Quote:
Originally Posted by
ComplainKing
Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying ???
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155318627736688&set=p.10155318627 736688&type=3&theater
Chong Win
26 June
this Lee Hong Chuan will be the next contender at Hougang….his picture is always in flyer in whatever event at hougang community club….i thought hougang belongs to WP ?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155774432793931&set=p.10155774432 793931&type=3&theater
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...s-dr-mahathir/
New heads of Malaysian GLCs should not expect big salaries, says Dr Mahathir
Published on 2018-07-03 by Danisha Hakeem
Under the new Pakatan Harapan government, those who have been appointed to spearhead Malaysian government linked-companies (GLCs) should no longer expect to receive big salaries.
Speaking to Malaysian media at the end of his two-day visit to Jakarta on an ASEAN tour on 30 June, Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that while their salaries will not be big, there is a possibility of granting heads of GLCs big bonuses in the event that they perform well.
He said that in the previous government, “we found [that] those appointed were chosen not because of their abilities in business or management, but due to being party supporters.”
“They were inefficient, but were paid high salaries. We found projects under them had failed or were not profitable,” he added.
He declined to name the GLCs as there are too many of them.
Dr Mahathir said that the new government will hire professionals who have had previous experience in running companies to run the GLCs, and will ensure that said professionals are not politically-linked.
“At any time (they are involved), action will be taken,” he added.
It is understood that among the government-linked companies (GLCs), Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH) and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) are expected to see changes in the nearest future, after the retirement of Tan Sri Abdul Wahid Omar as chairman of Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), according to a report by The Star Online.
LTH is headed by its group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Datuk Seri Johan Abdullah, while LTAT’s chieftain is Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, who is also Boustead Holdings Bhd’s Deputy Chairman and group Managing Director.
In 2015, LTH purchased a 1.55-acre parcel in the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) project from scandal-ridden 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), which gave rise to speculations that the deal was made for the purpose of bailing out 1MDB.
Lodin, meanwhile, was appointed LTAT’s CEO in 1982. He joined Boustead in 1984 and became the company’s Managing Director about seven years later.
He was appointed Chairman of 1MDB, but had stepped down in 2016 after the Public Accounts Committee’s tabling of its audit report in the Dewan Rakyat.
On Jun 29, PNB announced that former Bank Negara Malaysia Governor, Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz will replace Wahid as PNB’s chairman, which took effect on July 1.
Commenting on Zeti’s appointment, Wahid said that he believes that Zeti and members of the board “will be able to continue leading PNB to a higher level of success”.
Wahid’s resignation was one of the changes that took place in the upper levels of some of the more prominent GLCs. This is in line with the aims of reformation under the Pakatan Harapan government.
According to The Star Online, “the heads started rolling” on May 14 when Tan Sri Shahrir Abdul Samad resigned from his position as Chairman of the politically-linked Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA).
On the same day, Tan Sri Irwan Serigar Abdullah’s contract as Treasury Secretary-General was axed. He was subsequently transferred to the Public Service Department. Irwan has since stepped down from board positions of companies under the Ministry of Finance.
The following week saw LTH’s Datuk Seri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim step down as Chairman.
The resignation of Bank Negara’s governor Tan Sri Muhammad Ibrahim soon followed. His resignation took place only weeks after queries were made regarding the central bank’s purchase of land to bail out 1MDB.
Other significant resignations related to GLCs in recent times included that of Telekom Malaysia Bhd’s group, CEO Datuk Seri Mohammed Shazalli Ramly, and Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd (MRCB)’s Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Fateh Din, the developer of KL Sentral.
Additionally, Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) independent non-executive director Datuk Mohd Omar Mustapha had also tendered his resignation on June 1.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan had stepped down from his position as the chairman of Petronas, while Bursa Malaysia CEO Datuk Seri Tajuddin Atan could also be replaced before his term ends in March next year.
Professor of Political Economy at Faculty of Economics & Administration at the University of Malaya, Edmund Terence Gomez wrote in a letter to The Star Online that “institutional reforms can be formulated to ensure accountable and transparent governance of the companies”.
