Tuesday, December 27, 2022

Berjaya cannot be in gaming and own a bank , if PM and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim is to be consistent - Recall Anwar preventing Vincent Tan's MUI Bank acquisition

 by Ganesh Sahathevan



Berjaya Group has announced that it is preparing to make a major acquisition in an entity licensed by Bank Negara.  It does sound as if Berjaya is planning to buy a bank.
This would not be the first time that Berjaya and Vincent Tan have made. a move on a bank. In the early to mid-90s Vincent Tan attempted to takeover the old MUI Bank, but lost it Hong Leong and Quek Leng Chan, who renamed in Hong Leong Bank.

Standing in his way was then Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim who determined that an entity involved in   gaming and cannot  own a bank. Anwar is of course, now Prime Minister. He appointed himself Finance Minister.

TO BE READ WITH 








Friday, April 1, 2022

Vincent Tan son's drug charges and related governance issues raise unavoidable questions about the exercise of the Malaysian Government's Golden Share in Sports Toto

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                                 




Most Malaysians today may not recall that Berjaya Sports Toto was once better known as Sports Toto Malaysia  Sdn Bhd, a company owned by the Government Of Malaysia.

That company was privatised to Tan Sri Vincent Tan, but the Government retained a Golden Share that allowed it to retain effective control . Given the current judicial scandal involving Vincent's son Nevin Tan, which as this writer says, cannot be divorced from Vincent's own  history with the judiciary, the exercise of that Golden Share comes into focus. 

Suffice to say that these issues concerning the judiciary and Malaysia's legal system are unlikely to have arisen had Vincent not had the financial power and status that have accrued to him as a result of the Sports Toto privatisation, enabled by the Government Of Malaysia. 



TO BE READ WITH



Saturday, February 19, 2022

Tan Sri Vincent Tan son' drug charges cannot be divorced from 2006 Royal Commission which found Tan Sri Vincent had interfered with the judiciary, and from the Vincent -VK Lingam defamation cases of the 90s - Drug charges, and all any related breaches of the law must be thoroughly investigated immediately, findings made public

 by Ganesh Sahathevan


FMT has reported:


Former Attorney-General Tommy Thomas has slammed allegations that he acted in a corrupt manner in handling the case of tycoon Vincent Tan’s son who was arrested for drug offences, when he was in office.

In a statement, Thomas said as is usual in criminal matters, lawyers of the accused submitted written representations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to reconsider the decision to charge.

This comes after Twitter account Edisi Siasat, which recently changed its name to Edisi Khas, claimed that although Tan’s son was arrested under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act for being involved in a very large quantity of drugs, the case was classified as an NFA (no further action) by Thomas.


This report should be read in context of the 2006 Royal Commission of inquiry into the  VK Lingam tapes which found that Tan Sri Vincent Tan and others had interfered with the judiciary  

Malaysian law does not tolerate drug traffickers. The law must be applied equally to all.


TO BE READ WITH

mk-logo
NEWS
When AG was in the dock for contempt in 1998
Published:  Apr 24, 2019 7:28 PM
Updated: 9:14 PM

Much to the chagrin of the legal fraternity, the Federal Court yesterday imposed a 30-day prison sentence and RM40,000 fine on lawyer Arun Kasi for contempt of court. It also dismissed his application for a stay of execution of the ruling.

In delivering the sentence, Justice Ramly Ali, who led a five-member panel, cited Arun's refusal to tender an unreserved apology for his remarks.

Attorney-General Tommy Thomas had initiated the contempt proceedings on the grounds that Arun's online articles scandalised judges of the Federal Court.

Ironically, Thomas was in Arun's shoes more than two decades ago.

ADS

In 1998, then High Court judge RK Nathan had convicted Thomas for contempt and sentenced the latter to six months in jail.

This was over Thomas' comment regarding the settlement of the defamation suits filed against him and law firm Skrine & Co by business tycoon Vincent Tan, his companies and his lawyer VK Lingam.

The defamation suits were over an article in London-based trade magazine International Commercial Litigation, in which Thomas is alleged to have said that certain plaintiffs and their lawyers enjoyed improper preferential treatment in the courts.

The article also questioned the independence of the judiciary, especially in cases involving influential businesses.

In his judgment, Nathan (photo) found Thomas' statement to have insulted the court and a repudiation of a settlement agreement in a libel case.

In the statement which the judge found offensive, Thomas had said he had not been consulted adequately by his insurers about the decision to settle and that the settlement was insisted upon by the insurer despite his objections.

