The Edge reported yesterday of the Ministry of Finance’s takeover of the 106-storey 106 Exchange Tower through the company MKD Signature. The 3.42 acres of land for the project was previously acquired by Indonesian conglomerate, Mulia Group for the sum of RM665 million.
The 106-storey Exchange Tower was initially proof of 1MDB’s success with the TRX project as it was a wholly-owned foreign investment by Indonesia’s Mulia Group. However, news of the transfer of a majority stake ‘back’ to the Malaysian Government goes to prove that there is something extremely fishy going on.
Why is it even necessary for the Government to use tax-payers’ funds to get involved in another mega-property project? Didn’t the Second Finance Minister, Dato’ Seri Johari Abdul Ghani announced a Cabinet decision to freeze all high-end commercial and residential projects? Why is the Ministry of Finance participating in the aggravation of the property glut in the country?
More importantly, if Mulia Group had paid RM665 million for the land, the question is how much did the Ministry of Finance pay to acquire the 51% stake in the project?
The complete lack of transparency over the deal which would involve hundreds of millions of ringgit, possibly to the tune of billions, raises suspicions that it is really another one of the series of continued bailout of the debt-stricken 1MDB.
Was there for example, a secret ‘put option’ in the sale and purchase agreement between the Mulia Group and 1MDB, where the latter is obliged to buy back a majority stake from Mulia Group with a higher price at a later date? And because 1MDB obviously has no money to buy back the stake from Melia Group, was the Ministry of Finance was forced to step in to bailout 1MDB?
It should also be noted that this would be the second tract of 1MDB's TRX land that has been bought by MOF companies. It was previously disclosed in Parliament that MOF-owned company Aroma Teraju had purchased another tract of land at the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) development in 2015.
Last year, I had asked several times in Parliament for the land area and purchase price of the land by Aroma Teraju. However my question was repeatly shot down because of the purported confidentiality clause in the purchase agreement was with two companies wholly-owned by MOF.
Why hide behind the veil of secrecy when the parties involved are entirely owned by the Government? Is it because the Ministry of Finance will look utterly stupid for buying back tiny parcels of land back from 1MDB at sums astronomically higher than the RM230 million paid by 1MDB to acquire the 70 acres from the Government?
We call on MOF and 1MDB to confirm and disclose the details of the purchases of the land in TRX above. As wholly-owned companies under the Government, the public deserves to know what is being done with their own money.
Showing posts with label Tun Razak Exchange. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tun Razak Exchange. Show all posts
Monday, January 08, 2018
Thursday, December 07, 2017
Our Cabinet has some of the best back-flip acrobats in the world with the unbelievable twists and turns over high-end property development freeze
Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani announced on November 17 that the government had sent a directive to halt all approvals for high-end residences, shopping complexes and office buildings priced over RM1 million.
The freeze came after Bank Negara’s report on the substantial supply and demand imbalance within the country’s property market. The report found that new property launches were skewed towards the high-end sector of the market.
The Second Finance Minister subsequently reaffirmed the blanket ban after his fellow Cabinet colleague, Works Minister Datuk Fadillah Yusof said that developments would be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The ‘blanket ban’ had smacked of being a ‘hare-brained’ policy prescription as the Government started granting exemptions to projects which the Government had a vested interested. In particular, the Minister of Federal Territories, Dato’ Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said the 1MDB-linked projects – Tun Razak Exchange and Bandar Malaysia were “pre-approved”, and are hence exempted.
The fact that Bandar Malaysia has not even found a developer with a plan appears immaterial to the ban exemption.
The biased exemption of such projects by Government-linked companies (GLCs) created an uproar among the private sector, who then lobbied hard to ease the ban.
Yesterday, the Government did another double-twist somersault on its ‘blanket ban’. Two statements by Urban Wellbeing and Local Government Minister Tan Sri Noh Omar and Datuk Seri Johari, suggested that the Government will now allow developers to appeal the ban on a case by case basis.
For luxury residential properties, Tan Sri Noh Omar announced that a four-minister committee to review the project applications comprising of Datuk Seri Johari, Datuk Fadillah, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan and himself. The committee would apparently subject its approvals to criteria including the existing housing condition, the number of houses in that location and those priced above RM1 million, as well as the number of unsold houses.
Separately, Datuk Johari said that developers of office spaces and shopping malls could appeal to the relevant ministers if they find locations that lack those properties and can justify their developments. He even went on to say that “anyone can build an office provided you know how to market it”.
Does the Minister actually think that developers are going to build an office block or a mall that they are not confident in selling?
I was among the first who had criticised that the blanket ban would not do much to remedy the property market imbalance. However, now the Ministers have granted themselves full discretionary powers to grant approval to any developers who can sweet talk way to win the hearts of the Ministers.
Have we now become a communist regime where the Government dictates how many left shoes to manufacture? Two big mistakes here certainly don’t make a right.
The multiple twists and turns worthy of a world-class acrobatic act only goes to prove that the Najib administration is completely clueless in policy-making. How does the above, for example, even address the main issue of the lack of affordable housing in the country and the largest oversupply of residential properties were reported at the RM500 000 to RM1 million segment?
The worst type of Government for any investor, foreign or domestic, is the absolutely lack of predictability and consistency in its policies. The current fiasco will certainly have major short to long term negative implications for Malaysia’s economy. The Cabinet must remedy its knee-jerk policy-making mechanism and instead, conduct a thorough study with all stakeholders, Bank Negara and think-tanks to design a consistent, constructive and incentivised policies to ensure continued growth and sustainability for the property sector and our economy.
The freeze came after Bank Negara’s report on the substantial supply and demand imbalance within the country’s property market. The report found that new property launches were skewed towards the high-end sector of the market.
The Second Finance Minister subsequently reaffirmed the blanket ban after his fellow Cabinet colleague, Works Minister Datuk Fadillah Yusof said that developments would be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The ‘blanket ban’ had smacked of being a ‘hare-brained’ policy prescription as the Government started granting exemptions to projects which the Government had a vested interested. In particular, the Minister of Federal Territories, Dato’ Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said the 1MDB-linked projects – Tun Razak Exchange and Bandar Malaysia were “pre-approved”, and are hence exempted.
