Pages

Powered By Blogger

Monday, 29 January 2024

Daim 家财万贯

3辆奔驰 + 1辆劳斯莱斯 + 1辆捷豹 +++

38家企业 + 25个房地产
据知还不包括海外的资产呢……有钱就是爽!

达因财富不下数百亿

BERIKUT ADALAH HARTA DAIM

银行户口
1. Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad (ASB) dan Amanah Saham Nasional (ASN)

汽车
1. Mercedes Benz 600 SEL
2. Jaguar XJS HE
3. Mercedes Benz 450SEL
4. Mercedes Benz 450 SLC
5. Rolls Royce Royce 2 Axle Rigid Body
6. Austin Morris Austin
7. Ford Prefect

公司
1. Ibu Kota Developments Sdn Bhd 
2. Maya Seni Holdings Sdn Bhd
3. Menara Ampang Sdn Bhd 
4. Dream Cruiser Sdn Bhd 
5. Landbelt Corporation Sdn Bhd
6. Kenari Teliti Sdn Bhd
7. Fnq Advanced Materials Sdn Bhd
8. Kota Tandop Development Sendirian Berhad
9. Alun-Alun Resort (M) Sdn Bh
10. Dasar Seroja Sdn Bhd
11. Gigantic Promotions Sdn Bhd
12. Jupiter Alliance Sdn Bhd
13. Inayat Realty Sdn Bhd
14. Suasa Urus Sdn Bhd
15. Avillion Berhad
16. Meridian Haven Sdn Bhd
17. Avillion Vista Hotel Sdn Bhd
18. Vast Access Sdn Bhd
19. Fortune Valley Sdn Bhd
20. Reliance E-Com Sdn Bhd 
21. Admiral Marina Berhad
22. Golden Envoy (M) Sdn Bhd 
23. Mela Lifestyle Sdn Bhd 
24. AVI SPA Sdn Bhd
25. Avillion Hotel Group Sdn Bhd 
26. RPB Capital Holdings Sdn Bhd 
27. Genius Field Sdn Bhd
28. Festive Place Sdn Bhd
29. Avillion Suite Hotel (PD) Sdn Bhd 
30. Taman Unik Sdn Bhd 
31. Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd
32. Nesline Sdn Bhd
33. RPB Development Sdn Bhd 
34. OS Resources Sdn Bhd 
35. Avillion Hotel (Kl) Sdn Bhd
36. Avillion Hotels International Sdn Bhd 
37. Admiral Hill Hotel Sdn Bhd 
38. Reliance Shipping & Travel Agencies (Perak) Sdn Berhad 

房产与土地产
1. Lot 265, Seksyen 89, No. 325 Ritchie Condo, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

2. Lot 12, Seksyen 89, No. 327 Persiaran Ritchie, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

3. Unit 1D, NO 16, Jalan Taman U-Thant, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

4. PT 2533 Mukim Ampang beralamat di No. 10 Jalan Wirawati, Taman Maluri, 55100 Kuala Lumpur

5. Lot 2490 Mukim Teras,Raub beralamat di Rompin House, Bukit Fraser, 49000 Fraser's Hill, Pahang

6. Lot 157, Lot 158, Lot 159 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di Lot 63-67 (1-3) Jalan Kampung Pandan, Kampung Pandan, 55100 Kuala Lumpur

7. PT4061, No. 333, Jalan Kolam Air, Taman Melawati, 53100 Kuala Lumpur

8. 316 Seksyen 63, Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di No.204 Desa Kuda Lari, TK 1-A150 3, 50450 Kuala Lumpur

9. Lot 13, No. 333, Persiaran Ritchie, Desa Pahlawan, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

10. Lot 20001 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di No. 333 (Socfin House-White Palace Kuala Lumpur)

11. PT 377, PT 379, PT 380, PT 384, PT 1095, PT 1096 di Mukim Ampang beralamat di No.57 & 59, Taman Maluri, 55100 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur

12. Lot 215 Seksyen 89, Lot 216 Seksyen 89 dan Lot 84 Seksyen 89 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di Cinta Condominium, Jalan Madge Off Jalan U-Thant, 55000 Kuala Lumpur

13. Lot 14001, Lot 14002, Lot 14003 di Mukim Bentong beralamat di Lot 12 & 13 Puncak Dani & Dani Lodge Gohtong Jaya Genting Highlands, 69000, Pahang

