Saturday, July 6, 2019

Malaysian Government confirms that debt will be kept hidden: Tony Pua's explaining the "fallacies" concerning the toll road loan SPV has the opposite effect

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Tony Pua: Govt need not pay a single sen to acquire toll concessionaires





In the words of Lim Guan Eng's special adviser , Tony Pua, published on the Malaysiakini website, 6 July 2019:


Fallacy 1: Government will be burdened unnecessarily with huge debt

Firstly, they argued that the acquisition will increase the government’s debt burden by RM6.2 billion, which could be better spent for other purposes.

While a designated special purpose vehicle (SPV) would be raising a RM6.2 billion debt to finance the acquisition of the four concessionaires, there needs to be a distinction between debt which the government will ultimately have to bear, versus debt which will be self-financed.

In this case, the RM6.2 billion will be entirely self-financed via the collection of proposed congestion charges. This means that the government would not need to fork out a single sen to pay for the acquisition of these highways. Hence the argument that the proposed acquisition will burden the government with the funds better spent elsewhere is completely untrue.


While a designated special purpose vehicle (SPV) would be raising a RM6.2 billion debt to finance the acquisition of the four concessionaires, there needs to be a distinction between debt which the government will ultimately have to bear, versus debt which will be self-financed.

This writer trusts that the above is self-explanatory. See also previous story below.

END


Saturday, June 29, 2019


Is the Malaysian Government hiding liabilities -Is the toll road SPV one of many?

by Ganesh Sahathevan

This statement by the Minister For Finance Lim Guan Eng is nonsense: 


“The collection of congestion charge (for use of the toll roads) will be sufficient to service the debt, as well as to finance the operation and maintenance costs of the highways without requiring additional budget allocation by MOF.
“In other words, the acquisition cost will be self-financing through the collection of congestion charge and will not require any government expenditure,” Lim said.

The acquisition will be  financed by debt,and via a SPV wholly-owned by the MOF Inc (see story below). Its debts are debts of the Malaysian Government.It is hard to tell if it is the only SPV that is being used by the Malaysian Government to keep liabilities and outflows off the books.
END 





SEE ALSO

Friday, July 5, 2019

Riza Aziz has been charged at last,but the Malaysian Govt continues to rely on the DOJ to recover the related assets

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Re-posting given these developments in Malaysia:


Najib Razak said the money laundering charges levelled at his stepson, Riza Aziz, were politically motivated, noting that the US Department of Justice (DoJ) had dropped a forfeiture suit against the Hollywood film producer.




As reported on this blog in March 2019, nothing was "dropped",and instead the DOJ continues to pursue Riza Aziz's assets worldwide. Meanwhile, the Malaysian Government has still not recovered anything.........





hursday, March 7, 2019


US DOJ continues to seize Najib's son Riza Aziz's assets; meanwhile in Malaysia.......

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Riza Admits He Stole 1MDB Money - Pays US$60 Million!
Riza Admits He Stole 1MDB Money - Pays US$60 Million!


While the Malaysian Government has yet to recover anything of significance from former PM Najib Razak and his family, the US Department Of Justice continues to identify and recover 1MDB linked  assets from  family members like step son Riza Aziz.

The US$ 60 Million settlement Riza and friends entered into with the DOJ in March last year (see Sarawak Report story above) does not seem to have stopped the DOJ from pursuing them for 1MDB linked assets.

In further action announced three weeks ago the DOJ announced that it had seized a further USD 38 Million in assets. See DOJ press release and documents below. Meanwhile in Malaysia Najib's 1MDB linked charges continue to be delayed,postponed and pushed on to no foreseeable conclusion.
END


References

First recall this report of a settlement in March 2018:

'Wolf of Wall Street' maker settles US lawsuit for $60 million  



Now see links at 

Excerpt from document at the last link 

  The defendants in this action are: (1) up to $28,174,145.52 in escrow account number ‘7176 held by escrow agent Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP at Huntington National Bank; 


(2) up to $1,148,739.35 in account number ‘6111 held in the name of Christopher Joey McFarland at Barclays Bank of Delaware; and 


(3) up to $162,486.88 in account number ‘9340 held in the name of Christopher Joey McFarland at Fidelity Investments, Inc., all of which being traceable to equity in COMPANY 1, a facilities management company headquartered in Newport, Kentucky (“DEFENDANT ASSETS”).