The fact that Bandar Malaysia has not even found a developer with a plan appears immaterial to the ban exemption.
The biased exemption of such projects by Government-linked companies (GLCs) created an uproar among the private sector, who then lobbied hard to ease the ban.
Yesterday, the Government did another double-twist somersault on its ‘blanket ban’. Two statements by Urban Wellbeing and Local Government Minister Tan Sri Noh Omar and Datuk Seri Johari, suggested that the Government will now allow developers to appeal the ban on a case by case basis.
For luxury residential properties, Tan Sri Noh Omar announced that a four-minister committee to review the project applications comprising of Datuk Seri Johari, Datuk Fadillah, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan and himself. The committee would apparently subject its approvals to criteria including the existing housing condition, the number of houses in that location and those priced above RM1 million, as well as the number of unsold houses.
Separately, Datuk Johari said that developers of office spaces and shopping malls could appeal to the relevant ministers if they find locations that lack those properties and can justify their developments. He even went on to say that “anyone can build an office provided you know how to market it”.
Does the Minister actually think that developers are going to build an office block or a mall that they are not confident in selling?
I was among the first who had criticised that the blanket ban would not do much to remedy the property market imbalance. However, now the Ministers have granted themselves full discretionary powers to grant approval to any developers who can sweet talk way to win the hearts of the Ministers.
Have we now become a communist regime where the Government dictates how many left shoes to manufacture? Two big mistakes here certainly don’t make a right.
The multiple twists and turns worthy of a world-class acrobatic act only goes to prove that the Najib administration is completely clueless in policy-making. How does the above, for example, even address the main issue of the lack of affordable housing in the country and the largest oversupply of residential properties were reported at the RM500 000 to RM1 million segment?
The worst type of Government for any investor, foreign or domestic, is the absolutely lack of predictability and consistency in its policies. The current fiasco will certainly have major short to long term negative implications for Malaysia’s economy. The Cabinet must remedy its knee-jerk policy-making mechanism and instead, conduct a thorough study with all stakeholders, Bank Negara and think-tanks to design a consistent, constructive and incentivised policies to ensure continued growth and sustainability for the property sector and our economy.
Friday, November 24, 2017
Ku Nan demonstrates “Malaysia Boleh” spirit by declaring Bandar Malaysia plans ‘approved’ even before master developer selection, to circumvent Cabinet luxury development ban.
Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor has confirmed yesterday that the 1MDB-linked Bandar Malaysia and TRX would not be affected by the freeze on property approvals for condominiums, serviced apartments, offices and shopping complexes price above RM1 million.
He was responding to a question by PJ Selatan MP, Hee Loy Sian, when he said that the two projects had already received approval ‘in principle’ and could not be stopped from developing.
It is quite clear here that the government’s only principle here is to protect the interests of 1MDB. TRX and Bandar Malaysia are two of 1MDB’s largest assets that need to be developed if the fund wants any chance of staying afloat. They are also two of the biggest slated development projects in KL.
The amazing thing is, the Ministry of Finance has not even declared a winner to the tender for the master developer of Bandar Malaysia. The latest response from the Ministry of Finance last week is that there are 8 companies which have “expressed interest” in developing the massive 486-acres project. DBKL Mayor Tan Sri Mohd Amin had himself told Malaysiakini that they had yet to receive an application from Bandar Malaysia.
If exemptions from the freeze can be given just because of approvals had been given ‘in principle’, what worth is the freeze at all? Does this mean that other ‘planned’ high-end developments, which have yet to submit their planning applications, will also get exemptions?
These exemptions raise two worrying questions about the government’s planned freeze on high-end developments.
Firstly, it would mean that the effectiveness of the supposed ban on high-end project would be severely diluted. Bank Negara’s report showed just how grave the supply and demand imbalance was, projecting 1-in-3 office spaces being vacant in the Klang Valley by 2021, if measures aren’t taken to control it. If this freeze on high-end developments is to be taken seriously at all, the government has to make sure it is fairly enforced across the board.
And secondly, 1MDB gets the special treatment which discriminates against all private businesses.
As per my previous statements on this issue, I reiterate that the purported ‘blanket ban’ against high-end projects with unit values above RM1 million is a hare-brained knee-jerk reaction which is faulty due to the unfair and substantial exemptions granted above. In addition, the policy itself will not only fail to achieve its objectives because it is not properly targeted, it will create greater distortions in the market as well as turn away both domestic and foreign investors.
He was responding to a question by PJ Selatan MP, Hee Loy Sian, when he said that the two projects had already received approval ‘in principle’ and could not be stopped from developing.
It is quite clear here that the government’s only principle here is to protect the interests of 1MDB. TRX and Bandar Malaysia are two of 1MDB’s largest assets that need to be developed if the fund wants any chance of staying afloat. They are also two of the biggest slated development projects in KL.
The amazing thing is, the Ministry of Finance has not even declared a winner to the tender for the master developer of Bandar Malaysia. The latest response from the Ministry of Finance last week is that there are 8 companies which have “expressed interest” in developing the massive 486-acres project. DBKL Mayor Tan Sri Mohd Amin had himself told Malaysiakini that they had yet to receive an application from Bandar Malaysia.
If exemptions from the freeze can be given just because of approvals had been given ‘in principle’, what worth is the freeze at all? Does this mean that other ‘planned’ high-end developments, which have yet to submit their planning applications, will also get exemptions?
These exemptions raise two worrying questions about the government’s planned freeze on high-end developments.
Firstly, it would mean that the effectiveness of the supposed ban on high-end project would be severely diluted. Bank Negara’s report showed just how grave the supply and demand imbalance was, projecting 1-in-3 office spaces being vacant in the Klang Valley by 2021, if measures aren’t taken to control it. If this freeze on high-end developments is to be taken seriously at all, the government has to make sure it is fairly enforced across the board.