14. Lot 3989, Lot 3975 Di Mukim Ulu Kelang beralamat di Unit No. W4DC-075 & 061, Phase 4D, Wangsa Melawati 53300 Kuala Lumpur

15. PT 371, PT 372 dan 16015 PT 373 di Mukim Kuala Lumpur beralamat di Wisma Dani, 1, Jalan Jejaka 4, Maluri, 55100 Kuala Lumpur

16. PT 15752, Mukim Ampang beralamat, beralamat di AG-01, A1-01, A-2-01, A2-01, A3-01, A3-02, A4-01, A4-02 Taman Dagang Ampang, 68000 Ampang, Selangor

17. Lot 129 Seksyen 58, Menara Ampang, No. 149, Jalan Ampang, Selangor

18.Lot No 1680 dan 1681, Mukim Bujang Daerah Kuala Muda, Negeri Kedah

19. PT 35082, Double Storey Semi D, Phase 5B, Bukit Saujana, Ijok, Selangor

20. Suite # 8-13-6, Menara Mutiara Bangsar 8, Jalan Liku Off Jalan Bangsar, 59100, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

21. Avillion Port Dickson, 3rd Mile, Jalan Pantai, 71000 Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan

22. Avillion Admiral Cove, 51⁄2 Mile, Jalan Pantai, Port Dickson, 71050 Negeri Sembilan

23. Avillion Cameron Highlands, C-3-1 Jalan Camelia, Tanah Rata, Cameron Highlands, Pahang

24. Admiral Marina & Leisure Club, 5 1/2 Miles Jalan Pantai, 71050, Si Rusa, 71050 Negeri Sembilan

25. AVI Pangkor Beach Resort, PT1130, Jalan Pasir Bogak, 32300 Pangkor, Perak

装病的国家大蛀虫
他的身家怎么可能没在马来西亚富豪榜里?

头手家产已经让人民血压飙高20度…
看来要吃点药才敢看老马的家产了…

Sunday, 21 January 2024

解读Rajah 的9项治国原则

解读Rajah 的9项治理原则

1. 砂拉越是砂拉越人的。

2. 透过教育和经济发展改善砂民的生活水平。

3. 砂民人人平等,绝不允许特权剥削砂人或受保护的人。

4. 保障正义和有规范合理的自由。

5. 文笔言论表达和宗教自由。

6. 完全依赖人民善意合作的公务员就是公仆。

7. 公共服务是以公务员的品德绩效做考核。

8. 自治是砂民的终极目标;透过教育让砂民实践政治管理的义务,责任和特权。

9. 以往和现在的统治者都期待砂各种族和谐幸福生活在一起。未来继承者以及所有公仆都必须遵守这9项治国原则。

Tuesday, 16 January 2024

1962 年谈论砂应该先自治与独立

1962年陈宗明: 砂拉越应该先自治与独立

杨清河: 在所有保障中,最重要是有权通过全民公投来脱离大马联邦

(2024-01-16)


历史回顾


1962年9月26日    砂拉越立法议会通过参组大马联邦的动议,同时批准成立政府级委员会。在当天的动议辩论时,有多位立法议员提出异议或担心的问题,他们的建议是:


① 德拉仁达夫人最先提出,脱离联邦的课题纳入建议。


② 达科蓝登提议:不要采用Malaysia, 而采用 BORBRUSIMA (按:BOR 是Borneo,,BRU是Brunei,SI是Singapore,MA是Malaya.)他还建议,要列入脱离联邦的条文。


③ 陈宗明提出,砂拉越应该先自治与独立,则人民的权益才能够获得充分的代表。因此,他提议进行全民公投,以取得人民的真正意见。


④ 黄金明认为,虽然应该有一个强大的中央政府,邦的自主权,也不应该被联邦漠视。他要保障中的保障,来保障砂拉越的权益(the safeguard to safeguard the safeguards),而非简单的保障。


⑤ 天猛公欧阳认为,如果联邦成立后的5到10年间,被发现是不合实际的,则砂拉越应该有权脱离大马联邦。


⑥ 杨清河认为,在所有保障中,最重要是有权通过全民公投来脱离大马联邦。


⑦ 钱惠光提议修改动议,取消“8月31日”字眼,以便有更长时间来考虑保障的课题。陈高明和律政司反对这项提议。最后钱惠光收回这项动议。


⑧ 最后发言的是王其辉,他说,很多人和他一样,接受马来西亚概念,却还不准备接受马来西亚计划。他要砂拉越人民的权益获得保障。


财政司约翰派克说,在马来西亚协议下,砂拉越可以在未来5年中,获得5亿元的拨款,供进行发展用途。

1962 Tan Chong Ming: Sarawak should gain autonomy and independence first

 Yang Qinghe: Of all the guarantees, the most important is the right to secede from the Federation of Malaysia through a referendum.