 3. The persons and entities whose interests may be affected by this action are Riza Shariz Bin Abdul AzizChristopher Joey McFarland,Nina Partners, LLC, Red Granite Investment Holdings, LLC, and Red Granite Pictures, LLC. 





InvolvingMalaysianSovereignWealthFund

Date 23/02/2019
http://www.mondovisione.com/media-and-resources/news/department-of-justice-us-seeks-to-recover-approximately-38-million-allegedly/?fbclid=IwAR1aLYJPBMg8ma_DE61xnG_glUGtztWHezepCac62aB7uEjYGu1kMZ4WuS4
The Justice Department announced today the filing of civil forfeiture complaints seeking the forfeiture and recovery of approximately $38 million in assets allegedly associated with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund.  Combined with civil forfeiture complaints filed in July 2016 seeking more than $1 billion in assets, and civil forfeiture complaints filed in June 2017 seeking approximately $540 million in assets, this case represents the largest action brought under the Department’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.  Assets now subject to forfeiture in this case total approximately $1.7 billion.
Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Nicola T. Hanna of the Central District of California, Assistant Director Robert Johnson of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division and Chief Don Fort of the IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) made the announcement.
According to the complaints, from 2009 through 2015, more than $4.5 billion in funds belonging to 1MDB were allegedly misappropriated by high-level officials of 1MDB and their associates.  1MDB was created by the government of Malaysia to promote economic development in Malaysia through global partnerships and foreign direct investment, and its funds were intended to be used for improving the well-being of the Malaysian people. 
“The complaints filed today demonstrate the Department of Justice’s steadfast commitment to recovering assets traceable to the alleged multi-billion dollar looting of Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund,” said Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski.  “The Criminal Division and our law enforcement partners are committed to protecting the U.S. financial system and ensuring that the proceeds of overseas corruption and other criminal conduct find no safe haven here.”
“These new lawsuits target assets collected by corrupt officials and their associates through a massive scheme that stole billions of dollars from the people of Malaysia and laundered the proceeds across the world,” said U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna.  “Through a series of cases filed over the past three years, we have pursued a wide variety of assets purchased with stolen 1MDB funds, and so far we have successfully forfeited hundreds of millions of dollars. Collectively, these cases send a strong message that the United States cannot be used as a safe haven or a conduit for money pilfered by corrupt officials.”
“Today’s announcement is a testament to the FBI’s relentless effort to investigate kleptocracy and hold corrupt foreign officials accountable,” said FBI Assistant Director Johnson.  “At the onset of this investigation, we promised to work with our foreign and domestic partners to identify and return stolen assets to the Malaysian people.  This filing demonstrates our unwavering commitment to keep that promise.  We want to thank our partners, both domestic and foreign, for their hard work in helping to bring justice for the Malaysian people.  The recovery of these assets is another step in that direction.”
“The investigation into the misappropriation of the 1MDB funds represents a model for international cooperation in significant cross-border money laundering matters, and sends a message that criminals cannot evade law enforcement authorities simply by laundering money through multiple jurisdictions and through a web of shell corporations,” said IRS-CI Chief Fort.  “We are proud of the investigative work on this case and the work of our fellow law enforcement agencies in this and other complex financial investigations.”
As alleged in the complaints, the members of the conspiracy – which included officials at 1MDB, their relatives and other associates – diverted more than $4.5 billion in 1MDB funds.  Using fraudulent documents and representations, the co-conspirators allegedly laundered the funds through a series of complex transactions and shell companies with bank accounts located in the U.S. and abroad.  These transactions allegedly served to conceal the origin, source and ownership of the funds, and ultimately passed through U.S. financial institutions to then be used to acquire and invest in assets located in the U.S. and overseas.
As alleged in the earlier complaints, in 2009, 1MDB officials and their associates embezzled approximately $1 billion that was supposed to be invested to exploit energy concessions purportedly owned by a foreign partner.  Instead, the funds were allegedly transferred through shell companies and were used to acquire a number of assets, as set forth in the complaints.  The complaints also allege that the co-conspirators misappropriated close to $1.4 billion in funds raised through bond offerings in 2012, and more than $1.2 billion following another bond offering in 2013.  The complaints also allege that in 2014, the co-conspirators misappropriated approximately $850 million in 1MDB funds under the guise of repurchasing certain options that had been given in connection with a guarantee of the 2012 bonds.
The complaints filed today in the Central District of California identify additional assets traceable to the 2012 and 2013 bond offerings.  These assets include luxury real estate in London, proceeds from the sale of luxury real estate in New York City, and converted equity in a facilities management company headquartered in Kentucky.    
The FBI’s International Corruption Squads in New York City and Los Angeles and the IRS-CI are investigating the case.  Deputy Chief Woo S. Lee and Trial Attorneys Kyle R. Freeny, Jonathan Baum, Barbara Levy and Joshua L. Sohn of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Kucera and Michael R. Sew Hoy of the Central District of California are prosecuting the case.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs is providing substantial assistance.
The Department also appreciates the significant assistance provided by the Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia, the Royal Malaysian Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Attorney General’s Chambers of Singapore, the Singapore Police Force-Commercial Affairs Division, the Office of the Attorney General and the Federal Office of Justice of Switzerland, the judicial investigating authority of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the Criminal Investigation Department of the Grand-Ducal Police of Luxembourg.
The Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative is led by a team of dedicated prosecutors in the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies, and often with U.S. Attorney’s Offices, to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption and, where appropriate, to use those recovered assets to benefit the people harmed by these acts of corruption and abuse of office.  In 2015, the FBI formed International Corruption Squads across the country to address national and international implications of foreign corruption.  Individuals with information about possible proceeds of foreign corruption located in or laundered through the U.S. should contact federal law enforcement or send an email to kleptocracy@usdoj.gov (link sends e-mail) or https://tips.fbi.gov/.
A civil forfeiture complaint is merely an allegation that money or property was involved in or represents the proceeds of a crime.  These allegations are not proven until a court awards judgment in favor of the United States.

