BNC is extending ANC?

Syed Akbar Ali, also known as blogger Syed Outside The Box is Gerard Rajaratnam's guest on BNC 'Help Malaysia'

Syed Akbar Ali, also known as blogger Out-Syed The Box is Gerard Rajaratnam’s guest on BNC ‘Helo Malaysia’

Cakap tak serupa bikin. It seems that the recently rebranded Bernama News Channel (BNC) is doing the Federal Government and Leadership a gross disservice by providing avenue of a voracious and highly obnoxious Anti Najib Campaign (ANC) personality opportunity and space as a guest in one of its prime time shows.

BNC is an agency which is wholly funded and bound under Ministry of Communication and Multimedia (KKMM) instructions, is also the propaganda arm of the Federal Government.

The KKMM Minister who is determined to set things up right in the times of manipulation of information, half truths, slanders and lies thrown indiscriminately to demonise Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak, his leadership and administration.

Bloggers and cyber-writers who were supporters of PM Najib, here seen at National Press Club awards night, are now staunch Anti Najib Campaign personalities.

Bloggers and cyber-writers who were staunch supporters of PM Najib, here seen at National Press Club awards night, are now the most voracious Anti Najib Campaign personalities (With the exception of the only Non-Man is this line!)

Syed Akbar Ali, also known by his nom d’plume Out-Syed the Box, is one of those personalities who KKMM Dato’ Sri Mohd. Salleh Said Keruak should be going after for his manipulation of information, lies, slanders and outright cyber-anarchy writings almost ever other day.

This rogue blogger deletes all his posting within 18 hours of putting it up on public domain because he himself is very aware that the blog postings obnoxious, any of his writings could be cited up for serious felony such as sedition and instigating the public, wth existing laws of the land.

Of course, like a coward, Syed Akbar just lambast an attack without even having the audacity to stand up for what he wrote but quickly dispose them, before any law enforcement agencies are aware of his obnoxious writings and started to act on him.

Syed Outside the Box on BNC 'Help Malaysia'

Syed Outside the Box on BNC ‘Helo Malaysia’

Instead, BNC got him in ‘Helo Malaysia’ and got him talking about interpretation of Islam, which include ‘Kafir Harbi’.

If KKMM Minister Salleh or key personalities within the Ministry are oblivious of Syed Akbar, then they should do a little bit of homework. Seriously!

Syed Akbar, an active integral proponent of ANC, has been writing on stories without any shred of evidence, to ridicule the blog readers about all the conspiracy stories, manipulation and lies with the explicit purpose to demonise Prime Minister Najib.


If they are a bit more diligent, then they might stumble on the fact that Syed was charged by Attorney General for sedition mocking Islam sometime seven years ago. Syed used the nom d’plume, “Mufti Murtad” in provocatively sharing his seedtious thoughts about Islam online.

Regardless, this operational cock up on BNC’s part against KKMM and Ministers’s own policies and determination is utter shameful. Especially, providing prime time air time for a key member of ANC.

Published in: on July 31, 2016 at 09:30  Comments (4)  

SC throwing the books at Jani’s partners?

In the game of white collar crime, corporate and market players are no island and the interlink, intriguely layered and through complex web of dealings and sophisticated commercial papers.

Then again, ‘insider trading’ is often the best excuse to go after active market players, especially to those who could have access to strategic and delicate information. When the going gets tough, the market players get tougher or shall falter.

Dato' Yeow Kheng Chew

Dato’ Yeow Kheng Chew

Word from the grapevine is circulating that Securities Commission (SC) is charging Dato’ Yeow Kheng Chew, former Executive Director of Kencana Petroleum Berhad, Paulene Chee Yuet Fang, her remisier Tan Yee Chee for insider trading in relation to the proposed merger of Kencana Petroleum Berhad and SapuraCrest Petroleum Berhad in 2011.

Is an official press release from SC is expected soon?

‘Insider trading’ is SC’s so called flavour-of-the-year crussade.

This is very interesting because K C Yeow has been former Sapura Kencana Bhd Chairman Tan Sri Mokhzani Mahathir’s long time business partner.

Both of them quit Sapura Kencana board almost 16 months ago.

The Star story:

Friday, 6 March 2015

Mokhzani and Yeow to keep stakes in SapuraKencana


“We have no plans to sell,” Mokhzani told StarBiz. Asked on the duo’s next move, he said they “don’t know just yet”.

“We have no plans to sell,” Mokhzani told StarBiz. Asked on the duo’s next move, he said they “don’t know just yet”.

PETALING JAYA: Tan Sri Mokhzani Mahathir and close associate Yeow Kheng Chew, better known as KC, have no plans to sell their combined stake of 9.12% in oil and gas (O&G) giant SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd (SapKen) following their resignations from the board of the company.

“We have no plans to sell,” Mokhzani told StarBiz.

Asked on the duo’s next move, he said they “don’t know just yet”.

Mokhzani and Yeow collectively hold a 9.12% stake in SapKen through Khasera Baru Sdn Bhd, which is the company’s fourth largest shareholder.

Based on yesterday’s closing price of RM2.45, the stake is worth some RM1.3bil.

Shares in SapKen yesterday fell close to a two-month low, as investors sold ahead of a perceived stock overhang in the company, following the exit of the two directors from its board.

Mokhzani, who was the vice-chairman of SapKen, and Yeow, one of the company’s non-executive directors, told Bursa Malaysia on Wednesday that they had resigned due to “personal reasons”.

Their exit raised concerns if the duo would follow up on their resignations and reduce their interests in the oil and gas giant.

“In a knee-jerk reaction, some investors sold their interests for fear of an overhang,” said a broker.

Usually an overhang occurs when there are concerns that a sizeable amount of shares in a company are to be sold, hence limiting the upside movement of the stock.

But an investment banker described as unfounded the concerns of Mokhzani and KC disposing of their stake in SapKen.

“If they want to divest their stake, they would not resign because it would be value destructive,” said the banker.

To a question, Mokhzani dispelled speculation that the resignations were due to disagreements with regard to the operations of the group under the current environment where oil prices have slumped.

“No, the resignations were not caused by a disagreement,” Mokhzani said.

The president and group chief executive officer of SapKen is Tan Sri Shahril Shamsuddin, who has a 16.71% stake.

Since more than 18 months ago, speculation has been rife that both Shahril and Mokhzani did not see eye to eye and there was talk that there was a disagreement between the two on the operations and expansion plans of the group.

The banker speculated that the more likely reason for the resignations was a possible corporate exercise that Khasera Baru was undertaking that could put Mokhzani and Yeow in a conflict of interest situation should they remain on the board of SapKen.

Apart from SapKen, both Mokhzani and Yeow have a major investment in the form of O&G service provider Yinson Holdings Bhd.

They hold an 18.55% stake in Yinson via Kencana Capital Sdn Bhd, which is the second largest shareholder after company chairman Lim Han Weng, who has 22%.

In 2012, childhood friends Mokhzani and Shahril merged their businesses, Kencana Petroleum Bhd and SapuraCrest Petroleum Bhd, to form SapKen. It became the biggest privately owned integrated oil and gas company in the country.

Following that, Khasera Baru had a stake of about 15% in the O&G outfit, while Shahril held 16.71% via Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd.

Last February, Khasera Baru sold a block of 190.3 million shares for RM4.30 apiece, netting about RM820mil in total.


How and why something happened so long ago only being actively sought after now is as good as the next person’s guess.

Probably the Long Arm of Corporate Law took tad long to figure the tit.

Coincidentally, Fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad started his open attacks against Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak moments after the duo exited as active personalities in Sapura Kencana.

Probably some would view that as ‘conveniently’. Needless to say, many has been expecting this ‘Open season’, especially the intensity and voracity of the former’s attack on once the anointed successor after Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi being ousted.

Regardless, this is an interesting development to watch.

*Updated 1545hrs

The Edge Market story on K C Yeow being charged by SC.

SC charges Kencana’s former ED KC Yeow with insider trading

By Chen Shaua Fui / | July 29, 2016 : 2:09 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR (July 29): Kencana Petroleum Bhd’s former executive director Datuk Yeow Kheng Chew, better known as KC Yeow, along with two individuals were charged with insider trading at the Sessions Court here today.

The other two individuals, Paulene Chee Yuet Fang and her remisier Tan Yee Chee were charged for abetment.

The trio were alleged to have committed the offence in relation to the proposed merger of Kencana Petroleum Bhd and SapuraCrest Petroleum Bhd in 2011.


In the local corporate scene, Yeow is known as the partner of Datuk Mokhzani Mahathir in the oil & gas business.

Yeow was the former non-executive director of SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd. He relinquished his position on March 4, 2015 for personal reasons.

The three claimed trial to the charge. Yeow was out on bail for RM1 million with two sureties, while Chee and Tan were bailed at RM800,000 and two sureties. The court did not request them to surrender their passport.

The presiding Judge Zulqarnian Hassan has fixed the case management on Aug 11.

According to the charge sheet, Yeow, 64, was charged for buying 1.16 million shares in Kencana Petroleum Bhd through Chee’s Central Depository System account, while in possession of information on the proposed merger of Kencana Petroleum and SapuraCrest on July 8, 2011, three days before the offer letter for the merger being issued.

The charge further stated Yeow would have expected such information to have had a material effect on the price of the shares, and ought reasonably to have known that such information was not generally available.

Therefore, he was accused of committing an offence under section 188(2)(a) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA).

Meanwhile, Chee and Tan were charged for abetting Yeow in commission of the insider trading offence, and that they have committed an offence under Section 370 (c) of the CMSA, read together with section 188(2)(a) of the CMSA.

Upon conviction, the trio shall be punished to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, and to a fine of not less than RM1 million.

Recall that the boards of SapuraCrest Petroleum Bhd and Kencana Petroleum Bhd have agreed to their merge on Aug 5, 2011.

The merger, worth a total of RM11.85 billion, was carried out under Integral Key Sdn Bhd (IKSB), a special purpose vehicle. The letter of offer from IKSB was dated July 11, 2011.


Published in: on July 29, 2016 at 12:30  Comments (3)  

Memahami kes saman sivil DoJ

Kekeliruan mengenai pengumuan Peguam Negara Amerika Syarikat Loretta Lynch mewakili Jabatan Kehakiman (DoJ) keatas empat individu, yang sedang disiasat atas beberapa kesalahan, berkenaan asset 1MDB kini dijadikan modal politik.