 (2024-01-16)


 Recap history


 On September 26, 1962, the Sarawak Legislative Assembly passed a motion to participate in the formation of the Federation of Malaysia and also approved the establishment of a government-level committee. During the motion debate that day, many legislators raised objections or concerns. Their suggestions were:


 ① Mrs. Drajenda was the first to propose the inclusion of the issue of secession from the Federation.


 ② Colandon suggested: Instead of using Malaysia, use BORBRUSIMA (Note: BOR is Borneo, BRU is Brunei, SI is Singapore, MA is Malaya.) He also suggested that provisions for secession from the federation should be included.


 ③ Tan Chong Ming proposed that Sarawak should gain autonomy and independence first, so that the people's rights and interests can be fully represented. Therefore, he proposed a referendum to obtain the real opinions of the people.


 ④ Wong King Ming believes that although there should be a strong central government, the autonomy of the states should not be ignored by the federation. He wants the safeguard to safeguard the safeguards, not just a simple safeguard.


 ⑤ Temenggong Ouyang believes that if the federation is found to be unrealistic within 5 to 10 years after its establishment, Sarawak should have the right to secede from the Federation of Malaysia.


 ⑥ Yang Qinghe believes that among all guarantees, the most important is the right to secede from the Federation of Malaysia through a referendum.


 ⑦ Qian Huiguang proposed to amend the motion to remove the word "August 31" so that more time can be given to consider the issue of protection. Chen Gaoming and the Department of Justice opposed this proposal. In the end, Qian Huiguang withdrew the motion.


 ⑧ The last speaker was Ong Kee Hui. He said that many people, like him, accept the concept of Malaysia but are not ready to accept the Malaysia Plan. He wants the rights and interests of the people of Sarawak to be protected.


 Financial Secretary John Pike said that under the Malaysia Agreement, Sarawak can receive an allocation of 500 million Dollars for development purposes in the next five years.

Sunday, 14 January 2024

YB Miro Simuh on Sarawak independence

Press Statement

Re: In response to press statement of GPS Youth Chief, YB Miro Simuh on Sarawak Independence

YB Miro Simuh erred when he claimed that the federal constitution prohibit all member states of the federation of Malaysia including Sarawak to leave the federation. YB Miro Simuh has to be corrected and if not corrected the wrong would become the truth. Sarawakians and Sabahans have to be informed that there is no prohibition at all in the federal constitution if Sarawak chose to leave Malaysia peacefully and by legal means. Many international law lawyers and professors including an eminent law professor in Canada was consulted by me advised me the same too. 

If there is such a prohibition, YB Miro Simuh could have pointed the relevant portion of the federal constitution for public knowledge but he could not.

YB Miro Simuh and to those who are still ignorant of the right to secede from colonialism, I wish to say that there is no law at the moment, domestic and/or international law to prohibit secession or exit from the federation.

Sarawakians have to be reminded that Sarawak and Sabah were once colonies of the United Kingdom but the United Kingdom never granted us independence. Therefore, to say Sarawak had been granted independence by the United Kingdom was wrong. There was no Independence Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament to grant Sarawak independence. United Kingdom had made it clear that for British colonies to be independent, it has to be by an Act of Independence passed by parliament of the United Kingdom 

Instead, Sabah and Sarawak were given as a gift by the United Kingdom to Malaya. The making of Sabah and Sarawak including Singapore as gift to Malaya could be read from declassified colonial documents. 

 It was free.
 
In fact, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV) (“UNGAR 1514) gives right of peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation to self-determination. This right gives rights to colonies to decide for themselves to seek independence from foreign control of their countries. 

Malaysia being a member state of the United Nations, has to respect this UNGAR 1514 if Sabah and Sarawak seeks independence by peaceful and legal means.

I wish to mention what Thomas Franck, a law professor and an international law expert from New York, said when consulted on the case of Quebec seceding from Canada, and what Lord Lansdowne, the Inter-Governmental Committee(IGC) said to support my opinion of the right to seek independence. Thomas Franck, said “It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession.” 

