IPOH.com.my Photo Gallery BIZ Net My Classifieds Property Maps Car Mart Hotjobs2u.com

Google
Web ipoh.com.my

Hot JobsMy ClassifiedsBidValley AuctionsIpoh DatingAutomobileIT NewsPerak WatchReal Estate
Go Back   Ipoh Community Forums > Bangsa Malaysia > Bangsa Malaysia
User Name
Password
FAQ Googlemap ME Vb Music Members List Calendar vBRadio Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Bangsa Malaysia Berikan pendapat anda bagi mewujudkan BANGSA MALAYSIA!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 30-07-2010, 04:51 PM
fortune fortune is offline
fortune
Durian - The King
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,214
fortune is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to fortune
Default

Will Dr M and his 2002 crew take the stand?
FRI, 30 JUL 2010 14:36

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/politics/barisan-nasional/8589-will-dr-m-and-his-2002-crew-take-the-stand

KUALA LUMPUR: DAP's veteran leader Lim Kit Siang asked if former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad or any of his ministers from the 2002 Cabinet would testify in court when it hears the case against former transport minister and MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik?

Ling was accused of misleading the government into approving Port Klang Authority's purchase of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) land with 15-year repayment with compound interest instead of 10 years.

"Who were the ministers in the 2002 Cabinet. The deputy prime minister was Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Other ministers who are still ministers include Najib Tun Razak, Muhyiddin Yassin, Hishammuddin Hussein, Nazri Abdul Aziz, Rais Yatim and Bernard Dompok.

"Other ministers then who are no longer in the cabinet include Rafidah Aziz, Azmi Khalid; three MCA ministers at the time, Chua Jui Meng, Fong Chan Onn, Ong Ka Ting, Lim Keng Yaik, S. Samy Vellu and Law Hieng Ding," said Lim in a statement.

Still waiting for AG to act

The Ipoh Timor MP noted that as far back as three years ago in Parliament, during the budget debate in September 2007, he had focused on the main issues of the PKFZ scandal:

1. PKA's purchase of 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land from Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd for PKFZ at RM25 psf when the Treasury and Attorney-General’s Chambers proposed acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act at RM10 psf.

2. The ballooning of the PKFZ cost from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion and its development costs from RM400 million to RM2.8 billion.

3. The four illegal "letters of support" by then transport ministers Ling and (former MCA deputy president) Chan Kong Choy for the RM4.6 billion bonds issued by KDSB through special purpose vehicles.

"These issues have not been adequately dealt with despite the promise by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail last December and the country is still waiting for him to fulfill his pledge to leave no stone unturned to haul in the "big fish" implicated in the PKFZ scandal," said Lim.

Yesterday, Ling was charged at the Sessions Court under Sections 417 and 418 of the Penal Code for cheating and could face a jail term if found guilty.

The 67-year-old medical doctor-turned-politician, who was bestowed with a Tun - the highest honorific title in the country - after his retirement in 2003, had pleaded not guilty.

The case, dubbed as the most high-profile corruption case in Malaysian history, would be mentioned in September.

Ling, a long-time minister and MCA's sixth president, was known to be close to Mahathir during his tenure in government.

The charge against Ling reads:

“That you, between Sept 25 and Nov 6, 2002, at Level 4 of the Prime Minister’s Office in Bangunan Perdana Putra, cheated the Government by deceiving the Cabinet into approving a land purchase in Pulau Indah for a Mega Distribution Hub project in Port Klang according to the terms agreed between Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd and Port Klang Authority which, among others, are:

1. The size of the land being 999.5 acres or 43,538,200 sq ft

2. The purchase price for the land being RM25 per sq ft amounting to a total of RM1,088,456,000

3. The repayment period being based on a “deferred payment” of 15 years with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum (total RM720,014,600), and thereby dishonestly hiding the fact that the valuation by the Valuation and Property Service Department on the land was RM25 per sq ft for a repayment period of 10 years or RM25.82 per sq ft for a repayment period of 15 years, including coupon/interest that could be charged for the repayment period.

And as such, you purposely induced the Cabinet to give its consent to the purchase, whereas the Cabinet would not have given its consent if the fact had been told to the Cabinet, and the fraud was committed with the knowledge that you could cause a loss to the Government, where you have an interest in the transaction pertaining to the fraud and you are bound under the law to protect it and, as such, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 418 of the Penal Code.”
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 30-07-2010, 07:00 PM
fortune fortune is offline
fortune
Durian - The King
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,214
fortune is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to fortune
Default

One swallow does not a summer make
Josh Hong
Jul 30, 10
1:06pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/138739

For years, I had to endure the ignorant insistence by Malaysians who argue that whoever is conferred a Tunship by the Agong, would enjoy legal immunity.
This gave rise to rumours that Mahathir Mohamad was in haste to secure this title in order to protect himself from legal actions over all the misdeeds committed during his premiership.

