砂拉越的石油和天然气：永远消失了吗？

砂拉越的石油 和天然气：永遠消失了嗎？

砂拉越人必須意识到，成立马来西亚的主要原因实际上是巫统马来人贪婪地觊觎石油,天然气和丰富资源，其在东姑阿都拉曼的领导下意识到马来亚独立后的经济如果没有新的财富来源，将继续岌岌可危，特别是因为大多数锡矿和橡胶园仍由英国人和華人操控之下。 

历史学家 Greg Poulgrain 从他对以前机密的英国政府文件之研究中注意到，組建马来西亚的主要动力是石油，而不是种族。 这就是为什么马来亞人从来没有真正为执行 1963 年马来西亚协议（MA63）的条款而烦恼，尤其是当他们对砂拉越的石油和天然气（当然沙巴也是）以下流的手段得手之后——任务完成。 

MA63 实际上对砂拉越的石油和天然气资源保持沉默，与森林和其他矿产等所有其他自然资源一样，这些资源理所当然地都屬于砂沙的資產；联邦无权也不可剥夺。

 这一切都始于马来亚和英国之间正在进行的独立谈判。早在 1953 年，英国人就已经开始实施其“宏伟设计”计划，将其在东南亚的所有五个殖民地合并为某种形式的“英属东南亚领土”。马来亚知道这个“宏伟的设计”，但婆罗洲却懵然不知。 根据每日快报 2020 年 2 月 16 日的一篇评论文章，“......至于砂拉越境内的石油，英国人准备将其交给马来亚控制下的新联邦。当时的砂拉越总督安东尼阿贝尔爵士于1956 年 4 月，在与殖民办公室的通讯中观察到，“马来亚和新加坡的政界人士对婆罗洲领土表现出极大的兴趣，”包括其空旷的空间、潜在的财富和石油”。 这甚至在马来亚独立之前。 英国人让砂拉越人和沙巴人愉快地没有意识到马来人和新加坡人的这种相当大的兴趣。 

虽然砂拉越代表团可能不知道马来亚和文莱在 MA63 之前的幕后谈判，但从历史记录中可以清楚地看出，马来亚从一开始就坚持文莱的石油收入将在 10 年之后转交给联邦政府。

 当汶莱（特别是汶莱苏丹）不想放弃他们的石油收入时，谈判失败了，

 而石油收入是文莱财富的主要来源。 

因此，马来亞在与砂拉越和沙巴的谈判中对石油和天然气完全保持沉默，完全打算让砂拉越和沙巴措手不及，他们确实这样做到了; 因为“开发矿产资源、矿山、采矿、矿产和矿物矿石、石油和油田；矿产和矿石的采购、销售、进出口；石油产品;矿山和油田的劳动和安全法规；” 1957 年马来亚联邦宪法附表 9 , 联邦清单第 8 (j) 项已提供。 

不幸的是，砂拉越和沙巴没有对此给予任何重视，甚至没有提出任何质疑，因为整个谈判是由英国和马来亚在舞台上进行的。当然，对于狡猾的英国和马来亞来说，沉默意味着同意。 

由英国和马来亚并与声称砂拉越“代表”簽署MA63，而砂拉越仍然是殖民地; 遵循国际法院对查戈斯案的意见說明就是為什么MA63实际上是无效的。

到 1966 年，马来亞颁布了 1966 年石油开采法，根据第 1 条第 2 款“适用于整个马来西亚，但在适用于沙巴和砂拉越时，它仅对离岸土地有效”。该法令原定于 1969 年 11 月 8 日对砂拉越和沙巴生效。 为什么只有离岸土地？因为到 1955 年，壳牌公司已经开始进行海洋地震勘测，并在 1957 年放弃了 75% 的土地租赁。 Temana 油田的初步钻探也在 1962 年首次开采石油。 早在 1966 年 7 月，马来亚就已经制定了 1966 年大陆架法案，据此他们非法和违宪地接管了理应属于砂拉越的大陆架。这赋予了马来亞“关于探索大陆架和开发其自然资源的所有权利，特此授予马来西亚，并由联邦政府行使”。 要做到这一点，他们首先必须摆脱新加坡，其次是宁甘，到 1965 年，宁甘已经成为取代本应是婆罗洲化的马来亚化政策的批评者。马来亞一开始从来没有真正想要新加坡，他们也不是真的想要砂拉越和沙巴，只想要砂拉越和沙巴的石油和天然气。 1966 年之后，马来亚控制的联邦政府开始收取砂拉越壳牌公司支付的开採稅，顺便说一下，分别为 10% 和后来的 12.5%，是砂拉越后来超過56年从马来西亚国家石油公司所获得的两倍多。

对于马来亚控制的联邦政府来说，这仍然不够，到 1970 年代，他们开始认真考虑遵循 Pertamina（印度尼西亚）的生产共享模式，为此颁布了非法和违宪的 1974 年石油开发法案（PDA74）; 把马来西亚所有石油资源的全部所有权注入国家石油公司。 

所以最终在 1976 年，砂拉越和沙巴因此“失去”了对我们石油和天然气的完全所有权，即使这样做是非法和违宪的。砂拉越和沙巴都没有在法庭上挑战 PDA74。

 通过这种方式，砂拉越收到了 5% 的现金支付，而不是之前的 10-12.5%（依据原油或原料气价格）。剩下的 5% 归联邦政府所有，其作为国油的唯一股东，也以股息和公司税、石油所得税和出口关税的形式获得了额外的回报。马来西亚国家石油公司/联邦政府总共获得了石油净收入的 92%，其中大约 6.5-7% 流向了壳牌公司等石油承包商，剩下的 1-1.5% 流向了砂拉越。 

這一切都永远失去了，还是砂拉越仍有可能从马来亚的控制和统治中夺回自己的石油和天然气资源的所有权？ 这是一个只能由砂拉越人民和政府来回答的问题。 从海盗手中夺回我们的财产并不容易，他们当然会反抗到底。 砂拉越政府在成立 Petros 和对石油产品征收 SST 方面取得了良好的开端。根据砂拉越总理的说法，仅石油产品的收入迄今已达到 85.2 亿令吉，这是一个相当大的数字，相較於联邦预算对砂拉越撥款仍然没有根据其通过的石油和天然气收入之貢献。 

联邦政府似乎认为国油是金鹅，而实际上它是砂拉越和沙巴的。然而，他们在偷所有鸡蛋的同时没有正确喂养金鹅。 

砂拉越政府和 Petros 采取了正确的步骤，重新控制砂拉越的陆上石油资产。接下来一定是全面控制砂拉越的离岸石油资产，而石油和天然气仍然保持切題的，同时我们开发新的可再生能源

我们仍然在这里谈论砂拉越的潜在收入，不是数百亿令吉，而是数千亿令吉，可以提高所有砂拉越人的生活水平，特别是那些迄今为止被边缘化和没有适当发展机会的人和社会经济发展机会。 