He also mentioned that “power has to be devolved to key oversight institutions such as Bank Negara, the Securities Commission and opposition-led parliamentary committees”.
He also highlighted the role of reviewing legislation on “how statutory bodies, holding companies and foundations function”.
Gomez’s key message in his letter appears to be that above all, the government has to have significant control over the workings of a GLC in order to avoid any form of inappropriate concentration of power or wealth by select individuals or stakeholders:
“[…] the government would need to retain ownership of GLCs in utilities, banking, oil and gas, defence, plantations, airport services and ports.
The transfer of ownership of huge firms in these sectors to private investors may not serve the nation’s interest.“
He concluded his letter by highlighting the potentially beneficial role of GLCs in Malaysia’s economy:
“[…] it must be considered that GLCs have played an important developmental role, creating a vibrant domestic privately-owned enterprise base, promoting mechanisms to encourage private firms to venture into new economic sectors, and enhancing the development of rural- and niche-based enterprises. GLCs must still play this role.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ComplainKing
Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying ???
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
Chong Win
26 June
this Lee Hong Chuan will be the next contender at Hougang….his picture is always in flyer in whatever event at hougang community club….i thought hougang belongs to WP ?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...s-dr-mahathir/
New heads of Malaysian GLCs should not expect big salaries, says Dr Mahathir
Published on 2018-07-03 by Danisha Hakeem
Under the new Pakatan Harapan government, those who have been appointed to spearhead Malaysian government linked-companies (GLCs) should no longer expect to receive big salaries.
Speaking to Malaysian media at the end of his two-day visit to Jakarta on an ASEAN tour on 30 June, Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that while their salaries will not be big, there is a possibility of granting heads of GLCs big bonuses in the event that they perform well.
He said that in the previous government, “we found [that] those appointed were chosen not because of their abilities in business or management, but due to being party supporters.”
“They were inefficient, but were paid high salaries. We found projects under them had failed or were not profitable,” he added.
He declined to name the GLCs as there are too many of them.
Dr Mahathir said that the new government will hire professionals who have had previous experience in running companies to run the GLCs, and will ensure that said professionals are not politically-linked.
“At any time (they are involved), action will be taken,” he added.
It is understood that among the government-linked companies (GLCs), Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH) and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) are expected to see changes in the nearest future, after the retirement of Tan Sri Abdul Wahid Omar as chairman of Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), according to a report by The Star Online.
LTH is headed by its group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Datuk Seri Johan Abdullah, while LTAT’s chieftain is Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, who is also Boustead Holdings Bhd’s Deputy Chairman and group Managing Director.
In 2015, LTH purchased a 1.55-acre parcel in the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) project from scandal-ridden 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), which gave rise to speculations that the deal was made for the purpose of bailing out 1MDB.
Lodin, meanwhile, was appointed LTAT’s CEO in 1982. He joined Boustead in 1984 and became the company’s Managing Director about seven years later.
He was appointed Chairman of 1MDB, but had stepped down in 2016 after the Public Accounts Committee’s tabling of its audit report in the Dewan Rakyat.
On Jun 29, PNB announced that former Bank Negara Malaysia Governor, Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz will replace Wahid as PNB’s chairman, which took effect on July 1.
Commenting on Zeti’s appointment, Wahid said that he believes that Zeti and members of the board “will be able to continue leading PNB to a higher level of success”.
Wahid’s resignation was one of the changes that took place in the upper levels of some of the more prominent GLCs. This is in line with the aims of reformation under the Pakatan Harapan government.
According to The Star Online, “the heads started rolling” on May 14 when Tan Sri Shahrir Abdul Samad resigned from his position as Chairman of the politically-linked Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA).
On the same day, Tan Sri Irwan Serigar Abdullah’s contract as Treasury Secretary-General was axed. He was subsequently transferred to the Public Service Department. Irwan has since stepped down from board positions of companies under the Ministry of Finance.
The following week saw LTH’s Datuk Seri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim step down as Chairman.
The resignation of Bank Negara’s governor Tan Sri Muhammad Ibrahim soon followed. His resignation took place only weeks after queries were made regarding the central bank’s purchase of land to bail out 1MDB.
