fool of MCA and themselves. This "advice" includes their latest claim that the Selangor Government had "overpaid" for a piece of land from Talam.
They have 24 hours to repent and withdraw their baseless accusations. If not, I'll hold another press conference same time tomorrow to shred to pieces their allegations that Selangor had "overpaid" for land in the above debt recovery exercise, whether it is RM41 million or more.
Labels: Governance, Malaysia Chinese Association, Pakatan Rakyat, Scandal, Selangor
Chua Tee Yong Double Counts Talam "Scandal"
Datuk Chua Tee Yong had claimed that the "PR Selangor Government must explain to the Rakyat the acquisition on the RM676 mil worth of assets and the usage of RM392 million allocation which total to the RM1 billion questionable deal."
Firstly, from a mathematical standpoint, using RM392 million to acquire RM676 million of assets does not add up to a RM1 billion questionable deal. That's elementary double-counting.
It's like saying he used RM40,000 to acquire a RM60,000 car. It's either a RM20,000 cock-up, or a RM40,000 abuse or a RM60,000 con-job. It's NOT a RM100,000 scandal.
But that's not important. What is important is whether the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Selangor government had abused tax-payers' monies to bailout financially troubled company, Talam Corporation as alleged by Datuk Chua. Check out subsequent posts for details.
100,000 Malaysians Support TonyPua vs SYABAS
Tony has been asked to pay up the RM200,000 damages for "defaming" SYABAS, awarded by KL High Court last month.
We are appealing the decision, but will have to cough up the cash this month. Hence we are starting a public mass fund-raising campaign calling for 100,000 Malaysians to donate RM1 each to support Tony Pua vs Syabas.
Click https://dapmalaysia.org/donate/ to donate online via internet banking or credit card; or you could donate direct to "DAP Malaysia" Maybank account: 5141 7814 5866.
Thank you so much for the support! Please share on Facebook, Twitter etc!
Chua Tee Yong Should Stop Embarassing Himself over Talam
Datuk Chua Tee Yong should stop embarrassing his Party and himself further over the ficticious RM1 billion Talam bailout by the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government
For two days, Datuk Chua Tee Yong tantalised the Malaysian public and teased Pakatan Rakyat leaders with the spectre of a RM1 billion scandal by the Pakatan Rakyat state government.
He started on 30 June 11.47am:
"I am shocked by a 1 billion questionable deal in selangor. I hope the information I receive is correct."
Followed by another one at 3.48pm on the same day:
"The 1billion questionable deal is by the pr government. Shocking..."
And another at 8.50pm:
"The rm1billion deal by PR govt is shocking cos of how well they have concealed it. #prdeal"
Then at 10.59am on 1 July:
"Pr 1billion questionable deal Involve lots of rakyat money,state companies, private company. Lots of transaction.#prdeal"
Again a similar tweet at 3.36pm:
"PR govt claims 2 b transparent, do d best for d ppl n rakyat is boss but this 1 billion questionable deal shows it is all empty talk.#prdeal"
And finally on 2 July he announced that he will hold a press conference over the issue the next day:
"I will be giving a press conference tomorrow on "PR 1 Billion Questionable Deal". #prdeal"
And what a press conference it was. The "Questionable Deal" not only confounded the reporters present, Pakatan Rakyat leaders were just stunned.
We were of course unable to make any comments or respond to the ridicule heaped upon us by the BN cybertroopers before Datuk Chua's press conference because his tweets contained absolutely no information with regards to the RM1 billion allegation. But after discover what his RM1 billion "questionable deal" was, we were simply shocked by how Datuk Chua Tee Yong got all his substantive facts over the deal wrong, to the extent that we weren't sure whether it was a R266 million, RM676 million or RM1 billion scandal by the state government.
I will be holding a press conference tomorrow to strip Datuk Chua Tee Yong's complicated accounting allegations naked tomorrow morning.
For now, I'd like to refer to Talam Corporation's press announcement made yesterday afternoon. It is clear from the points of fact raised in the statement that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture got his basic assumptions completely wrong.
Datuk Chua had alleged that "before the deal…, Talam was still under PN17 with lots of debts". He further added that "The shares of Talam cannot be traded in the stock exchange before the deal…" Hence he concluded that "this was a clear-cut case of a bailout where the Selangor government used the rakyat's money to help a listed company by buying its assets".
Factual error #1 is that Talam has on its own accorded completed the financial Regularisation Plan approved by 1st July 2009, well before the "deal" with the state government at the end of 2009. Hence the "deal" had nothing to do with Talam's financial Regularisation Plan, and hence cannot be a bailout as alleged by Datuk Chua.