Despite Thomas retracting the statement, expressing regret and apologising to the court, Nathan slapped him with the six-month sentence.

In 2001, The Court of Appeal substituted the jail sentence with an RM10,000 fine, with one of the three judges giving a dissenting opinion. 

The court also granted Thomas a stay of execution pending his appeal to the Federal Court.

The dissenting judge was Gopal Sri Ram, who held that the appeal must be allowed, as the conviction against Thomas "destroys the freedom of thought and speech."

Fast forward to 2019, the Attorney-General's Chambers has appointed Sri Ram (photo) as the lead prosecutor for the 1MDB-related charges against former premier Najib Abdul Razak.

Among those who criticised the sentence meted out to Arun was Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) executive director Latheefa Koya, who asked if he was a soft target.

She pointed out that the same issue which landed Arun in trouble was raised by Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer in his explosive affidavit alleging judicial misconduct, which led Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to announce the formation royal commission of inquiry into the matter. 

Arun's offending statements were in relation to the Federal Court expunging a dissenting judgment by Hamid in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP Construction Sdn Bhd.

The lawyer had previously asserted that his comments constituted fair criticism.

No comments:


Monday, December 26, 2022

FTX investment was indeed contrarian as Ho Ching said, Temasek's Nagi Hamiyeh did say that Temasek will accept lower returns for 10-15 years in order to "do good" -Temasek's other social impact investments include AUD 500 Million in Leapfrog, brokered by David Gonski

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

          
Temasek Worked With FTX In Liquidity Crisis Prior To Its Collapse

Catherine Cheney of Devex described the FTX-SBF investment proposition in these terms

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, started the now failed crypto-firm because he wanted to make a lot of money — to give it away.

This strategy, often referred to as “earning to give,” drives people to high-paying jobs so they can give half or more of what they earn to help others.

SBF, as he’s long been referred to, emerged as one of the most visible donors in effective altruism, or EA, a movement in philanthropy that encourages donors to use reason and evidence to do the most good with each dollar.

Over time, effective altruism moved from the niche to the mainstream, in part because of the growing number of tech billionaires who embraced it.

Temasek has publicly  expressed an intention to "do good".
In a letter to media issued in 2021 CEO Senior Managing Director Nagi Hamiyeh said
:

More importantly, Temasek aims to do well, do right, and do good, as an active investor, a forward-looking institution and a trusted steward.

Going for high climate ambition may dent returns marginally for the next 10 to 15 years, but the payoff is a more liveable planet for all - alongside higher long-term returns.

The choice is clear. Temasek has chosen to lean in on carbon abatement and other goals for planet, people and prosperity.

Former Temasek President Ho Ching described the FTX investment as contrarian, and that would make sense in light of the FTX-SBF investment proposition of "earning to give" or "effective altruism", and Temasek's principle of accepting lower returns today in "to do good".


However, the FTX investment has had to be written-off, and hence close scrutiny of other "social impact" investments is vital.A recent example would be the  AUD 500 Million invested in Leapfrog, brokered by Australia's David Gonski, the former chairman of ANZ who steered ANZ through the 1MDB scandal.


TO BE READ WITH 


Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Temasek to hand over AUD 500 Million to former chairman of 1MDB linked ANZ, David Gonski : Gonski brokered deal for LeapFrog "impact investment" fund, Temasek will be cornerstone investor in fund; former Temasek President Simon Israel & Gonski are advisers to Leapfrog

 


by Ganesh Sahathevan 


The Australian Financial Review and others in Australia have given much publicity to  a Temasek investment into an Australian investment fund

Former ANZ and Future Fund chairman David Gonski says impact investing is coming of age after Singaporean sovereign fund Temasek committed $US500 million ($652.86 million) to Australian-led fund LeapFrog.

The commitment to cornerstone future fund raisings for LeapFrog appears to be the largest mandate ever awarded to an impact investing fund and will be accompanied by an equity investment in the 13-year-old fund manager by Temasek.

Mr Gonski became an adviser to LeapFrog in 2010 after hearing its founder, Andy Kuper, pitch the merits of the fund: to both invest purposefully to improve social outcomes and deliver a strong return for investors.

Another LeapFrog adviser is Simon Israel, a former executive director and president of Temasek.

Under this week’s agreement, Temasek will commit $US500 million to future raisings, take a minority stake in the business and appoint a non-executive director to the board.