Other significant resignations related to GLCs in recent times included that of Telekom Malaysia Bhd’s group, CEO Datuk Seri Mohammed Shazalli Ramly, and Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd (MRCB)’s Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Fateh Din, the developer of KL Sentral.
Additionally, Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) independent non-executive director Datuk Mohd Omar Mustapha had also tendered his resignation on June 1.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan had stepped down from his position as the chairman of Petronas, while Bursa Malaysia CEO Datuk Seri Tajuddin Atan could also be replaced before his term ends in March next year.
Professor of Political Economy at Faculty of Economics & Administration at the University of Malaya, Edmund Terence Gomez wrote in a letter to The Star Online that “institutional reforms can be formulated to ensure accountable and transparent governance of the companies”.
He also mentioned that “power has to be devolved to key oversight institutions such as Bank Negara, the Securities Commission and opposition-led parliamentary committees”.
He also highlighted the role of reviewing legislation on “how statutory bodies, holding companies and foundations function”.
Gomez’s key message in his letter appears to be that above all, the government has to have significant control over the workings of a GLC in order to avoid any form of inappropriate concentration of power or wealth by select individuals or stakeholders:
“[…] the government would need to retain ownership of GLCs in utilities, banking, oil and gas, defence, plantations, airport services and ports.
The transfer of ownership of huge firms in these sectors to private investors may not serve the nation’s interest.“
He concluded his letter by highlighting the potentially beneficial role of GLCs in Malaysia’s economy:
“[…] it must be considered that GLCs have played an important developmental role, creating a vibrant domestic privately-owned enterprise base, promoting mechanisms to encourage private firms to venture into new economic sectors, and enhancing the development of rural- and niche-based enterprises. GLCs must still play this role.”
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...e-in-the-govt/
The curious case of the GST Increase and the trust that PAP expects people to have in the govt
Published on 2018-07-03 by Ghui
The cat is now out of the bag and government has pretty much tacitly confirmed that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is set to increase from 7% to 9% some time between 2021 to 2025. Given official statements issued by the government before the General Elections of 2016 (GE2016), the government appeared to have unequivocally denied the possibility of a GST increase.
In public statements, they made clear that the government plans ahead and that there is enough from income tax not to have to increase GST. It seems therefore rather strange that a government who professes to plan ahead did not seem to have foreseen the need to announce a raise in GST in just under 3 years? So much for planning ahead!
Either that or the government has very cleverly planned the timing of their announcements to reassure the public before GE2016 to ensure maximum vote share. Neither scenario is very reassuring.
In considering which scenario it is, it is important to note that there are slight differences between the 2 purported identical statements issued by the government.
In the third hyperlinked article “unequivocally denied the possibility of a GST increase”, there is an additional line inserted at the end of the article stating : “This article is accurate as of Aug 2015.” This crucial statement is missing in the second hyperlinked article “statements”.
Incidentally, this second hyperlinked article is found in the “archives” section of the Gov.SG website which suggests that this was the original article which has now been amended to insert the disclaimer. When was this disclaimer added and why?
Is this a fudging exercise to prevent the government of being accused of misleading the public about GST increments pre GE2016? Or was it to rectify an oversight by the government?
Also, why is there such a wide time period for when GST is meant to increase? Between 2021 to 2025? That is 4 years! Given that the government allegedly plans ahead, it should surely know with greater certainty when GST will need to be raised? Why the 4 year period then?
Given that our next election is set for sometime 2020, is this raise (which will coincidentally takes place after the election) meant to ensure that the PAP gets the votes before increasing the tax? In fact, by giving such a wide spectrum for timing, the People’s Action Party (PAP) can in fact potentially squeeze in 2 more general elections before finally increasing the GST - thereby ensuring the maximum chance of killing 2 birds with one stone. I.e. Winning 2 elections and still getting their GST increase.
Whichever way I look at it, there appears to be some fudge going on. Did the PAP know ahead of GE2016 that they would have to increase the GST? Did they choose not to divulge this to the public because they did not want it to affect their vote share? Why is there a 4 year period between when the taxes will be increased? Don’t the public deserve greater certainty?