Others maintained that once Samy Vellu was made a Tun, he too would be beyond the long arm of the law.

Not true. According to the supreme ruler's website, while Tunship does accord the recipient with the privilege to use the VIP room at the KL International Airport, it says practically nothing about legal immunity.

Following the constitutional amendment in 1993 - and we don't have to thank Mahathir for that - it is now possible to bring proceedings against even the Agong or Sultan through special provisions and in the Special Court.

Thus granting a Tun legal immunity would only imply that the recipient is above the royal rulers.

Many were still not convinced. But with the prosecution of Ling Liong Sik (left) over the Port Klang Free Zone scandal, the myth is finally shattered.

The next question: Is Najib Abdul Razak trying to prove to the public that his government is now serious about fighting corruption root and branch?

If anything, the appearance of Ling in court yesterday to face charges of cheating the government by misleading the cabinet on the land acquisition in Port Klang only reminds me of February 2004.

In that month, Kasitah Gaddam became the first cabinet minister to be charged in court with corrupt practices and cheating.

Kasitah's arraignment came just two days after Eric Chia, the former managing director of the now discredited Perwaja Steel Sdn. Bhd, was brought to court over criminal breach of trust involving more than RM76 million.

These two high-profile prosecutions were giving the public high hopes that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi would eventually have a clean break with Mahathir's corrupt rule and that more big fish would be nabbed.

One month later, Abdullah went to the country, with the mainstream Chinese media portraying him as Mr. Clean and a modern version of Justice Pao. He was rewarded with a huge victory that only made Mahathir quietly angry and jealous.

Uphill battle

The rest is history. Not only that the much hyped-up anti-graft war under Abdullah ended as a flop with no more big guns under arrest, both Kasitah and Chia were also subsequently acquitted.

Before he stepped down as prime minister, Abdullah could only lament that rooting out corruption was an uphill battle.

Of course it was. To eliminate Malaysia's endemic culture of patronage, Abdullah ought to have explained in full how his son Kamaluddin (left) had secured the position of a leading shareholder of Scomi Group, whose share price shot up by nearly 600 percent just a few months before Abdullah was scheduled to take over from Mahathir as prime minister.

Abdullah's mentor-turned-nemesis, Mahathir, would in the following years go around the country alleging that Scomi had bagged RM1 billion worth of government contracts since 2004, turning Kamaluddin into an overnight multi-millionaire.

We must also not forget that Khairy Jamaluddin's meteoric rise to become the nation's most powerful young man took place during Abdullah's tenure. By 2006, Khairy the son-in-law too had made a fortune with the merger between ECM Libra Capital Bhd and the government-linked Avenue Capital Resources Bhd.

And I do wonder if Kamaluddin and Khairy were both given discounts on their posh houses.

Father in high places

Strange, isn't it? It would seem that most of the brightest and the shrewdest in Malaysia's business circle happen to have a father in high places. Mahathir reiterated time and again that his sons were successful businessmen "in their own right", while Ling argued that Ling Hee Leong became a multi-billionaire by the age of 30 because his son was "diligent and clever".

And I laughed my head off when Abdullah (left) repeatedly said that both Kamaluddin and Khairy had never used his name for business purposes. The election results in 2008 proved that it was a defence in futility.

With history in mind, one can be forgiven for thinking that Ling's sudden fall from grace is merely part of a sandiwara (drama) by Najib to shore up his support ahead of the 13th General Election.

As Winston Churchill once famously said, in time of war, when truth is so precious, she must be attended to by a bodyguard of lies.

I suppose Najib is now badly in need of a better bodyguard.

Why? Because having been fooled by Abdullah in 2004, people were so furious that they punished him with the so-called political tsunami four years later.

Far smarter than his immediate predecessor, Najib would not be so naďve to think he could regain two-thirds majority in Parliament simply by putting Ling in the dock, would he? He knows he has to do much better than that.

Or perhaps Ling's case is just a warning shot.

Back in 2003, an Austrian businessman by the name of Franz Christoph Heldwein came to Malaysia in an attempt to recover the losses incurred from business deals between him and Ling.

What raised the eyebrows was that a meeting was arranged by Soh Chee Wen, then Ling's close associate who is now one of Anwar Ibrahim's "wise men", at the Transport Ministry. It was a sheer abuse of power and Ling escaped unscathed.

