Tiang: Position of S'wak, Sabah as equal partners not subject to voting

KUCHING: The po­si­tion of Sarawak and Sabah as equal part­ners in the Fed­er­a­tion of Malaysia ‘is not a mat­ter that is sub­ject to vot­ing in Par­lia­ment’.

          Michael Tiang, a po­lit­i­cal sec­re­tary to the chief min­is­ter and also Youth chief of Sarawak United Peo­ple’s Party (SUPP) said the is­sue should not be sub­ject to re­views in any way by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment.
       “The sta­tus of the two re­gions has been agreed upon, set­tled and sealed by all sig­na­to­ries to the Malaysia Agree­ment 1963 ( MA63),” he told a press yes­ter­day in re­sponse to the say­ing that twothirds ma­jor­ity in Par­lia­ment was needed to re­store Sabah and Sarawak’s po­si­tion.
         Tiang said: “There are cer­tain mat­ters in the Fed­eral Con­sti­tu­tion that Par­lia­ment sim­ply has no ab­so­lute pow­ers to amend by way of two-thirds ma­jor­ity.”

Tiang said: “There are cer­tain mat­ters in the Fed­eral Con­sti­tu­tion that Par­lia­ment sim­ply has no ab­so­lute pow­ers to amend by way of two-thirds ma­jor­ity.”

         He said there was no way that Par­lia­ment could amend the name of Malaysia, its of­fi­cial re­li­gion or the Bu­mi­put­era sta­tus from time-to-time for as long as there was a two-thirds ma­jor­ity.

         He as­serted that these mat­ters, to­gether with the equal part­ner sta­tus of Sabah and Sarawak ‘are the very def­i­ni­tion of the Fed­er­a­tion of Malaysia since 1963’.
     “On such ground, it is there­fore ab­so­lutely ab­surd for the prime min­is­ter or any­one to sug­gest that we should go back to the Par­lia­ment to try to ob­tain twothirds ma­jor­ity sup­port to re­store Sabah and Sarawak’s po­si­tion in Malaysia as equal part­ners.
     “More­over, by sug­gest­ing to put such mat­ter to votes again in the Par­lia­ment will be deemed as an in­sult to the peo­ple of Sabah and Sarawak,” he said.
Tiang said the mis­take be­gan with the in­fa­mous con­sti­tu­tion amend­ment done in 1976.
       Then, the Par­lia­ment suc­cess­fully passed the amend­ment to Ar­ti­cle 1( 2) of the Fed­eral Con­sti­tu­tion by chang­ing the sta­tus of Sabah and Sarawak from one of three ter­ri­to­ries in Malaysia to one of 13 states in the fed­er­a­tion, he said.       .

       Al­though many MPs from Sabah and Sarawak have been ac­cused of sup­port­ing the amend­ment in 1976, Tiang is of the opin­ion that the 1976 amend­ment was, in fact, ul­tra vires as it was done with­out ob­tain­ing any con­sent from the two af­fected re­gions.

       “In fact, Sabah and Sarawak MPs have no power to sell out our po­si­tion as equal part­ners in Malaysia.   All this while, our Sarawak MPs are only rep­re­sent­ing Sarawakians to speak up for their in­ter­ests in the Par­lia­ment.
      “None of them have been given any pow­ers or au­thor­ity to vote in the Par­lia­ment to change the for­ma­tion of Malaysia on be­half of Sarawak.
      “In fact, only our Sarawak Leg­isla­tive As­sem­bly ( DUN) has such power and au­thor­ity to give con­sent to a mat­ter so fun­da­men­tal to the for­ma­tion of our na­tion,” he said.