And secondly, 1MDB gets the special treatment which discriminates against all private businesses.
As per my previous statements on this issue, I reiterate that the purported ‘blanket ban’ against high-end projects with unit values above RM1 million is a hare-brained knee-jerk reaction which is faulty due to the unfair and substantial exemptions granted above. In addition, the policy itself will not only fail to achieve its objectives because it is not properly targeted, it will create greater distortions in the market as well as turn away both domestic and foreign investors.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Why are 1MDB-related projects given special exemptions despite Cabinet blanket ban on luxury property projects above RM1 million in unit values?
Last week, Dato’ Seri Johari Abdul Ghani announced the Cabinet decision on a “temporary ban” approvals for shopping complexes, offices, serviced apartments and luxury condominiums priced over RM1 million effective November 1.
The freeze came after Bank Negara’s report on the substantial supply and demand imbalance within the country’s property market. The report found that new property launches were skewed towards the high-end sector of the market.
Particularly in the Klang Valley, the report found that office vacancy rates had increased from 20.9% in Q1 2015 to 23.6% in Q1 2017. The situation is only set to get worse as there is an incoming supply of 38 million square feet of office space.
It has also been confirmed in various news reports that the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has received the above directive.
However, we are not sure if we should be shocked that the Mayor, Tan Sri Mohd Amin Nordin Abd Aziz announced yesterday that the prospective single largest high-end property development project ever in Malaysia – Bandar Malaysia is exempted from the ban.
Malaysiakini reported that although the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) had yet to receive any application regarding the project, Mohd Amin said the freeze on approvals for condominiums, serviced apartments, offices and shopping complexes priced at RM1 million and above is not a blanket ban.
“We haven’t received any application from Bandar Malaysia. No, because it is not a blanket (ban). On certain developments, it can be approved,” he told Malaysiakini.
At the same time, it was announced yesterday that IJM would be building a new RM500 million office tower at Tun Razak Exchange after acquiring TRX City subsidiary Fairview Valley Sdn Bhd. Will this new tower, which will have a gross floor area of 560,000 square feet also be exempted from the ban?
Due to the size of these 1MDB-related projects, they will certainly exacerbate the property over-supply situation in the Klang Valley and effectively blunt the effectiveness of the Cabinet decision to ban high-end development projects.
More critically, if the 486 acres Bandar Malaysia and the 70 acres Tun Razak Exchange projects receive automatic exemptions from the ban – how is that fair to the rest of the property development industry in the country?
Clearly the “temporary ban” is a hare-brained which will fail to actually solve the “supply-demand imbalances” in our property sector. Worse, the investment and business community will only see the inconsistency and unfair policies imposed by the Government. Can they be blamed if both the domestic and foreign investors take their money and invest in other countries?
The freeze came after Bank Negara’s report on the substantial supply and demand imbalance within the country’s property market. The report found that new property launches were skewed towards the high-end sector of the market.
Particularly in the Klang Valley, the report found that office vacancy rates had increased from 20.9% in Q1 2015 to 23.6% in Q1 2017. The situation is only set to get worse as there is an incoming supply of 38 million square feet of office space.
It has also been confirmed in various news reports that the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has received the above directive.
However, we are not sure if we should be shocked that the Mayor, Tan Sri Mohd Amin Nordin Abd Aziz announced yesterday that the prospective single largest high-end property development project ever in Malaysia – Bandar Malaysia is exempted from the ban.
Malaysiakini reported that although the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) had yet to receive any application regarding the project, Mohd Amin said the freeze on approvals for condominiums, serviced apartments, offices and shopping complexes priced at RM1 million and above is not a blanket ban.
“We haven’t received any application from Bandar Malaysia. No, because it is not a blanket (ban). On certain developments, it can be approved,” he told Malaysiakini.
At the same time, it was announced yesterday that IJM would be building a new RM500 million office tower at Tun Razak Exchange after acquiring TRX City subsidiary Fairview Valley Sdn Bhd. Will this new tower, which will have a gross floor area of 560,000 square feet also be exempted from the ban?
Due to the size of these 1MDB-related projects, they will certainly exacerbate the property over-supply situation in the Klang Valley and effectively blunt the effectiveness of the Cabinet decision to ban high-end development projects.
More critically, if the 486 acres Bandar Malaysia and the 70 acres Tun Razak Exchange projects receive automatic exemptions from the ban – how is that fair to the rest of the property development industry in the country?
Clearly the “temporary ban” is a hare-brained which will fail to actually solve the “supply-demand imbalances” in our property sector. Worse, the investment and business community will only see the inconsistency and unfair policies imposed by the Government. Can they be blamed if both the domestic and foreign investors take their money and invest in other countries?
Wednesday, November 08, 2017
Another ‘top secret’ 1MDB bailout by 1MDB via TRX land buyback by the Ministry of Finance
During the last parliamentary session, I had asked the Minister of Finance what is the cost and size of the land in Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) which its wholly-owned subsidiary, Aroma Teraju Sdn Bhd acquired from 1MDB in 2015.
The reply which I had received from the Dato’ Seri Najib Razak on 31 July, was that the information was protected by a confidentiality clause between the buyer and the seller.
The answer is ridiculous because both entities are wholly-owned by the Ministry of Finance, which in turn is accountable to both the Parliament and the public at large, and hence such information should never be a secret. This is especially since the price of a piece of land is in no way a threat to national security, and the information is certainly not protected by the Official Secrets Act.
Therefore, for the current sitting, I had asked why the land size and price for the purchase of Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) land by MOF-owned Aroma Teraju from 1MDB cannot be disclosed even though both companies were wholly-owned subsidiaries of MOF.
Dato’ Seri Najib Razak responded by saying this was because of the agreement’s confidentiality clause to protect the commercial considerations of both parties. He goes on to say that these terms are consistent with the key terms used in the market among other similar transactions.
The Minister chose to ignore is that both Aroma Teraju and 1MDB are wholly-owned by MOF. What is the purpose of this secrecy when both parties in the agreement are owned by the Government?