Wajar difahami dahulu sebelum membuat kesimpulan tidak berdasarkan fakta, tetapi atas persepsi yang dicanangkan.


Published in: on July 28, 2016 at 09:00  Comments (4)  

DoJ kata Ya, 1MDB kata tidak, PM Najib minta siasatan menyeluruh

Setelah beberapa hari negara digemparkan oleh pengumuman Peguam Negara Amerika Syarikat Loretta Lynch berkenaan “Siasatan keatas empat orang individu berkenaan harta dikaitkan dengan 1MDB”, kekeliruan mengenai keadaan setakat ini dan kekeliruan makin memuncak.

Perdana Menteri Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak mender agar semua phial yang dibabitkan dalam siasatan DoJ untuk bertindak dan membersihkan nama masing-masing.

Utusan Online:

Bersihkan nama masing-masing

Pastikan tiada wang rakyat disalahgunakan – Najib

KAMIL MASLIH | 26 Julai 2016 1:31 AM

PUTRAJAYA 25 Julai – Kerajaan mahu semua individu yang dinamakan oleh Jabatan Kehakiman (DOJ) Amerika Syarikat dalam isu 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) supaya membersihkan nama mereka dan memastikan tiada wang rakyat disalahgunakan.
Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak berkata, kerajaan mengambil serius terhadap laporan tindakan saman sivil DOJ ke atas 1MDB dan bersedia memberi kerjasama sepenuhnya kepada semua pihak bagi melengkapkan siasatan.
“Kerajaan tetap pandang berat atas perkara ini dan mahu supaya siapa yang dinamakan itu ambil tanggungjawab bersihkan nama mereka dan pastikan tiada wang rakyat disalahgunakan, ini prinsip kita.
“Kita harap lambat laun, akan tahu kebenarannya dan jangan terbawa-bawa dalam soal ini. Kita buat urusan kita dan serahkan mengikut proses keadilan yang sewajarnya,” katanya.
Beliau berkata demikian ketika berucap dalam majlis penyerahan surat tawaran menunaikan fardu haji Program Khas Haji Perdana Menteri di Masjid Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin di sini hari ini.
Seramai 1,100 orang yang terdiri daripada imam, ketua kampung dan Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) menerima surat tawaran daripada program yang ditaja oleh Yayasan 1MDB dengan kerjasama Lembaga Tabung Haji (Tabung Haji).
Yang turut hadir, Ketua Setiausaha Perbendaharaan yang juga Pengerusi 1MDB, Tan Sri Dr. Mohd. Irwan Serigar Abdullah; Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom dan Pengerusi Tabung Haji, Datuk Seri Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim.
Pada 21 Julai lalu, Perdana Menteri memberitahu, kerajaan memandang serius laporan DOJ dan sedia bekerjasama dengan semua pihak serta badan siasatan di peringkat antarabangsa.

Menurut Najib, kerajaan juga menggesa 1MDB memantapkan lagi kedudukannya agar bertambah mantap dan kukuh bagi membolehkan lebih banyak program sosial dilaksanakan.
“1MDB banyak menjadi celaan hari ini sehingga banyak yang lupa program sosial 1MDB, ini (Program Khas Haji) satu daripada banyak program termasuk program baik pulih rumah dibuat selama ini, tolong nelayan, wanita, belia, tolong dalam masa banjir dan sebagainya, beratus-ratus juta ringgit telah dikeluarkan,” katanya.
Jelas Najib, dana sebanyak RM10.4 juta telah dikeluarkan oleh Yayasan 1MDB untuk menaja jemaah haji dalam program berkenaan tahun ini.
“Tahun ini kita mencatatkan jumlah besar iaitu 1,100 bakal jemaah haji. Program ini bermula tahun 2011 dengan jumlah 111 orang, setakat ini kita sudah menghantar 4,611 jemaah menunaikan ibadah haji,” katanya.
Najib memberitahu, beliau terpanggil untuk melaksanakan program tajaan haji itu bagi menghargai golongan yang ikhlas berjuang di peringkat akar umbi bagi meninggikan martabat dan kesucian agama Islam.
Dalam pada itu, Perdana Menteri menegaskan, kerajaan akan terus melaksanakan agenda Islam berpandukan prinsip Maqasid Syariah agar Malaysia benar-benar menjadi negara Islam yang dicontohi dan dibanggakan.
Katanya, beliau juga mengutuk kejadian serangan letupan bom di perkarangan Masjid Nabawi, Madinah pada 5 Julai lalu dan mengingatkan semua pihak agar tidak mengamalkan fahaman yang keterlaluan sehingga merosakkan keamanan.
– See more at:


Penjelasan yang diringkaskan oleh Lim Sian See:


Blog, COLUMNIST July 24, 2016July 25, 2016 editor

Oleh Lim Sian See

Jabatan Kehakiman Amerika Syarikat (DOJ mendakwa berbilion wang dicuri daripada 1MDB dan melancarkan pembekuan aset kononnya bagi mendapatkan semula ‘kehilangan’ itu namun 1MDB menegaskan ia tidak kehilangan wang dan semua aset sudah dikira.

Ringkasnya, DOJ mendakwa ada orang mencuri wang anda dan mereka akan dapatkan semula wang itu, disebalik 1MDB sudah katakana, “Tidak. Ia bukan wang kami.”

Mengapa kejadian pelik ini berlaku?

Mari kita jejaki wang itu, khususnya tiga sumber dana yang didakwa DOJ, sebagai sumber wang dicuri.

Good Star, sebagai sebahagian daripada Perkongsian antara PetroSaudi dan 1MDB.

Apa yang dibayar 1MDB:
USD1.83 bilion di mana USD1.03 bilion dipindahkan kepada Good Star dan USD800 juta kepada PetroSaudi.

Apa terjadi kepada wang itu:
Usahasama itu diubah menjadi pinjaman. Pinjaman itu sudah dibayar oleh PetroSaudi kepada 1MDB melalui unit pelaburan berjumlah USD2.32 bilion (prinsipal + faedah/dividen).

Apa terjadi kepada unit pelaburan itu?
USD1.4 bilion ditebus dan digunakan 1MDB untuk tujuan modal kerja dengan bakinya sebanyak USD940 juta dalam bentuk unit pelaburan.

Apa terjadi kepada baki USD940 juta unit pelaburan itu?
Baki USD940 juta dalam bentuk unit itu dijamin oleh syarikat yang dipertikaikan Aabar Investments PJS Ltd yang diperbadankan di British Virgin Islands (Aabar-BVI) dan sudah dikenalpasti sebagai pertukaran aset dan hutang antara 1MDB dan IPIC, namun kini melalui proses timbang tara.

1MDB tidak boleh berkata atau mendakwa wang Good Star atau PetroSaudi adalah milik mereka.

Apa terjadi seterusnya?
Tiada apa apa.

Setakat apa melibatkan 1MDB, PetroSaudi sudahpun membayar kembali pelaburannya dan tambahan USD481 juta keuntungan dan dividen. Tiada wang yang perlu dituntut daripada Good Star mahupun PetroSaudi.

Agak menariknya di sini, jika Jho Low dan Riza dinamakan dan dituduh atas salahlaku kerana menerima wang daripada Good Star, maka adalah mengejutkan mengapa Gabenor Turki sebelum ini, Putera Turki yang juga anak ketujuh Raja Abdullah dan pengasas PetroSaudi, Tarek Obaid tidak dikenakan tindakan biarpun turut disebut FBI, mereka juga menerima wang daripada Good Star.

Syarikat dipertikaikan Aabar-BVI yang menjadi sebahagian daripada perkongsian Abu Dhabi dan 1MDB.

Apa yang dibayar 1MDB?
USD3.51 bilion kepada Aabar-BVI sebagai cagaran, pelaburan perkongsian dan opsyen penarikan diri dalam perjanjian. Sebagai tambahan, terdapat USD940 juta jaminan dalam unit pelaburan Cayman dan jaminan kepada USD1.5 bilion dana GIL seperti disyorkan bank berpangkalan di Switzerland, BSI Bank.

Apa terjadi kepada aset dijamin dan wang diberikan 1MDB?
Keseluruhan pembayaran dan jaminan USD6 bilion itu dikenalpasti sebagai aset perjanjian pertukaran 1MDB-IPIC dengan IPIC sebagaimana berikut:

Aset daripada 1MDB:
USD3.5 bilion deposit tunai dibayar kepada Aabar BVI.
USD1.5 bilion dana GIL (Pengurus dana disyorkan BSI dan dijamin Aabar BVI)
USD940 juta unit dana Brazen Sky (Dijamin oleh Aabar Investments Abu Dhabi – bukan syarikat dipertikaikan, Aabar BVI dan ini turut dinyatakan dalam laporan Ketua Audit Negara serta Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Awam, PAC).

Aset daripada IPIC:
Mengambil alih bon prinsipal 1MDB, USD3.5 bilion
Mengambil alih faedah bon 1MDB, USD1.5 bilion
Membayar tunai USD1 bilion kepada 1MDB yang dilakukan pada Jun 2015

IPIC kini sedang menafikan yang Aabar-BVI adalah syarikat mereka dan membatalkan perjanjian pertukaran aset namun 1MDB menegaskan Aabar-BVI adalah syarikat milik IPIC. Lantaran itu, ia kini melalui proses timbang tara.

Kes itu kini melalui prosiding di Mahkamah Timbang Tara Antarabangsa London yang bermula bulan lalu.

Mengapa 1MDB memindahkan atau membuat perjanjian dengan Aabar-BVI biarpun IPIC dan Aabar Abu Dhabi tidak memiliki syarikat itu?

Ketika 1MDB menandatangani perjanjian perkongsian dengan Aabar Investments PJS di Abu Dhabi, perbincangan adalah dengan Pengerusi Aabar, Khadem Abdullah al-Qubaisi dan Pengarah Urusan mereka, Mohamed Badawy Al-Husseiny, di mana kedua-duanya juga dinamakan FBI bersama Jho Low.

Ketika perjanjian dimeterai, 1MDB turut mendapatkan peguam dalaman dan dari luar bagi mengesahkan Aabar Investments PJS Ltd di British Virgin Island dimiliki Aabar Investments PJS di Abu Dhabi.