Giving themselves such a wide berth seems to give rise to the suspicion that this will somehow be used to ensure that the government can keep its options wide open to ensure the best result for them.
Addressing the GST issue in Malaysia and how it played in Malaysia’s recent General Election at the end of the President’s address, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that voters have to trust the government to do the right thing on their behalf, even when it is painful.
He noted that the country will need to spend more – on healthcare, defence, education, or something else – and if revenues are not enough, it will have no choice but to raise taxes. Then, the government must convince the population that it is raising taxes for a good reason, for the right reason. And whether the voters accept that will depend not just on the arguments, but also crucially on whether they trust the government.
Other than going back against its earlier promise about not raising GST, PM Lee’s point about trust seems to be pitted against the situation where Singapore announced a surplus of $9.6 billion for FY2017 and at the same time, say it needs to increase GST hike to 9 per cent because Singapore has to ensure revenue is sufficient to meet the country’s spending.
Without a strong alternative media and opposition politicians to challenge these things such as the 9% GST hike, we will never know the truth and what to trust. Is this the society we want to live in?
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...n-a-walkabout/
Everyone and anyone is entitled to not engage with a politician on a walkabout
Published on 2018-07-02 by Ghui
I see that some drama erupted at Minister in the Prime Minister’s office, Indranee Rajah’s 1 July 2018 walkabout in Tiong Bahru Market. While I was not present and cannot independently verify what version of events is true, I will give both parties the benefit of doubt and presume for the sake of this article that the truth is somewhere in between.
Although the accounts of how things transpired differ, the basic facts that are not in dispute are as follows:
A man who did not want to engage was indeed approached by Ms Rajah; and
The issue of nationality was raised.
Everyone has a right to privacy and a private citizen not wanting to be disturbed is perfectly acceptable. Rajah herself accepts this. Why then would someone post on Facebook about what should really be a normal run of the mill occurrence? Is it because we still perceive our elected politicians as somehow “above” us in standing and that refusing to engage with them is some kind of act of rebellion?
If that is indeed the attitude we have (whether conditioned or otherwise) then we ought to change it. All citizens reserve the right to have a meal in peace. There is no need to entertain someone even if you don’t feel like so doing when this person has shown up unannounced just because that person is in a position of power. We can’t expect the government to treat us like equals when a man refusing to engage is considered big news.
Secondly, why was the issue of nationality raised? The minister has admitted to asking people on their nationalities but I still struggle to see why that question needs to be asked? Would a person’s nationality affect how she would treat them? Would she spend less time with them? I just don’t understand why there is a need to ask such a question at all. It just seems rather odd and leads me to wonder if she assumed the man was not Singaporean simply because he dared to not engage?
If this is indeed the case then the government really needs to readjust its own perception of itself. They are elected to serve us. Being a politician is a profession like any other. It does not make you some kind of super star that guarantees public fawning.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...mains-healthy/
New Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong: Overall public trust in PAP Govt remains healthy
Published on 2018-07-02 by Correspondent
In the long interview with Channel News Asia which was published today (1 Jul), new Senior Minister of State for Law and Health said that the overall public trust in the PAP Government has remained healthy.
Mr Edwin Tong said, “A lot more effort has gone into revamping our feedback mechanism. Every single one of the MPs must know the ground well enough so that we don’t only end up knowing around elections that there’s unhappiness about this policy or that policy,”
He said he does make an effort to recruit and hear from grassroots leaders of diverse backgrounds who are willing to give MPs an honest picture of ground sentiment.
“Going by what I see on the ground, I think people appreciate that the Government spends time addressing the unhappiness, whether it is in terms of social transfers or immigration policies. I think that has made a difference over the years.”
He admits the transport system has been “a constant bane” but it’ll be sorted out with time.
“As with all functioning and mature democracies, the trust level ebbs and flows on different issues. But I think the overall trust in the Government has remained healthy. It’s a gut feel I have while internalising everything that I see, everything that I hear, talking to people within or outside of my constituency,” he said.