Thursday, July 4, 2019

MAS is not Pacific Eagle,and Pahamin is no Lee Iacocca

by Ganesh Sahathevan









As reported by The Edge,4 July 2019:

A group of businessmen, led AirAsia Group Bhd’s co-founder and former chairman Datuk Pahamin Ab Rajab (photo above), met Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad yesterday to express their interest in helping the government turn around the ailing Malaysia Airlines Bhd, said sources.

A source close to the matter told The Edge Financial Daily that during the meeting, the group sought the approval of the premier, who is also chairman of Khazanah Nasional Bhd — the sole shareholder of Malaysia Airlines — to conduct due diligence on the national carrier in order to find the right solution.


Pahamin is a civil servant, and as this writer's post from 2007 shows, Tony Fernandes did their thing at Pacific Eagle, as AirAsia was once known, with a lot of help from the then Mahathir government.
Pahamin should not pretend that he is a Malaysian version of the Lee Iacocca, who passed away  recently, and is best known for saving Chrysler Motors. 



And now , my post from 2007:

Air Asia Bhd ( or the Company) is the first and at present only LCC in Malaysia. It was also the first LCC in southeast asia.
The Company’s life as an airline may be described as being in two phases, first as a Malaysian Government owned national carrier, and then in its present incarnation, as a LCC.