Factual error #2 is that even when Talam is a PN17 company, its shares were never suspended as a result and was freely traded on the stock exchange. Datuk Chua, of all persons, being a former Chief Financial Officer of a Government-Linked Company should not be making such a mistake!
Datuk Chua should learn that before making an "expose" he must get his basic facts right of the pie will be in your face.
The worst part of this ridiculous expose is the sheer audacity by Datuk Chua and MCA to label the Selangor government's collecting of RM391 million long outstanding debts incurred during the Barisan Nasional era, a "bailout" of the debtor Talam. It is no wonder BN's management of GLCs and its crony companies is so screwed.
But that's my very own "teaser" for the day. Tomorrow I will explain clearly how Datuk Chua failed his accounting test in this "Questionable Deal".
Labels: Economy, Governance, Malaysia Chinese Association, Scandal, Selangor
H&I Niaga Wound Up; 123 Sub-Contractors in Jeopardy
H&I Niaga Sdn Bhd has been wound up by Affin Bank, RM23.1 million payable to 123 subcontractors and suppliers in jeopardy
Yesterday the KL High Court Judge Tuan Mohammad Ariff Bin Md. Yusoff has granted an Affin Bank application to wind up H&I Niaga Sdn Bhd due to an outstanding amount of RM12.8 million. Datuk Ng Seing Liong from Messrs S L Ng Corporate Solutions Sdn Bhd has been appointed as the liquidator.
As far as the RM131.9 million suit against BNM is concerned, the matter will now be stayed. It will now be up to him to decide as to whether to continue with the RM131.9 million suit against Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).
BNM had issued a statement yesterday to state that H&I Niaga had asked for arbitration into the dispute but pulled out at the last minute. "H&I Niaga had initially referred the contractual dispute for arbitration but, on the first day of the hearing, H&I Niaga withdrew from the arbitration process."
The above statement is mischievous because BNM had refused to cooperate in the arbitration process and had sought to delay it as long as it could in order to leave H&I with no more time to settle before it got wound up.
The notice of arbitration had been sent to BNM since 13 September 2011 but the first preliminary meeting for arbitration was only held on 13 January 2012. In addition, only as late as 28 March, BNM lawyers had requested for "security for costs", which given H&I's inability to pay, would have derailed the entire arbitration process.
And on 5 April, BNM attempted again to derail the arbitration process by putting into it into abeyance via a wrongfully obtained winding up order against H&I. The lawyers for H&I managed to throw out the winding up order, but that had delayed the process further.
By 14 June, it was clear to H&I that BNM has no intent of seeing through the arbitration process and was using every trick in the book to delay the process while at the same time conspiring with other parties to have H&I wound up.
In fact, if BNM is even sincere about a settlement with H&I, the latter would not even have to go through the time-consuming and costing arbitration exercise. The fact that between the H&I termination in 27 April 2010 and the decision to go through arbitration in September 2011, the company had tried its best via all means to come to a settlement with BNM but it was of no avail because BNM was not even interested to pay a single sen to H&I.
What is most telling is BNM's own admission in its press statement the termination of Bumiputera contractor H&I Niaga Sdn Bhd was in the "final stages of construction for the Malaysia Financial Services Resource Centre (FSRC)". The termination at such a late stage of the project defies logic and only indicates malice in the process.
As a result of BNM's actions, H&I will not be the only victim as its subcontractors, whether in the FSRC project or in other projects will not get paid the proper dues.
For example, H&I still has retention sums for completed projects – Information technology and communications laboratory for Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM), Upgrading of Institut Kemahiran Tinggi Belia Negara and Dental Faculty of UiTM Sungai Buloh Campus amounting to RM1.8 million, RM2.0 million and RM5.6 million respectively - which are payable to some of their subcontractors. Hence even though these subcontractors had nothing to do with the BNM project, their monies will be similarly withheld due to H&I being would up.
In total, H&I still has an outstanding amount of RM23.1 million still payable to its subcontractors and suppliers, which is not in doubt.
The above case demonstrates that the words of the senior management cannot be trusted when conducting normal business dealings with BNM. Before termination, H&I had two meetings with Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz (Governor of BNM), Dato' Zamani Bin Abd Ghani (then Deputy Governor of BNM) and Dato' Mohd Nor Bin Mashor (then Assistant Governor of BNM) on 16 May 2009 and 8 April 2010, respectively. On both these occasions, Tan Sri Zeti has explicitly expressed that she would do her level best to ensure H&I received their payments and claims for delays in the project. This is a matter which had not been denied by BNM in its statement.
