Cabinet Papers be Declassified First

Dr Ling wants PKFZ Cabinet papers declassified

UPDATED @ 11:41:47 AM 03-09-2010

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

September 03, 2010

Dr Ling wants Cabinet documents related to the PKFZ to be made publicly accessible for his trial. — file pic

PUTRAJAYA, Sept 3 — Lawyers for Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik today asked for Cabinet documents on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal to be declassified and the trial to be moved to Kuala Lumpur from here.
The former transport minister’s lawyers said this today when Putrajaya Sessions Court judge Suzana Hussin set the case to be mentioned on November 30.
Wong Kian Kheong, one of Dr Ling’s lawyers, said the documents were necessary for the defence to prepare its case.
“The defence needs documents such as the minutes of Cabinet meetings, Cabinet committee meetings and post-Cabinet papers under the Official Secrets Act (1972).
“We need to declassify the documents in order to prepare the necessary defence arguments,” Wong told the court.
He said the defence needs to interview the witnesses in both of Dr Ling’s charges in the presence of the investigating officer.
Dr Ling was charged on July 30 with concealing the fact that the Finance Ministry’s valuation and property service department had valued the land for the troubled port project at RM25psf for a repayment period of 10 years, or RM25.82psf for a repayment period of 15 years, including interest chargeable for the repayment period.
He was charged in the Putrajaya Sessions Court under section 418 of the Penal Code with “cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may be caused to a person whose interest the offender is bound to protect”.
He is alleged to have committed offence at the fourth floor of the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya between September 25 and November 6, 2002. The charge carries a maximum seven years’ jail or a fine, or both, upon conviction.
Dr Ling also faces an alternative charge, under section 417, of cheating the government by misleading the Cabinet on the land acquisition for the same project, at the same place and time.
Under the alternative charge, he is liable to a jail term of up to five years or a fine, or both, upon conviction.
Wong also requested for an early mention date for the case.
“I have applied for an early mention date as my client is a retired deputy minister and minister and has been a long-serving public servant,” he said.
However, deputy public prosecutor Dzulkifli Ahmad argued that it was impossible to have an early mention date.
“We have no objection to an early mention but we feel that it is not possible because we need time to act on the several applications by the defence,” Dzulkifli said.
He added the prosecution will only declassify the confidential documents if they are used in court.
Dzulkifli also confirmed that the prosecution had received the defence’s application to transfer the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Wednesday.
MI

Up to Dr M to judge

Dr Ling says guilty if Dr M says so

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

September 03, 2010

Dr Ling (centre) leaves the court after today’s hearing. — Picture by Jack Ooi

PUTRAJAYA, Sept 3 — Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik declared that he would definitely be guilty as charged for cheating in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal if his former boss Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says so. Dr Ling, the former transport minister in Dr Mahathir’s Cabinet, said today he was thankful to the former PM for his “generous” offer to testify in his PKFZ cheating trial.
The former MCA president said his ex-boss’s testimony was important because he chaired Cabinet meetings.
“I would like to say thank you very much to him because that is very generous of him because he was chairing the Cabinet meeting and I am being charged for cheating the whole Cabinet so all these witnesses are very important,” he told reporters at the Sessions Court here today.
Dr Mahathir has said that he will testify in the former transport minister’s trial if the court subpoenas him.
The former PM had also pointed out that Dr Ling is innocent until proven guilty.
Dr Ling said that if Dr Mahathir testifies that the Cabinet was cheated, then he would indeed be guilty.
“If they bear witness that they were cheated then I am guilty. If they bear witness that I cheated then there is a case for trial,” he added.
Dr Ling, 67, is charged with cheating the government by misleading the Cabinet helmed by Dr Mahathir on the land acquisition for the PKFZ project.
The PKFZ project was mooted during his term as transport minister and the cost of the project, initially estimated at less than RM2 billion, more than doubled to RM4.6 billion by 2007.
The total bill for the project is expected to swell to as much as RM12.5 billion due to interest costs from deferred payments, if the trans-shipment hub fails to perform.
He faces up to seven years in jail and a fine under the Penal Code, if found guilty.
The friendship between the two doctors dates back to the 1980s when Dr Ling helped hold the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) together as the MCA president while Dr Mahathir struggled to unite the splintered Umno. Both retired from Cabinet the same year — Dr Ling in May 2003, and Dr Mahathir five months later.
Dr Ling also dismissed speculation that he has been made a scapegoat for the scandal.
“When you are in the palace of justice, don’t talk about scapegoat,” he said.
Last year, The Malaysian Insider reported that Dr Ling had told the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) probing the scandal-ridden PKFZ that it was Dr Mahathir who oversaw the project’s land valuation.
In the verbatim of the PAC meeting procedures, the former MCA president pointed out that the costing and valuation of the land was determined by the Valuation and Property Services Department which was chaired by Dr Mahathir, who was the then finance minister.
“Our job in Ministry of Transport is to only state the fact that we want the land. Costings, valuations and all that, it is not the function of the Ministry of Transport. We do not have a valuation department.
“Costings and valuations is a question for the Treasury to deal with. They have the Valuation Department and everything is there, not in Ministry of Transport. I think [it was] Tun Dr Mahathir who chaired it, and he was the finance minister also. He saw it very clearly. That was the fact of the case,” Dr Ling said in the verbatim report.
MI