The ‘con­sent’, ac­cord­ing to Tiang, could nei­ther be given by any MP or chief min­is­ter of a state. A con­sent from a state can only be con­sid­ered valid when a law is passed in the DUN to give ef­fect to such con­sent.
    “This hap­pened in 1973 when Se­lan­gor DUN passed a law to give con­sent to the dec­la­ra­tion of Kuala Lumpur as a fed­eral ter­ri­tory.  Sim­i­larly in 1984, Sabah DUN passed a law to give con­sent to Labuan be­ing de­clared as a new fed­eral ter­ri­tory.
    “In the past 55 years, there was never a law passed by Sarawak DUN to give con­sent to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to al­ter the po­si­tion of Sarawak to be­come one of 13 states in Malaysia,” he said.
      As such, Tiang de­manded that the fed­eral gov­ern­ment not to drag this mat­ter any longer by claim­ing that the gov­ern­ment re­quires more time to study the MA63.

He said there should be no fur­ther doubts or de­bates on the po­si­tion of Sabah and Sarawak, which is clearly stated in the MA63, the Procla­ma­tion of Malaysia as well as the 1963 orig­i­nal pro­vi­sion in the Fed­eral Con­sti­tu­tion.
       He thus urged the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to take all steps nec­es­sary to re­store the po­si­tion of Sabah and Sarawak by an­nulling the 1976 amend­ment, amend­ing any laws that in­fringe such po­si­tion like the Ter­ri­to­rial Sea Act 2012 and re­view­ing all his­tory syl­labus in school text­books that teach the wrong thing about the for­ma­tion of Malaysia.

My comments:
The evil-minded devil or his successor and the administration may drag on as they like when we Sarawakians are well-prepared to vote to quit from the federation of Malaysia for good.  We will vote for those who can stand for Sarawak independence.  We Sarawakians decide the best option to secede from the federation as we are given the rights to do so.  Based on 14th December, Decolonisation Declaration, we are given self-determination to decide the fate of Sarawak.  How did Maldives become independent? 

theborneopost.com

Don’t do things behind closed doors, Sapa reminds Petros

KUCHING: Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) must not be seen as a ‘shadowy organisation’ where behind closed doors, it carries out ‘backroom deals and ‘horse tradings’ that may compromise Sarawakians’ interests for political interests, said Sarawak Association for People’s Aspiration (Sapa) president Lina Soo.
          While she commended the Sarawak government for setting up Petros, she stressed that the state government also has a duty to keep Sarawakians who seek information to be fully informed with transparency and accountability.
       “The state government must be aware that public sentiment is one of the rising rage against the audacity of the federal government in breaching the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) by changing our territorial boundary and using the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA) and Territorial Sea Act (TSA) 2012 to steal our resources.
       “If the federal government is genuine about restoring Sarawak to equal status, then it must honour the pre-Malaysia boundaries and submit to Sarawak law which existed before the formation of Malaysia,”she told a press conference here
yesterday.
        She stressed that the most fundamental reason for Sarawak to merge with Malaya, Sabah and Singapore (which left in 1965) to form Malaysia was to develop
Sarawak and to bring prosperity and progress to the state.
   “But Sarawakians have for the past 50 years suffered the indignity of being robbed of our birthright to our God-given resources and it is insane for Sarawakians to have to suffer this shame and loss of wealth longer.
   “We are now at the crossroads to move forward with the courage to be free and independent in our views as matured Sarawakians capable to administer our state’s affairs in a democratic manner or continue to be subjugated as in the past 50 years to plundering forces without a whimper.”
Soo also took the opportunity to respond to a report published in The Borneo Post on Tuesday entitled ‘Common sense approach to enforce oil and gas rights’ where the columnist under the pen name ‘Oilman-at law’ said that the oil and gas issue should not be politicised.
    “It is ridiculous for ‘Oilman-at law’ to suggest that Sarawak’s right to our oil and gas is already a subject of widespread discussion from the coffeeshops to the five-foot way and not to mention in the social media.
      “Oil and gas is a major political issue of Sarawak rights and blatant breach of MA63, Sarawak Constitution and Federal Constitution which has resulted in 44 years of poverty and failed development, making Sarawak the poorest and
most backward territory,” she remarked.
       She said the state government must remain true and committed to resolving the many issues plaguing Sarawakians today, with the need to be polite and politically correct secondary to the need to realise thepeoples’ aspiration for economic, political and financial freedoms.
“If Sarawakians have to be stifled and silenced on issues which concern our Sarawakians and future generations, then today, the government will have failed in its duty and obligations to which they were elected for.”