This act of injustice against H&I and its 123 sub-contractors has seriously jeopardized the good name of BNM. What we are witnessing here is the complete opposite, the victimization and destruction of an honest and competent 100% bumiputera Class 'A' contractor.
If BNM has any sincerity at all in resolving the above dispute, then surely it will attempt to offer a settlement with H&I even as of now, despite the latter having been wound up. If not then BNM will just be perceived as an unethical institution which has sought to absolve its own mistakes with the misfortunes of its contractors and sub-contractors.
"Low-Cost" KLIA2 To Now Cost RM5 Billion?
I read with shock on Air Asia Chief Executive Officer Tony Fernandes' blog that the cost of the new KLIA2 "low-cost" airport has ballooned to a shocking RM5 billion.
The initial budget for the airport when it was first announced by Dato' Seri Ong Tee Keat, the then Transport Minister in July 2007 was only RM1.7 billion. (Berita Harian 22 July 2007)
The budget was subsequently increased to RM2.0 billion in March 2009 (The Star 10 March 2009), and then RM2.5 billion in October 2010 (Business Times 30 October 2010).
At the end of last year, Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) shocked Malaysians by disclosing that the cost of the new airport has ballooned to RM3.9 billion due to cost overruns in November 2011. Hence the new estimated cost of KLIA2, RM5 billion is now nearly 200% above the original budget of RM1.7 billion.
I have repeatedly called for the cost of KLIA2 to be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) as well as the Ministry of Transport since last year. However, the attempts to secure accountability over the massive scandal has been impeded by the lack of urgency in the PAC as well as the absolute disinterest by the Minister of Transport, Dato' Seri Kong Cho Ha.
Despite several promises to meet Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament over the issue since last year, Dato' Seri Kong Cho Ha has failed to so.
I had requested for an explanation from his ministry over the issue, particularly over the reason for the shift of the airport from the originally proposed northern site (KLIA North) to the current western site (KLIA West) which is under construction. The shift of the site has caused the cost of construction to bloat because KLIA West was already identified as unsuitable for the construction of an airport due to it being a peat swamp.
The result of the shift for example, has caused substantial increase in earthworks cost, which the Ministry of Transport claimed to cost RM773 million, but is believed by many parties in the industry to be even higher.
However, despite the seriousness of the mismanagement of public funds, Dato' Seri Kong Cho Ha has refused to provide any details in his parliamentary reply, and merely shrugged off the issue claiming that the decision to shift the site was "based on KLIA Blueprint December 2008".
What is worse is the Minister's complete lackadaisical attitude towards the brazen abuse of tax-payers' funds. The Transport Minister has responded to my statements earlier by saying that I was "playing politics" (Bernama) and was "barking up the wrong tree" (The Star).
Dato' Seri Kong said I "should direct questions about the construction of KLIA2 to Malaysia Airport Holdings Berhad (MAHB) instead of accusing him of trying to cover up." He had further added that he has "nothing to hide. I'm not an airport engineer or consultant for the project and whatever the information I have about the project were given by MAHB."
In fact, at the rate the cost of KLIA2 is piling up, it will soon become a much bigger scandal than the Port Klang Free Zone project which cost increased from an initial RM1.1 billion to RM12.5 billion.
In the interest of transparency and accountability, the Prime Minister must order a full public investigation into how the cost of the new "low cost" airport could be so inflated and ensure that all who are responsible for the RM5 billion fiasco be sacked from their office, including that of the Minister of Transport.
Labels: Goverment Link Corporations, Governance, Scandal, Transportation
KLIFD: A Glossy Government Sponsored Real Estate P...
Talam Debt Recovery: A Testament of Pakatan Good G...
"Tony Pua vs SYABAS" Fund-Raiser: Mission Accompli...
SEDA Fails to Explain Dubious Approval to Sidek's ...
Tan Sri Sidek Hassan's Daughter Won Lion's Share o...
Chua Tee Yong Should Stop Embarassing Himself over...
Crime In Selangor on the Rise?
H&I Niaga Sues Bank Negara for RM131.9 million


Custom built 2 storey house with 5 feet crawl space that is fully finished & excellent for storage. House includes 6 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 3 kitchens in quiet Knight location. Both floors have 9' ceilings, radiant floor heating, granite counters, crown mouldings throughout, 2 skylights, double car garage. Covered sundeck. Central location close to high school and Elementary school, Fraser & Knight Street retail shops, cafes, transit, parks & recreation. Great for family living and has mortgage helper.