Dokumen lampiran adalah Sijil Pengesahan Pemilikan yang dikeluarkan bagi syarikat Aabar di BVI yang dipertikaikan. Sijil ini dikeluarkan oleh Offshore Incorporations Limited (OIL) beribupejabat di Hong Kong dan teraju antarabangsa dalam perkhidmatan syarikat dan perbadanan antarabangsa.
Sijil Pengesahan Pemilikan ini mengesahkan dua pengarah Aabar Investments PJS Ltd di BVI adalah Pengerusi dan Pengarah Urusan Aabar Investments PJS dan pemilik tunggalnya ialah syarikat Abu Dhabi, Aabar Investments PJS.

Beribupejabat di Hong Kong, OIL juga mempunyai pejabat di BVI, Singapura, Taiwan, Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, United Kingdom, Cyprus dan Dubai serta mempunyai 220 kakitangan.

Oil adalah anak syarikat Kumpulan Vistra yang mempunyai 2,300 kakitangan di 40 negara dengan ibupejabatnya di Hong Kong.

Dalam dokumen rasmi perbadanannya, Pengerusi dan Pengarah Urusan daripada syarikat induk serta peguam daripada dalaman dan luar melalui proses usaha wajar (due diligence) mengesahkan kepada 1MDB, syarikat Aabar Investments PJS Ltd di BVI secara sah dimiliki Aabar Investments PJS di Abu Dhabi. Maka apa lagi yang perlu dilakukan 1MDB dan untuk mendapatkan pengesahan ia bukan sebuah syarikat palsu?

Pemilikan Aabar BVI dan pemindahan dana turut disahkan oleh audit dilakukan firma luaran, KPMG dan Deloitte selepas itu dan tiada amaran tercetus mengenai pemilikan syarikat itu. Kedua-dua firma audit itu tentunya sudah bertemu atau menghubungi Aabar di Abu Dhabi bagi mengesahkan transaksi itu.

Bagaimanapun, bagi alasan yang tidak diketahui, IPIC bersetuju kepada perjanjian pertukaran itu, membayar USD1 bilion, membayar faedah bon USD3.5 bilion dan hanya pada April 2016, selepas 10 bulan perjanjian ditandatangani dan bertahun selepas 1MDB menyatakan mereka sudah membuat kesemua pembayaran kepada Aabar dalam penyata kewangan yang boleh diakses orang awam.

Perkara Utama:
1MDB tidak boleh menyatakan atau mendakwa wang yang dipindahkan daripada Aabar BVI kepada Jho Low, Red Granite atau sesiapapun sebagaimana didakwa Jabatan Kehakiman Amerika Syarikat adalah milik mereka. Bagi 1MDB, Aabar BVI adalah sah dan dimiliki IPIC. Jika terdapat wang dicuri daripada Aabar BVI, ia dicuri daripada IPIC dan bukannya 1MDB.

Jika 1MDB mendakwa wang itu milik mereka bermakna keseluruhan prosiding timbang tara di London antara IPIC dan syarikat itu akan runtuh dan 1MDB akan terpaksa membayar berbilion manakala IPIC akan terlepas, disebalik hakikat, kedua-dua eksekutif kanan IPIC, Pengarah Urusannya daripada 2007 hingga 2015, Khadem dan Pengarah Urusan Aabar PJS, Mohamed Badawy Al-Husseiny adalah penama dalam kes penyitaan aset Jabatan Kehakiman Amerika Syarikat.

Apa akan terjadi seterusnya?
1MDB perlu focus untuk memenangi kes timbang taranya dengan membuktikan yang dua eksekutif kanan Aabar dan IPIC telah bertindak menggunakan kuasa mereka di dalam Lembaga Pengarah dua syarikat itu dan kesemua pemeriksaan telah mengesahkan Aabar BVI adalah milik Aabar Investments PJS Abu Dhabi dan IPIC.

1MDB yakin mereka mempunyai bukti mencukupi dan fakta yang kukuh bagi memenangi kes ini berikutan keengganan mereka untuk membayar faedah bon yang dijadualkan biarpun memiliki RM3 bilion dalam simpanan dan membiarkan dua bon yang dijamin IPIC untuk tertunggak hingga menyebabkan IPIC untuk membayarnya.

Jika 1MDB memenangi kes ini, aset bernilai USD4.5 bilion akan dapat dimiliki semula daripada IPIC. Jika berlaku demikian, yang kemungkinannya sangat tinggi, IPIC akan mengambil alih bon USD3.5 bilion dan membenarkan 1MDB untuk menyimpan USD1 bilion yang mereka bayar sebelum ini. IPIC kemudian akan menjadi pihak bertanggungjawab untuk menuntut semula aset USD4.5 bilion dalam Aabar BVI.

Wang USD1.5 bilion yang dilaburkan 1MDB untuk dana pelaburan BSI Bank.

Apa yang dibayar 1MDB?
USD1.5 bilion yang dilaburkan dalam dana pelaburan berdaftar sebagaimana disyorkan BSI Bank. USD1.5 bilion ini adalah sebahagian daripada perolehan bon USD3 bilion pada 2013 (turut dikenali sebagai dana GIL 1MDB yang diraih daripada cadangan perkongsian dengan Aabar bagi memajukan Bandar Malaysia pada 2013. Baki USD1.5 bilion digunakan 1MDB sebagai modal kerja bagi membangunkan Tun Razak Exchange (TRX), Bandar Malaysia dan perniagaan janakuasa.
Putera Diraja Abu Dhabi, Jeneral Sheikh Mohammed Zayed Al Nahyan, menyaksikan majlis pemeteraian perjanjian pada 2013.
Perjanjian perkongsian Bandar Malaysia ditandatangani pada Mac 2013 di mana 1MDB dan Aabar masing-masing dicadangkan untuk meraih USD3 bilion dan kedua pihak itu akan menyumbang kepada syarikat 1MDB-GIL bagi membangunkan Bandar Malaysia.

Berikutan kegagalan Aabar untuk meraih USD3 bilion pada tempoh ditetapkan dan perkongsian itu tidak berjalan lancer, 1MDB membuat keputusan untuk menggunakan separuh wang itu sebagai modal kerja manakala selebihnya digunakan dalam dana pelaburan bagi mengelak tanggungan negatif (atau membayar faedah bagi dana yang tidak digunakan daripada pinjaman).

Apa terjadi kepada wang yang dilaburkan dalam dana pelaburan?
Wang itu masih dilaburkan dalam dana yang asalnya dirancang untuk digunakan bagi sebahagian daripada pertukaran aset dengan IPIC memandangkan ia dijamin oleh Aabar BVI.

Apa akan terjadi seterusnya?
Memandangkan pertukaran aset itu sudah dihentikan, dana ini sudah berada dalam fasa penuntutan. Bagaimanapun, menuntut satu unit USD1.5 bilion bukanlah seperti kita mengeluarkan wang dari bank. Dana itu sendiri perlu menjual pelaburan mereka sebelum membayar 1MDB. Difahamkan, proses ini kini hampir selesai.

Berapa sebenarnya ‘Wang Rakyat’ yang digunakan oleh 1MDB setakat ini?
Modal berbayar RM1 juta dibayar oleh Kerajaan Malaysia. Baki dana sehingga RM42 bilion pada satu masa diraih daripada bon dan pinjaman bank.

Berapa banyak pinjaman yang masih ditanggung 1MDB?
Selain tiga bon, kesemua baki pinjaman, kemudahan kredit dan bon lain sudah dibayar sepenuhnya oleh 1MDB ketika proses rasionalisasi hutang yang bermula pada 2015.

Sejak awal 2015, 1MDB sudah melangsai dan mengeluarkan hutang berikut daripada tanggungan mereka:

Bayar penuh RM3.5 bilion pinjaman Powertek daripada satu konsortium bank.
Bayar penuh RM1 bilion kemudahan kredit daripada kerajaan
Bayar penuh USD150 juta pinjaman Bank Exim
Sukuk RM2.4 bilion Bandar Malaysia diambil alih oleh pembeli 60 peratus Bandar Malaysia.
Memindahkan RM800 juta pinjaman Perkeso kepada pembiayaan projek TRX. Pinjaman ini sudah dibayar.
Mengenepikan hutang RM6 bilion yang ditanggung berikutan penjualan Edra
Bayar penuh pinjaman RM2 bilion Marstan diuruskan Ananda Krishnan yang dipinjam bagi membayar pinjaman Maybank RM2 bilion
Bayar penuh USD975 juta pinjaman Deutsche Bank

Selepas kesemua pinjaman ini sudah dibayar, 1MDB masih lagi mempunyai RM2.3 bilion dalam bentuk tunai dan turut memiliki bon berikut:

RM5 bilion bon jangka panjang pada 2009 yang akan matang pada tahun 2029. Bon ini terikat kepada pembangunan berterusan TRX dan akan diseimbangkan dengan aliran tunai pembangunan itu.

Bon 2012 bernilai USD3.5 bilion yang dijamin IPIC dan akan matang pada tahun 2022. (Jika 1MDB memenangi kes timbang tara maka bon ini akan dibeli IPIC).

Bon pada 2013 bernilai USD3 bilion yang akan matang pada tahun 2023. Bon ini terikat kepada pembangunan Bandar Malaysia di mana 1MDB memiliki 40 peratus dan diseimbangkan dengan aliran tunai pembangunan ini.

Berapa sebenarnya ‘Wang Rakyat yang hilang berikutan saman sivil Jabatan Kehakiman ini?
Tiada. Memandangkan jumlah yang didakwa dicuri adalah daripada pinjaman yang 1MDB ambil seperti di atas dan pinjaman itu tidak tertunggak, tiada wang Malaysia hilang. Ini turut mengambil kira pertikaian IPIC akan selesai dengan menyebelahi 1MDB dan bon GIL USD1.5 bilion ditebus.

Adalah penting untuk kita lihat, selain bon USD3.5 bilion yang dipertikaikan dengan IPIC, 1MDB tidak menghadapi tunggakan terhadap mana-mana pinjaman atau bon. Malah, sebagaimana dinyatakan di atas, kebanyakan pinjaman sudah dilangsaikan.