What do you think of this story?

• Great (100%)
  
  My comments:
  Sarawakians are concerned about Sarawak oil and gas resource.  We are discussing how GPS government is going to manage it and how it can be done to benefit every Sarawakian.  We are watching and expecting them to be so CAT -- credible, accountable and transparent in the management of this God's endowed resources to benefit every Sarawakian and for the proper development of Sarawak.

theborneopost.com

Sapa urges Petronas to comply with Sarawak’s OMO 2018

Marilyn Ten, reporters@theborneopost.com

Soo (left) showing a copy of the Schedule 5(1) Application Form for an Oil Exploration Licence, Oil Prospecting Licence or Oil Mining Licence taken from OMO while Sapa secretary Buln Ribos looks on.

KUCHING: The Sarawak Association for People’s Aspiration (Sapa) is calling for Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) to comply with the state’s existing laws under the Oil Mining (Amendment) Ordinance (OMO) 2018.
        Its president Lina Soo said a memorandum from the association has been sent to Petronas president Tan Sri Wan Zulkiflee Wan Ariffin seeking the cooperation from Petronas management as well as other oil and gas operators to comply with Sarawak laws.
      “We have delivered the memorandum after our peaceful gathering at Miri City Council football field last Saturday to the Petronas president through Petronas Sarawak Operations.
       “It is the aspiration of the people of Sarawak that all rights and interests of oil and gas be controlled and enforced by the Sarawak government in accordance with the existing laws under OMO,” she told a press conference here yesterday.
       Soo pointed out that in the memorandum, Petronas was called on to comply with several key points including that the state government has with effect from July 1, 2018 enforced the laws as stipulated under OMO on all upstream and downstream operations that the requirement for procurement of licences and leases to enable legal operation must be complied with immediately.
        “Petronas shall also refrain from and cease to award any new prospecting areas, concessionary blocks and new Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) with immediate effect,” she said, adding that this right and function is governed by OMO under the direct authority of Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros).
She noted that the memorandum also called for Petronas to build an integrated petroleum complex in Bintulu to create value to the oil and gas industry investing in new technologies, new products and sophisticated infrastructure to provide development and job opportunities as Sarawak is the major producer of oil and gas in Malaysia.
      “Aside from that, Petronas shall establish a petroleum university in Sarawak for training, management, internship and entrepreneurship not only in the petroleum industry but also to function as a leading research centre for carbon-free sources of energy to realise a sustainable renewable energy system for the future.”
        The memorandum also called for PSC MLNG SATU operated by Sarawak Shell to be handed over to Petros upon its expiry in 2020 in view that Petros is the company wholly owned by the state government entrusted to manage, govern and execute all dealings, licensing, leasing and enforcement of OMO, who shall determine all future prospects and operations of any mining areas for new and expiring ones.
        With Petros now in active discussion with Petronas on Sarawak oil rights, Soo questioned the need for Sarawak’s wholly-owned oil and gas company to do so when Petronas should be the one seeking approval from Petros to comply with Sarawak’s Oil Mining (Amendment) Ordinance (OMO) 2018.
      “It is for Petros to manage, govern our mining activities and give instructions on technical and financial arrangements to Petronas but not to negotiate with Petronas in any way which can compromise Sarawak’s territorial and sovereignty rights.”

What do you think of this story?

• Great (100%)

theborneopost.com

MA63 review must involve original signatories – Star

Abdul Hakim Bujang

Soo with a copy of the Malaysia Agreement.

KUCHING: The 16-member committee headed by the Prime Minister has no competent jurisdiction to deal with an international treaty registered with the United Nations signed by five nations – Britain, Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. Thus, it is meaningless and non-effective without the participation of all signatories.
President of State Reform Party Sarawak (STAR) Lina Soo, maintains that MA63 is an international agreement prepared by the British with the British government as principal signatory, and any review can only be done with all the signatories back at the table.
     “Where are the British and Singapore representatives?” Soo asked.
Soo was commenting on Putrajaya’s decision to set up three special committees to look into the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), as announced by Liew Vui Keong, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.
        The steering committee will be chaired by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, with the chief ministers from Sabah and Sarawak, the attorneys-general of both states and federal Attorney-General Tommy Thomas.
        Soo highlighted that Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir was in power as federal minister and prime minister for more than 30 years, which is more than half of the lifetime of the federation of Malaysia, and it was during his political tenure that many of the breaches of the Agreement had occurred.
        She also questioned why only three Sarawakians were included in the 16-member steering committee that comprise of PH ministers like Lim Guan Eng, Mohamed Azmin Ali, Gobind Singh Deo, Saifuddin Abdullah and a few other MPs.
    “Sarawak which contributes the bulk of oil and gas to Petronas and the federal coffers has only three members out of 16, in a Committee to review an international agreement where the lead signatory nations are absent in the first place,” she lamented.
        The three members are Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Dr Abang Johari Tun Openg, Minister of Works Baru Bian and Sarawak Attorney-General Datuk Talat Mahmood Abdul Rashid.
        She said without participation of British government, the committee looks like a bad joke, akin to agreeing to a bunch of monkeys to manage a banana farm.
     “The Committee looks like a cover-up committee, to hoodwink and lure Sarawakians into accepting breaches of MA63 which have exploited Sarawakians for so long, and every passing day is great economic loss to Sarawak where federal laws which are unconstitutional to Sarawak have continually been used to plunder Sarawak oil and gas,” she said.

My comments:
         I fully agree with Lina soo in her view about the 16-member committee to review MA63.   Since MA63 is an international treaty, it is, no doubt, ridiculous to be once again done in that "chingchai" (so lightly) manner.  Since many changes had been done to the treaty to fit to the desires and ambition of the evil-minded devil, Mahathir during the time of his tenure as PM, it is a really serious offence which should  be settled in the United Nations Court of Justice with the presence of the original signatories.        
         Chief Minister Abang Johari of Sarawak and Salfie Apdal, Chief Minister of Sabah should reject this proposal which may end up in even further entanglement.   Very few Sarawakians view this review positively but see it as a trap.  We Sarawakians do not trust this evil-minded devil anymore.
         This evil-minded devil always can turn everything skilfully to full advantage of himself, his family and his cronies.  In the name of Malays, he plunders, exploits and robs Malays.  In the name of Nasional Bhd, these public-funded companies have become his private companies to amass wealth for himself and his families as well as his cronies.  In the name of Malaysia, the whole wide world bear witness how he denied the development of Sarawak and Sabah during his tenure as PM.
        In Sarawak alone, we are told that the oil and gas valued at RM700 million or more  are taken to enrich Peninsular Malaya DAILY and those moguls engaging in oil and gas businesses.  The Mahathir family are heavily involved in these businesses.  We Sarawakians nowadays always greet one another Good morning and reminding one another how much is plundered by Petronas and the Federal government.

thailand-business-news.com

Thailand's State-owned firm reform: for better or worse – Companies, Opinion, Politics

By Headline Editor

A state-owned enterprise is somewhat an anomaly as it is neither public nor private in nature. It is owned by everyone and yet no one.
It’s raison d’etre is often the delivery of public services and yet most operate commercially. How to deal with state-owned enterprises has been a constant challenge facing many governments.
Thailand has had her share of stateowned enterprises reform. In the year 2001, during the then-Thaksin Shinawatra administration, the national oil and gas company, the PTT, was corporatised then subsequently partially privatised through the stock market.
The listing of the Airport Authority of Thailand, which became the AoT Plc, and the Mass Communication Organisation of Thailand, which became MCOT Plc, followed in 2003 and 2004 respectively.
The privatisation scheme facilitated the mobilising of private capital that helped to expand these enterprises.
At the same time, mandatory compliance to the more stringent stock market rules governing disclosure, conflict of interests as well as internal and external audits and controls helped boost transparency and accountability within these organisations.
However, the reform left a bad taste in many Thai people’s mouths for several reasons.
First, a large portion of the lucrative PTT’s share ended up in the hands of several politicians and their relatives. Although these share acquisitions may be legitimate, the resulting concentration of the much coveted shares in the hands of the wealthier and financially privileged few did not help.
Second, the failure to remove the monopolistic business unit from the enterprise designated to be privatised (the gas pipeline in case of the PTT) reveals the government’s narrow objective of maximising revenue rather than the industry.
Third, and most importantly, the partial privatisation that left the state the majority equity shareholding did nothing to prevent the political meddling in these enterprises. Corruption, scandals, fraud continued to plague these listed state enterprises.
Since the mentioned privatisation bout, there were only marginal reforms undertaken mainly by the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Finance which supervises the state-enterprises.
For example, in 2007 a roster of names of those who are qualified to sit on state-enterprises’ board of directors was created in order to vet candidates. This was known as the “director’s pool”. The scheme did not work, however. Politicians in power could always add the names of those they would like to appoint as directors on the roster.
When the current government came into power, consolidation of the management and control of the rather unruly state-owned enterprises was among the issues on top of its agenda.

A committee known as the “SOE superboard” consisting of the prime minister himself as the chairman, the governor of the Bank of Thailand and a few prominent bankers and financiers was created in 2014.

The “superboard” recommended that a holding company that owns and manages state enterprises, much like Temasek Holdings of Singapore or Khazanah Nasional Berhad of Malaysia, should be established. And so for the past three years, a draft law setting up such an entity has been in the making.
The bill was approved by the cabinet in August this year and in September, it passed the first reading of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA). Proponents claim the law will help steer a major reform in the management and governance of state enterprises.
Opponents, on the other hand, accused the law of having a hidden agenda to simplify the privatisation of state-owned enterprises whose shares are held by the holding company and to centralise the control and management of state-owned enterprises in the hands of politicians.
It’s my belief that the law has been drafted with good intentions. It contains many provisions that would help boost the transparency and efficiency of stateowned enterprises. First, with establishment of the holding company, the oversight of state-owned enterprises will be clearly separated from the policy work. In the past, the State-owned Enterprise Policy Committee was responsible for both policy and supervision of SOEs.
Second, the consolidation of the supervision and management of SOEs will facilitate better coordination among state enterprises in terms of investment plans that will lead to better allocation of financial resources. An illustrative example would be that public buses and trains will now be better connected.
Third, the law sets out clear procedures for the nomination and selection of state enterprises and holding company directors with some provisions for disclosure of the selection process to ensure this transparency.
Finally, the bill contains transparent procedures governing the provision of financial subsidies to state enterprises and a more rigorous regime to hold the enterprises accountable for their performance. These are just a few of the key reforms contained in the bill.
All this seems to be very good for state enterprises and their management. However, the Archilles’ heel of this bill is the selection and appointment of directors of both the holding company and the individual state enterprise.
Although the bill spelled out clear procedures for vetting, nominating and selecting directors by supposedly “independent committees”, these committees consist of former bureaucrats like permanent secretaries of finance, governors of the central bank and secretaries general of stock exchange commissions handpicked by the stateowned enterprise policy committee made up of various ministers, several high-ranking bureaucrats and chaired by the prime minister.
Proponents of the bill posit there are disclosure provisions that can ensure transparency of the nomination and selection process. But the bill merely states that the committee vetting candidates for directorship of individual state-owned enterprises shall “disclose criteria and the selection procedure to the public” [Section 37] but is silent on the transparency of the actual selection process undertaken by line ministries.
The same goes for the selection of board of directors of the holding company. Section 64(3) prescribes that the nominating committee shall “establish a procedure that is transparent and open, keeping in mind about good governance” and Section 64(4) stipulates the nomination criteria, method and procedure to the public”. I believe these provisions are not sufficient to ensure a merit-based selection process.
So what can be done? In the absence of trust in politicians, it is necessary to “depoliticise” the selection criteria. There are three ways.
First, the law may spell out exactly the skill or discipline of the director to be selected. This is a common practice in many countries. For example, if you look up the list of directors on the board of Singapore Airlines, you can see they are professionals in the areas of finance, investment, marketing, law or engineering.
Second, third parties may be appointed to the committee vetting candidates. Examples of those with sufficient social capital include the governor of the Bank of Thailand, the head of the Transparency International (Thailand), the head of the Anti-Corruption Thailand (a private outfit), or the head of the Thai Institute of Directors (IoD). These people can set up subcommittees to oversee the task.
Third, the government may invite third parties to observe the selection process from the very beginning to the very end and report directly to the public.
At the same time, the bill can go much further in setting a new governance standard for state-owned enterprises. For example, it may stipulate that stateowned enterprises’ investment projects above a certain size must set aside a fund for third-party observation and audit. It may also include a provision requiring all state-owned enterprises comply with the same rules as listed companies do in terms of the disclosure standard, the directors’ accountability, dealing with conflict of interests, and so forth. If time is required for full compliance, then provide for a definite phase-in period.
So will this latest attempt at reform be better or worse for state enterprises? It will be difficult to tell, as the whole scheme depends on who is in charge.
De-politicising the selection process and prescribing a concrete governance standard in the law can help comfort Thais who are weary of crooked politicians.
That said, there are no reasons to reject the law. Thailand cannot afford to have state-owned enterprises managed like a fiefdom as it has in the past. Let us help ensure the reform delivers benefits to the people, not just to those in power.
Deunden Nikomborirak
Deunden Nikomborirak, PhD, is research director for economic governance, Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). Policy analyses from the TDRI appear in the Bangkok Post on alternate Wednesdays.