在 1976 年至 2017 年期间，原油和原料气产量超过 6600 亿令吉，其中砂拉越的开採稅收入仅为 330 亿令吉，平均每年为 8.05 亿令吉。 

到目前为止，單單砂拉越这个数字应该已经超过 1 兆令吉，再加上加工增加值约 2 兆吉。这就是砂拉越在过去 46 年中所失去的。 

正如潘多拉文件所揭示的；马来亞人成功地將1.9兆令吉主要来自砂拉越的石油和天然气收入转移到离岸银行账户中。这是他们不允许在议会辩论的另一个課题。 

砂拉越为了通过增值加工, 尽可能多地收回石油和天然气收入，现在已经开展了各种举措，包括建立各种石化和其他炼油厂，以便能够加工和利用我们自己的石油和天然气资源增值而不是像马来西亚国家石油公司现在所做的那样以快速现金廉价出售。 

我们需要加强我们国内的天然气分配设施，以便砂拉越人也可以享受我们现在供应到海外和在补貼马来亚更便宜的能源。马来亚拥有超过 2,000 公里的天然气管道，而砂拉越则不到 50 公里。仅对马来亚发电厂、工业和消费者的天然气补贴就已超过 2000 亿令吉，而砂拉越则为零。 

为了充分利用我们自己的石油和天然气资源，我们需要从马来西亚国家石油公司和马来亚重新获得对它们的完全控制和所有权。要做到这一点，我们需要加强我们的监管能力和对马来亚采取强硬态度的政治意愿，利用我们自己的石油和天然气資源而不是持續地被牵着鼻子走。

正如我们所看到的，如果我们开发了自己的石油和天然气资源，这將是一次非常昂贵的旅程，在此期间至少花费了我们数兆令吉。我们再也不能被马来亚人欺騙了。他们一直在为自己着想，认为我们是理所当然的，甚至称我们是他们的定期存款。 

不再遲疑, 现在是砂拉越人思考我们自己和自己人民的时候了。 否则，我们的石油和天然气将真正永远消失。

Yusuf Abdul Rahman

Kuching 23rd July 2022

SARAWAK’S OIL & GAS – LOST FOREVER? 

By Yusuf Abdul Rahman  

It is important for Sarawakians to realise that the main reason behind the proposal for the formation of Malaysia was in fact the Oil & Gas resources and wealth that was greedily coveted by the UMNo Malayans, who under Tunku Abdul Rahman had realised that Malaya’s economy after Independence would remain precarious without a new source of wealth, especially since most of the tin mines and rubber estates were still under British and Chinese control. 

Greg Poulgrain, a historian has noted from his study of previously classified British government documents that the primary impetus for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity. 

This is why the Malayans were never really bothered about implementing the terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) as fully as they should have, especially once they had gotten their dirty hands on Sarawak’s Oil & Gas (Sabah’s as well, of course) – mission accomplished. 

MA63 was in fact silent about Sarawak’s Oil & Gas resources, which rightfully are inalienable assets of the State and not the federation, like all other natural resources such as forests and other minerals. 

It all started while the negotiations for independence were proceeding between Malaya and the British. The British since as early as 1953 had also started plans in motion for its “grand design” to merge all of their five colonial possessions in South East Asia into some form of “British SouthEast Asia Dominion”. Malaya was aware of this “grand design”, but the Borneo territories were not. 

According to an opinion article in the Daily Express dated 16th February 2020, "...As for the oil in Sarawak territory, the British were prepared to surrender that to the new federation under control of Malaya. Sir Anthony Abell, then Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 observed in a communication to the Colonial Office that “the politicians in both Malaya and Singapore were showing considerable interest in the Borneo territories “including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil”.

This was even before Malayan independence. 

The British kept Sarawakians & Sabahans blissfully unaware of this considerable interest by the Malayans and the Singaporeans.   

While the Sarawak delegations may not have been aware of the negotiations going on behind the scenes between Malaya and Brunei prior to MA63, it is clear from historical records that the Malayans insisted from the start that Brunei’s oil revenues would pass to the federal government after 10 years. 

Negotiations failed when the Bruneians (the Sultan of Brunei in particular) did not want to give away their oil revenues, the main source of Brunei’s wealth.  

The Malayans therefore kept completely silent about Oil & Gas in their negotiations with Sarawak & Sabah, fully intending to take Sarawak & Sabah by surprise, which they did, since the “Development of mineral resources, mines, mining, minerals and mineral ores, oils and oilfields; purchase, sale, import and export of minerals and mineral ores; petroleum products; regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields;” were already provided in the Item 8 (j) of the Federal List, 9th Schedule of the Constitution of the Federation Malaya 1957. 

Sarawak & Sabah unfortunately did not give any importance to this nor even raise any query, since the entire negotiations were stage-managed by the British and the Malayans. To the deceptive British & Malayans, of course, silence meant consent. 

This is partly why MA63 is actually null and void, being signed by Britain & Malaya & purported Sarawak “representatives” while Sarawak was still a colony, following the Chagos case opinion by the ICJ. 

By 1966, the Malayans had enacted the Petroleum Mining Act 1966, which under section 1 (2) “shall apply throughout Malaysia but in its application to Sabah and Sarawak it shall have effect only with respect to off- shore land”. This Act was supposed to come into operation on 8th November 1969 with regard to Sarawak and Sabah. 

Why only off-shore land? Because by 1955 Shell had already started marine seismic surveys and in 1957 had relinquished 75% of its land lease. Initial drilling in the Temana field had also hit first oil in 1962. 

Earlier in July 1966, the Malayans had already enacted the Continental Shelf Act 1966, whereby they illegally and unconstitutionally took over the Continental Shelf that rightfully belonged to Sarawak. This gave the Malayans “all rights with respect to the exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources are hereby vested in Malaysia and shall be exercisable by the Federal Government”. 

To do this, they first had to get rid of Singapore and secondly, Ningkan, who by 1965 was becoming a critic of the Malayanisation policy that had supplanted what was supposed to be Borneonisation. The Malayans never really wanted Singapore in the first place, nor did they really want Sarawak & Sabah either, only Sarawak & Sabah’s Oil & Gas. 

After 1966, the Malayan

-controlled federal government started collecting the royalties that were paid by Shell Sarawak, which incidentally, at 10% and later 12.5%, were more than double what Sarawak was to get later from Petronas for more than 56 years. 

This was still not enough for the Malayan-

controlled federal government and by the 1970s they started to seriously think about following the Pertamina (Indonesia) production-sharing model, to do which the illegal and unconstitutional Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) was enacted that vested the entire ownership of all petroleum resources within Malaysia with Petronas. 

So finally in 1976, Sarawak and Sabah thus “lost” complete ownership of our Oil & Gas, even if it was done illegally and unconstitutionally. Neither Sarawak nor Sabah have ever challenged PDA74 in court.  