Meanwhile,  Gonski and ANZ's 1MDB issues remain unresolved. In fact in the  past few weeks, ANZ had to write-off US$163.41 million of its investment in AMbank, due to 1MDB related losses at AMBAnk : 

ANZ writes down AmBank stake after 1MDB scandal settlement

As chairman of ANZ Gonski and his board attempted to avoid 1MDB issues with a strategy of silence:


and of denial despite the facts (see story below from Sarawak Report)


TO BE READ WITH 




Deafening Silence Out Of Australia Over 1MDB's Connection To Top Bank ANZ

25 January 2019









Today the Bloomberg news service released details from Malaysian investigations into a matter long suspected by observers of the 1MDB scandal, namely hanky panky surrounding the original bonds raised in May 2009 by AmBank to launch the fund’s forerunner the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA).

Those bonds worth RM5 billion ($1.2 billion) were originally sold by the sovereign fund at a considerable discount of 13%, despite an usually attractive high rate of interest. That meant a considerable loss to the fund and many have questioned whether intermediaries had stood to benefit.

The advisor to the fund was PM Najib Razak’s proxy Jho Low and today’s leaked information to Bloomberg has apparently confirmed an extraordinary pattern of dealmaking by AmBank on the bonds that enabled Jho to skim a whopping $126 million from the fund out of those sales.

Thanks to close orchestration by a number of parties, which appears to have included banking officials, 3.8billion ringgit of the original TIA notes were sold to a Thai company called Country Group Securities at a discounted rate of 87 ringgit for 100 (the remainder of the issue was bought by a Singapore company and the bank itself at the same discount rate).

Yet, within 24 hours all these bonds had been resold by those parties for a fat profit, according to documents obtained by investigators. AmBank apparently assisted in arranging those instant resales for 100 ringgit to 105 ringgit to local investors.

Following which, lo and behold, Country Group issued a third-party transfer instruction to AmBank to pay $113 million of the windfall to a Singapore company named ACME Time, which Sarawak Report has already identified as being under the control of Jho Low through his proxy Eric Tan. A further $12.6 million was paid to ACME Time in July 2009.

AmBank, which had bought RM500 million of the bonds at the same discount was also in position to have made a similar huge sum, which must certainly have generated good bonuses. RM700 million went to the Singapore company.

So, unless the Bloomberg story is entirely false, despite providing the most likely explanation for the strange pattern of sales, AmBank was involved every step of the way and also involved in the profiteering. It makes its position every bit as awkward as that of Goldman Sachs, which performed a similar role during the later bond issues by 1MDB leading to investigations by the FBI leading to criminal charges from Malaysia as well.
ANZ Bank Is Largest Shareholder of AmBank

This is not the only embarrassing 1MDB related matter that has entangled AmBank. The bank was also the key player in the buy out of UBG by a bogus subsidiary of 1MDB’s first bogus joint venture partner, oil firm PetroSaudi thereby netting healthy profits for Jho again, who had invested in the Chief Minister of Sarawak’s family company.

During that sale Sarawak Report has detailed how faced with political pressure the bankers involved overlooked time and again glaring irregularities, including the fact that the so-called PetroSaudi subsidiary that was allegedly buying UBG was in fact an entirely separate bogus off-shore company trading off an identical name.

None of this could have escaped the scrutiny of the hierachy of AmBank in KL, particularly given the massive sums involved. These were the top deals at the bank at the time. And it is this fact that demands an investigation and explanation from the Australian financial regulators known as ASIC, because the majority shareholder of AmBank is the leading Australian bank ANZ.

Sarawak Report has already pointed out along with others that all the top ranking officials stationed to managed AmBank in KL were on secondment from ANZ’s Sydney headquarters, a matter advertised as a badge of strong managment by the then Head of ANZ, Mike Smith, who had presided over the expansion of ANZ into Southeast Asia.

Mike Smith, like Goldman Sach’s Lloyd Blankfein, surprised many by taking an early departure from his Chief Executive’s post, just as the 1MDB issue started to hot up around his bank. A number of other key Australian executives have also moved on to greater things, including the former AmBank Chief Financial Officer, who has taken up a leading job in another financial group. The AmBank CEO of the time Ashok Ramamurthy relocated back to Sydney early.

However, despite persistent and compelling information that all such senior officials in KL along with ANZ’s own top brass had to have known about the massive transactions and also the huge sums that later poured into Najib’s own personal account at AmBank, there has been no announcement of an official enquiry by ASIC or investigations into malpractice.

Mike Smith’s successor as CEO Shayne Elliott told Australian MPs when questioned that ANZ’s seconded staff in KL had no duty to report back to ANZ or apparent duty to maintain standards of due diligence, despite ANZ’s largest single 20% shareholding in the bank:


“Once those employees are seconded there, they essentially sever their ties with ANZ almost 100 per cent,”

That claim by the bank’s head honcho was made in October 2016, since when the full nature of the scandal has become increasingly and unavoidably clear. Other banks have been investigated, punished, fined by different regulators and Goldman has apologised and admitted money was misappropriated from the bonds it raised.

Sarawak Report has also showed that ANZ’s own PR has contradicted the claim about the severing of ties:


“Mr Ramamurthy will also report to ANZ” – not so ‘severed’ after all!

The Australian prime minister at the time of the 1MDB misappropriations, Tony Abbott, tweeted his disappointment that Najib Razak (whom he described as a ‘good friend to Australia’) was defeated on May 9th.

However, Abbott’s successors ought to wake up to the fact that matters have moved on and slowly and inexorably investigators from the new government of Malaysia are turning up the details of exactly what happened at AmBank during the course of the 1MDB scandal.

That looks likely to include ANZ’s role in the affair and in any cover-up conducted by the Australian bank, including failures – deliberate or otherwise – on the part of the Australian regulators.



SEE ALSO 

Sunday, December 25, 2022

PM and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim must resolve question raised by Singapore academic-What's happened to the USD 620 Million Najib "returned" to a bank account in Singapore, and why has that money which was seized by the Govt Of Singapore not been returned to Malaysia?

 by Ganesh Sahathevan



A photo of Lee Hsien Loong and Anwar Ibrahim taken in 2018 that the Singapore prime minister shared on his Facebook page after Anwar was appointed PM 10. Hsien Loong has invited Anwar to visit "soon"
Malaysia's new Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who appointed himself Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim, has inherited the duty to resolve a  question raised by Singapore academic Professor Sattar Bawany who asked the Monetary Authority Of Singapore via a letter published in the Straits Times on 23 March 2019:

............ it is a matter of public interest for the central bank to clarify that out of the US$620 million that was returned, how much money belonging to 1MDB is currently being held by MAS or the proper authorities in Singapore.

Has the money been disbursed or transferred out to third parties?

Finally, why were the fraudulently obtained funds from 1MDB not returned to the Malaysian government or the US DOJ, which has instituted legal proceedings to recover these funds?


His predecessors, Finance Minister  Lim Guan Eng and  Prime Minister  Muhyiddin Yassin failed to do so.

To Be Read With 


Sunday, March 24, 2019

A Singapore academic asks Singapore Govt the question Guan Eng seems too afraid to ask: What's happened to the USD 620 Million Najib "returned", and why have the seized assets not been returned to Malaysia?

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Guan Eng: Asset recovery on 1MDB much slower than 
expected



A Singapore academic has asked the Monetary Authority Of Singapore (MAS) the simple question that Malaysia's Minister For Finance Lim Guan Eng and others seem too afraid to ask.The academic, Professor Sattar Bawany ,has asked of the MAS, via a letter published in the Straits Times on 23 March 2019:

............ it is a matter of public interest for the central bank to clarify that out of the US$620 million that was returned, how much money belonging to 1MDB is currently being held by MAS or the proper authorities in Singapore.

Has the money been disbursed or transferred out to third parties?

Finally, why were the fraudulently obtained funds from 1MDB not returned to the Malaysian government or the US DOJ, which has instituted legal proceedings to recover these funds?



Lim, PwC which he appointed to recover 1MDB assets, Rajah & Tann, appointed by the AG Malaysia to recover assets in Singapore, and others involved in the 1MDB asset recovery seem unable to put that simple question to the Singaporeans, and even if they have, seem unable to recover what are easily recoverable funds.

END

See also
Chartered accountant & banker Lim Guan Eng said 1MDB asset recovery slower than expected;and little will be recovered:Here are some of the reasons he should have stated to explain why






Questions for MAS on 1MDB




Questions for MAS on 1MDB


PUBLISHEDMAR 23, 2019, 5:00 AM SGT
FACEBOOKWHATSAPPTWITTER



I am delighted to note that as a result of the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS)  thorough
 investigations into Malaysian state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB),                                                                                                                                                                 "two Swiss private banks were shuttered and several other banks were fined a total of $30 million 
for failing to meet anti-money laundering standards"
(Singapore's 1MDB probe not due to political influence, March 21).

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filings detail how the money laundering was facilitated by a 
number of things, such as international banks not being vigilant enough, jurisdictions that allowed 
companies to operate without  transparency and shell companies that were set up in areas with lax 
regulation, among others.