Before Malaysia was formed, Lord Lansdowne, the Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee in response in a call for an “exit-clause” the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (“MA63”) and in the federal constitution, said it was not necessary for this because, “…any State voluntarily entering a federation had an intrinsic right to secede at will”.

Therefore, it is clear that an “exit clause” is not necessary in the Federal Constitution to allow exit from the Federation of Malaysia by Sabah and Sarawak.

Even if there is a provision to say that Sabah and Sarawak could not secede from the federation, I was advised by many legal experts that the fundamental breaches to the MA63 signed by the Federation of Malaya with Sabah and Sarawak (Singapore was a signatory but left Malaysia in 1965) had caused the Federation of Malaysia to become no more a sensible political union, and this should give Sabah and Sarawak the right to secede from Malaysia.

The breaches in MA63 are irreparable and it was breached soon after Malaysia was formed on 16 September, 1963. There is no provision for reform when the terms and conditions are breached because MA63 does not provide for this.

MA63 is an international agreement (Treaty) and therefore, any part in the Federal Constitution, if there is, that disallows secession should be void as the MA63, being an international agreement, is a superior document to the Constitution.

Therefore, there is an intrinsic right to exit as there is nothing to prevent Sabah and Sarawak to seek and exit from the federation of Malaysia by peaceful and legal means.

It is noted that Singapore exited from the federation of Malaysia after social, economic and political difference between Singapore and Malaysia or Malaya could not be resolved.

Legal experts also are of the opinion that Malaysia is not a new nation but a change of name by Malaya to Malaysia effective 16 September, 1963 after a letter was sent by Dato Ong Yoke Lin of Malaya to the United Nations Secretariat. Therefore, the name of Malaysia refers to Malaya and Malaya refers to Malaysia. The change of name by Malaya to Malaysia could be read from the United Nations Juridical Year Book 1963

Many legal experts had advised that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 was a void an inito Treaty because Sabah Sarawak and Singapore at the time of signing being still colonies of United kingdom had no legal capacity to sign any treaty with parent countries. The recent Chagos Islands case decided by the United Nations International Court of Justice which was delivered on February 2019 is clear on this point of law.

Little knowledge is very dangerous because we can mislead people. It is a great sin to mislead people because what we said when it is not true is a lie 

At that time Malaya was already an independent country too.

VOON LEE SHAN
PRESIDENT PARTI BUMI KENYALANG
5 JANUARY 2024

Friday, 12 January 2024

Game over for opposition

*Game Over For Opposition – Mahathir’s Super-Rich Children In Trouble After “Dubai Move” Failed & 120 MPs’ Bluff Exposed*

FINANCE TWITTER 
January 10th, 2024

King Sultan Abdullah has spoken, and he specifically told Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim during a pre-cabinet meeting on Tuesday (Jan 9) that the Palace would not get involved in any political manoeuvre. Basically, the monarch was saying that he is busy packing his stuff before moving back to Pahang as his term as the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) ends on January 30, 2024.

Actually, as early as February last year (2023), the King already expressed his desire for the current unity government to remain until the end of its term. Since his appointment as the Agong on Jan 31, 2019, his impressive resume included working with four prime ministers, first hung Parliament in the country’s history, multiple coups and political instability due to power-crazy politicians.

From Mahathir’s abrupt resignation on Feb 24, 2020 in a despicable “Sheraton Move” to help Muhyiddin seize power to stop Anwar from taking over, before traitor Muhyiddin was forced to resign on August 16, 2021 after just 17 months in power, to the appointment of yet another backdoor prime minister – Ismail Sabri – on August 21, 2021, the King was sick and tired of political coups.

After the 15th General Election (Nov 2022), the country faced its first hung Parliament when none of the three major coalitions – Barisan Nasional, Perikatan Nasional and Pakatan Harapan – managed to secure enough seats to form the government. Anwar-led Pakatan finally formed the federal government with Barisan after Muhyiddin-led Perikatan arrogantly rejected a Unity Government proposed by the King.

It was a huge tactical mistake for Perikatan Nasional, after which there were uncountable plotting and scheming to overthrow Anwar administration. Nationalist Bersatu and PAS Islamist party, two major components of the opposition, simply could not live without power after 33 months of indulging in corruption, abuse of power, money laundering and whatnot.

By hook or by crook, the opposition must stage another backdoor deal to return to power. When Anwar Ibrahim took over the country, his pledge to crack down on corruption was initially seen as nothing but political rhetoric. After all, Malaysian institutions, including the Royal Malaysia Police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), were seen as corrupt.