In this way, instead of 10-12.5% as previously, Sarawak received a cash payment of 5% (based on crude oil or raw gas prices). The other 5% went to the federal government, who as the sole shareholder of Petronas, also got additional returns in the form of dividends and corporate tax, petroleum income tax and export duties. Altogether Petronas/the federal government received 92% of total net petroleum revenues, with approximately 6.5-7% going to the petroleum contractors such as Shell, leaving 1-1.5% to Sarawak. 

Has all been lost forever, or is it still possible for Sarawak to claw back the ownership of its own Oil & Gas resources from Malayan control and domination? 

That is a question that can only be answered by the people and the government of Sarawak. 

Clawing back our property from the hands of thieves is not easy and they will of course resist to the bitter end. 

The Sarawak government has made a good start with the formation of Petros and the imposition of SST on petroleum products. Revenue derived from petroleum products alone according to Sarawak Premier has reached RM8.52 billion to date, a significant amount, in view of the fact that the Federal budget still doesn’t give Sarawak a commensurate share based on Sarawak’s contribution to the national economy via our Oil & Gas revenues. 

The Federal government seems to think Petronas is the golden goose, when it is in fact Sarawak (and also Sabah). Yet they don’t feed the golden goose properly while stealing all the eggs. 

The Sarawak govt and Petros have taken the correct step of regaining control of Sarawak’s onshore petroleum assets. Next must be regaining full  

control of Sarawak’s offshore petroleum assets, while Oil & Gas still remain relevant and while we develop new sources of renewable energy. 

We are still talking here of potential revenues to Sarawak amounting not to tens of billions of ringgit but hundreds of billions of ringgit that can raise the living standards of all Sarawakians, especially those that have so far been marginalised and have not had proper access to development and socio-economic opportunities for advancement. 

Between 1976 and 2017, the value of crude Oil and raw Gas production exceeded 660 billion ringgit, out of which Sarawak only saw 33 billion ringgit in royalty, amounting to an average of 805 million ringgit per year. 

By now, the figure should have reached more than 1 trillion ringgit, with value added from processing of about 2 trillion ringgit, just from Sarawak alone. This is what Sarawak has lost over the last 46 years.  

It is largely from Sarawak’s Oil & Gas revenues that the Malayans have managed to siphon off 1.9 trillion ringgit into offshore bank accounts, as revealed by the Pandora Papers. This is another subject that they will not allow to be debated in Parliament. 

In trying to claw back as much Oil & Gas revenue as possible, through value added processing, Sarawak has now embarked on various initiatives involving setting up of various petrochemical and other refining plants to be able to process and utilise our own Oil & Gas resources for value added instead of being sold cheaply for fast cash, as is now being done by Petronas.  

We need to enhance our domestic gas distribution facilities so that Sarawakians can also enjoy cheaper energy that we now supply overseas and subsidise in Malaya. Malaya has more than 2,000 km of natural gas pipelines and Sarawak less than 50 km. Gas subsidy to Malayan power plants, industries and consumers alone has already amounted to more than 200 billion ringgit, while Sarawak gets zero. 

In order to get the full benefit of our own Oil & Gas resources, we need to regain full control and ownership of them from Petronas and Malaya. To do this we need to strengthen our regulatory capabilities and we need the political will to be tough with the Malayans, instead of constantly being pushed around and taken for a ride on our own Oil & Gas resources. 

As we can see, this has been a very expensive ride that has cost us at least a couple of trillion ringgit all this while, if we had developed our own Oil & Gas resources. We just cannot afford to be taken for a ride by the Malayans anymore. They have been thinking of themselves all this while, and taken us for granted, even calling us their fixed deposit.  

No more. It is now more than high time for Sarawakians to think about ourselves and our own people. 

Or else, our Oil & Gas will truly be lost forever. 

Yusuf Abdul Rahman Kuching 23rd July 2022

**（肯雅兰全民党主席 温利山 2022年7月13日）**

英国是否授予砂拉越自治或独立？*

Selkirk勋爵说，英国殖民地只能通过英国议会頒發的独立法案而获得独立。在英国议会通过 1957 年马来亚独立法案后，马来亚于 1957 年获得独立。

当李光耀在 1963 年 8 月 31 日宣布新加坡独立时，Selkirk 勋爵澄清此事是错误的，因为英国没有通过新加坡独立法案授予其独立。

我们不能说英国授予砂拉越自治是因为英国或殖民地总督沒有签发任何加持法律文书。这是一个重要的法律事务和政治事件，而没有将任何文书交给宁甘自治的事实表明；1963 年 7 月 22 日，砂拉越没有获得自治政权。

最高委员会的所有成员都是由殖民地总督任命的，他还主持了第一次最高委员会会议並在会议期间表达其对离开后所接任之总督者而担忧。

然而，*英国总督保留全权*直到 9 月 16 日（1963 年）。 從8月31日至9月16日（1963年），他（英国总督）表示将遵守砂拉越州内阁的决定。这是一个双刃剑声明並清楚地表明英国人在于控制內閣尤其是当中有外籍人士坐鎮。

參见婆罗洲邮报發佈于2015年11月9日, 星期一, 清晨3点16分；敎授Leigh称1963 年 7 月 22 日砂拉越沒有获得独立。

说有一个自治政府只是为了不让砂拉越人失望。

Abang Johari Tun Openg 明了真相之后其将 722 年重新定为砂拉越日，並取消了 TS Adenan Satem 公布的砂拉越独立日。 TS Adenan Satem 之措施是政治性的。这是为了获得选票以帮助其继续掌权。

当时最高委员会是砂拉越内阁並有外籍人士坐鎮。总督仅在 1963 年 9 月 16 日下午启航离開ASTANA; 这是Abang Johari Tun Openg本人在最近的新闻声明中证实了这一点。

很明显，英国人的意图是让砂拉越接受马来西亚並要它在马来西亚联邦内是独立的，但实际上是作为殖民地交给马来亚或由马来亚控制。

722 不是独立日庆祝的日子，虽然我们已经不在被英国统治，而是由马来亚统治；马来亚是沙巴和砂拉越的另一个殖民统治者。

CMS DISMISSED STAFF EXPOSE CMS CORRUPTION & MALAYAN COLONIAL LOCUST GLC ASSET STRIPPING

A letter to the Yang Amat Berbahagia Premier of Sarawak and All Sarawakian Ministers, please save Sarawakian or anak Sarawak from the “slaughter” of all the West Malaysian in CMS.  

For your info, Sulaiman Taib, the woman-beater, has brought in bunch of West Malaysian from Scomi Group and they started to “slaughter” innocent Sarawakian of all races in CMS. 

I have been working with CMS for 23 years and my service was terminated within 24 hours and was escorted out of my office today. I think the reason was because I refused to “assist” in siphoning money out from CMS for this West Malaysian Chief led by Sulaiman Taib, the woman-beater. 

Dear Yang Amat Berbahagia Premier, you are the only hope for all Sarawakian in CMS who have children to feed and to send the Kids to school. This West Malaysian is scapegoating Sarawakian in CMS and to terminate our service without valid reason. We all know how Taib created CMS out of Sarawak State’s coffer during his tenure as the CM of Sarawak for 23 years. 