AirAsia as a full service carrier

Air Asia Bhd began life in 1993 as a subsidiary of the Malaysian Government owned HICOM Bhd. HICOM Bhd was a company brought into existence at the behest of the then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad ,who continued to take an active role in its development, overseeing its ventures. The Malaysian Government sold its majority stake in HICOM in 1996 to a local entrepreneur , Yahya Ahmad[1].Nevertheless, Mahathir continued to exert managerial control over the Company. This is evident from accounts given by the current owners of Air Asia about how they purchased the Company. These accounts are looked at more closely later in this article.
It was then known as Air Asia Sdn Bhd ,and was the operator of Malaysia’s second national carrier, commercially known as Pacific Eagle.
Its launch was delayed by two years, until 1995, when Malaysia Airlines , which was then, as it is today the country’s original national carrier, refused to share its regional routes with AirAsia[2].
Malaysia Airlines had, however , in 1994 been privatized by to another entrepreneur Tajuddin Ramli[3],and this could explain the differences between the two national carriers.
Nevertheless, even in 1997, AirAsia’s then director Datuk Tik Mustaffa said the company had made known to the Malaysian Transport Ministry its desire to have additional flight destinations, especially to China, India and Indonesia.[4]
However, none of these routes were granted to it. It appears to have obtained the right to land in Croatia, but nothing seems to have come of the negotiations[5].
There was also talk in 1997 of the company being allocated landing rights in Japan which the Malaysian Government had just won, but here also the Company appears not to have gained.[6]
Despite these obstacles, by 2000, the Company was reported to have landing rights to “several regional destinations, including Taipei, Jakarta, Kaoshiung in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Pattaya in Thailand.”[7]

The onset of the Asian Crisis in 1998 appears to have affected the Company, as it did the majority of Malaysian companies. In that year the airline laid off 100 staff and suspended service to the Malaysian destinations of Penang and Kota Baru as well as to Jakarta and Kaoshiung in Taiwan . Then chairman Salleh Sulong blamed poor passenger loads for the retrenchment from Jakarta and Kaoshiung and said the Penang and Kota Baru flights were affected by the opening of an expressway[8].

These problems were exacerbated by a decision of the Malaysian Government in 1999,which in light of current developments, raises questions about the freedom Air Asia had under its previous management to execute competitive strategies.



A report on that decision is reproduced here in part given its importance in demonstrating the importance of Government support even when a competitive advantage has been gained:

The government of Malaysia has turned down an application by Air Asia, the country's second designated national carrier, to operate international flights from Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport in Kuala Lumpur. Failure to get approval prompted the airline to drop its Kaohsiung, Jakarta, Pattaya and Taipei routes…….. The government's decision frustrates Air Asia's hopes to expand and become a full-fledged international carrier. The government fears that granting Air Asia the approval would mean further losses for ailing national carrier Malaysia Airlines (MAS) because passengers prefer to fly from Abdul Aziz, which is 25 kilometers from the city, rather than Kuala Lumpur International, which is 60 km away. Air Asia already is eating into MAS revenue, reporting 100% passenger loads on its domestic flights. ……….The government said initially that international landing rights would be shared between Air Asia and MAS but later minced its words, indicating that Air Asia would have to negotiate on its own[9].

Yahya Ismail who had taken over HICOM and oversaw the development of Air Asia in its early years was killed in 1996 when the helicopter he was in exploded in mid-air. Government intervention in HICOM,and in Air Asia, following Yahya’s death and the Asian Crisis in 1997 seems to have increased ,as is evident from the sale of the Company to Tune Air Sdn Bhd.
Air Asia as a LCC
On December 8 2001, the current major shareholder Tune Air Sdn Bhd took over AirAsia from HICOM (by then renamed DRB-HICOM)[10].
The deal was done for a consideration of just USD 25 cents, and the assumption of about USD 10 million , or a third of Air Asia ‘s debt.[11]
On 22 November 2004 the Company listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, with a
market capitalization of about USD 750 million.

Considering that the current owners who are also its management bought the Company for just USD 0.25 cents in late 2001, management appeared to have added value to a magnitude of some three billion times in under 3 years.

The obvious question that arises is ; how and why were the new group of managers able to create a competitive advantage and create value in the firm when e the previous ones could not?