Malaysian Government Contracts

Are Malaysian GLC contracts worth the paper they are signed on?

September 03, 2010

ANALYSIS, Sept 3 — One mega suit filed against Petronas and another potential billion ringgit legal wrangle against Sime Darby Berhad will address an issue which could have far-reaching consequences for Malaysia: just what value do government-owned companies place on contracts and legal agreements.
The outcome of both cases will be watched closely by foreign investors at a time when the flow of foreign direct investment is slowing and investors are becoming more queasy about putting money into a country which seems trapped in a quagmire of racial politics. The last thing an investor will want to deal with is a system where legal agreements are treated in a wanton fashion.
The sanctity of a contract is the foundation of the Kelantan state government's petroleum royalty case against Petronas. It is notable that the state government did not sue the federal government or other oil majors involved in extracting oil from its offshore.
It only named Petronas as the defendant. The reason: Petronas is the signatory of all oil contracts with the Kelantan state government, as it is with other states in obtaining exclusive rights to exploit oil resources onshore and offshore in all states in Malaysia.
It is these agreements which formed the basis for Petronas paying Sarawak, Sabah and Terengganu oil royalties. These agreements with the states and the Petroleum Development Act 1975 are based on two simple facts: the ownership of all petroleum onshore and offshore is owned by Petronas and in consideration, the national oil company will pay the states 5 per cent royalties.
The background to this give-and-take approach is the dispute that arose between the federal government and the Sarawak government over the question of oil royalties.
Sarawak claimed that oil obtained offshore belonged to Sarawak and royalty should be paid to Sarawak, exclusively. Sabah adopted the position of Sarawak. To break the impasse, the federal government appointed the late Tun Dr Ismail Ali and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah to come up with a new national petroleum policy.
Against this backdrop, the Petroleum Development Act was drafted and passed.
On May 9 1975, Petronas entered into agreement with Kelantan where it agreed to make cash payments yearly amounting to the equivalent of 5 per cent of the petroleum obtained onshore and offshore Kelantan. In consideration of Petronas agreeing to make cash payments, it was granted exclusive rights and privileges of obtaining petroleum in the state under the Kelantan Grant.
As such, under the PDA, Kelantan Petroleum Agreement and Kelantan Grant, Petronas is obliged to make cash payments twice a year for all oil obtained offshore Kelantan.
But the national oil company has refused to make any cash payments. Its lawyers and the Attorney-General are likely to rely on the same argument they put forward when refusing to pay the Terengganu state government its share of oil royalties in 2000 — that the state is only entitled to petroleum extracted three miles from the shore.
This is a curious position to take given that there is no mention of three miles or any offshore boundary in any of the agreements. It is also a curious position given that oilfields in both Sarawak and Sarawak are hundreds of miles offshore, and both states enjoy a steady flow of oil royalties. And to compound this curious position, Petronas paid oil royalties to the BN-controlled government for about two decades for oil exploited many many miles off Terengganu and only ceased when the state fell into the hands of PAS.
In fact if there is one pattern of consistent behaviour involving Petronas, it is this: that states under the opposition have had a tough time getting the national oil company to honour legally-binding and clear agreements it signed with them.
Quite clearly, if Petronas tries to wriggle its way out of meeting its legal obligations to its own flesh and blood on some flimsy reason, then surely it will raise the question on how much weight the national oil company places on legal agreements? And the answer to this major question will have implications for a company which has operations in many countries.
The same issue of the sanctity of legal contracts also forms the central issue of a simmering problem between Sime Darby and its joint-venture partners. Since being appointed the acting head of the conglomerate, Datuk Bakke Salleh has been going through the operations of the fallen national icon.
He is thinking of unwinding and re-looking property joint ventures. The Star, quoting reliable sources, says that Bakke and his team are looking at the joint ventures with the Sunrise Group and Brunsfield.
Problem is that the noises emanating from Sime Darby seems to indicate that unwinding or ending joint ventures are unilateral decisions, to be made by one party to the detriment of another. Instead of sabre-rattling, perhaps Bakke — who has had little experience in running a listed vehicle — should show some humility and discuss with his joint-venture partners if they are willing to re-look or re-visit their agreements.
It is the sensible thing to do because making threatening noises is unlikely to scare Sunrise, Brunsfield or any other joint-venture partner. It is also the smart thing to do because trying to get out of a legally-binding contract is just not done by a national icon, fallen or not.

Tale of two states

Mariam Mokhtar

Thursday, 02 September 2010 00:00

COMMENT  On 30 August, the state of Kelantan sued the national oil corporation Petronas, for alleged breach of a contract that had been signed between Kelantan and Petronas, in 1975. With Kelantan deprived of oil royalties, its people were robbed of the benefits that could have improved their lives.

If this is the federal government’s way of punishing the Kelantan people for voting PAS at the state level, then BN is defeated even before it has begun. Isn’t BN bothered that it is also punishing its own supporters in Kelantan?

The federal government treats Petronas like its personal kitty - a cash cow with which it can dip its grubby paws into, to reward those states which are compliant. The federal government is acting irresponsibly, by being spiteful and therefore, is unfit to govern.

Kelantan (population 2,100,000) is the poorest state; Sarawak (2,500,000) is the next poorest. Both Sarawak and Kelantan are blessed with oil reserves and timber, but they remain poor. Their poverty is because of different reasons.

Sarawak’s abundance of liquefied petroleum gas and petroleum is the mainstay of the Federal government’s economy and yet it receives only 5% royalty. Its state sanctioned logging and oil-palm industries, has resulted in massive deforestation. Only 5% of virgin jungle remains.

Despite the relative economic growth from timber, oil palm and oil, Sarawak still lags markedly behind the rest of the other states, bar Kelantan.

These two states have in common, elderly leaders who have been at the helm for decades: Taib Mahmud led Sarawak for 30 years whilst Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat served Kelantan since 1990.

But the two men, who are in their seventies, are like chalk and cheese. Taib belongs to BN whereas Nik Aziz is with PAS.

Apparently, after filing the suit against Petronas, Kelantan menteri besar Nik Aziz led 200 supporters in a solat hajat (prayer of need) at the nearby Federal Territory Mosque. Nik Aziz is famed for commanding support from non-Muslims in Malaysia and is instrumental in playing a leading role for the increase in popularity of PAS among non-Muslims.

However, the only recent suit we remember involving Taib Mahmud was the white one he wore (complete with red bow tie) on the night of the glittering high society banquet of the Islamic Fashion Festival (IFF) Charity Gala Dinner in Monaco-Monte Carlo.

Together with various members of Malaysian royalty and 600 guests from Monaco’s high society, Taib watched as Malaysia’s “First Lady” Rosmah Mansor, the IFF patron, donated 270,000 euros (RM1,120,961) to the Prince Albert II Foundation of Monaco. The money had been raised from the promotion of Sarawak tourism, and an auction of items including a framed signed photo of Prince Albert

Tok Guru, as Nik Aziz, is affectionately called, commands huge respect from several people. He interacts well with non-Muslims, because they admire him for his honesty, views on moral issues and his candour.

They may not agree with all of his policies, but he is valued for his wisdom and his courage.  How many in the Umno camp can match up to Tok Guru?

Taib Mahmud on the other hand, raised the ire of many, including a group of foreigners who joined a protest in Oxford when he went to the United Kingdom to woo investors with the ‘Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy’ (SCORE).

They were protesting at the destruction of the rainforests of Sarawak, the denial of justice for the Penan and also the construction of the 12 mega-dams project which will displace the indigenous people living in the affected areas.

The contrast between the two men continues on a personal level.

Nik Aziz lives in a modest wooden house which has no elaborate fencing, no ornate gate with security features and no sentries. His has been known to carry and use the same BIC ballpoint pen and travels in the official Proton Perdana, official registration number DBA 8668.

Home for Taib Mahmud is a grand riverside mansion overlooking the Sarawak River, stuffed with gilt-edged ‘Louis-Farouk’ style furniture. He, and his son, own a fleet of luxury cars including a Rolls Royce.

Taib has no need for car registration-number plates – those are for ordinary folk. His official car is a Mercedes 600 SEL which has no number plates, only a ‘YAB KETUA MENTERI SARAWAK’. His travelling needs would not be complete without the helicopters and a jet belonging to Hornbill Airways, specifically for his use.

Back in Kelantan, Nik Aziz’s religious background is complete with a religious school owned by his family, but Taib Mahmud’s greed, knows no boundaries.

He and his family own various multimillion properties and companies in Sarawak, the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia. These were allegedly built from the proceeds of the lucrative business deals exploiting Sarawak’s natural resources.

Awangku Jinal Pengiran Jawa, the PBB Youth leader said last week, that they would “vigorously oppose” any attempt to pressure Taib Mahmud to retire and that the ‘provocations and pressure’ on Taib should stop. He also questioned why people were picking on Taib when ‘other old leaders and poverty in places such as Kelantan were never questioned by certain quarters’.

Many people have, only he was not listening.

Of the two poorest states in Malaysia, one receives oil royalties, the other does not. But whilst the Chief Minister of Sarawak manages to lead a life that is way beyond his official ***RM13,000 salary and is alleged to have built a multi-million fortune and stashed it abroad, the Menteri Besar of Kelantan lives a modest life, one that speaks volumes of the man.

Nik Aziz, the spiritual leader of PAS, does not receive any oil royalty. Taib Mahmud who belongs to BN, does.

Are Malaysians, principally the Sarawak people, content to gawp at the opulence and grand lifestyle of Taib Mahmud? Are they happy with the breach of trust?

Taib Mahmud is a perfect example that the route to wealth in Sarawak, (and Malaysia) is by entering politics and remaining subservient to those at the 'peak', unless one is at the 'peak', as Taib is.

Sadly, when they’re there, they can be a law unto themselves.

* The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysian Mirror and/or its associates.

Mosque massacre incident

Police drop charges against Ai Bayae mosque massacre suspect

By The NationPolice Wednesday drop charges against a suspected gunman they initially accused of being behind a massacre at a Narathiwat village mosque, killing ten instantly and injuring 12 others.

According to Issara News, police cleared Suthirak Kongsuwan on the ground that there wasn't enough evidence to make the charge stick. The agency quoted an unnamed police source saying the statement from eyewitnesses contradicted evidences, leaving investigators with no reliable information to follow up on the case.
A group of about six gunmen walked up to a village mosque in Ai Bayae village in Joh Ai Rong district on June 8, 2009 and commenced fire with automatic rifles and shotguns from various directions while Muslim villagers were conducting their evening prayer at the village mosque.
Several months later an arrest warrant was issued to Suthirak, a Narathiwat resident and a former paramilitary ranger who was dismissed from his job due to misconduct.
On Jan 14, 2010, Suthirak turned himself in to the police at the Crime Suppression Unit in Bangkok but maintained his innocent.
His surrender was billed as a "staged surrender", according informed sources, who said the suspect was taken to a "safe house" in Bangkok pending the arrangement and terms for his surrender.
Suthirak was immediately granted bail after his surrender.
Senior government officers said Suthirak has close working relations with rogue soldiers who often take matters into their own hand and members of the Village Protection Force (Or Ror Bor), a network of government-trained Buddhist militia that work closely with various security units in the three southernmost provinces. VPF was created in September 2004 by a retired army general, Gen. Naphol Boonthap.
According to the International Crisis Group (ICG) report, Napol conducted a two-week training course for the first 1,000 recruits in Narathiwat that month.
Army sources often expressed concern that defense volunteers such as the Or Ror Bor, unlike the rangers, are not accountable to any military unit and do not fall under anybody's chain of command.