We all know how CMS was created out of State’s vehicle namely SEDC, we all know how CMS “stole” State’s Land during the barrage’s projects by doing payment in kind with State’s land and later transferred those land to CMS via CMS Land. 

We all know how CMS made use of PPESW, as a GLC, to acquire State’s mega projects during Taib’s tenure as the CM for 23 years. Now that PPESW is 51% owned by SEDC which is a GLC company then why PPESW is still subject the control of Sulaiman Taib and his West Malaysia geng. 

They are not helping in solving problem but to dig deeper holes again and see how the State Government would react when all the money was siphoned out CMS and to Sualiman, the woman-beater, and his West Malaysian geng. 

Abang Johari, please put a stop to the on-going “slaughter” in CMS ASAP. If not this unfair mass termination in CMS would surely affect the popularity of the GPS’s Government. Tq.

沙巴66事件

【亞庇廿日訊】前州秘書丹斯里賽門西豹表示，如果1976年6月6日導致沙巴5名最高領導人和其他6人罹難的墜機悲劇不曾發生，沙巴今天的命運會比較好，包括與聯邦政府互動的優勢。

他表示，人民黨政府本來也許可以持續執政到1985年4月以後，而沙巴所享有的石油資源收益分配，也不僅僅是5％而巳。

他說：＂如果這宗空難不曾發生，也不會有團結黨的出現，團結黨不會成立，丹斯里百林吉丁岸不會成為沙巴首席部長，百林也不會成為今天的卡杜族民族英雄（Huguan Siou）。” 。

他在上週一受到本報姐妹報，英文每日快報總編輯詹姆士沙爾達邀請，出席於新布蘭六六空難紀念館舉辦的紀錄片首映會，分享其看法時如此表示。

此活動是配合空難事件46週年紀念，以及每日快報製作的2小時記錄片發佈youtube 的儀式舉行。

西豹表示，今天的巫統也許不會立足沙巴，納閩也不會成為聯邦直轄區，非法移民也不會演變成今天的樣子，民主實踐和良善治理制度可以更好地落實，沙巴不會成為我國最貧窮的一州。”

曾經擔任馬來西亞人權委員會副主席的他表示，沙巴的民事服務領域，本應具有更多種族和多宗教性，並且更為重視功效制度。

他說：＂本來沙巴會有較少部分的種族和宗教主導政治，而且沙巴本來可以是一個更宜居的地方。”

此空難事件發生在人民黨擊敗沙統，成功在沙巴執政的兩個月後，導致首席部長敦法史蒂芬、財政部長拿督沙烈蘇隆、地方政府及房屋部長拿督彼得摩俊汀、工程和通訊部長拿督張天文、助理副部長拿督達力歐士比尼翁、財政部的常務秘書拿督華希彼得安都、州經濟策劃單位總監昔胡申華法，和另外四人喪命。

西豹回憶說，1976年6月5日星期六，他與史蒂芬和達力歐士一起乘坐同一台澳洲製造的諾曼飛機飛往納閩，可是第二天下午3點左右，飛機在飛返亞庇的途中墜毀。

當時西豹是張天文率領的工程及通訊部的常務秘書，對方和他是紐西蘭維多利亞大學的同學，而沙烈蘇隆也是他中學時期直到中六的同學，他倆是當時英國北婆羅洲殖民時代的首屆中六生。

西豹表示，當沙烈蘇隆在沙統政府時期擔任地方政府部長一職時，他是對方的常務秘書，摩俊汀則是他在1950年代就讀丹絨亞路聖心中學時期的寄宿同學。

像許多其他人一樣，西豹對有關墜機事件的完整調查報告，時至今天未有公佈而感到失望。

他說：“為什麼飛機遲遲不被允許下降，必須在空中盤旋？我知道任何載有重要人物的飛機，通常都會被優先安排著陸，我相信只要調查報告不公佈的一天，人們都會發出疑問，如果當局沒有什麼不可告人之處，為什麼不能公佈報告？”

肯民党回应砂总理

新闻公告

肯雅兰全民党主席温利山

2022 年 6 月 9 日

有鉴于：回应砂拉越总理在 FMT(今日自由大馬） 2022 年 6 月 6 日的声明。

在此謹告知总理丹斯里阿邦佐哈里；如果砂拉越决定离开馬來西亞联邦，联邦和砂拉越宪法中没有规定禁止后者這么做。同时，砂拉越宪法并没有赋予总理权力来决定砂拉越和其人民之命运与是否应该永远留在马来西亚联邦。

总理的职務是根据宪法规定或法律授权管理砂拉越。总理必须明白，砂拉越并不只属于他个人的而是属于砂拉越全体人民的。即使联邦和砂拉越宪法禁止退出，但是如果人民选择退出并且满足某些情况，那么砂拉越退出马来西亚是无法被阻止的。如果新加坡可以退出马来西亚，同样的,如果砂拉越和沙巴人民选择这样做，那他们就没有理由不能退出。

愿总理获悉，肯雅兰全民党 采访的大多数人都想离开马来西亚。

总理需要提醒的是，1962 年有成千上万的砂拉越人在街头游行反对马来西亚计划。东姑阿都拉曼希望马来西亚在 1963 年 8 月 31 日马来亚独立日同时成立，但由于某些方面的反对而被迫成立将这个日期改为 1963 年 9 月 16 日。

沒有人应该否认砂拉越与马来亚联邦的合并是英国人“强加”于砂拉越人民的事实。解密文件显示，英国和东姑阿都拉曼之间曾秘密会面或计划将沙巴和砂拉越合并为马来亚的领土。许多反对马来西亚计划的人被捕并不得不逃往丛林并被贴上恐怖分子的烙印。他们在维护自己的权力和国家的权力时，怎么可能被贴上恐怖分子的标签？英国当时正在利用人民对本身权力的无知而进行操作。

人们反抗是因为马来西亚计划是强加给他们的。砂拉越政府，亚历山大·瓦德尔爵士（Sir Alexander Waddell）发出警告并说：“任何在 1963 年之前或过早地强制合并的企图很可能会导致砂拉越的种族冲突和彻底的叛乱”——见第 5 页 Michael Leigh 的Deals、Datus and Dayaks .