There is only one reason for invoking this confidentiality clause, and it has nothing to with the purported “commercial considerations”. It is to cover up the fact that MoF paid over-the-top to buy back a fraction of the prime land it had sold at bargain basement prices to 1MDB in 2010.
Based on the 2011 1MDB Financial Statements, the 70 acre TRX land was acquired from the Government at the value RM194 million, or approximately RM64 per square feet in 2010.
However, in the same year that Aroma Teraju acquired the above-mentioned piece of land from 1MDB, the latter also sold other parcels of TRX land to other government related institutions. Lembaga Tabung Haji acquired 1.6 acres for RM188.5 million or more than RM2,800psf. Affin Bank, a subsidiary of Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT), acquired 1.25 acres for RM255 million or nearly an eye-popping RM4,700psf.
If Aroma Teraju paid any where near the prices paid by Tabung Haji or Affin Bank, it would mean that Malaysian tax-payers would be been ripped off beyond their wildest imagination. Very simply, 1MDB purchased land from the Government at RM64psf and sold a fraction of the piece of undeveloped land back to the Government five years later at an exhorbitant thousands of ringgit per square feet.
I challenge the 1MDB, Arul Kanda or the Finance Minister to deny my allegations with facts and figures. Otherwise, it would merely confirm that the secrecy over a simple sales and purchase agreement between two government entities is really to cover up another one of the daylight robberies against the Malaysian tax-payers to bail out the debt-stricken 1MDB.
The reply which I had received from the Dato’ Seri Najib Razak on 31 July, was that the information was protected by a confidentiality clause between the buyer and the seller.
The answer is ridiculous because both entities are wholly-owned by the Ministry of Finance, which in turn is accountable to both the Parliament and the public at large, and hence such information should never be a secret. This is especially since the price of a piece of land is in no way a threat to national security, and the information is certainly not protected by the Official Secrets Act.
Therefore, for the current sitting, I had asked why the land size and price for the purchase of Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) land by MOF-owned Aroma Teraju from 1MDB cannot be disclosed even though both companies were wholly-owned subsidiaries of MOF.
Tony Pua minta Menteri Kewangan menyatakan apa sebabnya keluasan dan harga pembelian tanah Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) oleh syarikat Aroma Teraju daripada 1MDB tidak boleh diumumkan walaupun kedua-dua syarikat tersebut merupakan anak syarikat milik penuh Kementerian KewanganOnce again, in the reply dated 6 November 2017, I received utter nonsense from the Finance Minister which justified his being awarded “Asia’s Worst Finance Minister 2016” by FinanceAsia.
Dato’ Seri Najib Razak responded by saying this was because of the agreement’s confidentiality clause to protect the commercial considerations of both parties. He goes on to say that these terms are consistent with the key terms used in the market among other similar transactions.
The Minister chose to ignore is that both Aroma Teraju and 1MDB are wholly-owned by MOF. What is the purpose of this secrecy when both parties in the agreement are owned by the Government?
There is only one reason for invoking this confidentiality clause, and it has nothing to with the purported “commercial considerations”. It is to cover up the fact that MoF paid over-the-top to buy back a fraction of the prime land it had sold at bargain basement prices to 1MDB in 2010.
Based on the 2011 1MDB Financial Statements, the 70 acre TRX land was acquired from the Government at the value RM194 million, or approximately RM64 per square feet in 2010.
However, in the same year that Aroma Teraju acquired the above-mentioned piece of land from 1MDB, the latter also sold other parcels of TRX land to other government related institutions. Lembaga Tabung Haji acquired 1.6 acres for RM188.5 million or more than RM2,800psf. Affin Bank, a subsidiary of Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT), acquired 1.25 acres for RM255 million or nearly an eye-popping RM4,700psf.
If Aroma Teraju paid any where near the prices paid by Tabung Haji or Affin Bank, it would mean that Malaysian tax-payers would be been ripped off beyond their wildest imagination. Very simply, 1MDB purchased land from the Government at RM64psf and sold a fraction of the piece of undeveloped land back to the Government five years later at an exhorbitant thousands of ringgit per square feet.
I challenge the 1MDB, Arul Kanda or the Finance Minister to deny my allegations with facts and figures. Otherwise, it would merely confirm that the secrecy over a simple sales and purchase agreement between two government entities is really to cover up another one of the daylight robberies against the Malaysian tax-payers to bail out the debt-stricken 1MDB.
Wednesday, August 09, 2017
Finance Minister II Dato’ Seri Johari Abdul Ghani should not bluff Malaysians by stating that the Government “has never given public funds to 1MDB to settle its debts”
According to Bernama yesterday, Second Finance Minister, Dato’ Seri Johari Abdul Ghani said that “the Finance Ministry (MoF) has never given any public funds to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) to help settle its debt”.
The Minister must think that Malaysians are complete and utter idiots to be served what is one of biggest piece of cow dung amongst all the attempts to cover up the 1MDB scandal.
The Ministry of Finance has on so many occasions come to the rescue of 1MDB over the past 2 years involving billions of ringgit of tax-payers’ monies, and yet Dato’ Seri Johari has the cheek to tell us that the MoF “has never given any public funds to 1MDB”.
Among the most clear-cut examples are the RM800 million loan from SOCSO and another RM2.4 billion Bandar Malaysia sukuk bond which the MoF have assumed as a result of taking over TRX City Sdn Bhd and Bandar Malaysia Sdn Bhd.
The Auditor-General has reported that nearly all of the above proceeds of the 1MDB borrowings were never used for the development of the 2 property projects above. Hence when MoF agreed to take over the property projects and assumed the liabilities, MoF has effectively “settled” 1MDB’s RM3.2 billion debt problem.
What’s more, when 1MDB had originally sold a 60% stake in Bandar Malaysia to an Iskandar Waterfront Holdings (IWH) Sdn Bhd-led consortium, they had collected, and presumably spent the RM741 million deposit which has been paid upon the signing of the sale and purchase agreement in December 2015.