However, it started to raise more eyebrows when PM Anwar repetitively dropped hints – even pressured – the MACC to act without fear or favour. The premier said enforcement agencies should take immediate action against irregularities at the various levels regardless of position and ideology. In fact, he gave the “green light” for MACC to probe allegations of corruption against any minister or government official.

Things became spicy when MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki revealed how Anwar told him not to wait for his instructions to investigate anyone involved in corruption – suggesting that the anti-graft buster was not fully independent and had all along been a tool of previous prime ministers. When Anwar said the very rich and powerful people, even those with “Tun” title, can be investigated, the MACC finally sprang into action.

The recent “Dubai Move” – in reference to the Opposition and government leaders hatching a despicable scheme to seize power via backdoor while holidaying in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) – was just a follow-up to endless secret meetings held since Nov 2022 general polls, intensified after multiple corruption charges slapped on opposition leaders, including Bersatu president and ex-PM Muhyiddin Yassin.

Just because Mahathir has denied travelling to Dubai does not mean he did not participate. There’s something called Zoom or video conferencing. In fact, ex-PM Mahathir was the prime mover of Dubai Move, who together with his biggest financier and most trusted lieutenant, former finance minister Daim Zainuddin, were willing to splash RM750 million to bribe MPs to go against Anwar.

Some simpletons might think it was insane, even preposterous, to believe that billionaire Daim would spend so much money. But they had no idea how rich Tun Dr Mahathir and Tun Daim were after more than two decades of stealing and plundering national coffers. It’s not an exaggeration to say that RM750 million was like loose change for Daim, what more Mahathir.

Daim had accumulated so much money that he actually once owned a Swiss bank – ICB Banking Group – which operated approximately 222 branches and 130 ATMs worldwide. Under the banking group, it owned another 14 banks throughout Asia. In addition, he was reported to own at least RM65 billion worth of shares in Malaysia stock market.

It’s worth to note that the Dubai Move was triggered only “after” the MACC seized the 60-storey Menara Ilham owned by the family of Daim on Dec 18, 2023. The tower, designed by award-winning “Foster + Partners” and built at an estimated cost of US$580 million (RM2.7 billion), is the crown jewel of Daim’s fortune. And it was seized because Daim repetitively refused to entertain MACC’s petition to declare his and his family’s financial holdings.

Daim probably thought he was so rich and influential that he was untouchable. Even if he wanted to, the tycoon can’t explain the source of his incredible wealth. Therefore, his 274m-tall skyscraper along with other assets – both domestic and foreign – were seized under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) and Section 41 of the MACC Act.

The bold move effectively cuts Mahathir’s access to funding to overthrow Anwar. To make matters worse, a “Plan-B” to smuggle RM750 million cash to bribe MPs to declaring their “loss of confidence” in Anwar government was similarly intercepted and thwarted, thanks largely to Anti-Terrorism Financing Act, which grants the authorities with the power to seek cooperation from foreign powers.

Money talks and bullshit walks. After the RM750 million went missing, disgraced blogger-turn-fugitive Raja Petra Kamarudin, the mercenary who operates Malaysia-Today portal, was paid to cook a half-baked story about 120 MPs having sent statutory declarations to the Palace indicating that they do not support Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s unity government.

But the so-called five-page long list of 120 MPs who had lost faith in the PM was so fake and laughable that even Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia’s Youth chief Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal quickly clarified that no statutory declarations were signed by opposition Perikatan Nasional to overthrow the government – a slap in the face of Raja Petra before even the King cares to comment.

Interestingly, Bersatu somehow appears not as anxious or optimistic to topple the prime minister this round, largely because Muhyiddin was not the sole prime minister candidate and partly because the party might consider switching sides to support Anwar in exchange for dropping of corruption charges. From the beginning, it has been Mahathir and PAS Islamist party who vigorously blow the trumpet on Dubai Move and 120 SDs.

Not only the clumsily produced list of 120 MPs contained the name of Democratic Action Party chairman Lim Guan Eng as one of the signees who have lost confidence in Anwar leadership, the claim that GPS (Gabungan Parti Sarawak) was on the bandwagon had been rubbished by Sarawak Premier Abang Johari Openg as a “waste of time”.