As the history of Air Asia as a full cost carrier shows, the company did successfully compete with Malaysian Airlines, and was even wanting to expand its network.
It was not attempting to be a low cost carrier, but it was presenting itself as an alternative to the incumbent. Therefore it could be said to have successfully executed a strategy of differentiation.


Yet, previous management was frustrated in its attempts to compete by the same Government who sold Air Asia to Tune Air for USD 25 cents. As will be shown in the following part, current management would not have been able to implement a strategy of cost leadership without the backing of the Malaysian Government, primarily its then prime minister Mahahtir Mohamad.

Air Asia and political patronage-the facts of the case

The story of its beginning as a LCC has been told by the company’s chief executive officer Tony Fernandes in a number of interviews which provide considerable insight into how important patronage can be as a tool of strategy.
According to one his first interviews after taking control of Air Asia :

Fernandes said the idea of starting an airline came from him. “I had this desire to start an airline and I thought a low-fare airline would work very well in Malaysia. So I went around and started putting the plans together. I roped in three partners — Datuk Pahamin, Aziz and Kamarudin, for starters. Datuk Pahamin helped arrange a meeting with then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
“It was Dr Mahathir who said that he would rather us buy an existing airline than to start a new one. I think Dr Mahathir’s vision was all about turning companies around as opposed to starting new ones. And it was the greatest thing that could ever have happened because one, AirAsia has a strong brand. Two, it was a good airline that DRB-HICOM had started. Operationally, the airline is a safe airline, with good pilots and good staff.
“So, we didn’t have to go through the painful process of recruiting and training people. We had a working model from day one. We just had to change the strategy a bit,” said Fernandes
."[12]

Disclosed in this report is the fact that Pahamin, the former civil servant, was instrumental in arranging a meeting with Mahathir to enable Fernandes to sell his idea. One recalls that Pahamin was , until he joined Air Asia, a civil servant.
This suggests that in the case of Air Asia, Mahathir appears to have gifted Air Asia to a civil servant and his partners.
This conclusion is further supported by a fact undisclosed in all stories concerning Air Asia’s success as a LLC.

This is the fact that Fernandes and his partners were allowed to take over an airline, that was no doubt in debt, but nevertheless which earned revenues of about USD 25 million a year generated from chartered flights ,ferrying pilgrims to and from Mecca[13].
That contract was lost in September 2003, when the Pilgrims Board decided to hand the job of ferrying pilgrims back to Malaysian Airlines, who had in fact been doing so since 1974.[14] Nevertheless, the Pilgrims Board is an arm of Government and it in turn reports to the minister for religious affairs, who is a special minister within the Prime Minister’s Department.

The value of those contracts was only disclosed in the Prospectus issued by the company in conjunction with its initial public offering of shares to the public[15].

A sale of a company for a nominal amount of just USD 25 cents implies that it has zero or negative net present value.

However , as Fernandes himself admits, “ AirAsia has a strong brand.”
The fact that Air Asia already had a strong brand, coupled with a guaranteed cash flow of USD 25 million a year , and with its debt reduced by almost a third , was clearly an advantage that allowed the new management the leeway to implement cost saving strategies that it might not otherwise have been able to implement.

Again as Fernandes himself admits, “we didn’t have to go through the painful process of recruiting and training people. We had a working model from day one. We just had tochange the strategy a bit”.

In a subsequent story in Business Week Mahathir’s role was affirmed, the facts above confirmed and further elaborated on:

When Tony Fernandes wanted to start Malaysia's first discount airline a few years ago, he couldn't get a license. Then he heard bankrupt Air Asia, with two Boeing jets and $11 million in debt, could be bought from the government. All he had to do was sell then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on the idea. The two met in October, 2001, with Fernandes, a British-trained accountant, telling Mahathir a discount carrier could revolutionize Southeast Asian air travel and boost tourism at a time when airlines worldwide were struggling from the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks.[16]

According to the same report ,Mahathir was also instrumental in the Air Asia’s expansion:

Fernandes' biggest achievement has been to turn Air Asia into an international carrier. Before he arrived on the scene, countries in the region never had any kind of open-skies agreement. In mid-2003, Fernandes' lobbying pushed Mahathir to raise the idea with the leaders of neighboring Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore. As a result, those nations have granted landing rights to Air Asia and other discount carriers."
On the matter of landing rights, it is clear that Air Asia had already under its previous management obtained landing right in at least Indonesia, Thailand and Taiwan . These were lost only when the Malaysian Government refused to grant Air Asia use of the airport closer to Kuala Lumpur ,thus causing it to terminate its services to those countries[17].
As mentioned in the report cited, it was the competition that Air Asia as a full service carrier posed the national carrier, Malaysian Airlines ,which caused the Government to act against Air Asia.
Subsequently, it was the very same Government that enabled Tony Fernandes to take over Air Asia for next to nothing-and then gave it the room to become what it is today.




References


[1] For a history of HICOM see the HICOM’s website at http://www.drb-hicom.com/aboutus/history/corp.htm
[2] “Second aircraft for AirAsia”, New Straits Times (Malaysia) 3 February 1997
[3] MICHAEL BOCIURKIW, Malaysia Airlines - At 50, still suffering from growing pains, Asia Times, 25 April 1997
[4] see Note 4
[5] Croatian PM seeks stronger ties in Malaysia visit, Reuters News, 3 March 1997
[6] See New Straits Times report, “Malaysia wins extra landing rights to Japan””
A week before the Prime Minister's official visit to Japan, Malaysia has won extra landing rights to Osaka, Nagoya and Fukuoka, allowing an additional 900 passengers to travel weekly to the Land Of The Rising SunHowever, Dr Ling was non-committal when asked whether the new landing rights would be given exclusively to Malaysia Airlines. "This," he said, "would be discussed by ministry officials and airline operators." Besides Malaysia Airlines, two other local airlines Air Asia or Transmile, which fly regionally, also have a shot at the new landing rights. "What is important now is to ensure that the new landing rights would be fully utilised by these three airlines," he said.
By Alex Yoong, 20 March 1997,The New Straits Times 

[7] WILLIAM DENNIS,” Massive Restructuring For Malaysia Airlines”, Aviation Week & Space Technology ,page 49, Vol. 153, No. 19
[8] Air Asia Cuts Flights, Lays Off Workers, Aviation Daily ,page 515 Vol. 332, No. 60
[9] Air Asia Fails To Get Approval For International Flights From Kuala Lumpur, Aviation Daily , 23 February 1999
[10] extracted from Air Asia website http://www.airasia.com/aboutus/timeline.php?language=en
[11] NICHOLAS IONIDES , Man of The Moment, Airline Business ,April 2004 http://www.airasia.com/news.php?f=aboutus/papers&p=080404
[12] Kang Siew Li,” Fernandes pilots AirAsia to greater heights.”Business Times, (distributed with the New Straits Times) Saturday, December 20, 2003
[13] Thomas Soon., “DRB-Hicom in talks with Tabung Haji over sale of Air Asia stake.”, 19 March 2001
The Edge (Malaysia)
[14] Mohd Faizal Zakariah. MAS secures contract from Tabung Haji, 25 September 2003The Edge Malaysia
[15]Air Asia Prospectus ,at page 167
[16] Businessweek Online , SPECIAL REPORT -- STARS OF ASIA -- ENTREPRENEURSJULY 12, 2004
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_28/b3891409.htm
[17] see Note 11

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Were Chinese anti-ship missiles fired into Malaysian waters?If yes,what is Malaysia going to do about it?

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Related image

PCA: Philippines v China



China has been conducting a series of anti-ship ballistic missile tests in the hotly contested waters of the South China Sea, according to two U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.
The Chinese carried out the first test over the weekend, firing off at least one missile into the sea, one official said. The window for testing remains open until July 3, and the official expects the Chinese military to test again before it closes.
In May 2018, China quietly installed anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems on three of its fortified outposts west of the Philippines in the South China Sea, a move that allows Beijing to further project its power in the hotly disputed waters, according to sources with direct knowledge of U.S. intelligence reports.