However, when MoF terminated the sale due to IWH payment defaults, it was MoF who coughed up the RM741 million to refund the deposit paid by the consortium. If the deposit, should have been refunded at all, it should have been by 1MDB, and not by the Malaysian tax-payers.
The above doesn’t yet include MoF subsidiary or subsidiaries which actually acquired properties from 1MDB in TRX at inflated prices. The irony is, it was MoF who sold the land to 1MDB in the first place at dirt cheap prices.
We understand the conundrum Dato’ Seri Johari Abdul Ghani is facing as the 2nd Finance Minister who has fallen out of favour and having to defend the indefensible regain the Prime Minister’s favour. It is now clear that he has been dropped by Dato’ Seri Najib Razak from handling the 1MDB imbroglio, particularly in the company’s multi-billion dollar dispute with Abu Dhabi’s IPIC.
However, the Second Finance Minister should not go to the extent to telling outright lies to pull the wool over the people’s eyes. Dato’ Seri Johari should not forget his role and responsibility to the people of Malaysia by sacrificing his own integrity and honour.
The Minister must think that Malaysians are complete and utter idiots to be served what is one of biggest piece of cow dung amongst all the attempts to cover up the 1MDB scandal.
The Ministry of Finance has on so many occasions come to the rescue of 1MDB over the past 2 years involving billions of ringgit of tax-payers’ monies, and yet Dato’ Seri Johari has the cheek to tell us that the MoF “has never given any public funds to 1MDB”.
Among the most clear-cut examples are the RM800 million loan from SOCSO and another RM2.4 billion Bandar Malaysia sukuk bond which the MoF have assumed as a result of taking over TRX City Sdn Bhd and Bandar Malaysia Sdn Bhd.
The Auditor-General has reported that nearly all of the above proceeds of the 1MDB borrowings were never used for the development of the 2 property projects above. Hence when MoF agreed to take over the property projects and assumed the liabilities, MoF has effectively “settled” 1MDB’s RM3.2 billion debt problem.
What’s more, when 1MDB had originally sold a 60% stake in Bandar Malaysia to an Iskandar Waterfront Holdings (IWH) Sdn Bhd-led consortium, they had collected, and presumably spent the RM741 million deposit which has been paid upon the signing of the sale and purchase agreement in December 2015.
However, when MoF terminated the sale due to IWH payment defaults, it was MoF who coughed up the RM741 million to refund the deposit paid by the consortium. If the deposit, should have been refunded at all, it should have been by 1MDB, and not by the Malaysian tax-payers.
The above doesn’t yet include MoF subsidiary or subsidiaries which actually acquired properties from 1MDB in TRX at inflated prices. The irony is, it was MoF who sold the land to 1MDB in the first place at dirt cheap prices.
We understand the conundrum Dato’ Seri Johari Abdul Ghani is facing as the 2nd Finance Minister who has fallen out of favour and having to defend the indefensible regain the Prime Minister’s favour. It is now clear that he has been dropped by Dato’ Seri Najib Razak from handling the 1MDB imbroglio, particularly in the company’s multi-billion dollar dispute with Abu Dhabi’s IPIC.
However, the Second Finance Minister should not go to the extent to telling outright lies to pull the wool over the people’s eyes. Dato’ Seri Johari should not forget his role and responsibility to the people of Malaysia by sacrificing his own integrity and honour.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Who made the decision to terminate the agreement for the sale of Bandar Malaysia to the consortium led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings?
The new season of the blockbuster 1MDB political drama thriller could not have kicked off on a more suspenseful note. Just when everyone thought (and some were hoping) that the show has run its course and the audience have lost interest, the producers of the show have returned with some impeccable scriptwriting to keep Malaysians glued to the ever-evolving scandal.
Soon after the IPIC-1MDB debt “settlement” agreement where the Ministry of Finance (MoF) agreed to assume the guarantee provided by IPIC for 1MDB’s US$3.5 billion worth of bonds, MoF announced that the agreement to sell a 60% interest in Bandar Malaysia to a consortium led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings (IWH) has been terminated.
The world was stunned when MoF’s wholly-owned subsidiary, TRX City Sdn Bhd, which owns Bandar Malaysia announced that the deal with the IWH consortium had collapsed because the latter did not meet payment obligations for its 60 percent stake. The consortium had disputed this claim.
While clarity on the above dispute remains unclear – with neither TRX City or IWH providing any evidence to substantiate their claims, there is now a new mystery as to who authorised the decision to terminate the agreement.
Based on Malaysiakini’s report entitled “Arul is against termination of Bandar M'sia deal”, government sources told the news portal that the RM7.41 billion deal was terminated without notifying Arul Kanda, the President and CEO of 1MDB.
However, at the material times, Arul Kanda was also the Chairman of Bandar Malaysia Sdn Bhd as well as a Board of Director of TRX City, before he was unceremoniously dumped by MoF four days after the termination announcement. The Malaysian Insight had reported sources from MoF citing a “conflict of interest” on the part of Arul Kanda.
While we are keen to find out what exactly is the “conflict of interest” which necessitated Arul’s immediate sacking, we are even more interested to know who actually made the decision to terminate the agreement.
Since Arul Kanda was oblivious to the entire termination exercise, it meant that the Board of Directors of both TRX City and Bandar Malaysia never deliberated and made a decision on the matter involving a whopping RM7.41 billion transaction.
The Malaysian Insight reported that the decision to remove Arul was made by Finance Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak and Treasury Secretary-General Tan Sri Irwan Serigar Abdullah. The question then arises as to whether Dato’ Seri Najib Razak made the unilateral decision to terminate the agreement.
If so, it should be clarified as to what powers does the Finance Minister have to make material and critical decisions of Government companies unilaterally, by-passing the companies’ board of directors? Did Dato’ Seri Najib Razak abused his powers as the Finance and Prime Minister to terminate the IWH agreement?