---

First Published: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 on Bangkok Post: Policy focus
The post State-owned firm reform: for better or worse appeared first on TDRI: Thailand Development Research Institute.

CPF funds lost undisclosed hundreds of millions from Keppel corruption – States Times Review

admin

        Singapore sovereign wealth fund company Temasek Holdings have lost an undisclosed hundreds of millions in 3 months from it’s state-owned company Keppel Corp. The state-owned offshore and marine company reported in their latest financial report that they lost S$619 million in total (S$570 million in penalty, S$49 million in related administrative costs) after they were caught with bribery corruption in Brazil. For the 4th quarter result, Keppel Corp lost S$495 million.
       Temasek Holdings has a substantial stake but at an unknown percentage of Keppel. More than half of the S$619 million loss is expected to be paid for by Singapore taxes and CPF funds, which are managed by Temasek Holdings.
       Earlier in January, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised the Retirement Sum to S$181,000 without any announcement. The husband of Ho Ching, the powerful CEO of Temasek Holdings also increased numerous taxes to raise funds for the national reserves. Due to the tax increase in essential supplies like 30% water price, electricity tariff, transport fares, carpark charges, cross-border taxes and school fees, the cost of living has increased and inflation followed after business costs were substantially raised.
       However, the slew of tax increases in 2017 was not enough to fill the hole of Temasek Holdings’ losses, which are estimated to only bring in less than $300 million a year – half of Keppel’s S$619 million losses. In the coming Budget 2018 next month in February, the GST tax is expected to increase which state media said will bring in S$1.8 billion a year for every percentage GST increased.
        It is unknown how much losses Temasek Holdings have incurred in other investments as there is no transparency or published balanced sheets. If both Temasek Holdings and GIC become unprofitable, CPF withdrawal rules will have to be tighten further. Since Lee Hsien Loong took power in 2003, retirement age has been increased from 55 to 65, while Minimum Sum has more than doubled from S$80,000 to S$181,000. Officially, Temasek Holdings and GIC maintained that they have been making profits – however, the two companies refused to disclose their accounts despite public pressure.

