1MDB Denies IPIC Indemnification, Yet Another Saga of "Twist and Turn" Replies

Is 1MDB saying that IPIC misled the London Stock Exchange by announcing that the Ministry of Finance had indemnified IPIC in relation to the advance of US$1 billion and future additional payments on behalf of 1MDB?

1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) has denied outright my allegation that the Malaysian Government has effectively provided a guarantee of up to US$4.71 billion or RM17.7 billion to Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC).

I had alleged yesterday that the guarantee was provided in order to secure the agreement for IPIC to advance US$1 billion to 1MDB to settle its immediate outstanding loans, pay interests on 1MDB’s behalf for US$3.5 billion of bonds.

In addition, subject to the “transfer of assets” of “the aggregate value” of all of the above together with the US$3.5 billion bond by 30 June 2016, IPIC will also take over the bonds from 1MDB.

However, 1MDB swiftly denied the allegation, claiming that “neither the Ministry of Finance (MOF), nor the Government of Malaysia, have provided guarantees for the recent commercial transaction between 1MDB and IPIC.”

However, in its absolute denial, 1MDB made no reference at all to the fact that IPIC’s announcement clearly stated “1MDB and MOF have agreed to perform the obligations contemplated in the binding term sheet and to indemnify IPIC and Aabar for any non-performance, and vice versa.”

According to the Collins English Dictionary, “indemnify” means both 1MDB and MOF signed a binding term sheet agreeing “to secure against future loss” or “to compensate for loss” by IPIC.

In simple terms, if 1MDB fails to transfer the necessary assets of the required “aggregate value” to IPIC by 30 June 2016, MOF will be required to repay IPIC at the very least, whatever advances IPIC has made by that date. That will include the US$1 billion advance already paid, and an estimated US$209.7 million worth of interest incurred by the bonds over the next 12 months.

If IPIC were to further assume the US$3.5 billion of bonds, it would mean the MOF would have to indemnify an additional US$3.5 billion to IPIC. That will total up MOF’s contingent liabilities in the agreement up to US$4.71 billion!

The very simple question for 1MDB to answer then is, are they saying that IPIC misled the London Stock Exchange and its bondholders by claiming that MOF provided an indemnity to IPIC over the above “binding” agreement?

1MDB further alleged that I had “deliberately misled the public by failing to mention the crucial ‘and vice versa’ clause in relation to the ‘indemnity’, i.e. the indemnity applies both ways – to IPIC as well as 1MDB – in relation to performance of obligations by the parties”.

This is the classic misdirection tactic utilised by 1MDB whenever they are faced with difficult questions. I never disputed that IPIC also provided a “vice-versa” indemnity. But all the indemnity amounts to is the fact that IPIC has to advance the US$1 billion and pay for the year’s worth of interest, or 1MDB would not need to fulfil its part of the bargain on the “transfer of assets”. There is absolutely no loss involved for IPIC in such an event.

What’s more, IPIC has already fulfilled its obligations to advance US$1 billion to 1MDB and has “has assumed the obligations to pay (on an interim basis) all interest due under two IPIC guaranteed 1MDB financings”. Hence the question of IPIC indemnifying 1MDB is moot.

However, the MOF indemnifying IPIC isn’t moot. The indemnity effectively means MOF has guaranteed to pay IPIC in the event 1MDB fails its part of the bargain by 30 June 2016. The IPIC announcement was written as plainly in English as possible for the London Stock Exchange, targeted presumably at an English-speaking financial community.

Finally, if MOF was not needed to indemnify IPIC, then why should MOF be a party to the binding term sheet in the first place? If it is strictly a “commercial transaction” as claimed by 1MDB, why wasn’t it just between 1MDB and IPIC alone?

Once again, 1MDB should stop twisting and turning in its replies, or it will end up with eggs on its face again, just like the “redeemed” “units”, “cash” or “assets” farce.



Tony Pua

Read more!

Hannah Yeoh @ Pakatan Rakyat Convention

Hannah's excellent speech at the inaugural Pakatan Rakyat convention
as a delegate from DAP.

Read more!

Struggle for Local Government Elections To Continue

The following is the Malaysian Insider report on the Pakatan Rakyat Convention yesterday with regards to the contentious issue of local government elections. Malaysiakini has also got Karpal Singh and Hannah Yeoh's comments.

DAP’s Hannah Yeoh (pic) emerged as the only speaker that critically debated the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) common policy framework, urging the coalition to restore local government elections.

“The local governments collect millions in tax revenue every year, but the public has no say in electing their members,” said Yeoh at the PR’s inaugural convention here.

“Local election will also improve the quality of local councillors, the best candidate will win,” she declared.

In the coalition’s common policy launched earlier today, it is stated that PR is committed to “strengthen local government democracy and democratically enhance the competency and effectiveness of the delivery system and guarantee transparency at all levels.”

Such a choice of words was made to appease PR leaders who are opposed to restoring local government elections. The Malaysian Insider understands that Malay leaders from both PAS and PKR are worried that local governments would be dominated by the non-Malays should councillors are elected openly.

“If local elections is restored, councillors will be more hardworking, thus improving efficiency in the local authorities,” said Yeoh.

She also urged PR leaders not to worry about the outcome of local elections.

“The Chinese and the Indians have voted for PAS, the people have moved away from their fears... We should not be fearful of the third vote,” she added.

Earlier, when opening the convention, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng admitted that the party had to compromise on its commitment to restore local elections.

DAP has been known to be a staunch advocate for the restoration of the local council election while PAS are known to oppose it and PKR are internally frayed on the issue despite having promised to restore the local council vote in its 2008 General Elections manifesto.

Since the suspension of local government elections in the 1960s, councillors have been appointed directly by the state government and this has since been turned into a political reward for ruling party officials.

The restoration of local elections is one of the demands made by electoral reforms coalition Bersih, which also comprise PR parties.

In November 2007, the group organised the largest street demonstration in Kuala Lumpur in a decade, mobilising some 60,000 protesters to demand for free and fair elections.

The coalition’s effort in mobilising support contributed to Barisan Nasional’s worst electoral performance in Election 2008, which was held just four months later.

Read more!

Hanky-Panky With Alam Flora Contracts?

The DAP views the expose by MBPJ councillor, A Thiruvenggadam, alleging that the state divides Alam Flora's waste management contracts to political parties - 40 percent to PKR, 30 percent to PAS and 30 percent to DAP as reported in Malaysiakini a few days ago with grave and serious concern.

I've issued a press statement with regards to the above with regards to the issue, but it wasn't picked up by Malaysiakini. PKR Vice-President R Sivarasa had a response to the issue (which is not the position of the DAP) which is published yesterday.

The Selangor State Executive Council must immediately investigate the veracity of these claims which poses serious credibility threats to the Pakatan Rakyat state government. We would like to call upon the executive councillor for infrastructure and public amenities, Datuk Dr Hassan Mohd Ali, who is in-charge of Alam Flora waste management services to confirm or deny the allegations.

The allegations, if true, will put us on a slippery slope to become a Government which condones on patronage and cronyism, no different from Barisan Nasional. If the allegations are however, found to be false or misguided, then Thiruvenggadam must apologise for his allegations.

The DAP strongly condemns any move which condones patronage politics where politicians get to decide the contractors get the jobs for public services contracts. We are firm in our belief that these contracts must be tendered to all qualified parties in an open, transparent and competitive manner. Only then will the rakyat receive the best quality services at the lowest possible prices.

The DAP-led Pakatan Rakyat Government in Penang has taken great pains to ensure that politicians are not put in a position to indulge in patronage politics which promotes corruption and nepotism. Even in the face of strong political opposition within the Pakatan Rakyat component parties to reserve plum positions such as MPSP or MPPP president's post, the Penang government has stuck to its guns to promote worthy civil servants instead. This serves to ensure that our policy of competency, accountability and transparency (CAT) is not only preached, but practised.

Hence, regardless of the allegations, the Selangor Government must dismiss any lingering suspicions over the manner in which sub-contracts by Alam Flora are “allocated” by announcing implementation of a competitive tender, even if it's limited to Class F contractors, to ensure that corruption and cronyism will not take root under Pakatan's administration, and the rakyat receives the best deal.

As such, we disagree with the position taken by Sivarasa today who said "...we see nothing wrong in different parties recommending names, individuals recommending names or the parties themselves recommending names. But the fact that all the three parties recommend names, shows the work will be spread out. "

Political parties have no position, business or role in putting forward names of preferred contractors for the purposes of municipal council contracts.

Read more!

Glomac Damansara: Was There Consultation?

Here's a perfect example of why our current local government system is completely screwed up. Let me put it forward very briefly as follows:

• Developer for Glomac Damansara (check out the density for yourself) for Taman Tun Dr Ismail (TTDI) puts up the Development Proposal Notice at the site at the end of 2007. 
  
  
• Interestingly enough, within a few days, the Notice Board gets hidden by opaque fences put up around the development site.
  
  
• SS20 Rukun Tetangga chairperson spotted the notice and quickly submitted a letter to DBKL to object to the project, or at least to have it reviewed before the deadline allowed.
  
  
• However, there was absolute silence from DBKL. I found out about the project sometime in Jun this year after being elected MP for Petaling Jaya Utara, which covers SS20. I spoke to my colleague, the MP for Segambut (which covers TTDI), Lim Lip Eng to follow up with DBKL and check on the status.
  
  
• The project is now at a full-steam ahead pace. The response from DBKL was, SS20 was in Petaling Jaya which is not under its jurisdiction, and hence have no legal basis to submit complaints, despite being directly opposite the old Jalan Damansara road which forms the boundary between KL and PJ.
  

Ridiculous right? Wait til you hear what the Deputy Minister of Federal Territories say in parliament in response to my query (or see Hansard pg 52).

Sebenarnya kawasan saya bukannya di dalam kawasan Wilayah Persekutuan tetapi di sebelah kawasan Segambut, PJ Utara. Saya ingin menimbulkan satu perkara, satu isu yang telah terjadi di kawasan Taman Tun iaitu di kawasan Segambut yang bersempadan dengan kawasan SS20 di kawasan PJ Utara. Ada satu projek yang baru yang tengah dibangunkan di kawasan Taman Tun ini yang bernama Glomac Damansara dan ianya telah diluluskan saya agak pada akhir tahun lalu dan satu papan cadangan telah dinaikkan pada bulan November atau Disember tahun lalu.

Penduduk di sebelah jalan iaitu di SS20 kawasan saya telah pun menulis kepada pihak DBKL untuk membantah ataupun meminta supaya satu dialog ataupun satu penjelasan diadakan sebelum projek ini diteruskan dan dibina di kawasan Taman Tun. Akan tetapi pendedahan yang telah dimasukkan ke dalam DBKL ini langsung tidak diambil kira sebelum projek ini diberikan kelulusan dan projek ini buat masa ini telah pun berjalan.

Apabila saya menimbulkan perkara ini bersama dengan rakan saya dari Segambut ke pihak DBKL, pihak DBKL menjawab oleh kerana pihak pembantah adalah bukan daripada dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, mereka tidak ada locus standi untuk membantah mengenai projek ini.

Saya agak jawapan yang telah diberikan oleh pihak DBKL adalah tidak munasabah dan juga bersikap angkuh terhadap rakyat dan isu-isu yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh pihak DBKL.

Selain daripada itu, saya juga ingin mendapat tahu adakah pihak DBKL apabila dia meluluskan apa-apa projek di kawasan Wilayah Persekutuan, terutamanya di kawasan sempadan yang bersempadan dengan kawasan lain di Selangor seperti di Petaling Jaya Utara, adakah satu perbincangan diadakan dengan pihak majlis perbandaran yang lain di sebelah itu. Saya rasa sudah ada banyak projek yang telah diluluskan di kawasan sana yang menyeberangi kawasan Taman Tun yang akan meningkatkan trafik di kawasan itu seperti adanya projek Tropicana City di MPPJ dan juga projek-projek yang lain yang bersempadan dengan pihak Taman Tun.

Adakah satu penyeluruhan mengenai traffic flow diadakan, satu study mengenai seluruh kawasan tersebut sebelum satu-satu projek diluluskan sebab projek ini adalah satu mix development, satu projek yang besar dan telah diiklankan oleh pihak pemaju sebagai satu projek yang bernilai RM500 juta di kawasan itu. Penduduk-penduduk yang di kawasan Petaling Jaya saya buat masa ini selalu membuat aduan kepada saya kerana mereka rasa mereka telah dipinggirkan.

...So, saya harap pihak DBKL dan juga pihak kementerian dapat menjawab supaya DBKL akan lebih mengambil kira isu-isu yang akan dibawa oleh semua penduduk di satu kawasan yang tengah dimajukan dan bukan sahaja penduduk-penduduk yang ada dalam Wilayah Persekutuan sahaja.

And the short reply from the Deputy Minister was (pg 89):

Seterusnya mengenai isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Ahli Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya mengenai bantahan penduduk daripada SS20 berkenaan pembangunan di Lot 73, Jalan Damansara. Bantahan penduduk SS20 telah diambil kira dan Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur sedang mempertimbangkan dalam permohonan ini. Sesi penerangan telah dibuat bersama penduduk Taman Tun Dr. Ismail dan wakil penduduk SS20 Damansara pada 6 Oktober 2008. Pemaju telah membuat kajian trafik selaras dengan kehendak Jabatan Pengangkutan Bandar Kuala Lumpur.

End of story. Which means that allegedly a consultation has taken place in October this year with not only the residents of TTDI (which I'm unable to verify) as well as with SS20 representatives!

To be frank, I was a little stunned with the reply and didn't pursue the matter further in Parliament that day. After that I met up with the SS20 RT chairperson, and once again, she reaffirmed that there has been absolutely no contact and no consultation with the residents of SS20 since the letter was submitted in December 2007.

So the Deputy Minister has lied and misled the Parliament (which technically is a very serious offence, but we'll never get anywhere pursuing it - BN ministers and MPs does it all the time) and got away with it.

I'll now have to follow up on the matter further but these things really sometimes drive you up the wall as the arrogance of DBKL and the BN government on these issues affecting the people's livelihood are treated with total disdain and disinterest.

Read more!

Local Government Elections?

We have been talking about local government elections for the longest time. We pushed it hard during the last general elections. I know I did. I also know that there are many who have criticised the Pakatan Rakyat state governments as to why such elections have not been held.

There have been many reasons given for the delay, some of which I find very real and valid, others less so. I'll not deal with these reasons on this blog post. Instead, I've finally gotten a reply from the Ministry of Housing & Local Government on my following question with regards to local government elections.

[Petaling Jaya Utara] minta Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan menyatakan sama ada kerajaan akan membantah ataupun menghalang negeri-negeri yang dipimpin oleh DAP, PKR dan PAS melaksanakan pilihan raya Kerajaan Tempatan yang merupakan ruang lingkup kuasa Kerajaan Negeri. Jika ia, sila memberikan penjelasan yang terperinci.

The answer by the Ministry was essentially to say that the state has no such right as follows.

Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat, cadangan untuk mengadakan semula pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan adalah tidak selaras dengan undang-undang dan dasar sedia ada. Antara undang-undang yang berkenaan ialah Akta Kerajaan Tempatan 1976 (Akta 171) dan Akta Pilihanraya Kerajaan Tempatan 1960 (Akta 473).

Walaubagaimanapun, sekiranya terdapat cadangan untuk mengadakan pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan, maka selaras dengan peruntukan Perkara 96A Perlembagaan Persekutuan, persoalan dasar berhubung cadangan ini hendaklah terlebih dahulu dipertimbang dan diputuskan di peringkat Majlis Negara bagi Kerajaan Tempatan.

Is it? Is it not? I'm no legal expert but I do know that there's clearly uncertainty over who has control over local government elections. Regardless, it's clear from the answer above that the Federal Government will not support any attempts at local elections at the state government level.

Read more!

Freeze High Density Development in PJ?

A daily sight, especially on LDP where the traffic load
has already exceeded the capacity it was built.

The Paradigm - A mega commerial high density project undergoing construction
next to the LDP which will lead to further congestion to LDP
and its neighbouring roads.  How did the traffic study get approved?

This issue was reported in The Star Metro a week or so ago, which highlighted the fact that Petaling Jaya faces real risks of becoming over-developed, if not already so. The journalist, Tan Karr Wei spoke to a few local councillors - Cynthia Gabriel and Robert Tan of MBPJ, and myself on the issue. My comments are as follows.

Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua feels that these kinds of developments would eventually lower the quality of life for PJ residents with many long-term implications such as the lack of open spaces, insufficient drainage, traffic congestions, increase in pollution, among others. Pua said that the city was starting to display traits of becoming overdeveloped.

“We are now finding big shopping centres approved by the previous government at busy traffic junctions, or in the middle of residential areas without appropriate access roads and even conversion of open spaces to large commercial and high density residential projects all around PJ. Comparatively, cities such as Singapore or Hong Kong are more built up than PJ but they have excellent accompanying infrastructure like public transportation to maximise convenience and increase livability. The problem for PJ is many of our new developments are approved without any consideration given to public transport infrastructure,” said Pua.

Pua echoed Tan’s concerns on traffic studies: “The fact that these studies were conducted by consultants appointed by developers clearly created a conflict of interest.”

“In addition, they are conducted on the basis that all other matters are equal. This is most often not the case. An example is the traffic study for Tropicana City, which was conducted without taking into account traffic created by a shopping centre a stone’s throw away in Section 19. To make matters worse, the plan is for additional traffic to be diverted into the old Jalan Damansara dividing SS20 and Taman Tun (Dr Ismail), which comes under two separate city councils (DBKL and MBPJ). It also does not take into account that construction work has already commenced for a commercial centre on the Taman Tun side,” said Pua.

He said that traffic study consultants should be answerable to the local council instead of to developers, at the cost of the latter.

Pua said the MBPJ has a role to play in ensuring that there is an overall city masterplan with total planning on the environment, traffic and public transportation network,

However, he felt that the council had a big task at hand where they have to deal with fragmented pieces of land which has been sold or alienated to private developers who would have little or no interest in sharing costs with each other to build public infrastructures like roads.

I'm thinking to coming up with a people petition to the state government to implement a freeze on all new (and yet to be approved) high-rise development (anything above 4 stories?) in Petaling Jaya until such a time when:

1. The updated and revised Rancang Tempatan Petaling Jaya (RTPJ) is approved by MBPJ and the state government after all necessary due process such as consultation with the people of Petaling Jaya, and
   
   
2. An efficient public transportation system of high quality and frequency is set up to drastically reduce traffic within the city. While by and large, the state government has only bit roles in setting up public transportation services, it can insist that development project plans will only be approved if public transportation issues have been resolved (e.g., new high density projects can only be approved if there will be buses/trains plying the route etc.)
   

By "freezing" the approval of new development orders, as well as placing strict restrictions on density on those which have unfortunately been approved (but detailed plans yet to be submitted), it will also incentivise the developers to lobby and negotiate with public transport companies such as RapidKL to increase route coverage.

If you stay in Petaling Jaya and are willing to campaign for this movement and promote the petition (e.g., going house-to-house to get signatures for support), and even better, lead the project, please do not hesitate to contact me @ tonypua (at) yahoo (dot) com. I'll then be more than happy to play the role to lobby the state government with your petition.

Read more!

No Local Government Elections?

Holding local government elections was one of the key rallying points by nearly all of the opposition candidates during the last general elections, myself included, or more specifically, myself in particular.

And to reiterate, I will do my utmost to apply all necessary pressure on both the state governments led by DAP, PKR or PAS to hold local government elections, as well as of course, pressing the Barisan Nasional federal government to allow local council elections.

Quite a few questions have been raised by MPs in parliament as to whether the Federal Government intends to hold local government elections, one of which came from Liew Chin-Tong, MP for Bukit Bendera on 7th May:

Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan [diminta] Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan menayatakan hala tuju dan jangka masa pelaksanaan pilihanraya Kerajaan Tempatan bagi membuka sebuah babak baru dalam demokrasi di Malaysia.

The answer was short but not so sweet:

Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat, Kerajaan tidak bercadang untuk mengadakan pilihanraya Kerajaan Tempatan.

Well, it clearly demonstrates that the new Minister of Housing & Local Government, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan, who took over from his brother, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting, has no intention in respecting the wishes of the voters who clearly want local government elections to promote efficiency, transparency and good governance.

The Penang state government led by DAP has publicly pledged that they are committed towards local government elections to be held by or before the next general elections. There is an action team looking specifically into this issue, particularly on legal and administrative aspects of conducting local government elections in the state.

At the same time, we are awaiting the relevant policy announcements by the respective state governments in Perak and Selangor on its commitment to, and the time-frame for executing local government elections.

Let's push for concrete steps to be made towards local government elections, and let the Federal Government challenge the state government in the state of law, against the wishes of the population, should they so wish to do so.

Read more!

Mahkota Cheras - Selangor Government Must Act

The state of Mahkota Cheras controversy has deteriorated into a farce when the Federal Reserve Units (FRU), equipped with water cannons and all, were deployed by the Grand Saga Highway concessionaire to construct a barricade across a road which has been proven by the Hulu Langat Land Office in a letter dated April 22, 2008 as belonging to the state.

While it is comforting to note that the Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim has acknowledged, as per the Star report yesterday that “the residents had the right to use the access road without having to pay toll”, it is disappointing that he had not taken a stronger stand on the issue, and in fact had not dealt with it much earlier when the FRU was first deployed, or even before that.

This has resulted in the situation clearly getting out of control, with a fracas between the residents and the FRU units in the wee hours of the morning 2 days ago (see video here), and a Member of Parliament lying in the hospital at this point of time, having been assaulted by the police.

It is critical that the new state government demonstrate political will and determination to stand for what is right and just, without fear or favour, instead of wavering in uncertainty or adopting a “we will look into it” or “we will have to discuss further” culture which is reminiscent of the previous Barisan Nasional government. It is of great concern that Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had qualified his statement on the “right of use” by saying that the state government must also take into consideration that the toll is the source of revenue for the company.

With the state ownership of the land no longer in dispute, the local government, in this case the Kajang Municipal Council (MPKj), must take all necessary actions to prevent illegal structures from being constructed on state land.

If an enforcement officer does not hesitate to compound a car parked temporarily but illegally on a state road, why should MPKj decline to take action, via compounds and summons, against the parties who are erecting a permanent structure in the middle of the road? In fact, any party who persist in constructing illegal barriers, in the face of compounds issued, must be charged in the court of law.

As the old adage that we members of the opposition is so fond of using, “justice must not only be done, but seen to be done”. The rakyat will be understandably discontented if the government enforces the law against the man on the street, while allows room for negotiation and delay when commercial interests are involved.

It is hence critical that the Menteri Besar of Selangor demonstrate much greater urgency in the matter, without letting the situation deteriorate further than it already has via inertia. If the first night's deployment of the FRU against residents who wanted the law upheld has not injected such urgency, then we certainly hope that the second night's deployment would have.

The new state government is being given certain leeway to perform by the people of Selangor. However, it will quickly lose its goodwill if the people's interest are not given priority.

Read more!

Local Government Elections

It's time to get rid of political patronage.

It is a little sad, but unsurprising that within days of getting elected, I have received calls on how I can use my influence to appoint city or municipal councillors. There were of course those who were genuine about making positive changes to local city council, but quite clearly, there were those seeking political favours in exchange for support.

I spoke a little about the above in my interview with Malaysiakini here.

I can imagine the type of calls, my recent elected colleagues must be getting as well from others on the same issue. This only strengthens my resolve that the law to enable local government elections must be drafted, debated and passed by the states in which DAP plays a role before the next general elections. And I'm glad DAP is taking the lead by emphasising on the need to bring back local government elections, particularly in Penang where the DAP-led coalition government is steaming ahead.

We must overcome whatever "grey" areas which are in conflict between the state and federal laws.

Only with democratically elected local councillors, will they be directly accountable to the people, instead of to the party which "awards" these positions. And more importantly, only then will they make decisions on behalf of the city council which are in the interest of the rakyat, instead of the interest of the political masters, personal or otherwise.

Certainly, I campaigned strongly for a democratic local government during the election period and I'll certainly do my best within the Parliament and within the Party to ensure that the voters will get the fair deal they deserve from the local councils.

And in the interim, while awaiting for local council elections, we will push for openness, transparency and competition in all local council accounts as well as tenders. We want to transform local councils from one beset with the culture of secrecy (something to hide) to one which engages the electorate.

Wish me luck! ;-)

Read more!