It should be recalled that one of the biggest controversies over the 1MDB scandal was the powers granted to the Prime Minister to make all final key decisions in the investment company. Clause 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum of Articles and Association dictates that the Prime Minister must give his “written approval” for any of 1MDB’s deals, including the firm’s investments or any bid for restructuring.
It was Dato’ Seri Najib Razak who gave the ultimate approval for all the billions of ringgit of lost investments carried out by 1MDB with Petrosaudi International Limited and Aabar Investment PJS Limited.
The controversial clause has since been deleted upon recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee. However, it appears that Dato’ Seri Najib Razak is still calling the shots behind the scene, bypassing key Treasury guidelines, as well as all forms of corporate governance and accountability which we have demanded to avoid a repeat of the 1MDB imbroglio.
We await the next episode with bated breath.
Soon after the IPIC-1MDB debt “settlement” agreement where the Ministry of Finance (MoF) agreed to assume the guarantee provided by IPIC for 1MDB’s US$3.5 billion worth of bonds, MoF announced that the agreement to sell a 60% interest in Bandar Malaysia to a consortium led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings (IWH) has been terminated.
The world was stunned when MoF’s wholly-owned subsidiary, TRX City Sdn Bhd, which owns Bandar Malaysia announced that the deal with the IWH consortium had collapsed because the latter did not meet payment obligations for its 60 percent stake. The consortium had disputed this claim.
While clarity on the above dispute remains unclear – with neither TRX City or IWH providing any evidence to substantiate their claims, there is now a new mystery as to who authorised the decision to terminate the agreement.
Based on Malaysiakini’s report entitled “Arul is against termination of Bandar M'sia deal”, government sources told the news portal that the RM7.41 billion deal was terminated without notifying Arul Kanda, the President and CEO of 1MDB.
However, at the material times, Arul Kanda was also the Chairman of Bandar Malaysia Sdn Bhd as well as a Board of Director of TRX City, before he was unceremoniously dumped by MoF four days after the termination announcement. The Malaysian Insight had reported sources from MoF citing a “conflict of interest” on the part of Arul Kanda.
While we are keen to find out what exactly is the “conflict of interest” which necessitated Arul’s immediate sacking, we are even more interested to know who actually made the decision to terminate the agreement.
Since Arul Kanda was oblivious to the entire termination exercise, it meant that the Board of Directors of both TRX City and Bandar Malaysia never deliberated and made a decision on the matter involving a whopping RM7.41 billion transaction.
The Malaysian Insight reported that the decision to remove Arul was made by Finance Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak and Treasury Secretary-General Tan Sri Irwan Serigar Abdullah. The question then arises as to whether Dato’ Seri Najib Razak made the unilateral decision to terminate the agreement.
If so, it should be clarified as to what powers does the Finance Minister have to make material and critical decisions of Government companies unilaterally, by-passing the companies’ board of directors? Did Dato’ Seri Najib Razak abused his powers as the Finance and Prime Minister to terminate the IWH agreement?
It should be recalled that one of the biggest controversies over the 1MDB scandal was the powers granted to the Prime Minister to make all final key decisions in the investment company. Clause 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum of Articles and Association dictates that the Prime Minister must give his “written approval” for any of 1MDB’s deals, including the firm’s investments or any bid for restructuring.
It was Dato’ Seri Najib Razak who gave the ultimate approval for all the billions of ringgit of lost investments carried out by 1MDB with Petrosaudi International Limited and Aabar Investment PJS Limited.
The controversial clause has since been deleted upon recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee. However, it appears that Dato’ Seri Najib Razak is still calling the shots behind the scene, bypassing key Treasury guidelines, as well as all forms of corporate governance and accountability which we have demanded to avoid a repeat of the 1MDB imbroglio.
We await the next episode with bated breath.
Tuesday, May 09, 2017
The Ministry of Finance must explain the alleged “conflict of interest” which was the basis Arul Kanda was sacked from the Boards of TRX City and Bandar Malaysia
Last week, I had asked the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to sack Arul Kanda, if he failed to offer his resignation for his role in the entire collapse of the 1MDB rationalisation exercise.
Two quick succession of events over the past few weeks have completely unravelled the painstaking effort by the Najib administration to put a lid on the 1MDB scandal over the past two years.
Firstly, the MoF agreed to assume the liabilities amounting to USD3.5 billion for bonds issued by 1MDB but previously guaranteed by Abu Dhabi's International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC). This concession only confirms what 1MDB had repeatedly claimed, that it has already paid IPIC USD3.51 billion is untrue.
Instead the funds were paid to a fraudulent company, Aabar Investment PJS Limited set up in the British Virgin Islands "Aabar(BVI)", which IPIC had denied any relation to. The question hence arises as to where did this money go to ultimately, especially since Aabar(BVI) has already been liquidated.
Secondly, Arul Kanda needs to be responsible for the collapse of the RM7.41 billion sale of 60% interest of Bandar Malaysia to a consortium led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings (IWH). The question also now arise as to who will refund the 10% deposit or RM741 million which have been paid to 1MDB as Bandar Malaysia has since been taken over by MoF in March this year.
In a surprising turn of events, the MoF has actually sacked Arul Kanda from the Board of Directors of Bandar Malaysia and TRX City, even as he remains as the President and CEO of 1MDB.
The Malaysian Insight quoted sources that “there are potential conflicts of interest”. This is shocking as Arul should only be acting in the interest of the Malaysian Government or by extension, the tax-payers of Malaysia. What “conflict of interest” could it be which resulted in his sudden removal from the Board of Directors?
Arul Kanda tried to make light of the situation by claiming that it is the prerogative of the Ministry of Finance to remove him from the Boards. He argued, even as he has yet to receive notification of his removal, that the two companies were transferred from 1MDB to Minister of Finance Inc (MOF Inc) with effect from March 31, 2017. Hence “it is only reasonable to expect that MOF Inc will seek to appoint new directors, per its discretion”.
Few would believe that his removal really has nothing to do with the collapse of the Bandar Malaysia deal, one way or another. If the intent was to remove him as ownership has been transferred to the Ministry of Finance, why wait until 2 days after the IWH deal turn sour? Why didn’t the switch take place in March itself, when the transfer was executed?
Regardless, the Ministry of Finance must come clean with the very serious issue of “conflict of interest” which has resulted in Arul’s sacking.
The next question on everyone’s mind is, now that Arul Kanda has lost the confidence of the Ministry of Finance, will his role as the President and CEO of 1MDB remain tenable, and for how long?
Two quick succession of events over the past few weeks have completely unravelled the painstaking effort by the Najib administration to put a lid on the 1MDB scandal over the past two years.
Firstly, the MoF agreed to assume the liabilities amounting to USD3.5 billion for bonds issued by 1MDB but previously guaranteed by Abu Dhabi's International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC). This concession only confirms what 1MDB had repeatedly claimed, that it has already paid IPIC USD3.51 billion is untrue.
Instead the funds were paid to a fraudulent company, Aabar Investment PJS Limited set up in the British Virgin Islands "Aabar(BVI)", which IPIC had denied any relation to. The question hence arises as to where did this money go to ultimately, especially since Aabar(BVI) has already been liquidated.
Secondly, Arul Kanda needs to be responsible for the collapse of the RM7.41 billion sale of 60% interest of Bandar Malaysia to a consortium led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings (IWH). The question also now arise as to who will refund the 10% deposit or RM741 million which have been paid to 1MDB as Bandar Malaysia has since been taken over by MoF in March this year.
In a surprising turn of events, the MoF has actually sacked Arul Kanda from the Board of Directors of Bandar Malaysia and TRX City, even as he remains as the President and CEO of 1MDB.
The Malaysian Insight quoted sources that “there are potential conflicts of interest”. This is shocking as Arul should only be acting in the interest of the Malaysian Government or by extension, the tax-payers of Malaysia. What “conflict of interest” could it be which resulted in his sudden removal from the Board of Directors?
Arul Kanda tried to make light of the situation by claiming that it is the prerogative of the Ministry of Finance to remove him from the Boards. He argued, even as he has yet to receive notification of his removal, that the two companies were transferred from 1MDB to Minister of Finance Inc (MOF Inc) with effect from March 31, 2017. Hence “it is only reasonable to expect that MOF Inc will seek to appoint new directors, per its discretion”.
Few would believe that his removal really has nothing to do with the collapse of the Bandar Malaysia deal, one way or another. If the intent was to remove him as ownership has been transferred to the Ministry of Finance, why wait until 2 days after the IWH deal turn sour? Why didn’t the switch take place in March itself, when the transfer was executed?
Regardless, the Ministry of Finance must come clean with the very serious issue of “conflict of interest” which has resulted in Arul’s sacking.
The next question on everyone’s mind is, now that Arul Kanda has lost the confidence of the Ministry of Finance, will his role as the President and CEO of 1MDB remain tenable, and for how long?
Friday, May 05, 2017
Iskandar Waterfront Holdings Consortium should be forthcoming with the facts and figures in TRX City dispute instead of being cryptic and wishy-washy in statements
The conflicting statements issued by TRX City, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance, and the consortium led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings (IWH) have become a complete farce.
In December 2015, 1MDB had announced that it has sold 60 per cent of its Bandar Malaysia interest to the consortium's vehicle, IWH CREC Sdn Bhd (ICSB) for RM7.41 billion.
TRX City Sdn Bhd, which owns Bandar Malaysia and has been taken over by the Ministry of Finance, claimed the agreement had lapsed because the consortium failed to make the necessary payments despite repeated extensions.
In disputing TRX, ICSB said it has made all necessary payments thus far, as outlined in the share sale agreement (SSA), and is also capable of meeting future payments.
"To date, ICSB has fulfilled all the required payment obligations under the SSA on its part towards TRX. ICSB has sufficient financial resources and capabilities to ensure the smooth and successful execution and implementation of the development of Bandar Malaysia," it said in a statement yesterday.
So who is telling the truth? To quote the cryptic ICSB, whose “factual matrix does not fully and accurately reflect the circumstances and conduct of the parties in the matter”?
Thankfully, the matter should be easily clarified resolved. TRX claimed money isn't paid, while ICSB claimed it has, despite providing no evidence of payment.
Therefore, to put the matter to rest, instead of a verbal spat, all ICSB has to do is to provide specific details of (i) what they have paid, (ii) when they made the payments and (iii) what were the agreed payment terms.
Otherwise, there will be no credibility to the counter-claims made by ICSB. On the other hand, if ICSB is able to provide proof of payment in accordance with the agreed terms of the Bandar Malaysia sale, proving unreasonable termination by TRX, I will certainly be demanding a response by TRX.
However, if ICSB fails to substantiate its claims, then Malaysians can see clearly that ICSB is only trying to desperately salvage the broken deal and its heavily damaged reputation, which have caused heavy losses to the share price of all companies related to IWH.
In December 2015, 1MDB had announced that it has sold 60 per cent of its Bandar Malaysia interest to the consortium's vehicle, IWH CREC Sdn Bhd (ICSB) for RM7.41 billion.
TRX City Sdn Bhd, which owns Bandar Malaysia and has been taken over by the Ministry of Finance, claimed the agreement had lapsed because the consortium failed to make the necessary payments despite repeated extensions.
In disputing TRX, ICSB said it has made all necessary payments thus far, as outlined in the share sale agreement (SSA), and is also capable of meeting future payments.
"To date, ICSB has fulfilled all the required payment obligations under the SSA on its part towards TRX. ICSB has sufficient financial resources and capabilities to ensure the smooth and successful execution and implementation of the development of Bandar Malaysia," it said in a statement yesterday.
So who is telling the truth? To quote the cryptic ICSB, whose “factual matrix does not fully and accurately reflect the circumstances and conduct of the parties in the matter”?
Thankfully, the matter should be easily clarified resolved. TRX claimed money isn't paid, while ICSB claimed it has, despite providing no evidence of payment.