        CPF funds lost undisclosed hundreds of millions from Keppel corruption was last modified: January 26th, 2018 by

My comments:

The public-funded state company is, no doubt, liable to corruption and other abuses and it always involves funds in billions.

en.wikipedia.org

Khazanah Nasional - Wikipedia

        Khazanah Nasional Berhad is the sovereign wealth fund of the Government of Malaysia.
        Khazanah holds and manages selected commercial assets of the Government and undertakes strategic investments on behalf of the nation. It is involved in sectors such as power, telecommunications, finance, healthcare, aviation, infrastructure, leisure and tourism, and property, amongst others.
        Khazanah is a member of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds,^[1] which maintains and promotes the Santiago Principles on best practices in managing sovereign wealth funds. It is also a signatory of the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI), signatory of the Malaysian Code for Institutional Investors and a member of the Institutional Investor Council Malaysia (IIC), member of FCLTGlobal (Focusing Capital on the Long Term), and signatory of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) Corporate Integrity Pledge.
         Its portfolio includes Axiata, CIMB, Tenaga Nasional, IHH Healthcare, UEM Group, Telekom Malaysia, Malaysia Airlines, and Malaysia Airports.
Khazanah was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1965 in Malaysia on 3 September 1993 as a public limited company and commenced operations a year later. Khazanah is owned by the Malaysian government and administered by the Minister of Finance Incorporated, except for one share held by the Federal Land Commissioner.
        Khazanah is governed by a Board of Directors comprising representatives from the Government and the corporate sector with diverse professional backgrounds and expertise.
        In 2017, Khazanah registered a proforma profit before tax (PBT) of RM2.89 billion, a 85% increase over the previous year.^[2] Its portfolio increased 8.2% to RM157.2 billion in terms of its realisable asset value (RAV), and rose 13.2% to RM115.6 billion in terms of net worth adjusted (NWA). Khazanah also made 14 investments totalling RM6.3 billion and 12 divestments with proceeds amounting to RM6.4 billion, with a gain on divestments of RM2.5 billion for the year. Khazanah Nasional has regional offices in Shanghai, Mumbai, Istanbul, San Francisco and London to support its investment activities overseas. ^[3]

History[edit]

Incorporation
        Khazanah was incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 on 3 September 1993 as a public limited company and commenced operations a year later. Except for one share owned by the Federal Land Commissioner, all the share capital of Khazanah is owned by the Minister of Finance Incorporated, a body incorporated pursuant to the Minister of Finance (Incorporation) Act 1957.
The New Mandate
        In 2004, Khazanah went through a strategic revamp and was given its current mandate. Tan Sri Datuk Wira Azman Hj Mokhtar, the former Managing Director of Khazanah, was appointed to the position in that year. In 2018, Datuk Shahril Ridza
Ridzuan was appointed Managing Director.^[4]
        Khazanah strives to create sustainable value and cultivate a high-performance culture that helps contribute to Malaysia's economic competitiveness. By taking a proactive investment approach, it aims to build true value through management of its core investments, leveraging on its global footprints for new growth, as well as undertaking catalytic investments that strategically boost the country's economy. It also actively develops human, social and knowledge capital for the country.

Leadership and Governance[edit]

Board of Directors      

        Khazanah is governed by its board of directors, which is led by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, as Chairman of the Board. The Board members comprise representatives from the Government as well as the corporate sector with diverse professional backgrounds and expertise. The Managing Director reports to the Board. 

 

My comments:

To me, Khazanah Nasional Bhd is a public-funded private company which has been heavily abused by the devils all to their full advantages.  In the name of Nasional Bhd, this public funded company is widely abused by the PM-crowned chairman and his cronies to the fullest.  It has made Dr Mahathir and his family, mega-rich through different means and excuses to amass the wealth.  To what extent, it was abused by Najib, i shall find out, too.  This public-funded private company which is linked to many other companies, monopolises many businesses of the country.  The operation of the company is no different from the private funded private company at all.