With outgoing King Sultan Abdullah officially said he was not interested to even look at the dubious 120 SDs, it’s game over for any evil plan to seize power using statutory declaration, of which the document itself can be easily forged. The new Agong – Sultan Ibrahim of Johor – has made it crystal clear that one of his primary missions is to hunt all the corrupt people.

The hidden message behind Sultan Ibrahim was simple – it is revenge time and the Royal House would make sure Mahathir, now powerless, along with his wealthy children get the opportunity to explain how they accumulate their fortune. Of course, like crooked Daim Zainuddin, the family of Mahathir is in trouble as they too won’t be able to justify their riches.

As a start, the MACC may dig into how the ex-premier enriched his family with one of the most explosive scandals in the 1990s – the bailout of his son’s Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad in 1998. In fact, the primary reason Mahathir had sacked Anwar was not merely because both men disagreed on the method to tackle the 1997-1998 Asia Financial Crisis plaguing the country.

In March 1998, Malaysia International Shipping Corp (MISC) announced that it would acquire Mirzan company. The news triggered accusations of a bailout at a time when the country was facing its economic troubles. The sale included US$55 million for Hong Kong-based Pacific Basin Bulk Shipping, which Mirzan’s Konsortium bought for US$230 million in 1996 as part of an aggressive regional expansion campaign.

In addition, MISC bought the assets of KPB’s Malaysia-based PNSL Bhd for US$165 million, which Mr Mirzan purchased for RM247.4 million from a state agency in 1992. Not only MISC handed over a total US$220 million to Mirzan, who owned 51% of Konsortium, but would also take over a net debt of US$311 million from the acquired companies.

Interestingly, even before the 1997 Asia Financial Crisis, Konsortium Perkapalan Bhd had already accumulated RM1.7 billion debt (end of 1996) under Mirzan leadership. It was so bad that there were naughty rumours the Mahathir’s son was considering “suicide” over the massive debts. Without the bailout, Mirzan would go bankrupt as KPB’s market value was almost wiped out during the financial crisis.

The best part was the main shareholder of MISC was Petronas, the national oil company which comes directly under the Prime Minister Office. Thanks to his daddy, Mirzan’s debt in KPB was settled. Clearly, not only Mahathir had abused his power to rescue Mirzan, but had also enriched his son by bailing out Konsortium Perkapalan Bhd.

The burning question is from where did his son get all the money to fund his purchase in KPB, not to mention other companies like Petron, Malaysian Helicopter Services, Lion Corp, Artwright Holdings, Dataprep Holdings, Leader Universal, Diperdana Corp and whatnot. This will be the same question that MACC is asking the family members of Daim Zainuddin.

As early as 1994, Mirzan bought at a 24% discount to the market price 1.5 million shares in steel cable firm Leader Universal, under a preferential state allocation scheme to transfer corporate ownership to bumiputras or indigenous people. At the age of 37 in 1998, analysts valued Mirzan Mahathir’s holdings in public companies alone to be in excess of US$880 million. He was said to sit on the board of 95 companies in 1999.

The rescue of his son’s company came just six months after Mahathir Cabinet announced on September 3, 1997 of the creation of a special RM60 billion fund for “selected Malaysians” – understood as a bail-out facility designed to save “cronies”. Besides Petronas, Employees Provident Fund (EPF) money had been deployed to bail out some of the most politically well-connected and influential.

Other companies that enjoyed mega bailouts, just to name a few, included UEM-Renong, Malayan Banking, Bank Bumiputra, Sime Bank, KUB, Bank of Commerce, RHB Bank, Ekran’s Bakun Dam Project, Park May-Intrakota bus and Monorail. A whopping RM2.34 billion of taxpayers’ money was used – quietly – to bail out UEM-Renong alone, which was linked to Mahathir’s political party UMNO.

But Mirzan was not the only lucky son with strong cable to enrich him. Mokhzani Mahathir, the second eldest son of the former prime minister, joined the ranks of the country’s top 10 richest people in 2014 on the 9th spot – worth an estimated RM4.22 billion. In early Nov 2012, Petronas awarded a RM700 million contract to the SapuraKencana Petroleum mogul.

Billionaire Mokhzani also became the largest shareholder of the Pantai Group of hospital after acquired it from Berjaya Group founder Vincent Tan, who happens to be one of Mahathir’s cronies. Pantai hospital was part of Parkway Holdings Ltd, which in turn was started by Malaysians (Tan family of IGB Corp and the Ang family of Petaling Garden) in the 1970s.