If Ling was unblemished then, why now?

Elegant silence

Two weeks ago, MP for PJ Utara Tony Pua revealed that Muhyiddin Yassin, when Agriculture Minister, signed an endorsement letter for a government tuna port venture worth RM240 million in 2006. The bonds later defaulted, resulting in possible multiple lawsuits.

While Muhyiddin continues to maintain his elegant silence, all is not well between him and Najib, judging from recent developments in Umno.

It is widely speculated that the politically insatiable deputy prime minister, who so brilliantly engineered the downfall of Abdullah in partnership with Mahathir, is now teamed up with the latter and also the hawks in the party such as Ibrahim Ali and Ahmad Ismail to ensure Najib becomes the shortest-lived prime minister.

So is Ling's prosecution meant to be a stern warning by Najib to fidgety challengers in his own backyard?

In the cruel world of Umno infighting, Ling is no sacrificial lamb but has been a vital partner in crime. No longer needed, he is now expendable, to the detriment of Chua Soi Lek (right), a faithful protégé of Ling once caught with his pants down.

That the MCA leadership had been kept in the dark over the major move by the AG's Chamber yesterday only indicates that BN parties have lost their relevance, and it may not be too long before the subtle tussle between the rival camps in Umno becomes visible to all.

But I am certain the public will not be satisfied with the netting of a rotten fish head; Malaysians want to see really big fish hauled up, and the more the merrier.

A swallow does not a summer make. Let's just sit back and watch as the sandiwara unfolds.

Sorry Tun Ling, you ain't worth my tears.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 30-07-2010, 10:14 PM
fortune fortune is offline
fortune
Durian - The King
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,214
fortune is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to fortune
Default

Former MCA president is charged in court — Sakmongkol AK47
July 30, 2010

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/breakingviews/article/former-mca-president-is-charged-in-court-sakmongkol-ak47/

JULY 30 — Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik was charged in court yesterday. It sent shocks through the MCA. MCA must now feel betrayed. After all Dr Ling Liong Sik was one of “us” — “us” being one of those important leaders of the BN in those halcyon days.

Indeed, Dr Ling Liong Sik was de facto prime minister of Malaysia for a few hours when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was party-less after the old Umno was deregistered and a new Umno was being formed. What if Dr Ling Liong Sik said at that time, “go and fly kite”. Saya PM sekarang. You orang keluar BN.

So, personally for Dr Ling Liong Sik, he must have felt betrayed the most.

There was one piece of news, however, that attracted my attention. It is this:

According to the charge sheet, the finance ministry had already valued the land at RM25psf — inclusive of compounded interest — and this fact was withheld from the Cabinet by the accused.

I am not sure how a Cabinet meeting is conducted. Usually in an exco meeting, for example, all papers would be prepared by the secretary to that meeting. For a Dewan Undangan Negeri, by the setiausaha MMK — secretary to the exco, usually a PTD officer. I am thinking the principle must be the same — files and papers prepared by the Cabinet secretary.

That being the case, a copy of the file note containing the valuation price of the land must be in all the files. Unless the file for the PKFZ topic for that day was prepared by Dr Ling Liong Sik alone and that the only information for decision that fateful day, came from Dr Ling Liong Sik alone. That would be highly unusual.

Unusual because at all material time, the finance minister at that time had in his possession all information about the land to be bought by PKFZ. He would make this information available to all Cabinet members at that meeting. Or in preceding meetings. He would have spotted the blatant discrepancy unless he went along with Dr Ling. Other alert meeting members would, too.

All Cabinet members present at that meeting, at that time, would now have to discover that particular document provided by whomever it was then, from his/her own personal files, and produce them in court. So all you SUSK — prepare to look for the file of that meeting for your minister.

This means everyone at that meeting on the day Dr Ling Liong Sik presented his notes would have to appear before court to testify. Now, everyone will stab Dr Ling Liong Sik.

If the only paper informing the value of the land came from Dr Ling Liong Sik, then everyone was deceived. Or everyone agreed in unison with the facts presented by Dr Ling Liong Sik. It would be interesting also to know whether the minister of finance then, who had the real information, went along with Dr Ling. Or did he object?

If the entire Cabinet agreed with Dr Ling despite having the real facts, then the entire Cabinet is vicariously liable.

Dr Ling Liong Sik is now feeling most betrayed. Or there is no honour among thieving friends. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +8. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Copyright Ipoh-Online Sdn. Bhd. (411730-W) 2006