让所有砂拉越人民和总理知道；联合国大会第 1514 号决议具有宣言性质並根据国际法赋予殖民地自决的合法权利。既然是合法的权力，殖民霸主就无权阻止去殖民化。即使联邦和砂拉越宪法禁止退出，你也不能简单地忽视国际法规定的这项合法权力。自联合国大会于 1960 年 12 月 14 日通过联合国大会第 1514 号决议以来，联合国是希望看到所有殖民地能安全的脫离其殖民霸主而独立。

 英国尚未完成沙巴和砂拉越去殖民化的义务；将它们交给马来亚联邦并不意味着英国可以轻松脫手。

提醒马来西亚政府，当时菲律宾和印度尼西亚反对馬來亚联邦与沙巴和砂拉越合併之计划。菲律宾和印度尼西亚认为它违反了国际法之联合国大会第 1514 号决议规定的自决权。政治家、沙巴和砂拉越人民视东姑阿都拉曼精心策划合併沙巴和砂拉越以扩大马来亚的领土之计划是“政变”。

马来亚通过在 1963 年 7 月 9 日签署马来西亚协议和 1963 年 8 月 1 日发布科博德委员会报告意圖合併沙巴和砂拉越而导致边界对抗和马尼拉协议的签署。马尼拉对沙巴东部拥有主权索取之事尚未解决。

砂火箭队走向灭亡31/5/22

看新闻说说看31/5/22

说本土在野党成政盟将是砂政盟“打手”, 这是多么不负责任的言辞。火箭党跟本土在野党联盟当时如果谈妥了，还是一伙人呢。谈不妥就一口咬定说他们将是砂政盟的“打手”。

说本土在野党将目标瞄准火箭选区和支持力量，这是火箭党要面对的事实。要怪就怪砂民，509后，政治智慧更上一层楼懂得分辨是非，知道砂火箭党根本护不了砂邦国权力，因为他们是马来亚的代理人，欠缺砂拉越精神和立场。他们会比砂政盟更糟糕。看2019年4月9日, YB张健仁如何支持对砂邦无限不利的修宪。这是砂火箭党的致命伤之一呢。能怪谁？

说火箭队在第12次砂选举的选票被本土的反对党成功分散使砂政盟佔更优势，这么说是非常愚昧无知的。根本没有认清时代趋势走向，面对事实。

说即将来临的所谓国选，又是砂本土在野政盟要故技重施，亏这YB大律师这样的话讲得出口。殊不知，火箭党身为外来党要面临严峻的本土在野政党的挑战，要面对这事实。砂民回头转向本土在野反对党是自然不过的实相，怪不了他人。

说火箭队因为其他在野反对党已经陷入“势弱言轻”的宭境，这是自然现象，因为砂民懂得分辨选择本土在野党或外来党的后果。能怪谁？我劝砂火箭队要不退党，就是准备被抛弃。想砂人再支持火箭队，难如登天也！过去砂政盟跟马来亚政党合伙，面对党鞭，各个为了个人权益出卖砂邦权益。今天砂火箭队身为马来亚火箭党的成员之一有多少分量，在联盟里又算什么呢？砂民确实看到这实相。

别把自己的政治道德这么样的放低说本土在野反对党跟砂政盟是“同根同源”，根本是“木马”，也是砂政盟的工具纯粹是为了分裂选票的目的。这么说简直是把砂人当傻人了吧，完全没有辨别真伪是非的能力。火箭队的自我堕落果然名不虚传了。在砂是走向灭亡了。在马来亚还有多少存活空间？真的要好好自我检讨一番，别再堕落了。避免被人民标签说火箭队靠的是骗骗骗。

The crimes Dr M committed

NEWSHow A Malaysian Bumiputera Bank Lost Billions In A Financial Scandal – Declassified CIA Documents Suggest Dr M’s Links To BMF Scandal That Led To The Death Of Jalil Ibrahim

Malaysia , land of financial scandals usually under the pretext of Bumiputera. Once you heard the word for Bumiputera this and that , you need to be extra careful.

Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim had taken Mahathir to task over the scandal involving Hong Kong-based BMF and its parent Bank Bumiputera Malaysia Bhd which had accumulated assets worth more than US$15 billion (RM54 billion) by 1988.

Abdul Aziz had alleged that the flagship of the New Economic Policy had moved aggressively into overseas ventures and lent “recklessly” to politically well-connected companies and individuals, many of whom did not have the capacity or intention to repay the loans, losing billions in the process.

HOW A MALAYSIAN BUMIPUTERA BANK LOST BILLIONS IN A FINANCIAL SCANDAL

The Bank Bumiputra scandal was one of Malaysia’s biggest financial scandals before 1MDB. The bank lost $1billion in public funds to an elaborate scheme of corruption, false accounting and sham profits. The main mastermind behind this web of deceit was a civil engineer by the name of George Tan, who had fled Singapore after his first bankruptcy in 1972, and ended up in Hong Kong. He founded the Carrain Group which eventually collapsed with some 1.2 Billion USD of debt. In this episode of ‘The Big Steal’ we see how Bank Bumiputra lost millions in a financial scandal.

DECLASSIFIED CIA DOCUMENTS SUGGEST DR M’S LINKS TO BMF SCANDAL

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has claimed the Mahathir administration was involved in the Bumiputera Malaysia Finance Limited (BMF) scandal that the country cost billions in the 1980s

The conclusion was contained in a report that was part of a trove of 13 million pages from 800,000 of the agency’s files that were declassified and released online last week

In the report’s summary, it said that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s position as prime minister then was at risk due to the graft scandal, as the Malaysian government-owned Bank Bumiputera (Bank Bumi) reputation was marred by the “questionable” operations of the BMF, its wholly-owned Hong Kong subsidiary.

“Circumstantial evidence suggests that the scandal extends into the Mahathir administration. As a government-owned bank, Bank Bumi is closely monitored by both the Finance Ministry and Central Bank and no important decisions are made without their agreement of knowledge,” the nine-page report titled “The Bank Bumiputera Scandal: More Trouble Ahead for Malaysia’s Mahathir?”

“It is unlikely that the government was unaware of Bank Bumi’s increase on lending limits for its overseas branches to allow more funds to be channelled to Hong Kong,” the CIA report added.

Bank Bumi and its offshore subsidiary BMF issued billions in bad loans to numerous Hong Kong property speculators, including the Carrian Investment Limited (Carrian Group) between 1979 and 1983.

The scandal cost nearly US$1 billion (RM3.57 billion) in two botched loan deal. It also involved the brutal murder of a young Malaysian Bank Bumi auditor.

The scandal affected Dr Mahathir’s leadership within Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) following the now-defunct Carrian Group’s former chief executive George Tan’s move to declare bankruptcy.

The CIA said that BMF, unlike other banks in Hong Kong, had continued to extend credit to real estate despite concerns of a weakening property market.

The report also said that despite a probe into the graft scandal, government’s response to the losses incurred was “surprisingly restrained”.

“Equally damaging to to the administration has been the perception that the government has only half-heartedly pursued the issue,” it stated.

The CIA said although there had been no direct connections found between Dr Mahathir and the banking scandal, his administration was tainted by the “hint of association”.

“The secrecy of the government’s investigation — defended as necessary under Malaysia’s Banking Secrecy Laws — and a year’s delay after the problems surfaced in effecting any management changes at BMF have made the government suspect.

Many businessmen and bankers believe that the government is using the six accused BMF officials as scapegoats in an effort to avoid implicating senior government officials,” the report added.

The former PM has repeatedly denied any involvement in scandal, saying just last year that the money lost in the 1980s ”belonged to the bank” and not the country, and absolved himself of any blame.

“I did not steal any money. No money went missing, what went missing was money belonging to the bank.

“I am not a bank manager, nor am I a bank adviser. So many banks lost money during that time. Why should I be blamed for them?” he was quoted as saying back in May 2016.

The BMF and other financial scandals from his administration have tempered the credibility of Dr Mahathir’s current attack against Putrajaya over alleged mismanagement of funds.

Source : Malay Mail

I WAS ONLY AWARE OF RM5.7 BIL FOREX LOSSES, NOT RM30 BIL, SAYS TUN M

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that he was only aware RM5.7 billion worth of foreign exchange (forex) losses suffered by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) in the early 1990s and not RM30 billion.

“If I had known the losses was RM30 billion, I would not have said sometimes we lose, sometimes we win’ orsometimes we make profit and sometimes we make losses’, which (then Finance Minister) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and (then deputy Auditor-General) Tan Sri Clifford Francis Herbert claimed I said when they met me late 1993. However, I don’t remember saying this,” he told the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the 1990s forex scandal.

According to Mahathir, Anwar and Herbert testified during the RCI that he (Mahathir) had made such a statement when they brought the issue of losses to him in 1993.

Though he claimed not to remember making the statement, Mahathir did not deny it.

“For me, I do not think it strange to have said something like that because in the late 1980s, former BNM governor Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein informed me of that the central bank’s forex trading was to balance its reserves and the nation’s economy.

“What was meant then was there were profits from forex trading by BNM.

“Therefore, when they informed me of the losses in 1992, with the knowledge of profits in 1980s, I did not find it strange to have said so.

Therefore, when they informed me of the losses in 1992, with the knowledge of profits in 1980s, I did not find it strange to have said so.

“However, if I had made that statement, I must have been convinced that the losses of RM30 billion was not communicated to me at that time. If it was RM30 billion, it is impossible for me to have said that,” he added.

Mahathir said as the Prime Minister, he had no reason to suspect that BNM had acted against the powers given to it under the law and he had no personal knowledge of the losses or profits in relation to the forex trading.

“I then appointed him in 1998 to be part of a small committee that would have daily morning briefings on the crisis. He helped to restore the economy and our ringgit which I believed enabled Malaysia to save us from billions in losses,” he added.

Meanwhile, Mahathir said there ought to be an RCI into 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) where RM2.6 billion was allegedly banked into Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal account.

“It has been 25 years since the forex losses occurred yet Najib via his `helpers’ have succeeded in setting up the RCI in less than 25 days (on Feb 15, 2017) following former assistant BNM governor Datuk Abdul Murad Khalid’s revelation to the media regarding the forex losses,” he added.

REMEMBERING JALIL IBRAHIM

The year 1987 was when the employer transferred yours truly to the Hong Kong office and the biggest story of the year must have been Black Monday, the largest one day drop on Wall Street.

In Hong Kong, another big story was the sentencing of Datuk Hashim Shamsuddin, a former director of Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad’s (BBMB) Hong Kong subsidiary, Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF), for conspiring to defraud the bank of US$137 million and accepting a corrupt payment of HK$15 million.

Hashim admitted guilty to four charges of corruption and conspiracy to defraud involving George Tan, a Chinese Malaysian businessman and head of the then Hong Kong market darling, Carrian Group Limited.

The newspaper headline the day we stepped foot in Hong Kong was the decision by the court of appeal to increase the prison sentence against Hashim from four and half years to 10 years.

The primary incident to all this was the murder of BBMB assistant general manager Jalil Ibrahim, who was sent to conduct an audit of BMF Hong Kong in 1983.

The Coverage

NEWSHow A Malaysian Bumiputera Bank Lost Billions In A Financial Scandal – Declassified CIA Documents Suggest Dr M’s Links To BMF Scandal That Led To The Death Of Jalil Ibrahim

ByadminPosted on October 8, 2021

0

SHARES

Share

Tweet

Malaysia , land of financial scandals usually under the pretext of Bumiputera. Once you heard the word for Bumiputera this and that , you need to be extra careful.

Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim had taken Mahathir to task over the scandal involving Hong Kong-based BMF and its parent Bank Bumiputera Malaysia Bhd which had accumulated assets worth more than US$15 billion (RM54 billion) by 1988.

recommended by

Mgid

Mgid

MAXDETOX

Sekiranya anda menjumpai papilloma seperti ini, berhati-hatilah!

KETAHUI LANJUT

Abdul Aziz had alleged that the flagship of the New Economic Policy had moved aggressively into overseas ventures and lent “recklessly” to politically well-connected companies and individuals, many of whom did not have the capacity or intention to repay the loans, losing billions in the process.

HOW A MALAYSIAN BUMIPUTERA BANK LOST BILLIONS IN A FINANCIAL SCANDAL

The Bank Bumiputra scandal was one of Malaysia’s biggest financial scandals before 1MDB. The bank lost $1billion in public funds to an elaborate scheme of corruption, false accounting and sham profits. The main mastermind behind this web of deceit was a civil engineer by the name of George Tan, who had fled Singapore after his first bankruptcy in 1972, and ended up in Hong Kong. He founded the Carrain Group which eventually collapsed with some 1.2 Billion USD of debt. In this episode of ‘The Big Steal’ we see how Bank Bumiputra lost millions in a financial scandal.

DECLASSIFIED CIA DOCUMENTS SUGGEST DR M’S LINKS TO BMF SCANDAL

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has claimed the Mahathir administration was involved in the Bumiputera Malaysia Finance Limited (BMF) scandal that the country cost billions in the 1980s.

PROMOTED CONTENT

Mgid

Mgid

This Video May Soon Be Banned. Watch Before It's Deleted

Quantum Code

Diabetes hilang selama-lamanya! Lakukan ini sebelum tidur

Normalife

Finding A Work From Home Job Might Be Easier Than You Think!

Search Ads

The conclusion was contained in a report that was part of a trove of 13 million pages from 800,000 of the agency’s files that were declassified and released online last week

In the report’s summary, it said that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s position as prime minister then was at risk due to the graft scandal, as the Malaysian government-owned Bank Bumiputera (Bank Bumi) reputation was marred by the “questionable” operations of the BMF, its wholly-owned Hong Kong subsidiary.

“Circumstantial evidence suggests that the scandal extends into the Mahathir administration. As a government-owned bank, Bank Bumi is closely monitored by both the Finance Ministry and Central Bank and no important decisions are made without their agreement of knowledge,” the nine-page report titled “The Bank Bumiputera Scandal: More Trouble Ahead for Malaysia’s Mahathir?”

“It is unlikely that the government was unaware of Bank Bumi’s increase on lending limits for its overseas branches to allow more funds to be channelled to Hong Kong,” the CIA report added.

Bank Bumi and its offshore subsidiary BMF issued billions in bad loans to numerous Hong Kong property speculators, including the Carrian Investment Limited (Carrian Group) between 1979 and 1983.

The scandal cost nearly US$1 billion (RM3.57 billion) in two botched loan deal. It also involved the brutal murder of a young Malaysian Bank Bumi auditor.

The scandal affected Dr Mahathir’s leadership within Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) following the now-defunct Carrian Group’s former chief executive George Tan’s move to declare bankruptcy.

The CIA said that BMF, unlike other banks in Hong Kong, had continued to extend credit to real estate despite concerns of a weakening property market.

The report also said that despite a probe into the graft scandal, government’s response to the losses incurred was “surprisingly restrained”.

“Equally damaging to to the administration has been the perception that the government has only half-heartedly pursued the issue,” it stated.

The CIA said although there had been no direct connections found between Dr Mahathir and the banking scandal, his administration was tainted by the “hint of association”.

“The secrecy of the government’s investigation — defended as necessary under Malaysia’s Banking Secrecy Laws — and a year’s delay after the problems surfaced in effecting any management changes at BMF have made the government suspect.

“Many businessmen and bankers believe that the government is using the six accused BMF officials as scapegoats in an effort to avoid implicating senior government officials,” the report added.

The former PM has repeatedly denied any involvement in scandal, saying just last year that the money lost in the 1980s ”belonged to the bank” and not the country, and absolved himself of any blame.

“I did not steal any money. No money went missing, what went missing was money belonging to the bank.

“I am not a bank manager, nor am I a bank adviser. So many banks lost money during that time. Why should I be blamed for them?” he was quoted as saying back in May 2016.

The BMF and other financial scandals from his administration have tempered the credibility of Dr Mahathir’s current attack against Putrajaya over alleged mismanagement of funds.

Source : Malay Mail

I WAS ONLY AWARE OF RM5.7 BIL FOREX LOSSES, NOT RM30 BIL, SAYS TUN M

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that he was only aware RM5.7 billion worth of foreign exchange (forex) losses suffered by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) in the early 1990s and not RM30 billion.

“If I had known the losses was RM30 billion, I would not have said sometimes we lose, sometimes we win’ orsometimes we make profit and sometimes we make losses’, which (then Finance Minister) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and (then deputy Auditor-General) Tan Sri Clifford Francis Herbert claimed I said when they met me late 1993. However, I don’t remember saying this,” he told the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the 1990s forex scandal.

According to Mahathir, Anwar and Herbert testified during the RCI that he (Mahathir) had made such a statement when they brought the issue of losses to him in 1993.

Though he claimed not to remember making the statement, Mahathir did not deny it.

“For me, I do not think it strange to have said something like that because in the late 1980s, former BNM governor Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein informed me of that the central bank’s forex trading was to balance its reserves and the nation’s economy.

“What was meant then was there were profits from forex trading by BNM.

“Therefore, when they informed me of the losses in 1992, with the knowledge of profits in 1980s, I did not find it strange to have said so.

“However, if I had made that statement, I must have been convinced that the losses of RM30 billion was not communicated to me at that time. If it was RM30 billion, it is impossible for me to have said that,” he added.

Mahathir said as the Prime Minister, he had no reason to suspect that BNM had acted against the powers given to it under the law and he had no personal knowledge of the losses or profits in relation to the forex trading.

“I was also not aware that Jaffar decided to take part in active forex trading to balance out the currency volatility to safeguard the reserve and nation’s economy following the negative impact of the Plaza Accord,” he told the five-man panel.

On former Finance Minister II Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop’s reappointment as BNM’s adviser in 1998, Mahathir said he sought Nor’s expertise to help Malaysia through the Asian Financial Crisis then.

“I needed financial and currency experts to help the country overcome the crisis then. I remembered seeing Mohamed Yakcop walking on the road once. Few weeks after that, I asked him to meet me in Buenos Aires (Argentina) to give me information on forex trading.

“I then appointed him in 1998 to be part of a small committee that would have daily morning briefings on the crisis. He helped to restore the economy and our ringgit which I believed enabled Malaysia to save us from billions in losses,” he added.

Meanwhile, Mahathir said there ought to be an RCI into 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) where RM2.6 billion was allegedly banked into Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal account.

“It has been 25 years since the forex losses occurred yet Najib via his `helpers’ have succeeded in setting up the RCI in less than 25 days (on Feb 15, 2017) following former assistant BNM governor Datuk Abdul Murad Khalid’s revelation to the media regarding the forex losses,” he added.

REMEMBERING JALIL IBRAHIM

The year 1987 was when the employer transferred yours truly to the Hong Kong office and the biggest story of the year must have been Black Monday, the largest one day drop on Wall Street.

In Hong Kong, another big story was the sentencing of Datuk Hashim Shamsuddin, a former director of Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Berhad’s (BBMB) Hong Kong subsidiary, Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF), for conspiring to defraud the bank of US$137 million and accepting a corrupt payment of HK$15 million.

Hashim admitted guilty to four charges of corruption and conspiracy to defraud involving George Tan, a Chinese Malaysian businessman and head of the then Hong Kong market darling, Carrian Group Limited.

The newspaper headline the day we stepped foot in Hong Kong was the decision by the court of appeal to increase the prison sentence against Hashim from four and half years to 10 years.

The primary incident to all this was the murder of BBMB assistant general manager Jalil Ibrahim, who was sent to conduct an audit of BMF Hong Kong in 1983.

We did not know Jalil but were only familiar with his residence in an area popular with Malaysian expatriates. There were many enjoyable memories there.

A television programme in 2011 mentioned that Jalil had met Malaysian businessman Mak Foon Than at a hotel before Mak had murdered Jalil, carried the body in a suitcase and disposed it at a banana plantation.

Police found an unfinished letter Jalil had written to his wife, confiding about interference with his work from above.

Following the decision against Hashim, then opposition leader Lim Kit Siang asked that the Ahmad Nordin inquiry committee be revived. (The three-member committee was headed by Auditor-General Tan Sri Ahmad Noordin to investigate fraud, improprieties and corruption in BBMB and specifically BMF.)

BBMB, through BMF, had overly lent to Carrian, with the loans totaling RM2.5 billion. Carrian had grown in a short of time to become a stock market favourite.

Consequently, BBMB had to be revived with a RM1 billion injection from Petronas. Carrian collapsed to default on many other banks too. BMF was the biggest.

By the time Jalil had arrived in Hong Kong, Carrian was ailing and facing cashflow problems.

In a 300-page report, the committee concluded there were prima facie cases of corruption against three former directors and three former officers of the Hong Kong subsidiary, namely former BMF chairman Lorrain Esme Osman, former directors Hashim and Rais Saniman, former BMF general manager Ibrahim Jaafar, former assistant manager Henry Chin and former BMF money market dealer Eric Chow

The report alleged that the ex-directors, together with four of their relatives and the former BMF management, had received direct and indirect benefits from Tan in exchange for more than RM1 billion in unsecured loans.

Kit Siang raised issues against those highlighted during the trial – then prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, his deputy Musa Hitam and BBMB chairman Tan Sri Kamarul Ariffin, together with a reference to then Minister of Finance Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

[read in https://bibliotheca.limkitsiang.com/1987/01/17/dap-calls-for-the-revival-of-the-ahmad-nordin-bmf-inquiry-committee-to-specifically-inquire-into-the-three-irregular-transactions-highlighted-in-the-hashim-shamsuddin-case-in-hong-kong/]

Will Kit Siang reissue the same call made 30 years ago now that the CIA last week declassify documents relating to the BMF scandal? His current political friend Mahathir is mentioned in the report.

This July it will be 34 years since the day Jalil was found murdered. His two children are already of the age he left his family for the last time in Seremban to return for 10 days to celebrate Hari Raya that year.

The public outcry in Hong Kong back then was no more the losses incurred by banks but rather the financial cost to taxpayers.

The public wanted an immediate end to the case but the police and public prosecutor were still pursuing Tan, Lorraine and Rais. It became the longest case in Hong Kong judicial history and cost over HK$210 million over 17 years.

Unlike “that person’s” politically motivated allegation towards Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to call for his removal, 1MDB underwent through due processes and is still undergoing it abroad.

Ahmad Nordin’s committee recommended that the police and then Anti-Corruption Agency investigate further the irregular transactions and also issues highlighted in court. It was not done but what was done was a major media exercise to divert public attention.

Jalil was glorified as a national hero, a Malay warrior. He was posthumously awarded the Pingat Gagah Perkasa. But the motive behind his death remains a mystery till today.

In an interview with The Sun in 2008, Lorraine argued that Jalil’s death had no link to the BMF investigations. He fought extradition from a London prison for seven years until he finally relented and was sent to prison for a few months in Hong Kong.

Lorraine was a fellow board member in FIMA Metal Box with a former prime minister.

At the time Jalil was in the hotel room before being murdered, Tan was at BMF urgently requesting an assistant manager to release a loan with a letter from the BBMB chairman. Jalil’s last call to Chin was an instruction to not release the loan and wait for instructions from the head office. The call ended abruptly.

BBMB was established to assist ethnic Bumiputras by providing access to capital but instead ended up backing Chinese ethnic businessmen to be corporate players in a foreign market.

BANK BUMI MYSTERY FIGURE DIES

Was Lorrain Esme Osman the man who ordered the

of Bank Bumiputra auditor Jalil Ibrahim in Hong Kong in 1983? The death on Aug. 8 of Osman, the onetime chairman of Bumiputra Malaysia Finance, makes it ever less likely that the identity of the culprit will be revealed.

But Osman always ranked high on the list of suspects of those behind a murder that sparked the collapse of the Carrian Group, a Hong Kong corporate edifice created by Malaysians but built on bogus accounting, corruption and sheer bravado and which ensnared numerous greedy or gullible international bankers, auditors and lawyers. Carrian was the biggest Asian corporate collapse of that era, seriously blackening the reputations not just of Malaysian companies but the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank – through its investment banking subsidiary Wardley — and the accounting firm then known as Price Waterhouse, which not only audited Carrian’s dubious accounts, but whose then-senior partner John Marshall was appointed managing director of the major Carrian companies for 18 months before they collapsed.

The Carrian disaster also resulted in the near collapse of BMF’s parent, Bank Bumi, which required nearly US$1 billion in recapitalization by the Malaysian government. It was the biggest bank failure in the world at the time. It is unique for another reason. Despite considerable suspicion of fraud and corrupt payments to officials, the Malaysian government, then headed by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, declined to attempt to prosecute any of the bank’s officers or government officials. It was the first major milestone in a culture of impunity that has handicapped Malaysia’s ruling Barisan Nasional ever since.

Lorrain Osman already has a place in history but for a different if related reason. He spent a record seven years on remand in London’s Brixton prison fighting extradition to Hong Kong to face various charges related to BMF and its relationship with Carrian. That he managed to fight for so long against extradition to what was then a British colony with an almost identical judicial system was thanks to apparently limitless access to funds for legal plus friends in high places in Kuala Lumpur and London. Although he was eventually extradited to Hong Kong he only served a few months in jail there because of his period on remand and he left Hong Kong owing a million pounds sterling to the government in legal fees.

For most Malaysians, and in particular Jalil’s widow, the issue was who and what caused him to be murdered. A small-time Malaysian businessman named Mak Foon Than was convicted of the actual murder, which took place at the ultra smart Regent Hotel (now the Intercontinental) on the Kowloon waterfront. Although Mak denied the murder but only confessed to helping dump Jalil’s body in a banana grove, he was convicted. (Mak claimed that a Korean hit man had done the deed but no such person was traced). Mak served his sentence and is now a free man living, apparently prosperously, in Penang. He has always kept his silence – doubtless wisely.

He had no obvious motive for being involved other than as one who performed errands for more important Malaysians. So which important Malaysian was desperate to see Jalil dead? Or was Jalil killed by mistake, the cord around his neck being intended to frighten, not kill?

Osman, who was staying in Hong Kong at the time, was an obvious suspect. Jalil, sent from KL to find out more about what was going on at BMF, was obstructing a big new loan by BMF to parties related to the Carrian group needed in a last-ditch effort to prevent it from going under. Osman was BMF chairman but Jalil insisted on approval from KL. Another was the founder and head of the group, George Tan, also a Malaysian, who was even more desperate for the life-saving cash but had no evident connection to Mak. More distant suspects included the bankers, lawyers and accountants who had taken Carrian kickbacks or made unprofessional judgments for money. One lawyer, a senior partner in Hong Kong’s largest law firm was found dead in his swimming pool with a concrete manhole cover around his neck. This was deemed suicide.

Quite why BMF – Carrian was its only significant client – was allowed to lend so much to Carrian has never been satisfactorily explained despite the efforts of Malaysia’s well-regarded auditor general Tan Sri Ahmed Noordin to get to the bottom of the story – his powers of inquiry were limited. But there was no doubt about the close links between the three main BMF directors, Osman, Hashim Shamsuddin and Rais Saniman and Bank Bumi in KL. (Hashim and Rais were both jailed in Hong Kong). Hashim was also an executive director of Bank Bumi.

Doubtless some funds found their way back to politically connected persons – after all, Bank Bumi was owned by government entities and existed to help Malays. But meanwhile Carrian acquired a life of its own, attracting funds from everywhere, not least the Hong Kong bank. And when the Carrian crunch came it was the Malaysians who had most to lose.

The careers of several prominent and highly educated young Malays were blighted. Osman, born in 1932 was educated at Cambridge University and then called to the English bar and possessed charm as well as intelligence. Hashim was a UK-trained accountant and prominent UMNO figure. As for Lorrain, assuming he did not order the Jalil murder, he paid a higher price than others, his seven years avoiding extradition and in jail being followed by a life (albeit it quite prosperous) of exile in Ireland and the UK.

Some Malays tried to distance themselves from him, quietly hinting that he was not a Malay at all, as evidenced by his first names, and that the Carrian debacle was all his doing, not that of real Malays. It was certainly not that.

Nor does Malaysia seem to have learned many lessons. Bank Bumi’s injection of capital to cover its Carrian losses but these proved minor compared with the losses of the “entrepreneurs” backed by public funds during the Mahathir era that continue today.