Therefore, to put the matter to rest, instead of a verbal spat, all ICSB has to do is to provide specific details of (i) what they have paid, (ii) when they made the payments and (iii) what were the agreed payment terms.
Otherwise, there will be no credibility to the counter-claims made by ICSB. On the other hand, if ICSB is able to provide proof of payment in accordance with the agreed terms of the Bandar Malaysia sale, proving unreasonable termination by TRX, I will certainly be demanding a response by TRX.
However, if ICSB fails to substantiate its claims, then Malaysians can see clearly that ICSB is only trying to desperately salvage the broken deal and its heavily damaged reputation, which have caused heavy losses to the share price of all companies related to IWH.
Thursday, May 04, 2017
Who will refund the RM741 million deposit paid by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings to acquire the now aborted Bandar Malaysia equity interest – 1MDB or the Ministry of Finance?
The announcement by TRX City Sdn Bhd, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance (MOF), that the RM7.41 billion sale of 60% equity interest in Bandar Malaysia has collapsed did not come as a surprise at all.
I have previously questioned 1MDB and the MOF as to why the prized asset was sold to a consortium, led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings Bhd (IWH), whose total net assets is worth barely RM3.8 billion, less than half the above transaction value. For the financial year ending 31 December 2015, the company’s net profit was before tax was only RM170.4 million.
Despite IWH clearly attempting to bite off more than it can chew, 1MDB had proudly announced on 31 December 2015 that IWH-Bandar Malaysia sale agreement “marks the final major milestone in the 1MDB rationalisation plan as presented to the Cabinet of Malaysia on 29 May 2015”.
1MDB President and CEO, Arul Kanda had boasted that “the [IWH] Consortium is a highly attractive development partner for Bandar Malaysia and their bid was fully in line with the objectives outlined in the RFP, namely value maximisation, acceptable commercial terms and certainty of transaction execution.”
The deal was expected to be completed by June 2016 but was delayed clearly by IWH’s inability of meet the agreed payment terms and schedules. My questions in Parliament on the project status in November 2016 and April 2017 were met with cryptic replies from the Minister Finance, which revealed that the IWH consortium will pay a 6% interest on outstanding payments until the sums are fully-paid in 2023.
With the deal termination, the MOF have now got to independently service the RM2.4 billion of sukuk which 1MDB took for the purposes of the Bandar Malaysia project, but of which not a single sen was utilised for the property development.
MOF will also have to bear the burden of the making payments to Perbadanan Pewira Hartanah Malaysia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Armed Forces Fund (LTAT) which received a RM2.7 billion contract to relocate the Air Force Military Base, of which nearly RM2 billion was still outstanding.
Then there is now the all-important question as to who will refund the RM741 million deposit paid to 1MDB vby the IWH Consortium?
Will 1MDB now refund the deposit, or will MOF have to once again bailout 1MDB by forking out the RM741 million as a result of the 1MDB real estate fiasco?
Arul Kanda must now resign as the President and CEO of 1MDB to take responsibility for the disastrous fiasco and embarrassment caused to the Government of Malaysia. If Arul Kanda does not take responsibility for his failure, then we call on the Ministry of Finance, whose Treasurer-General Tan Sri Irwan Serigar is also the Chairman of 1MDB to terminate Arul Kanda’s contract.
Arul Kanda has clearly failed to deliver on his promise and has displayed more hype than substance. His severe error of judgement, choosing the IWH Consortium for the purported “certainty of transaction execution” have now caused massive losses for the MOF.
I have previously questioned 1MDB and the MOF as to why the prized asset was sold to a consortium, led by Iskandar Waterfront Holdings Bhd (IWH), whose total net assets is worth barely RM3.8 billion, less than half the above transaction value. For the financial year ending 31 December 2015, the company’s net profit was before tax was only RM170.4 million.
Despite IWH clearly attempting to bite off more than it can chew, 1MDB had proudly announced on 31 December 2015 that IWH-Bandar Malaysia sale agreement “marks the final major milestone in the 1MDB rationalisation plan as presented to the Cabinet of Malaysia on 29 May 2015”.
1MDB President and CEO, Arul Kanda had boasted that “the [IWH] Consortium is a highly attractive development partner for Bandar Malaysia and their bid was fully in line with the objectives outlined in the RFP, namely value maximisation, acceptable commercial terms and certainty of transaction execution.”
The deal was expected to be completed by June 2016 but was delayed clearly by IWH’s inability of meet the agreed payment terms and schedules. My questions in Parliament on the project status in November 2016 and April 2017 were met with cryptic replies from the Minister Finance, which revealed that the IWH consortium will pay a 6% interest on outstanding payments until the sums are fully-paid in 2023.
With the deal termination, the MOF have now got to independently service the RM2.4 billion of sukuk which 1MDB took for the purposes of the Bandar Malaysia project, but of which not a single sen was utilised for the property development.
MOF will also have to bear the burden of the making payments to Perbadanan Pewira Hartanah Malaysia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Armed Forces Fund (LTAT) which received a RM2.7 billion contract to relocate the Air Force Military Base, of which nearly RM2 billion was still outstanding.
Then there is now the all-important question as to who will refund the RM741 million deposit paid to 1MDB vby the IWH Consortium?
Will 1MDB now refund the deposit, or will MOF have to once again bailout 1MDB by forking out the RM741 million as a result of the 1MDB real estate fiasco?
Arul Kanda must now resign as the President and CEO of 1MDB to take responsibility for the disastrous fiasco and embarrassment caused to the Government of Malaysia. If Arul Kanda does not take responsibility for his failure, then we call on the Ministry of Finance, whose Treasurer-General Tan Sri Irwan Serigar is also the Chairman of 1MDB to terminate Arul Kanda’s contract.
Arul Kanda has clearly failed to deliver on his promise and has displayed more hype than substance. His severe error of judgement, choosing the IWH Consortium for the purported “certainty of transaction execution” have now caused massive losses for the MOF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)