Together with another brother, Mukhriz and Mokhzani were awarded contracts in optical fibre manufacturer Opcom Holdings Berhad, which had profited from the RM21.6 billion project of the National Fiberisation and Connectivity Plan (NFCP). According to the opposition, close to 500 companies were registered under the names of Mahathir and four of his children.

While 16 companies were under Mahathir Mohamad’s name and 29 were under his daughter Marina’s name, a jaw-dropping 156 were under Mirzan’s name and 158 were under Mokhzani’s whereas 126 were under Mukhriz’s name. The MACC and the courts will be having fun grilling every single offspring of Mahathir, exposing how they get mega rich so young and so easily.

Tuesday, 9 January 2024

The impact of social behaviour... among Malays

*The Impact of Social Behavior on the Election of Ineffective Leaders Among Malays*

By Prof UCHIDA, Yukiko
University of Kyoto

_*Introduction:*_
The social behavior of Malays in Malaysia plays a significant role in shaping their mindset when it comes to electing leaders. This essay will delve into the influence of short-sightedness on the decision-making process, shedding light on the reasons behind the re-election of ineffective leaders and its consequences on the country's progress and development.

*_The Cycle of Electing Ineffective Leaders:_*
Malaysians of Malay descent have been observed to display a trend of being easily swayed and lacking discernment when it comes to their political choices. They often engage in a cycle of switching allegiance between political parties without thoroughly evaluating their options. This behavior demonstrates a short-sighted mindset, as decisions are made based on temporary factors rather than considering the long-term implications. Consequently, this behavior perpetuates a cycle that hampers the progress and development of the nation.

_*Forgetting the Failures of Past Leaders:*_
A noteworthy aspect of the short-sightedness observed among Malays is their tendency to forget about the failures of past leaders. This propensity may stem from a desire for change and a reluctance to dwell on the past. However, failing to critically address the mistakes and shortcomings of previous leaders can inadvertently enable ineffective governance and create obstacles to the country's growth.

_*Manipulability through Appeals to Religion and Race:*_
Another factor contributing to the short-sighted mindset among Malays is their vulnerability to appeals based on religion and race. Malays often prioritize these factors over assessing the capabilities and competence of potential leaders. This susceptibility allows leaders to manipulate Malays' sense of identity and emotions, effectively extracting political gain by leveraging their faith and heritage. Consequently, Malays may unknowingly overlook crucial evaluations of leaders based on their track records and abilities.

*_Contrast with Chinese Malaysians:*_
Contrasting the aforementioned behavior, Chinese Malaysians approach politics differently. They tend to exhibit a more reserved nature when it comes to publicly displaying support for particular leaders or parties. Instead, they rely on existing clan associations and business connections to negotiate privately with political parties, demanding policies and favors that align with their interests. This approach empowers the Chinese community to prioritize their own concerns and maximize desired outcomes, rather than solely relying on the re-election cycle.

_*Conclusion:*_
The short-sightedness of Malays in re-electing ineffective leaders and disregarding past failures has a detrimental impact on progress and development within Malaysia. To ensure sustainable growth, it is crucial for Malays to engage in a thorough evaluation of leaders, considering their capabilities, competence, and track record, rather than being swayed by appeals to religion and race. By learning from past experiences and making informed choices, Malaysians can collectively work towards effective governance and national development.

Prof UCHIDA, Yukiko
University of Kyoto
26 Jul 2023 Kuala Lumpur

Sabah and Sarawak can exit Malaysia...

Sabah and Sarawak can exit Malaysia with or without Independence Act, claim two activists

JOINT STATEMENT By Sabah Sarawak NGOs Borneo Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) and Sabah Sarawak Rights Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) BoPiMaFo & SSRANZ Presidents Mssrs Daniel John Jambun and Robert Pei on the right to seek independence.

BOPIMAFO & SSRANZ Presidents referring to a press statement by Bukit Semuja assemblyman and GPS Youth Chief Miro Simuh (reported on 03/01/2024), pointed out that contrary to his claim, the Federal Constitution does not prohibit the right for Sarawak or Sabah to exit the federation nor is it constitutional for any law such as the Sedition Act 1948, to prohibit this right. If so, this would only confirm that Malaysia was not a free and voluntary association of four countries created in 1963.
(see https://www.theborneopost.com/2024/01/03/miro-calls-voons-dubai-move-claim-of-pms-post-promise-for-gps-a-publicity-stunt/ )
  
They said it was unfair to criticise Mr Voon Lee Shan President of the Bumi Kenyalang Party (PBK), who was just performing his duty as a loyal Sarawakian to fight for Sarawak rights, especially the inalienable legal right to independence under international law recognised by the United Nations’ Resolution 1514. In fact, other than the PBK, no Sarawak or Sabah party has consistently called for independence from Malaysia owing to 60 years failure of the federation. There should be no limitation on this discourse in an association claimed by federalists to be a freely formed democratic federation.

They noted that the PBK President had also assisted 12 Plaintiffs to file a writ in the High Court of Borneo, seeking declarations on the validity of MA63 in 2021 and right to exit for independence. 

The fact that the former British colonies of Sarawak and Sabah were incorporated by the United Kingdom and Malayan governments as new members of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 does not extinguish this right for several reasons.

The Federation of Malaysia was created by an international treaty the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) registered with the United Nations in 1970 and therefore governed by international law. International law does no prohibit secession from a federation. It is the intrinsic right of any member in a free association to unconditionally and freely exit at any time. 

This issue was raised in the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) discussions before MA63 was signed on 9 July 1963 when both the Sarawak and Sabah sides demanded the right to exit be included in the constitution. Lord Lansdowne, the IGC Chairman who described Malaysia as a “buttress of freedom in Asia”, dissuaded them by stating that “any state voluntarily entering a federation had the intrinsic right to secede at will and therefore it was unnecessary to include it in the constitution”. 

This was again clarified by the then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman 9 days after the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was signed, who was reported on 18 July 1963, as saying that “the regions that join Malaysia have freedom to exit the federation if the new nation will not bring any benefit to them”.

However, this was not the original position of the then Malayan Government which insisted that “there be no right to secede” from the federation. This was at odds with the fact that the Malayans went through the motion of consulting Sarawak and Sabah to demonstrate that the union was the free and voluntary wish of the people but in reality, it was just to entrap them in their proposed union. 

Typically Malaysia federalists assert that “Point 7 of the Sabah 20 Points” agreement” prohibited secession. The NGO presidents pointed out that the “20 Points” was only a memorandum of terms and conditions provided to the IGC, not a legally binding agreement signed by the MA63 signatories nor incorporated as the law in MA63 or the federal constitution. 

In 1962, the British colonial secretary revealed their entrapment strategy by stressing to the Malayan government the political advantages which might accrue both to “H.M.G. and to the Government of the Federation of Malaya if Malaysia was seen as voluntary merger rather than transfer, merger rather than absorption”. (Para 142 Stockwell “The Making of Malaysia). 

Thus the world and Borneo people were led to believe that the admission of new members to the federation was a free and voluntary act. 

The NGO presidents said those opposing Sabah and Sarawak independence also erroneously claim that the Sedition Act 1948 was amended to prohibit “secession”. However, they pointed out that there is no such prohibition in the ACT 1485 amendment of the Sedition Act in 2015 or any other Acts.

They pointed out that the failure to resolve MA63 issues of State Autonomy, seat allocation, loss of control of the civil service and education, resources and revenue from oil and gas, lack of development and infrastructures and poverty, Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement, Ketuanan Melayu race and religion concept replacing MA63 concept of secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism, and illegal migrants have led to the widespread sentiment for independence. The recent call to amend the Constitution for a Malay/Muslim government and a Malay PM only, has aroused more calls for independence.

The NGO Presidents considered that MA63 was void ab initio and not legally binding from the date it was signed as Sarawak and Sabah were still colonies and not sovereign states with the legal capacity to make binding international treaties. This meant that Malaysia was not legitimately constituted and decolonisation was in fact replaced by Malayan recolonisation. The MA63 negotiations since 2016 cannot have any legally binding effect since MA63 was null and void from the beginning. 

However, even if MA63 was valid, the multiple breaches of fundamental and foundational terms of the agreement since 1965 would have terminated the treaty and legally entitle Sarawak and Sabah to exit as free independent nations. 

They called on both the Sarawak and Sabah government to seek a proper resolution of the question of MA63 validity especially in view of the International Court of Justice’s decision in the Chagos Case 2019 that colonies have no legal capacity to make binding international agreements and hold a referendum to let the people freely decide on the value or benefit for the 2 states to continue as members of the federation. A referendum should only be held after a period of at least two years to allow all parties to inform the people of the pros and cons of exit and independence.

Signed by
Daniel John Jambun President BoPiMaFo
Robert Pei President SSRANZ.