Perkara utama terakhir:
Adalah penting untuk kita utarakan, tiga sumber dana yang disenaraikan Jabatan Kehakiman Amerika Syarikat adalah urusan terus dengan kerajaan serta kerabat diraja negara Arab dan 1MDB membayar secara terus kepada akaun yang diarahkan oleh mereka. Jika 1MDB ditipu, bermakna negara terbabit turut bersubahat menipu 1MDB.

Atau, jika 1MDB adalah satu penipuan, maka negara terbabit dan kerabat dirajanya turut berpakat dengan 1MDB untuk menipu.

Namun perkara utama paling penting adalah:
Jika 1MDB berjaya memenangi timbang tara IPIC dan menebus semula USD1.5bilion dana GIL, maka 1MDB benar-benar boleh menyatakan ia tidak pernah hilang wang atau wangnya dicuri.

Ini bermakna, adalah mustahil untuk Jho Low, Riza, Khadem, Malaysia Official 1 atau sesiapa sahaja dalam isu ini telah mencuri wang daripada 1MDB untuk membeli atau melabur dalam aset yang mahu disita FBI.

Tetapi ia juga mungkin bermakana ada seseorang yang ditipu. Ia mungkin IPIC Abu Dhabi atau ia adalah keuntungan sah yang dibuat daripada pelaburan dana.

Tetapi wang siapa digunakan untuk dibeli karya seni, hartanah? Ia mungkin wang IPIC Abu Dhabi, wang Arab Saudi atau ia mungkin hasil keuntungan daripada pelaburan dana


Hakikatnya, laporan Jawatan Kira-Kira Wang Negara (PAC) setelah 10 bulan memanggil pika terlibat untuk meneri keterangan, merangkumi laporan diasatan Ketua Audit Negara mengariskan kedapatan kelemahan diproses pengurusan 1MDB.

PAC mengesyorkan siasatan lebih menyeluruh dilakukan.

Pihak Polis pula mengesahkan siasatan dari perspektif jenayah terutama jenayah kommersial telah aasuk fasa kedua.

Utusan online:

Siasatan 1MDB masuk fasa kedua

NAZWIN NAZRI | 21 Julai 2016 4:01 PM

KUALA LUMPUR 21 Julai – Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) akan memulakan siasatan fasa kedua berhubung isu 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) dalam tempoh terdekat.

Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar berkata, pihaknya hampir selesaikan fasa pertama isu tersebut dan telah memanggil lebih 25 individu untuk rakam percakapan termasuk bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB, Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi.

“Dalam fasa kedua ini, kita akan menghantar pegawai ke luar negara untuk rakam percakapan saksi yang berada di sana.

“Kita komited dalam menjalankan tanggungjawab berdasarkan lima syor yang disarankan Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (PAC),” katanya dalam sidang akhbar di Pusat Latihan Polis (Pulapol) di sini hari ini. – UTUSAN ONLINE

– See more at:


Sebagaimana jenayah kommersial dan kolar putih lain, siasatan akan mengambil masa. Proses untuk menjejaki pengaliran transaksi , mengumpul bukti termasuk keterangan saksi dan pengesahan dokumen berkenaan, adalah rumit.

Ketelitian dan ketepatan amat penting untuk menentukan agar kes boleh didakwa apabila dimajukan kepada pihak Peguam Negara.

Kerap-kali, siasatan kes jenayah kommersial memerlukan kepakaran termasuk proses audit forensik. Sekiranya transaksi berlaku melangkaui sempadan, maka keperluan untuk mengesahkan bukti dokumen dan lokasi transaksi amat penting untuk menentukan kes cukup kukuh apabila dikemukakan.

Oleh demikian, proses siasatan pelbagai pihak termasuk agensi luar negara sedang berlaku dan aktif.

Sewajarnya, semua pihak bersabar dan memberi pihak berkenaan ruang untuk melengkapkan tugas mereka agar kebenaran boleh dipaparkan dan sekiranya berlaku jenayah, pesalah laku boleh didakwa.

Setakat ini, pejabat Pegram Negara Switzerland (OAG) and Penguasa Kewangan Singapura (MAS) telah mengumumkan siasatan mereka kepada kes berkenaam transaksi 1MDB tidak melibatkan Perdana Menteri Najib.

Sebagaimana seruan Perdana Menteri Najib, semua pihak bertanggung jawab membersihkan nama masing-masing. Hakikatnya, Timbalan Pengerusi PAC sendiri mengesahkan Perdana Menteri Najib tidak terlibat dalam sebarang laku 1MDB, walaupun pengumuman AG Lynch mengandaikan sebaliknya.

Published in: on July 26, 2016 at 03:00  Comments (7)  

The quick annals of purported crime (in the eyes of DoJ)

Last night, in the midst of heatedness and red neck chest thumping politics in Cleveland, Ohio, Department of Justice (DoJ) issued a very insinuating media conference in Washington D.C.

Only a fraction of the hour long media conference, like the ones previously issued by Office of the Auditor General Suisse, rambles about investigations against unclear personalities vaguely related to the MOF Inc. strategic investment corporation 1MDB.

There are some interesting FAQs listed Lim Sian See to this entire episode, taken in totality. Especially purported the two Malaysian entrepreneurs, living and making their living in the United States.

The USA Govt’s Department of Justice (DOJ) have filed civil cases to seize the assets they believe is linked to 1MDB, from three individuals under the USA’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.

Q1. Who are the three individuals?

They are Riza Aziz, stepson of Prime Minister Najib Razak; Jho Low, a Malaysian financier; and Khadem Al Qubaisi, the former managing director of Abu Dhabi’s sovereign-wealth fund IPIC and the former Chairman of Aabar Investments PJS responsible for dealing with 1MDB at that time.
Q2. What is the USA’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative?

It is an initiative started in the year 2010 by the USA Govt under the US Department of Justice (DOJ) with the aim to seize and recover assets within the USA which the DOJ suspects is linked to corruption from a foreign country and return them to the originating country.
Q3. Why is the DOJ investigating this case?
In March 2015, the DOJ received a complaint from Sarawak Report. Further complaints appears to also have been made by Tun Mahathir loyalist, Khairuddin Abu Hassan.
Q4. What is the DOJ actually filing against the 3 individuals and what will happen next?
The DOJ is filing civil cases against the 3 individuals to ask the courts to seize their assets. The courts will then check if the identified assets are being claimed by anyone else. If no one else is claiming these assets then the courts will ask the DOJ to prove that these assets have indeed been stolen or received illegally.
Q5. Is Prime Minister Najib Razak also charged?
No. He is not charged and not named in this case despite Tun Mahathir previously saying in September 2015 that Najib is afraid to go overseas as he will be caught by the FBI. This is untrue as not only is this a civil case but Najib is not even named in the suits.
Q6. Will anyone go to jail if the assets are seized?
No. These is a civil suit and not a criminal case. If the courts find in favour of the DOJ, only the assets are seized. There is no jail terms or criminal conviction.
Q7.  If the court allows the assets to be seized, what happens to the seized assets?
The assets are eventually returned back to the whomever the DOJ believes it is stolen from – in this case, 1MDB.
Q8. Are the assets purchased with money stolen from 1MDB?
1MDB has consistently maintained that no money was stolen and can account for where its money has gone to. However, 1MDB is currently in dispute with IPIC where 1MDB maintains that it has paid or deposited or guaranteed up to USD6 billion by a company called Aabar Investments PJS BVI upon the instructions of Aabar’s the then Chairman, Khadem Al Qubaisi and the then Managing Director.

IPIC disputes that it owns Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) and thus denies it has received these funds from 1MDB.

This dispute is now in arbitration at the London Arbitration Center and will take many months. However, 1MDB is confident that they will win this case and stand a good chance to recover their money – which is why 1MDB had earlier refused to pay the interest on a USD3.5 billion bonds despite comfortably able to, which triggered the bond guarantee by IPIC thus leading to the arbitration process.
Q9. If the money is not stolen then why is the USA DOJ acting on the complaint?
It is possible that some of the money that was paid by 1MDB into the Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) controlled by Khadem – which IPIC denies is owned by them, may have been used to fund various investments in the USA including real estate, investment in films, artwork and companies.
Q10. How much worth in asset is impacted by the USA DOJ?

No specific amounts have been confirmed yet but reports by NYT and WSJ is quoting up to USD 1 billion.
Q11.  Why is the PM’s step-son Riza Aziz involved.

WSJ had previously reported that investigators believe that Red Granite, Riza Aziz’s film company received USD$155 million in loans from the Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) much of which went to finance the 2013 movie “The Wolf of Wall Street. and to purchase properties.

WSJ said documents show three transfers to Red Granite Capital in 2012 – US$60 million, US$45 million, and US$50 million.

Of this, US$105 million was booked by Red Granite Capital as a loan, while the other US$50 million was moved to the company through intermediaries.

“Among the intermediaries, according to people familiar with investigations and the person familiar with 1MDB: Telina Holdings Inc, a company that had been set up in the British Virgin Islands by Mr Al-Husseiny and his boss, Khadem Al Qubaisi.”

According to WSJ , the US$50 million loan from Telina Holdings has been repaid, citing people familiar to the investigations.

A Red Granite spokesperson told WSJ that the company “has been repaying and will continue to repay all its loans. “Red Granite had no reason to believe at the time that the source of Aabar’s funds was in any way irregular and still believes the loan to be legitimate,”

“What Red Granite have done and will continue to do is develop and produce successful and acclaimed movies that have generated more than US$825 million in worldwide box-office revenues.”


Q12.  So, if it was a loan or investment into Red Granite and is already part repaid or being repaid from a successful film company, why is Riza Aziz still the target of a civil suit?
In the USA, if you make profits based on funding which the DOJ suspects was from an illegal source then this is called “profiteering” and hence your profits are also considered illegal and can be seized – essentially making money out of illegal funding. This is different from stealing money.

The DOJ will then have to prove that Red Granite is aware that the funding or loan that they received is deemed illegal.


Q13. What about Jho Low’s investments?
Not much has been revealed what assets or the amounts of investments are owned by Jho Low, who is a fund manager, in the USA but Jho Low had confirmed before that he has real estate holdings in the USA and may have co-invested in some US-based companies.


Q14. How long will this civil cases take before a judgement is reached?
Similar cases have taken years as both sides present their arguments to the US courts for the judge to make a final decision.


Q15. Is there anything unusual about this case?
Yes. Typically, the supposed victim of any stolen money has to make a complain to the USA DOJ to request the DOJ to seize any assets they deem was purchased using the stolen money. In this case, 1MDB has consistently maintained that there is no money stolen and they can account for all their investments or transfers but the DOJ seems to be still going ahead with filing civil suits to recover stolen money even though the “victim” said no money has been stolen.


The mitigating and salient points in the case, are pertaining to individual entrepreneurs in the commercial dealings.

It is about a civil suit commercial in nature by DoJ and how it is related to 1MDB is very unclear.

It is not a criminal case though the AG did mention about “Corrupted 1MDB officials”.

Yet, DoJ felt it was necessary to invoke the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative to seize the assets, with the excuse of assets and funds embezzled by public officials anodised for personal gains. There on, only  the investigation is completed.

1MDB already pronounced that no foreign authorities which include the FBI and DoJ are in touch with the strategic investment corporation. Neither do they have any assets in the United States.

In the final analysis, where is the beef with this FBI/DoJ investigation?

*Updated 1700hrs

Malaysian Attorney General Tan Sri Apandi Ali’s strong statement on the latest development brought forth on DoJ’s statement last night.




The Attorney General notes that a civil action in rem has been filed by the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ) for the forfeiture of relevant assets and that it is presently a matter within the civil court in the United States.
The Attorney General further notes that the basis of the civil action in rem to forfeit assets undertaken by the US DOJ relates to the alleged laundering of money misappropriated from 1MDB. However, the Attorney General emphasized that to date –

(i) there has been no evidence from any investigation conducted by any law enforcement agencies in various jurisdictions which shows that money has been misappropriated from 1MDB; and
(ii) there have been no criminal charges preferred against any individuals for the offence of misappropriation of funds from 1MDB.
The Attorney General also expressed his strong concerns at the insinuations and allegations that have been made against the Prime Minister of alleged criminal wrong doing in relation to the civil action in rem filed by the US DOJ.

The Attorney General intends to clarify that at no point in the civil claim filed by the US DOJ is the Prime Minister named as adefendant or have been alleged to have committed any criminal wrong doing.

Presently there is an ongoing investigation conducted by the RoyalMalaysia Police concerning matters related to 1MDB.
Given that the investigation is underway, it would not be appropriate to divulge details that may compromise the investigation.
The Attorney General must emphasise that it is crucial to preserve the integrity of the investigation as the public must not doubt the outcome of the investigation.

To date the Attorney General’s Chambers has yet to receive any request from the US DOJ to obtain any information or evidence. However, we would welcome such a request in line with our commitment in international cooperation and collaboration in our fight against money laundering and corrupt practices.

As the Public Prosecutor, the Attorney General will not hesitate to initiate proceedings against the perpetrators of criminal acts provided there is sufficient evidence to do so.
Any wrongdoing must and will be punished.

Malaysia will always uphold the rule of law.


21 JULY 2016


Published in: on July 21, 2016 at 11:30  Comments (9)  

Bully’s blue bollocks blooming in bane

Opposition partner PKR isn’t convinced with Mini Emperorissimo of Middle Malaysia Lim Guan Eng tactics especially when the latter has gone gone blue after getting panicky for his corruption case (now in criminal court play), manifested in bully nature when cornered as a trapped animal.

The Star story:

Tuesday, 19 July 2016 | MYT 11:14 PM

PKR ‘not convinced’ on snap polls


PETALING JAYA: PKR says it is not convinced with the reasons and intentions given by DAP for holding snap elections in Penang.

Party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said the party’s leadership, however, “is ready to discuss the matter with the Pakatan Harapan component parties.”

“The political bureau of Keadilan held its weekly meeting to discuss various issues including the snap elections in Penang.

“The bureau is of the opinion that we are not convinced by the aim of having snap elections.

“However, the Keadilan leadership is ready to continue discussions with other Pakatan Harapan component parties on the matter,” Dr Wan Azizah told reporters after the meeting at the party headquarters here.

DAP secretary general Lim Guan Eng, earlier speculated that he would attend the meeting, did not show up.

PKR deputy president Datuk Seri Azmin Ali said a meeting with Pakatan Harapan parties would be held in the “near future” but it would not be revealed to the media.

“We have discussed just now and one of the matters is there is a proposal to hold a snap election but we need explanations from the state government about it.

“This is a normal matter. We did not turn it down, we just want a clarification,” he said.

A decision to hold snap polls in the state was made at the DAP central executive committee (CEC) meeting Monday night, according to Pakatan Harapan sources from Selangor.

Details of the meeting are unavailable, but it is learnt that six DAP leaders went to present their case to Dr Wan Azizah at her Bukit Segambut home in Kuala Lumpur after the meeting.


Mini Emperorissimo Lim grossly over-reacted worse than a spoilt child after The Star senior political columnist Joceline Tan published her usual Sunday column.

Sunday, 17 July 2016

Snap election for Penang?



THE noise level over Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s corruption charges has yet to subside but talk is rife of a snap election in Penang.

Speculation of snap polls in the state has taken on a life of its own despite the deafening silence on the part of DAP’s top-most leaders. It is hard to tell whether the silence is a sign that something is brewing or that the leaders are not keen.

The move would make Penang the only state other than Sarawak to go it alone and the implications are immense.

The snap election idea, according to a DAP insider, was first floated during the DAP central executive committee (CEC) on the afternoon after Guan Eng was charged in court.

Emotions were still raw after a dramatic morning that saw Guan Eng facing two charges of abuse of power and businesswoman Phang Li Koon, from whom he purchased his Pinhorn Road bungalow, charged for abetment in the transaction.

Top on the meeting’s agenda was to discuss whether Guan Eng should take leave from his Chief Minister office. The question was quickly settled because the consensus was that he should stay put.

This party is famous for demanding that politicians resign for issues big and small but given the sense of siege in the party that day, it would not have been the done thing for any of the DAP leaders to suggest that Guan Eng go on leave. In fact, it would have been the death knell for anyone foolish enough to propose it.

After it was decided that Guan Eng would stay on as Chief Minister, a party veteran, described as “one of the most tame personalities”, mooted the idea of a snap state election.

It would show their opponents in Barisan Nasional who is the boss in Penang, the party would be able to ride on public sympathy and the people would get the chance to reaffirm their support.

Two of the younger leaders in the CEC liked the idea and joined in arguing for it. One of them was Selangor DAP chairman and Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua who put up a strong case.

But, said the above DAP insider, all three advocates of snap polls were not from Penang. The Penang-based CEC members, on the other hand, kept quiet and did not contribute to the proposal.

The most glaring thing was the silence on the part of the two powerful Lims. Neither the father nor son said anything on the proposal and no one could tell what they were thinking.

However, it is clear by now that the idea does not appeal to the Lims, especially the elder Lim. Kit Siang has been around since the 1960s, he has seen it all and he must have sensed how dangerous an early and stand-alone state election could be for his party and, more so, when his son is at his most vulnerable.

“It is an option but there are also misgivings that we are trying to disrupt the legal process. It would be seen as calling the people to judge the case,” said party insider.

DAP and its partner PKR have the numbers to dissolve the State Assembly. But the reality is that DAP is not in a position to face a snap election. It is not even ready to hold its much-postponed party election.

Calling for a state election now means that the party has to confront issues which it can ill-afford to do at this juncture.

DAP, said the insider, would have to deal with the thorny issue of candidates, of who to retire off and new faces to bring in. That is a problematic thing in every election and could derail an already unstable situation.

The norm in every party is to bring in about 30% new faces as part of the renewal process but it is doubtful Guan Eng would be able to do that without the risk of a breaking of ranks. At the same time, calling for fresh polls without significant changes in the line-up would be meaningless.

“No one can rock their grip on the Chinese vote. An election will divert attention from the trial and distract from any incriminating evidence. But what is the point of voting in a status quo line-up?” said a Penang lawyer.

It will also raise questions of costs and expenses. The Sarawak election cost tax payers RM181mil and a separate election for Penang will likely cost at least half of that.

“It will open a Pandora’s Box. Can Guan Eng get a mandate equivalent to that in 2013? Anything less, whether in seats or votes, will be deemed an erosion of support,” said a Penang lawyer.

Simmering issues like internal party problems, friction with PKR and the residual impact of expelling PAS will also bubble to the surface.

The party will also have to address the succession issue of who will take over after Guan Eng. All eyes are on senior state exco member Chow Kon Yeow whom some call the “CM presumptive”. But the boyish-faced politician has been playing it cool and trying not to open his mouth unnecessarily.

The last couple of years has also seen a dip in Guan Eng’s image. His habit of blaming Barisan for everything has started to wear thin.

The educated class has grown uncomfortable with his authoritarian style, be it his propensity for mega projects as well as his way of dealing with dissent in his party and coalition.

“The noise level has gone up,” said the DAP insider.

Penang’s civil society are starting to balk at all those mega projects which one NGO figure termed as “so Mahathir”.

On Wednesday, Penang Forum, a grouping of Penang NGOs, came up with an alternative transport master plan for Penang. It was presented as “better, cheaper and faster” than the mega-bucks plan favoured by Guan Eng’s government.

Their audacity is seen by some as a challenge to the state govern­ment’s grandiose plans and a sign that they are not holding back anymore.

The group’s new frontline face is the well-spoken Datuk Dr Sharom Ahmat who used to be the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia.

For a number of years, these NGOs were enamoured with Guan Eng’s leadership. One of them used to describe the Chief Minister as “the most wonderful man”, another was awarded a Datukship while others were appointed to the boards of state GLCs.

But the love affair seems to be cooling off. The political tsunami is over and there is an opinion shift taking place especially among the intelligentsia.

The social media comeback on Guan Eng’s corruption charges was not as “hot” as some DAP leaders had expected it to be. There were many DAP diehards and right-wingers defending him but there were also many voices criticising him.

“You watch him say something today, another thing tomorrow, and after eight years, you get a better picture of what he is really like,” said the Penang lawyer.

Guan Eng’s position in his party is unshakable at the moment. His father will see to it that there will not be any moves to undermine his son.

His grip in the party will ensure that he holds on to his government post. It explained why the party moved so swiftly to endorse him on the very day that he was charged. It was to tell everyone that Guan Eng is staying put as DAP secretary-general and also Chief Minister.

“Moreover, the rebels in the party are no longer around. There is no one left to question his leadership,” said the lawyer.

Another deterrent to early polls is having to face the Barisan might. They saw the smooth operation of the Barisan machinery in the Sarawak state election. It was the same in the recent by-elections where Pakatan Harapan was hopelessly outflanked even in Selangor where it is the government and has full access to state facilities and resources.
They can see that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak is on a strong footing and is now dictating the political momentum.

DAP is good at making noise on issues but their grassroots organisation and machinery is quite lacking. For instance, some DAP leaders were disappointed with the less than impressive turnout at the candle­light vigil for Guan Eng outside the MACC headquarters the night before his appearance in court.

The modest crowd chanting support outside the High Court the next day was even more embarrassing. It was like a dripping tap compared to the deluge of people who flooded the streets after Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking in 1998.

Some in DAP are also worried that Barisan may declare emergency rule, using its powers under the National Security Council Act and that would be disastrous for Penang.

Snap polls would be impactful if Selangor also comes along but Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azmin Ali is not the suicidal sort. There are also issues in Selangor that Azmin would prefer not to tackle right now.

The silence from the two Lims and the leaders in Penang speaks volumes. They can see danger signs in the idea and they are not going anywhere near it.

Moreover, said the DAP insider, there are voices from beyond Penang who say that the party must come first. Going for a state election because of one man is not on for them.

Besides, they are not sure what will come out when the trial proper begins later this year.

Some of them are spooked by talk of new charges stemming from the controversial Taman Manggis land in George Town. Stories about a Penang-born fund manager based in Hong Kong and his links with Penang politicians have also begun to circulate in a way that seem to point to something big in the making.

Then there is talk that the authorities are investigating the manner by which the former Penang racecourse stretch of land was rezoned. All this has added to the unsettling times.

There are simply too many fires all over the place and a snap state election could be the biggest blaze of all.


Obviously Mini Emperorissimo Lim would be accorded his right to rebut after Miss Tan’s story was published in the nation’s largest English daily in circulation. However, he waived that privilege but instead summarily threatened The Star and Miss Tan for that piece.

The Malay Mail Online story:

Guan Eng threatens to sue The Star for ‘misleading report’

Sunday July 17, 2016
05:30 PM GMT+8

KUALA LUMPUR, July 17 — Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has directed his lawyers to send a notice of demand to The Star and its columnist Joceline Tan over an article he claimed to be defamatory.

Lim who is also DAP secretary-general said the piece titled “Snap Election for Penang?” published in the newspaper’s Sunday edition today which detailed an alleged discussion on snap polls in the northern state by his party’s central executive committee as recounted by an “insider” was a “false and misleading report”.

“I have instructed my lawyers to send a legal notice of demand for defamation against The Star and its columnist Joceline Tan for its false and misleading report today, ‘Snap election for Penang?’,” Lim said in a statement.

“Whilst there is nothing new with these repeated attempts to disrupt party unity and the Penang state government with serial lies, this column by Joceline Tan clearly ‘crossed the red line’ and was made in bad faith to smear my reputation and image with fresh and baseless allegations of impropriety,” he added.

However, the details of what Lim considered defamatory in Tan’s column were not mentioned.

Lim also stressed that it was not the first time he had been defamed by the daily and Tan, citing his past defamation suit against them in 2012 which was resolved with The Star publishing an apology.

– See more at:


This is gross abuse of freedom of media, which is one of the right which the Opposition supposedly championing, in their quest to unseat Barisan Nasional for power.

Miss Tan’s analysis is a fair comment by any count, considering the series of reaction pfMini Emperorissimo and his DAP CEC staunchest supporters.


All these could plotted, since the alleged corruption case of the 25 Jalan Pinhorn bungalow acquitsition was built up and tied to the Kg Manggis parcel rezoning and other development approvals.

This is nothing as compared to the criminal defamation Mini Emperorissimo Lim did to then Chief Minister of Melaka Tan Sri Abul Rahim Thamby Chik, where the former was convicted and incarcerated.

Imagine, this bully on highly respected political columnist Tan is without Mini Emperorissimo Lim and his DAP politburo have yet to assume power.

Tun Dr. Mahathir at arms with the Opposition, particularly his nemesis for 49 years Lim Kit Siang and DAP

Tun Dr. Mahathir at arms with the Opposition, particularly his nemesis for 49 years Lim Kit Siang and DAP

Miss Tan’s analysis on DAP through her column especially on the Sunday Star through the years is obvious that she, as expected  of a seasoned political journo, has her stream of moles even within DAP.

Her writings have proven to be a credible political analysis. It evidently clear that her column is very much awaited if not sought after by so many  politicians, political observers and critics alike, for umpteenth years.

The case on in criminal court play is hurting DAP. Many amongst Penangistes, who are the success factor to ascend a Johor Bahru-born DAP leader to the CM-ship of Penang, have now been made disappointed for this blatant abuse of power for personal greed.

Their sentiments are being alleviated through some of the DAP CEC members.

The Malaysian Outlook story:

DAP Splits Over Snap Election Poser in Penang

20th July 2016

Speculation has been rife that Penang’s ruling party, the DAP, would dissolved the 40-man legislative assembly to pave way for a snap state election.

It’s learnt that the DAP central executive committee (CEC) had decided in a meeting on Monday to postpone the triennially held party poll, due for this year, for another 18 months as a shielding move for the snap election.

By postponing it, a source said a faction in the party, tagged as ‘Team A’, wanted to ensure that Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng would continue as the party secretary-general until the next general election.

“By postponing the party CEC polls, Team A can get rid of all its enemies in the party’s candidature for the snap and general elections.

“This will ensure survival of the dynastic rule in DAP if Guan Eng goes to prison for corruption,” claimed the source.

DAP is counting on Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to call for the general election next year rather than in 2018.

DAP’s grand plan to call for a snap state election however, has hit a snag.

PKR, its senior partner in the loose political marriage called Pakatan Harapan, has poured cold water on the hot plan following a party political bureau meeting on Tuesday.

After a lengthy deliberation during the meeting, PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said that the party was unimpressed with the reasons given to hold a snap election.

“PKR political bureau has taken a stand that we were not convinced with the objectives and directions to hold an emergency election,” she said in a brief statement released on Tuesday night.

But she said PKR would continue to deliberate on the issue with other coalition partners, Parti Amanah Negara (Amanah) included.

PKR and DAP top guns are said to have discussed the matter in an earlier meeting.

The DAP is split right in the middle now, thanks to the graft charges brought against Guan Eng.

While Team A wants a stand-alone snap poll, another faction, labelled ‘Team B’, is dead against it.

Team B wants to get rid of Guan Eng as the chief minister, and subsequently as the secretary-general.

An insider said a group of seven top Penang DAP leaders held a closed door meeting to discuss about the political situation immediately after Guan Eng was detained by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on Wednesday June 29.

In the meeting, a consensus is said was reached after much deliberation that Guan Eng had to relinquish his position as chief minister once he was charged the next day.

However, the plan is said was foiled by the timely arrival of DAP supremo and Guan Eng’s father Kit Siang and DAP action national chairman Tan Kok Wai in Penang on that night of arrest.

“The local leaders were ‘advised’ by the party seniors not to rock the boat,” said a branch leader.

The popular Chow Kon Yeow is being propelled by the Team B faction in DAP to become the next Penang Chief Minister.
The popular Chow Kon Yeow is being lobbied by the Team B faction in DAP to become the next Penang Chief Minister.
Team B wants the popular Penang DAP chairman and senior Executive Councillor Chow Kon Yeow to helm the DAP-led state government.

Of course Team A is against it, hence postponement of CEC election and the urgency to hold a snap state election.

A reliable source said Team A had outlined plans A and B to face a snap poll.

Plan A is to retain Guan Eng as the chief minister if DAP and its allies win the snap election as expected.

But, if Guan Eng was sent to jail over the corruption charges he faces now, Team A would appoint another person, not Chow, as the chief minister.

That Guan Eng’s successor will also be appointed as party secretary-general.

The name mooted here is DAP national organising secretary Anthony Loke Siew Fook, the Seremban MP and Chennah assemblyman.

If this happens, Penang will have another outsider, this time from Negeri Sembilan, as the chief minister.

The state seat speculated to be presented to Anthony Loke is Tanjung Bungah, currently held by Teh Yee Cheu.

In March this year, Guan Eng had already appointed Anthony Loke, 39, as a director in Penang Hill Corporation (PHC), a state government-link company (GLC).

Tanjung Bungah is a state seat under the Bukit Bendera parliamentary constituency.

Team A is said to have toyed the idea in a secret meeting among its leaders after the CEC meeting on Monday.

DAP national organising secretary Anthony Loke is speculated to take over as Penang Chief Minister.
DAP national organising secretary Anthony Loke could take over as Penang Chief Minister.
Teh, alongside woman assemblymen Yap Soo Huey of Pulau Tikus and Lydia Ong Kok Fooi, are expected to be axed for the state election.

Also speculated to be dropped are current state executive councillors and assemblymen Phee Boon Poh of Sungai Puyu, Danny Law Heng Kiang of Batu Lanchang, Chong Eng of Padang Lalang and Lim Hock Seng of Bagan Jermal.

According to some internal survey, current public support for the DAP and Pakatan Harapan is favourably 52%, largely due to sympathy that Lim was a victim of selective persecution and prosecution, against 48% for Barisan Nasional (BN).

The DAP wants to capitalise on that public sentiment to regain Penang because the party believes support could erode if Guan Eng was imprisoned prior to the general election.

“If Guan Eng is jailed, the voters could be convinced that the DAP government may not be whiter than white as claimed by the party,” said an observer.

With PKR “unconvinced” and Team B rapidly canvassing grassroots backing for its plan, how Team A going to push for the snap election would be a beguiling political play.

Penangites are in for an exciting few weeks.


This is not withstanding the uneasiness even dismay of many DAP staunchest supporters and leaders alike on the ‘partnership’ with the Chinese Chauvinist party nemesis of five decades in the ultra-Malay former UMNO President and Prime Minister.

Nevermind the future of this apparent not well thought through ‘Unholy-marriage-of-(in)convenience-between-backstabbing-strange-bedfellows’.

This bully is a manifestation of the attitude of Mini Emperorissimo Lim and DAP to hard handedness, in their approach to deal with critics when they are facing crisis.


Malaysia’s own ‘Mr Justice Robert Jackson’ leading the charge. Just like in Nuremberg in 1946.

It is also reflective that the magnitude of the corruption case being brought down on him by Malaysia’s own ‘Mr Justice Robert Jackson’, is reaching worrying critical level.

If DAP is convincing enough that the case against their Secretary General as the Chief Minister of Penang is not at all criminal but politically motivated, then Miss Tan is right that a Snap State Election is ripe for the picking.

Half a century of nemesis now chumy-chumy: Let the Penang rakyat decide

Let the rakyat decide.

Then again, last night’s PKR’s stance is evidence that even their own spouse in the ‘Unholy-marriage-of-(in)convenience-between-backstabbing-strange-bedfellows’ for the past two electoral terms is not convinced, in different perspective of DAP’s strength and survivability in Penang.

Published in: on July 20, 2016 at 04:00  Leave a Comment  

Man-possessed, obsessed or power crazy?

Fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir drops another dirty bomb by announcing a new Opposition party would be formed by him, existing Opposition parties and individuals involved in the initial launch of the ‘Mahathir-Lim Kit Siang Declaration’ launched 4 March 2016.

Channel News Asia story:

Mahathir to lead formation of new party, coalition against BN

By Sumisha Naidu, Malaysia Correspondent, Channel NewsAsia Posted 14 Jul 2016 18:32 Updated 14 Jul 2016 20:00
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. (File photo: REUTERS/Samsul Said)
806 Email More


KUALA LUMPUR: Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has announced that the group of political figures and NGOs behind the citizens’ declaration against Prime Minister Najib Razak will work together to oust the ruling Barisan Nasional government in the coming election.

He also said he would be one of the founding members of a new party that would join this coalition.
“We agree that we together will work to defeat BN in the coming general election,” Dr Mahathir told the media on Thursday (Jul 14).

“Even though we aren’t a political party, we represent a group of citizens of the opinion that the current Barisan government has taken actions detrimental to the country, specifically Najib.

“But all have agreed in any election, we will field only one candidate, maybe from any party … And all will support that one candidate.”

Dr Mahathir has been a vocal critic of Prime Minister Najib for some time, accusing him of financial mismanagement and misappropriating public funds.

It is unclear how the yet-to-be-named coalition will function in the current political landscape. The grouping currently consists of members of NGOs and individuals from parties already part of an opposition coalition – Pakatan Harapan.

But the leader of that coalition, Wan Azizah wan Ismail, was noticeably absent from Thursday’s meeting and news conference. Ms Wan Azizah is the wife of Anwar Ibrahim, the man Dr Mahathir has been accused of helping to put behind bars in the 1990s.
Dr Mahathir, who quit UMNO earlier this year, also said he would be a founding member of a new party that would be part of this coalition, as current parties may not “appeal” to everyone.

“I think there is a need for a new party to be formed to represent people who are not yet in the group but who wishes to have the same objectives as the group,” he said. “And when that is formed, that group just now (the new coalition) is willing to accept them as member of the group.”

Dr Mahathir added that he won’t contest the polls or position himself as a candidate for prime minister. When asked about who would be the new coalition’s candidate for prime minister, the 91-year-old said: “We will cross the bridge when we reach it.”

Dr Mahathir said his son, Mukhriz Mahathir, and former deputy prime minister and deputy president of UMNO Muhyiddin Yassin had expressed interest in joining the new party. However, they did not attend Thursday’s meeting.

There had been speculation Dr Mahathir would form a new party to be an alternative to UMNO – a political body exclusively for ethnic Malays. However, at the press conference, Dr Mahathir said this was still being decided on.

– CNA/ec


The Straits Times story:

Mahathir Mohamad to launch party to challenge PM Najib

“We who oppose Najib cannot achieve victory unless we work together as a coalition,” said Dr Mahathir.

KUALA LUMPUR (REUTERS) – Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday (July 14) announced plans for a new party that would join an opposition alliance in a bid to oust the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition led by scandal-tainted Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Speculation had been rife over the past week that Dr Mahathir, 91, Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister, was planning to start a party with three other former leaders of the United Malay National Organisation (Umno) which Mr Najib now leads. “We who oppose Najib cannot achieve victory unless we work together as a coalition,” said Dr Mahathir.

He added that he would not contest the next general election, due to be held in 2018, or position himself as a candidate for prime minister.

Dr Mahathir has been critical of Mr Najib’s handling of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal and called on him to resign.

He was coy when asked if the three former Umno leaders – Mr Muhyiddin Yassin, Mr Mukhriz Mahathir and Mr Shafie Apdal – would join him in the new party, saying only that he was “very open”to the idea.

Dr Mahathir said he and his colleagues had yet to decide if the new party would represent the Malay-Muslim majority or eschew racial lines. He also did not give a time frame for when the party will be formed.

Last month, Mr Najib announced an Umno Supreme Council’s decision to sack Mr Muhyiddin, who was then deputy president, and Dr Mahathir’s son, former Kedah Chief Minister Mukhriz, from the party.

Both have been tough critics of Mr Najib, calling for his resignation following allegations of graft and mismanagement at 1MDB.

Umno vice-president Shafie later quit the party in protest against his suspension pending an investigation into his conduct in questioning Mr Najib’s handling of 1MDB.

In February this year, Dr Mahathir quit Umno, saying it was seen as “supporting corruption” under Mr Najib’s leadership.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that global investigators believed more than US$1 billion (S$1.35 billion) entered Mr Najib’s personal bank accounts, much of it from 1MDB. None of the information publicly disclosed about the 1MDB investigations across the world has shown any connection between alleged misappropriation of money linked to 1MDB and the prime minister.

Mr Najib has denied any wrongdoing and Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali cleared him in January of any corruption or criminal offences. He said that US$681 million, deposited into Mr Najib’s personal account in March 2013 before a general election, was a gift from a member of Saudi Arabia’s royal family and most of it was returned.

BN coasted to victory in two by-elections earlier this month.


This would definitely be another political antic, which would eventually fail when the drive to work together in the ‘Unhholy-marriage-of-(in)convenience-between-backstabbing-strange-bedfellows’, is never about common drive for the rakyat or nation.

They are just interested to get power.

This lot in the past have been proven to fail so many times. Barisan Alternatif, Barisan Rakyat, Pakistan Rakyat and more recently, Pakatan Harapan, all failed.

This new party would be the third Opposition coalition since the ‘Political Tsunami’ as the result of post 12GE and the ‘Black April Declaration’ of Anwar Ibrahim’s legal qualification to run in politics (April 2008).

Even when they got their formula right like in Selangor, they did not use the mandate they got to bring the state into a better position. Instead, they dwindled into political backstabbing like the ‘Kajang Move’, which is nothing but to do a coup d’etat on a Menteri Besar for no valid reason but internal power struggle.

That was just within one party, which now severely fragmented with key personalities having deep distrust again each other. More over, when their Supreme Leader in serving time as a convicted criminal.

Now they are trying to make that work with a sworn nemesis. A man who was the enemy of every single individual in this delusional political hallucination, impaired by unknown obnoxious political narcotics.

That created the crave the greed for having a whiff of power by trying to sell this hair-brain scheme of ‘another Opposition party’. Not withstanding that they never got it right ever since classical Opposition parties (DAP and PAS) tried to ride on the dis-popularity of Dr Mahathir and BN upon the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998.

It is the right thing to do for Dr Mahathir to go on the political bandwagon properly, via a political organisation in his quest to topple Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak through the democratic process of ballot paper in the next GE.

However, what happened to the so called ‘1.27 million signatures collected’ for the Dr Mahathir-Lim Kit Siang declaration, launched 4 March 2016?

Even there were only 70,000 genuine signatures collected, is Dr Mahathir prepared to admit that they have been taken for a ride for a futile effort which had no tacit value which resulted Prime Minister Najib being ousted?

The past sixteen months, Dr Mahathir and his ANC tried too many political antics which failed but not at the expense of some people as collateral damage.

For example is the attempt to demonise Prime Minister Najib’s administration by falsely projecting that Tabung Haji funds are being utilised to “Bail out 1MDB through TRX”, slightly over a year ago. There were handful Hajj pilgrims about to get their opportunity to serve the fifth tenet of Islam summarily withdrew their savings, only to learn later that the story was a total manipulation.

The Fifth UMNO President tried so many political stunts to oust Prime Minister Najib. He instigated for the people to rise to express their dismay, engineered a ‘Task Force’ to be conveniently quick formed the moment foreign media publish an unsubstantiated story incriminating Prime Minister Najib, manipulated to get the Cabinet to revolt, instigated UMNO delegates to put pressure at party General Assembly and even attempted to get MPs to do a ‘Vote of no confidence in Parliament’.

All these failed miserably. He even suggested that foreign powers come and meddle into domestic politics, just to oust Prime Minister Najib.

The nation rightfully should be spared from pandering into more unproductive politicking. To the majority, it is already over bearing.

NST story:

New coalition is nothing but a ‘dangerous liaison’ based on frustrations – Rahman Dahlan


BY BERNAMA – 15 JULY 2016 @ 12:29 AM Facebook 4 Twitter Share 4

KUALA LUMPUR: Barisan Nasional (BN) describes the announcement of a new party made by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as a healthy democratic process.

However, BN Strategic Communications Director Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan said it would only weaken the opposition further and strengthen the chances of BN to win big in the next general election.

“We will continue to rigorously fight for our principles and our struggle. We will defend our track record. “We have gone through worse and more formidable challenges before and Alhamdulillah, we managed to overcome each and every one of them,” he said in a statement here, today.

Dr Mahathir today announced that he would form a new party which will be a component of a new opposition pact in facing the 14th General Election.

The new opposition pact will also feature DAP, PKR and Parti Amanah Negara as its component parties. Abdul Rahman said BN would reach out to the public and tell them not to place their trust in a rickety coalition, driven by a man whose singular objective is to topple the current prime minister, by hook or by crook. He said the coalition partners have no common agenda for Malaysia.

“What they have is a “dangerous liaison” based on their acute frustration and failure to capture the imagination of the rakyat. BN intends to checkmate them every step of the way,” he added. He said: “BN will face anyone, anytime, anywhere for the future of this beloved country.” — BERNAMA

Read More :


It is sinful to manipulate the hope and emotion of the rakyat at the expense of time, resources, energy and opportunities wasted pandering to all these unnecessary politicking, just to serve a man-possessed’s obsession for power madness.

*Updated 15 July 2016 0045hrs

Published in: on July 14, 2016 at 21:00  Leave a Comment  

Lessons from Paracels XXX: ICJ reject China’s claims

China's fictitious 'Nine-Dash-Line'

China’s fictitious ‘Nine-Dash-Line’

The International Tribunal in the Hague rejected claims to rights in the South China Sea, which is a landmark international decision on overlapping claims and disputes in South China Sea by many nations, most members of ASEAN. story:

Beijing South China Sea claims rejected by court

15 minutes ago

China has accelerated construction on some disputed reefs
An international tribunal has ruled against Chinese claims to rights in South China Sea, backing a case brought by the Philippines.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration said there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources.
China described the ruling as “ill-founded”.
China claims almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands also claimed by others.
The tribunal in The Hague said China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights. It also said China had caused “severe harm to the coral reef environment” by building artificial islands.
China’s Island Factory
Mysteries and maritime claims
In pictures: How the ruling affects the livelihood of Filipino fishermen
Why is the South China Sea contentious?
Flying close to China’s new islands
Rivalries underneath the South China Sea
The ruling came from an arbitration tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which both countries have signed.
The ruling is binding but the tribunal, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, has no powers of enforcement.
The US sent an aircraft carrier and fighter jets to the region ahead of the ruling, prompting an angry editorial in the Global Times, a strongly nationalist state-run newspaper, calling for the US to prepare for “military confrontation”.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Navy has been carrying out exercises near the disputed Paracel islands.


And Bloomberg story:


China Has No Historic Rights to South China Sea Resources, Court Says

David Tweed

July 12, 2016 — 5:22 PM HKT

Honda’s Heavy Rare Earth-Free Hybrid Motors Sidestep China

International Court to Rule on China’s Sea Claims
Philippines challenged China’s sea assertions in Hague court
China claims more than 80 percent of South China Sea

China’s assertions to more than 80 percent of the disputed South China Sea have been dealt a blow with an international tribunal ruling it has no historic rights to the resources within a 1940s map detailing its claims.
“There was no evidence that China has historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources,” the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague said Tuesday in a statement. “The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the seas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.”
The case was brought by the Philippines, arguing that China’s claims don’t comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. While the court says the ruling is binding, it lacks a mechanism for enforcement.

China’s assertions are based on a 1947 map showing vague dashes — known as the nine-dash line — looping about 1,120 miles (1,800 kilometers) south of China’s Hainan Island and covering about 1.4 million square miles. It contends its claim is grounded in “historic rights” and reclaimed reefs and islands are its indisputable territory. China boycotted the arbitration process and vowed to ignore the result.
The ruling risks inflaming tensions in a waterway that hosts about $5 trillion of trade a year and plays a vital link for global energy shipments. China has stepped up its assertions under President Xi Jinping, straining ties with fellow claimants like the Philippines and Vietnam.
For a QuickTake explainer on China’s territorial disputes, click here.
“The result of the arbitration is non-binding as far as China is concerned,” Chinese Admiral Sun Jianguo said in June. “The Chinese government has already repeatedly made it clear that it will not accept it, will not attend the arbitration, does not acknowledge it and will not implement the result.”
The U.S. insists it has the right to protect freedom of navigation in the waters and has carried out voyages and flights near features claimed by China. In May, China sent fighters and warships to warn the USS William P. Lawrence, a guided missile destroyer, when it sailed close to one of its outposts in the Spratly Islands.
Many of the court’s findings concerned the rights to territorial seas generated by various features. China has reclaimed some 3,200 acres (1,290 hectares) of land and built ports and runways. Under UNCLOS, man made islands don’t generate maritime entitlements.
Scarborough Shoal
The Philippines brought the case to the court after China’s coast guard seized the Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Beijing declined to submit formal documentation in defense of its claims, though it filed a position paper in December 2014 arguing the Philippine submission was a sovereignty dispute and outside the court’s jurisdiction. The PCA rejected that argument.

China has completed at least one of three planned airstrips on the reclaimed reefs, and has installed lighthouses, radar and other facilities it contends are mostly for civilian purposes. It landed a civilian aircraft on Fiery Cross earlier this year and a military plane collected sick workers from the reef in April. China says it has the right to install weapons to defend its sovereign territory.
While the U.S. doesn’t take a position on the claims, it worked diplomatic channels to garner support for the court’s jurisdiction ahead of the ruling.
Map of China and Philippines claims to Scarborough Shoal
Map of China and Philippines claims to Scarborough Shoal
Foreign Ministers from the Group of Seven expressed concern over the territorial tensions in April. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the G-7 shouldn’t “hype” the issue.
China’s actions have pushed some Southeast Asian nations closer to the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. started joint patrols with the Philippines in the South China Sea in March, while Japan has been supplying patrol ships to Vietnam.
“Countries across the region have been taking action and voicing concerns publicly and privately,” U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said last month. “As a result, China’s actions in the South China Sea are isolating it, at a time when the entire region is coming together and networking. Unfortunately, if these actions continue, China could end up erecting a Great Wall of self-isolation.”


These are the salient points to the decision made by the international tribunal at the Hague this morning: story:

Key points of arbitral tribunal’s verdict on PH-China dispute


By: Matikas Santos
05:34 PM July 12th, 2016

Demonstrators, police, and media gather outside the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, ahead of a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the dispute between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea. China has intensified the drumbeat of its opposition to an international tribunal’s ruling expected Tuesday that could threaten its expansive claims in the South China Sea. (AP Photo/Mike Corder)
Demonstrators, police, and media gather outside the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, on Tuesday, July 12, 2016, ahead of a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the dispute between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea. China has intensified the drumbeat of its opposition to an international tribunal’s ruling expected Tuesday that could threaten its expansive claims in the South China Sea. (AP Photo/Mike Corder)

The international Arbitral Tribunal on Tuesday issued its award on the arbitration case between Philippines and China over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) dispute.

BACKSTORY: Philippines wins arbitration case vs. China over South China Sea

In a 501-page award, the Tribunal decided in favor of the Philippines and said that China does not have historic rights to the South China Sea and that their “nine-dash line” claim has no legal basis.
READ: Key points of arbitral tribunal’s verdict on PH-China dispute

Below are five key points included in the summary statement released to the media

(1)Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’:

The Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention.

The Tribunal also noted that, although 2 Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources.

The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.

(2)Status of Features:

The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.

The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted.

The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.

The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.

(3)Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:

Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access.

The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.

(4)Harm to Marine Environment:

The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.

The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities

(5)Aggravation of Dispute:

Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement.

The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.

BACKSTORY: #InquirerSeven FAQ about the Philippines vs. China arbitration case

The Convention

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) a coastal state needs to have land before they can claim rights to the sea. The international treaty has been signed and ratified by both the Philippines and China.

“You need to have land before you can have rights to the sea. It’s as simple as that.You cannot just have rights to the sea without owning land,” former Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said in a forum at the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center in 2014, citing the basic principle of UNCLOS.

China asserts it has “indisputable sovereignty” and “historic rights” to over two-thirds of the 3.5 million square kilometers South China Sea using its “nine-dash line” claim that overlaps with the UNCLOS-mandated 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The line, encircling an area roughly the size of Mexico, overlaps territories claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. China argues that its historic rights justify the line. But the Philippines insists that these rights cannot be used to define sea borders.

The Philippines says since the South China Sea is mostly sea, there is no land mass or clumps of islands and rocks there large enough to generate sea borders that will span the over 2 million square kilometers China is claiming with its nine-dash line.

In recent months, China has conducted massive land reclamation activities turning submerged reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military equipment and structures.

Unclos, however, does not recognize artificial islands and states that these are not entitled to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea nor a 200 nm eez.

Read more:
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook


This ruling, which would be treated as precedence,  is expected because China had no evidence to furnish their claims on areas which they called ‘Nine-Dash-Line’.

China’s refusal to accept the ruling is also expected because their case is lame, based on unilateral pronouncement of the area by Kuomintang in 1947.

Recently, China already pre-empted that they will not recognise any international tribunal which include the United Nations Tribunal on the disputed overlapping territories, when the Philippines decided to take the matter for international arbitration in 2013.

China rejected the Hague ruling.

NST story:

China rejects Hague tribunal judgement


BY AFP – 12 JULY 2016 @ 5:54 PM


BEIJING: China “does not accept and does not recognise” the ruling by a UN-backed tribunal on its dispute with the Philippines over the South China Sea, the official Xinhua news agency said Tuesday.

The comments, in a brief dispatch that did not identify a source, follow a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague that China has no historic rights to its claimed “nine-dash line.”

Earlier, an international tribunal ruled that China has no legal basis to claim “historic rights” to islands in the South China Sea, in a bitter dispute that risks stoking further tensions in Southeast Asia.

“The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’,” the tribunal said in a statement. –AFP

Read More :


This would be another phase of game of geo-politics and crafty diplomacy, as China’s influence in the region is an upcoming military superpower as well as major trading partner, particularly amongst ASEAN nations which include the Philippines.

China is expected to be more aggressive in their manoeuvres, especially on the three installations already built presumably grr the China PLA-Navy purposes in the disputed areas.

United States Navy, which is a close ally to the Philippines would use the result on this tribunal and increased PLA=Navy maneuvres to heighten their presence and presentation of power.

ASEAN nations and China are supposed to finalise the Code of Conduct (COC), which all inked as Document of Conduct (DOC) in November 2002. They have agreed to fall back to UNCLOS, as the referral provisions to mitigate any maritime and matters pertaining to the sea.

However, COC is yet to be enforced since the negotiation process for the final document had not been completed at this stage.

It is interesting to observe the outcome of this landmark ruling.

*Updated 1815hrs

Published in: on July 12, 2016 at 17:37  Comments (4)