How will Malaysia respond, and has Malaysia done anything about reclaiming Luconia Shoals?
END 

SEE ALSO

aturday, August 13, 2016


Najib's Luconia Shoals surrender puts Ananda and Pexco's Sarawak concessions in the middle of the proverbial......

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Malaysia's virtual surrender of Luconia Shoals will have implications for oil concessions in the surrounding area, now only nominally granted by Petronas. The largest of these (their words, not mine) is the acerage granted Ananda Krishnan's Pexco. At least one of Pexco's concessions, labelled Block 3 in a Marine Sarawak document, lies just 68.25 nautical miles south west of the North Shoals.




China may or may not be within its rights to declare anything, including the Pexco concessions,within its Luconina Shoals EEZ, but that is not the point when considering the actions of a country that has shown it is happy to ignore international laws, norms and customs.

Poor Ananda, all this even after contributing RM 2 billion to the 1 MDB resuce..........

END 


Reference 

Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh decision suggests Malaysia has surrendered right to Luconia-removing own flag from Luconia Shoals in stark contrast with past practise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These submissions by the  Government Of Singapore to the International Court Of Justice in the Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh matter were part of Singapore's ultimately successful defence against Malaysia's claim:

6.53 It should be noted that Malaysia has demonstrated her awareness of the significance of flying national emblems over territory for purposes of evidencing sovereignty. Malaysia demanded (and obtained) the lowering of the Singapore Ensign flown until 3 September 1968 over another lighthouse facility maintained by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, a territory over which Singapore does not exercise or claim sovereignty.

7.11 In the present case, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever protested against the regular flying of the British and Singapore emblems over Pedra Branca, even though this was done as a clear display of State authority and without seeking consent from Malaysia or Johor, and Malaysian officials were fully aware of this.

7.12 Moreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public manifestation of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau Pisang Lighthouse320. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca. 7.13 If Malaysia had any belief that she had a claim to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, one would have expected Malaysia to have exercised or attempted to exercise her sovereign authority over the island in the same way that she had done with respect to Pulau Pisang, if only to put on record that, notwithstanding Singapore’s presence on Pedra Branca, Malaysia had sovereign authority over the island. This omission on Malaysia’s part is especially significant as it occurred shortly after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, when the governments of both countries treated each other with the utmost caution on bilateral issues.

7.14 Singapore contends that, given these facts, Malaysia had consciously (and correctly) decided that, in contrast with Pulau Pisang, any protest was not appropriate with respect to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. 

Given that these arguments led to the decision against Malaysia, one would expect that the Government Of Malaysia would exercise and strenuously defend its right to fly the flag on all its possessions, but this was obviously not the case with Luconia Shoals.  It is hard to see that by removing its own flag, Malaysia has not surrendered its right to the Shoals.
(Hans Berekoven, an Australian  marine archaeologistchose Malaysia's independence day, August 31 last year, to protest against the situation by raising the Malaysian flag on the tiny island.
It is the first time the video of the incident has been released.
"I took the curator of the museum that we're working with, and a couple of other Malaysian friends, and a journalist from the Borneo Post," he said.
They mounted a stainless steel flagpole into a cement footing and raised the Malaysian flag, as the China Coast Guard vessel watched from about 500m offshore.
"They must have got on the blower to Beijing and Beijing must have got on the blower to Kuala Lumpur, because suddenly there was a big kerfuffle in KL," Mr Berekoven said.
The next morning, a Malaysian aircraft flew low over Mr Berekoven's boat and the island.
"A Malaysian coast guard vessel was despatched. Went out there and unbolted the flag," he said.
"It's absolutely absurd. It's 88 miles, well within the 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and they've forced the Malaysians to take the flag down — their flag, asserting their authority, their sovereignty."

END 

Reference

ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost