Saturday, 28 August 2010

Isu Perkauman di Bincang

Nazri: Jawatankuasa Kabinet bincang isu pengetua, surau ‘diserang’

August 28, 2010
KUALA KANGSAR, 28 Ogos — Jawatankuasa Kabinet Berkenaan Penguatkuasaan Undang-Undang yang bermesyuarat kelmarin telah menyentuh isu pengetua di Johor yang didakwa mengeluarkan kenyataan berbuat rasis dan kes surau di Seremban disimbah cat merah.
“Khamis lepas kami mengadakan mesyuarat yang kedua. Dalam mesyuarat ini kami memutuskan akan memantau kes-kes yang mempunyai kesan dalam perkembangan sosial, serta yang melibatkan kepentingan umum,” kata Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz (gambar) dipetik Bernama.
Beliau berkata antara isu yang dibincangkan dalam mesyuarat terbaru itu ialah kes berkaitan seorang pengetua sekolah di Johor yang didakwa mengeluarkan kenyataan berbaur perkauman dan tindakan empat remaja Cina menyimbah cat merah dan botol arak ke sebuah surau di Negeri Sembilan.
Kata beliau, mana-mana pihak atau individu yang mengeluarkan kenyataan menyentuh isu-isu berhubung sensitiviti kaum dan agama perlu bertanggungjawab dan menanggung akibat serta kesannya apabila ia dilaporkan kepada pihak berkuasa.
Jawatankuasa yang bermesyuarat sebulan sekali itu turut dianggotai Menteri Dalam Negeri Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Menteri Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, Ketua Polis Negara Tan Sri Musa Hassan dan Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail.
Beliau berkata, alasan mengatakan tindakan atau kenyataan yang diucapkan telah “disalah anggap” adalah sesuatu yang tidak boleh diterima.
“Ucapan yang penting ialah mengenai anggapan orang.
“Bila berucap, ucapan itu kena dijaga, jangan boleh disalahtafsirkan,” katanya kepada pemberita ketika ditemui selepas menyampaikan sumbangan Aidilfitri kepada 300 penerima dalam Parlimen Padang Rengas di Pusat Khidmat Masyarakat Barisan Nasional di Lubuk Merbau Merbau di sini.
Katanya, bagi memastikan isu-isu yang menyentuh perhubungan kaum tidak terus dimanipulasikan mana-mana pihak, kerajaan menerusi Jawatankuasa Kabinet Berkenaan Penguatkuasaan Undang-Undang akan memantau setiap isu yang berbangkit.
Menurutnya kerajaan tidak akan berkompromi dengan usaha pihak tertentu yang mahu memecahbelahkan perpaduan rakyat pelbagai kaum dalam negara.
“Kerajaan tidak boleh bertolak ansur dengan isu perkauman sama ada yang membabitkan golongan minoriti atau majoriti, saya akan pastikan jika ada laporan polis dibuat dan selepas disiasat, ia akan diserahkan kepada Peguam Negara.
“Saya akan pantau, kalau ada kes mesti didakwa dan pendakwaan mesti cepat,” katanya.
Ditanya persepsi orang ramai bahawa kerajaan hanya bertindak tegas terhadap kes yang membabitkan kaum tertentu sahaja, Nazri berkata ia tidak benar, kerana tindakan yang diambil berdasarkan kepada kesalahan yang dilakukan tanpa mengira kaum.
MI

Perbelanjaan Pertahanan

Apa pula kos sepuluh ringgit ini, Kementerian Pertahanan?
Columnists
Written by Faisal Mustaffa   
Tuesday, 24 August 2010 18:53


Rancangan Malaysia Ke-10 (RMK10) ialah dokumen yang setebal 449 mukasurat dibentangkan baru-baru ini yang merangkumi pembangunan semua sektor negara, termasuk keselamatan. Akan tetapi apa yang menghairankan, ianya tidak langsung menyentuh perbelanjaan bagi pembangunan dan keupayaan pertahanan.
Berdasarkan maklumat am yang dikeluarkan, umum mengetahui bahawa sektor keselamatan diberikan 10% dari RM230 bilion peruntukan rancangan pembangunan lima tahun tersebut.
Aku mengambil masa yang agak panjang untuk meneliti ucapan Perdana Menteri Jun lalu demi mencari butiran daripada jumlah tersebut, berapakah peruntukan dalam bidang pertahanan dan juga pecahan peruntukan kepada polis, Agensi Penguatkuasa Maritim dan angkatan tentera?
Terkejut aku pada 22 Julai apabila Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan Abdul Latiff Ahmad memberitahu Dewan Negara bahawa perkara berkenaan masih dalam pertimbangan Unit Perancang Ekonomi. Adakah Kementerian Pertahanan mengambil masa bulan madu (sebut: ‘own sweet time’) mereka dalam merekodkan peruntukan bagi perbelanjaan lima tahun?
Banyak perkara yang meragukan berlaku di dalam pentadbiran Kementerian Pertahanan ini.
Sebagai seorang rakyat Malaysia dan pembayar cukai, aku berminat untuk mengetahui saluran mana yang digunakan wang aku dari aspek pertahanan, terutama mengenai senarai perolehan kelengkapan yang sedang dan siap dilaksanakan serta untuk lima tahun depan.
Kita bukannya menuntut diberitahu tentang spesifikasi atau atur gerak angkatan tentera tetapi bukankan rakyat Malaysia juga berhak untuk mengetahui latar belakang pembelian dan pembangunan kelengkapan?
Maklumat rahsia
Maklumat mengenai pembelian Vera-E Radar Pasif dan Omnipol, Republik Czech, misalnya, pernah dicatatkan dalam Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Pertahanan 2007 dan 2008. Laporan tersebut telah menyatakan projek timbal balas Vera-E sedang dipantau oleh kementerian.
Ya, memang benar perolehan daripada projek yang berjumlah €17.6 juta (RM70 juta) ini digunakan untuk memenuhi keperluan pengawasan ruang angkasa negara secara berlapis. Tetapi, apakah kesudahannya?
Pada Julai 2007, Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan sendiri mengumumkan pembelian cruise missile di Dewan Rakyat. Tetapi, sejak dari itu, ianya terus senyap dari sebarang pengumuman dalam mengemaskini. Apabila Timbalan Menteri sekarang diminta sekali lagi bagi menjelaskannya, ia telah menjadi maklumat rahsia.
Apakah yang berlaku? Ia sepatutnya tidak tertakluk kepada Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972( OSA) sekiranya ianya pernah dimaklumkan, terutamanya apabila ia menjadi sebahagian daripada ucapan Kementerian di dalam Parlimen. Dan ia sekarang menjadi rahsia?
Kejadian yang sama juga berlaku apabila pada 31 Ogos 2007, sewaktu perarakan sambutan Hari Kemerdekaan, Kementerian Pertahanan telah – dengan bangganya – menayangkan peluru berpandu Taming Sari XK98 kepada khalayak ramai.
Namun, menurut Abdul Latiff, Projek Penyelidikan dan Pembangunan Peluru Berpandu telah sekarang ini diklasifikasikan di bawah OSA. Oleh yang demikian, segala maklumat berkenaan projek ini tidak boleh diumumkan. Jadi, mengapakah ianya dulu dibawa sebagai sebahagian daripada perarakan Hari Merdeka?
Pembelian ketenteraan adalah sebahagian daripada peruntukan awam dan perlu mendapat persetujuan Parlimen. Oleh itu, munasabah dan berpatutan untuk Ahli Parlimen membincangkan dan mengetahui latar belakang pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan yang mahal ini.
Kos pertahanan negara perlulah dipantau bagi mengelakkan sebarang penyelewengan selaras dengan prinsip-prinsip urustadbir baik ataupun ‘good governance’ dan meningkatkan lagi ketelusan kerajaan.
Dibuat secara rawak
Kerajaan mengumumkan pada April 20 tatkala Defence Services Asia 2010 yang ia akan membelanjakan RM8 bilion merangkumi RM400 juta bagi membangunkan kemudahan DefTech di Pekan. Ianya berupa kos penyelidikan R&D, integrasi, dan ujian. Namun angka tersebut tidaklah munasabah dan terlalu tinggi, di mana ini adalah perolehan terbesar dalam sejarah Malaysia.
Jumlah tersebut dikatakan untuk memperoleh 250 buah kereta perisai dan pembawa anggota (‘armoured-wheeled vehicle’) AV8 dari syarikat DRB-Hicom Defense Technology Sdn Bhd (DefTech) dan FNSS supaya menggantikan semua kereta Condor dan Sibmas yang sudah usang.
Ini bermaksud secara amnya setiap AV8 berkos RM31 juta. Mengikut kajian purata kosnya ialah USD2 juta atau USD3 juta, atau dalam ringgit ialah RM10 juta lebih. Persoalannya, mengapakah kereta perisai AV8 kita ini mahal, hampir dua kali ganda dari kosnya kalau berbanding luar negeri?
Pihak kementerian juga tidak menjelaskan bagaimana RM8 bilion ini digunakan dalam pecahan kos R&D, ujian integrasi pembangunan infrastruktur, kos pembelian, harta intelek FNSS dan unit kos.
Mengapakah perolehan ini adalah melalui ‘direct negotiation’? Mengapa bukan secara tender terbuka memandangkan ia menelan belanja wang yang begitu tinggi, manakala anggaran perbelanjaan mengurus 2010 telah menunjukkan penurunan dalam bidang latihan, logistik, operasi dan pengurusan?
Benar sangkaan aku bahawa secara praktis, Malaysia memang tidak mengamalkan tender terbuka tetapi menyerahkannya kepada DefTech melalui surat niat (‘letter of intent’). Adakah cara ini benar-benar memberi kebebasan kepada sebuah pihak untuk meletakkan harga?
Satu lagi, yang aku ingin berkongsi maklumat dengan orangramai (selepas aku meneliti anggaran perbelanjaan pembangunan). Dicatatkan di dalam Bajet 2010 bahawa yuran RM10 dikenakan untuk tiga perkhidmatan. Aku mula terfikir-fikir apakah yang dibeli dengan peruntukan sepuluh ringgit di dalam sebuah kementerian yang begitu penting, yakni pertahanan negara.
Walaupun kurang masuk akal, apabila dikaji, RM10 ini sebenarnya adalah merupakan nilai untuk mewujud dan menandakan projek berkenaan. Akan tetapi, di dalam pelaksanaan projek tersebut, tambahan peruntukan boleh dilakukan dengan memindahkan peruntukan daripada peruntukan yang lain.
CPI

Oil Royalty Issue

Monday, March 22, 2010

A Blast From The Past.....Was The Oil Royalty 5% Or 20%?

Is the Petroleum Development Act 1974 unconstitutional? Petronas doesn't answer to Parliament and is only answerable to the Prime Minister of the day-hence if my memory still serves me correctly the Prime Minister of the day is Najib Tun Razak.But 36 years ago,the time the Petroleum Act was enacted,the Prime Minister was Tun Abdul Razak (22th.Sept.1970-14th.Jan.1976), while Tun Hussein Onn serve as the Prime Minister from 14th.Jan.1976-16th.July.1981.

Ironically,call it just pure coincidence,we are now seeing off springs in a similar capacity.But today we're more keen to re-discover the events that took place in Sabah,which could have change the fate of Sabahans,especially when oil was actually first discovered in 1882.

On the morning of June 6th.1976 @10am,Sabah Chief Minister born as Donald Aloysius Marmaduke Stephens and ,later known as Tun Haji Mohammad Fuad Stephens boarded a Nomad Aircraft from Kota Kinabalu and bound for Labuan. Along with him on the flight were State Ministers Datuk Salleh Sulong, Chong Thien Vun, and Assistant Minister Darius Binion. The purpose was to welcome Malaysian Finance Minister Tengku Razaliegh Hamzah and Sarawak Chief Minister, Datuk Pattingi Hj.Abdul Rahman Yakub,who were visiting the oil refinery at Labuan.

On the 7th.June.1976,the visiting Finance Minister cum Petronas Founding Chairman, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was scheduled to sign an Oil Agreement in Kota Kinabalu between the State Government of Sabah and Petronas. Unfortunately the signing ceremony never took place, not on the 7th.June.1976 anyway. The reason.... Chief Minister Donald Stephens, Salleh Sulong, Chong Thien Vun, Peter Mojuntin (the Golden Son of the Kadazans) along with 7 others perished in the controversial accident of the Nomad Aircraft carrying them on the 6th.June.1976, in Kota Kinabalu. That tragedy is also known as the DOUBLE SIX TRAGEDY or DOUBLE SIX CRASH.

The question lingering in the minds of Sabahans till this day is - was the final discussion prior to the signing of this Oil Agreement 5% or 20% ?? Will we ever know?


Catastrophically, after only eight days after the First Huguan Siou, Donald Stephens, perished in that controversial crash, and on the 14th.June.1976,the Government of Sabah signed an agreement with Petronas, granting it the right to extract oil and earn revenue from the territorial waters of Sabah in exchange for 5% in annual revenue as royalty.

Today, after 34 years, its questionable if National oil firm Petronas could be unlawful as its founding law was approved before it signed agreements with all the states, according to law professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi.

He also explained that according to the Malaysia Federal Agreement, land belongs to the states, which complicates the provision in the agreement surrendering control of petroleum found onshore under the Petroleum Development Act 1974.

“I think there are some aspects of the Petronas Act that is unconstitutional,”

Under the agreements signed in the mid-1970s all state governments were promised cash payment or royalty of five per cent for petroleum extracted onshore or offshore in return for surrendering their control of petroleum resources to the national oil company.

Shad also pointed out that the Act was passed before all the states had signed the agreement.

“The constitution says when you take somebody’s property you have to pay adequate compensation,” said Shad.

Federal powers:

In Schedule 9, List I of the Federal Constitution, the following topics are assigned to the Federal Government:

> Except as to State rights over permits and licenses, the Federal Government has rights over development of mineral resources, mines, mining, minerals and mineral ores, oils and oilfields, petroleum products, safety in mines and oilfields: Para 8(j).

> Gas and gas works, production and distribution of power and energy: Para 11(c).

> Foreign and extra-territorial jurisdiction: Para 1 (g).

> Treaties, agreements and conventions with other countries and all matters which bring the Federation into relations with any other country: Para 1(a) and 1(b).

Peninsular Malaysian States:

When it comes to Peninsular Malaysian States, the following matters fall in State hands:

> Land: Schedule 9 List II, Para 2(a). Under the Interpretation Acts, 1948 and 1967, Section 3, land includes “the surface of the earth … all substances therein… all vegetation and other natural products… whether on or below the surface… and land covered by water”. The territorial waters of Kelantan will come within the definition of “land covered by water”. Territorial waters are defined by Section 4(2) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 7, 1969. Subject to some exceptions, they refer to three nautical miles.

> Revenue from lands: Schedule 10, Part III Para 2.

> In addition to the income from land, one notes that in Article 110[3A] there is provision for discretionary payment on such terms and conditions as maybe prescribed by or under federal law of the export duty on “mineral oils” produced in the state. Petroleum comes within the meaning of “mineral oils” under Section 10 of the Petroleum Development Act.

Sabah & Sarawak:

In addition to the rights of other states, Sabah and Sarawak enjoy some special sources of revenue.

> Schedule 10, Part V, Para 1 assigns import duty and excise duty on petroleum products to Sabah and Sarawak.

> Schedule 10, Part V, Para 3 assigns royalty and export duty on “mineral oils” totaling 10% to Sabah and Sarawak. “Petroleum”, as defined in the Petroleum Development Act, falls within the meaning of “mineral oils” and, therefore, 10% combined royalty and export duty on it constitutes part of the guaranteed revenue for Sabah and Sarawak.

From the above, it follows that the constitutional right of Peninsular Malaysian states is confined to fees for permits and licences and for extraction of any petroleum that is derived from their land and territorial waters.

Anything beyond territorial waters, e.g. on the Continental Shelf, is entirely in federal hands. All gas is in federal hands.

Legally, the oil and gas belongs to the states. The only way the federal government can ‘steal’ this oil and gas would be to come out with a new law that allows them to do so. If not it would be illegal for the federal government to touch the oil and gas. It belonged 100% to the states.

And this new law or Act called the Petroleum Development Act 1974 allowed the federal government to unilaterally (note the word ‘unilaterally’ and not ‘bilaterally’) amend the terms of the Federal Agreement. Normally, it requires all the parties to the Agreement to agree to any amendments to that Agreement before it can be amended. In this case, only one party made the changes (unilaterally) and the other parties were forced to remain silent.

The Federal and State Government of Sabah have a whole load of explaining to do.Were there two sets of agreement - one dated on the 7th.June 1976 and the other 14th.June 1976? Was the oil royalty 5% or was it more?

Why didn't any of the Chief Ministers after Donald Stephens demand for more oil royalty for Sabah? Sabahans have been hoodwinked long enough and the time has come for Sabahans to demand what rightfully belongs to them.The State Government of Sabah has been silent and it's quite obvious,they will remain silent-hence a puppet government.If history could be reversed would Sabahans today enjoy a much higher oil royalty had the illustrious sons and freedom fighters of Sabah did not perished?

Interestingly,Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has been invited and has agreed to deliver a talk and answer questions in relation to the petroluem issue on the 2nd.April.2010 @8pm at the KDCA Buiding in Penampang,Sabah.I would encourage all Sabahans to attend this event and probably listen to all the unanswered questions.
80 comments Links to this post

Friday, 27 August 2010

PKR Internal Crisis Deepens


PKR crisis deepens, Jeffrey advises Anwar to scrap visit

By Luke Rintod

KOTA KINABALU: The cracks in PKR appear to be widening with vice- president Jeffrey Kitingan accusing PKR adviser Anwar Ibrahim of destroying the peace plan brokered late last year to restore normalcy in the party in Sabah.
Jeffrey said PKR had two options last year: one was to take action against those involved in forming a breakaway party through suspension or sacking; and the second was reconciliation.

He added that the party chose to reconcile and agreed to some of his demands. In return, his 12 supporters agreed to restore normalcy, including withdrawing the application to register a breakaway party, Parti Cinta Sabah (PCS)

"The party cannot now abandon the reconciliation plan and go back to castigating and punishing the people involved.

“This has reflected badly against decision-makers in the party," said Jeffrey.

FMT also learnt that Jeffrey has advised Anwar to postpone his scheduled visit to Menggatal, Putatan and Papar tomorrow to another date.

In a statement which he released later in the day, Jeffrey said the decision to recommend the suspension of the 12 was done in bad faith and was a breach of trust.
"The decision by the party's political bureau on Wednesday, after making a reconciliation eight to 10 months ago, reflects badly on the leadership and its sincerity in its intentions, given that it comes just days before the nomination of the party election tomorrow and Sunday,” he said.

He warned Anwar to be prepared for a backlash as a result of this move.

Did Anwar break his word?
In a related development, Jeffrey in an interview with blogger Haris Ibrahim also spoke about how Anwar had reneged on his word.

Yesterday, the PKR disciplinary board recommended that 12 Sabah PKR leaders, aligned to Jeffrey, be suspended for wanting to register PCS.

The 12 had filed the application with the Registrar of Societies, following a leadership tussle last year. They had wanted Jeffrey to lead Sabah PKR.

Following a peace deal, the application was retracted.

Asked if the application to register the new party was raised at the peace talks, Jeffrey replied, “Yes, when it was decided to reconcile, it was also decided that no action would be taken against those who took part in setting up the new party.”

“In return, Thamrin Jaini’s appointment (as Sabah PKR chief) would be accepted whilst there was also an agreement on the appointment of some others, like the secretary and ketua penerangan (information chief), but even this was not implemented,” he added.