It has been ascertained by the DOJ that US$835 million (S$1.13 billion) in proceeds was diverted to a local 
bank account held in the name of Tanore Finance Corporation at Falcon Bank in Singapore and another 
US$430 million was sent to the Falcon Bank account of Granton Property Holdings in Singapore.


In March 2013, US$681 million from the Tanore account in Singapore was transferred and deposited 
in former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak's personal private banking account with AmBank 
Malaysia.

Najib has publicly acknowledged the receipt of these funds and, in August 2013, returned the amount 
of US$620 million via the same bank account that he received the funds from in Singapore.

In view of the above facts, I am seeking clarification from MAS as to whether our central bank was 
alerted  through its own internal monitoring system or processes to a large number of funds being 
transferred from the Singapore bank to the Malaysian bank account.



If so, why was the transfer to an overseas bank account belonging to a "politically exposed person" 
such as the then Prime Minister of Malaysia not prevented or examined closely?

Furthermore, it is a matter of public interest for the central bank to clarify that out of the US$620 million 
that was returned, how much money belonging to 1MDB is currently being held by MAS or the proper 
authorities in Singapore.

Has the money been disbursed or transferred out to third parties?

Finally, why were the fraudulently obtained funds from 1MDB not returned to the Malaysian 
government or the US DOJ, which has instituted legal proceedings to recover these funds?

I hope that MAS will be able to enlighten us.

Sattar Bawany (Professor)

No comments:

Is Singapore's Deep Tunnel Sewerage System viable given rising groundwater?

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 





Singapore's Public Utility Board  says it is building a used water superhighway for the future, the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS). The DTSS is a cost-efficient and sustainable solution conceived by PUB to meet Singapore’s long-term needs for used water collection, treatment, reclamation and disposal. DTSS is a key part of our long-term used water system which comprises a network of link sewers leading to two major tunnels (Phase 1 & 2) criss-crossing Singapore with three large WRPs at the northern (Kranji), eastern (Changi) and western (Tuas) ends of Singapore, as well as outfall pipes. Both deep tunnels have diameters of up to 6 m and stretch across Singapore at depths of up to 55 m underground.

In Singapore, the groundwater level is about 1–3 m below the ground surface due to the considerable precipitation and the low elevation.The figure below shows the  distribution of main geological formations in Singapore





In December 2021 MIT's Technology Review alerted readers to the probability that higher sea levels will push the water table up with them, causing flooding, contamination, and all manner of unseen chaos (see story below).

The Singapore Government has made climate change and rising sea level policy priorities. However, the issue of rising groundwater seems to have been ignored, even in projects like the DTSS which go 55m underground.

TO BE READ WITH 

Saturday, July 16, 2022

A seawall may not save Singapore from rising sea levels-The real problem may be rising groundwater that will make Singapore uninhabitable

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 


                                                                                    NDR 2019: Singapore may build polders, dykes to                                                                            protect eastern coastline from rising sea levels


In December 2021 MIT's Technology Review published an article under the headline
How rising groundwater caused by climate change could devastate coastal communities : Higher sea levels will push the water table up with them, causing flooding, contamination, and all manner of unseen chaos.


The gist of the story is this:


For something you’ve probably never heard about, rising groundwater presents a real, and potentially catastrophic, threat to our infrastructure. Roadways will be eroded from below; septic systems won’t drain; seawalls will keep the ocean out but trap the water seeping up, leading to more flooding. Home foundations will crack; sewers will backflow and potentially leak toxic gases into people’s homes.

Any coastal area where “the land is really flat, and the geology is [the kind of] loose material that water moves through really easily,” says (Kristina Hill, an associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley), is “where this is really going to be a problem.” This includes places like Miami, but also Oakland, California, and Brooklyn, New York. Silicon Valley communities like Mountain View are susceptible to groundwater rise, as is Washington, DC. Worldwide, the area at risk includes portions of northwestern Europe and coastal areas of the United Kingdom, Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.

Hydrologists are aware of the problem and it’s all over the scholarly research, but it has yet to surface in a significant way outside of those bubbles.


The Government Of Singapore has made climate change mitigation a priority and has estimated that a 100 Billion Singapore dollars will be required for mitigation initiatives which are to include Dutch style polders, sea walls, and raising coastal ground levels.

Nothing has been said about protecting the country and its vast underground network of commercial property , infrastructure including an extensive transport system from rising groundwater. Then again, contemplation of the problem may cause a revaluation of commercial and residential property values.
Ultimately Singapore residents will have to ask if their island can remain habitable.   
END