On whether the assurance that “no action would be taken” was expressly raised and agreed during the peace talks, he said: “It was agreed to by the Ketua Umum PKR (Anwar). It (the decision) was conveyed to me by the Ketua Umum through a third party.”

According to Jeffrey, the assurance was conveyed verbally as well as in writing.
He also denied the claim that Anwar and other leaders were not aware that the application was submitted to the Registrar of Societies, and at the time of the peace talks, they were under the impression that a new party was merely being contemplated.

The veteran politician was also in the dark about why the party had suddenly decided to make a U-turn on this issue.

“I have no idea, although it does look like it might have to do with the party elections. Somebody complained and now it looks like we are going backward,” he said.

“The 12 have been very honest. They told the truth. They abandoned their plan about a new party after we made a peace plan and we reconciled and then how can this now be done to them? At the time of submission of nomination papers (for the divisional election)? This will disqualify these people. This is not fair.

“We are fighting for justice and democracy. This will in effect deprive these people of the opportunity to exercise their right. It effectively undermines the democratic process in the party,” he added.

Below are excerpts from the interview:

The party will decide this coming Sunday whether to adopt and give effect to the recommendation to suspend the 12. Where do you go from there if they do adopt the recommendation to suspend?
Well, I will cross that bridge if and when we get there. Right now, what I would like to suggest to the leadership is to withdraw the decision and to resume party activities. After all, a decision had been made 9 or 10 months ago that we make a peace plan and we reconcile.

Are you therefore urging the party leadership to look at the bigger picture and push forward with the peace plan?
Yes. To me, whatever they are doing now is already irrelevant because a decision had been made to reconcile and make a peace plan and we have moved along that line for about a year already. Are we now going backward and say, 'throw the peace plan away?' Where is the direction? The party has earlier made a decision and they should stick to that decision.

Would you say that this latest development puts PKR Sabah in a very precarious position?
Indeed, it does.

Also read:
PKR decision will backfire in Sabah, say supporters 
FMT

UMNO in Business

Shares dispute reveals Umno-corporate nexus

August 27, 2010
Dr Mahathir was identified as one of those given a copy of the “Umno Trust”. — file pic
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 27 — The nexus between Umno and certain conglomerates has been revealed further in a High Court hearing last week involving the past shareholders of Realmild Sdn Bhd, the shadowy company that took over media giant The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd in 1993, and Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB). Former Realmild director Datuk Khalid Ahmad had sued Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin in March 2005 for RM10 million over the sale of a five per cent stake in the company in 1999, which took place during a shake-up and buy-out related to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking from government.
Abdul Rahman had paid RM5 million but later reneged on the remainder as he learnt from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that the shares actually belonged to Umno.
Abdul Rahman is also now seeking to recover the RM5 million he paid to Khalid, saying the businessman had misrepresented the ownership of the shares.
However, Khalid has maintained that the five per cent stake was his own although he acknowledged that the majority stake was part of an “Umno Trust”. The other directors in Realmild then were former Berita Harian group editor Datuk Ahmad Nazri Abdullah, New Straits Times group editor Datuk Abdul Kadir Jasin, and Mohd Noor Mutalib, who replaced Khalid as NSTP managing director in February 1993.
The dispute in the High Court’s commercial division is to resume on September 1 with testimony from witnesses that Realmild’s ultimate beneficial owner is Umno.
In documents made available to The Malaysian Insider, Khalid outlined in his writ of summons that Abdul Rahman had approached him for his five per cent stake in Realmild sometime in July 1999 and that he had agreed to sell 355,050 ordinary shares for RM15 million, which was half of what he estimated to be the fair value for the shares.
Realmild, originally a RM2 company, was then already the majority shareholder of MRCB, which is now developing the KL Sentral commercial and transport hub in Brickfields.
Khalid said Abdul Rahman made a part payment of RM5 million and on July 19, 1999, wrote an “Acknowledgment of Indebtedness” for the remaining RM10 million which was to be paid in two tranches. But the money was never paid and he later instructed his lawyers to demand back the payment in September 2004.
Khalid is now seeking for the full payment with interest of eight per cent until payment is made and other costs, saying that the five per cent stake belonged to him and no one else as he had worked for the shares by guaranteeing loans given to the company.
However, in his counter-claim, Abdul Rahman said both agreed on a sum of RM10 million for Khalid’s block of shares and he made the first payment on August 1, 1999 with the final payment to be made on July 18, 2000.
Abdul Rahman testified that Daim had instructed him to buy out the MRCB shares. — daimzainuddin.com pic
Abdul Rahman, who was formerly the Malay Chamber of Commerce Penang president, said Tun Daim Zainuddin sometime in 1999 had instructed him to undertake a management buy-out of MRCB by purchasing the 7,101,001 ordinary shares in Realmild. He said the exercise was done in a few days, adding there was no formal sales and purchase agreement for Khalid’s stake. In his witness statement which has yet to be tendered in court, Abdul Rahman said he was summoned to meet Dr Mahathir, the then prime minister, and Tan Sri Nor Mohamad Yakcop, sometime at the end of 2001 and was told to transfer all of the 7,101,001 Realmild shares under his name to Datuk Seri Syed Anwar Jamlullail, who is brother to the Perlis ruler.
“I was told by Dr Mahathir that the 7,101,001 Realmild shares belonged to Umno. I was extremely shocked as I never at any time knew that Umno was the true owner of the shares. As far as I was concerned, I undertook the acquisition of Realmild shares purely from a corporate and commercial standpoint. I raised funds for this exercise through my personal financial means without any assistance from any political entity.
“This is the first time that I became aware of this ‘Umno Trust’ on the Realmild shares,” he said in his witness statement made available to The Malaysian Insider.
Abdul Rahman said he then met Khalid and queried him about the Umno ownership or “Umno Trust” over the Realmild shares, which the latter confirmed as true.
“He, however, took the position that the Umno ownership did not apply to the 355,050 shares he sold me.
“I refused to accept this as I was given very clear instructions from Dr Mahathir to transfer all of the 7,101,001 Realmild shares away,” he said, adding he later transferred the shares to Syed Anwar.
Abdul Rahman also said he asked Dr Mahathir about the RM40 million he paid for the shares, saying “Therefore, he said no payment will be made to me because the shares always belonged to Umno.” He also said Nor Mohamad also told him that the shares belonged to Umno and he would not be paid after transferring the shares.
He denied that Khalid is entitled to any claim from him as the ownership of the shares had been misrepresented.
“These shares had never belonged to him.
“I verily believe that the Plaintiff knew all along that the real owner of the shares was Umno and that these shares could be directed to be transferred to any third party at any time based on instructions from Umno leaders,” he added.
Another witness, Ahmad Nazri, said in his witness statement that he held the majority share of 80 per cent in Realmild although 70 per cent of his shares were actually in trust.
“I was holding in trust for person by (name of) Datuk Dr Mahathir Mohamad,” he was quoted as saying in the document made available to The Malaysian Insider.
Ahmad, who headed Berita Harian until 1999, said there was also a trust deed to back his testimony.
“Yes, the trust was prepared by legal firm Amin & Company. One copy of trust [was given] to Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, another to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and I keep one copy which I passed to Datuk Kadir Jasin somewhere in 1999 when I transferred 70 per cent share to Datuk Kadir Jasin as he knows of the trust,” he said.
Ahmad Nazri said he paid for the shareholdings of the other three people and had told Khalid about the arrangement over the shares.
He also said the Realmild shares held by the directors were personal and owned by them, adding 10 per cent of the shares was also his own shareholding.
He added that he was told by Daim to relinquish his shares in Realmild in July 1999.
“My 70 per cent which I hold under trust for Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir was transferred to Datuk Kadir Jasin and my personal 10 per cent was transferred to Datuk Abdul Rahman Maidin... a good friend of mine and I told him the witness is our God,” he said.
Ahmad Nazri said there was no price mentioned for his personal Realmild shares but they both agreed that if Abdul Rahman did well in business, he would consider some payment.
He also said that he did not tell Khalid to sell his shares to Abdul Rahman.

MI