CareShield Life
He concedes that on specific issues “more could be done” in terms of communication. CareShield Life is one example.
“CareShield Life for example is meant as a good policy but people are asking if we’re making money out of it. The Government could afford to explain why we’re doing it and to allay such concerns,” he said.
“We’ll see all that come to light when we debate the issue in Parliament but I do think more could be done to bring home the key messages in a way that the average Singaporean can better appreciate.”
CareShield Life is another mandatory insurance scheme hatched by the PAP government requiring Singaporeans to join when they reach 30. It is supposed to provide “better protection against the uncertainty of long-term care costs”.
In any case, going by Tong’s confidence of the healthy trust bestowed on the PAP government by Singaporean public, it looks like Tong and his compatriots in People’s Action Party (PAP) should have nothing to worry about in the next coming General Election.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-for-them-too/
MPs not only pay $365 yearly for HDB carpark, some have policemen reserving carpark lot for them too
Published on 2018-06-30 by Correspondent
It has been reported that elected Members of Parliament (MPs) pay only S$365 for an annual HDB carpark permit. This works out to S$1 per day parking at HDB carparks. The huge concession is supposed to allow them to park at HDB estates when doing constituency work and at Parliament House too.
The Ministry of National Development (MND) said on Mon (25 Jun) that the rate is a proportion of the prevailing HDB season parking rate since MPs do not park overnight or full day at their constituencies. It also added that Non-constituency MPs and Nominated MPs are not given this permit.
For HDB residents, the monthly parking charge is S$80 for surface car parks and S$110 for sheltered ones (that is, S$960 and S$1,320 annually).
Grace Fu explains
Earlier this month, Ms Grace Fu, Leader of the House, wrote to ST in a letter, stating that MPs do pay for their parking at Parliament House after an ST article implied that they don’t. But she avoided mentioning the special S$365 HDB carpark fee which the MPs pay.
She said, “Elected MPs who drive pay for an annual permit that allows them to park in Housing Board carparks, in order to do their constituency work.”
“This payment, which Parliament deducts from the MPs’ allowances, is deemed to cover the occasions when they park at Parliament House to fulfil their duties,” she added.
Police helps ‘chope’ HDB parking lot
Not only do MPs get a special HDB carpark rate of S$365 per year when doing their constituency work, it appears that they, especially those political office holders like Ms Fu herself, also have policemen helping to “reserve” HDB parking lots for them, before they arrive at the HDB estates to do “constituency work”.
About one and a half years ago, Ms Fu was caught on camera by a netizen, showing that she had parked her Mercedes at a season parking lot.
It was reported that the netizen who took the photos was at the HDB car park waiting for his wife when he saw a man standing at a red season parking lot ‘choping’ the slot. The netizen went up to the man, who then identified himself as a policeman. Amazingly, the policeman explained that he was reserving the red colored parking lot for a “VIP”.
The netizen later moved back to his car to continue waiting for his wife. When the VIP arrived to park the Mercedes at the lot reserved by the policeman, it turned out that the VIP was Ms Fu.
At the time, the public didn’t know that MPs are given this special S$365 per year HDB parking permit and was angry that Ms Fu was parking at a season parking lot meant for residents. But now that the news of an MP only needs to pay S$365 for an annual HDB parking permit, she, like other MPs, would be entitled to park at the HDB season lots too.
Teachers to pay for parking at school premises
Meanwhile, teachers at all national schools and junior colleges will have to start paying from 1 Aug, when they park their vehicles on the school premises to work.
To park in uncovered lots, teachers will have to pay for $75 a month during the school term and $15 a month during the school holidays in June, November and December. While, those who wish to park in sheltered lots, have to pay for $100 a month during the school term and $20 a month during school holidays.
The implementation of the parking fees for the teachers at schools, sparked an outcry from the members of the public, asking whether is there a need to charge parking to teachers for carpark lots which would not be used by the public.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...d-help-hyflux/
SP Group’s announcement of increase in electricity tariffs should help Hyflux
Published on 2018-06-30 by Correspondent
Yesterday (29 Jun), SP Group announced that electricity tariffs will increase by an average of 6.9 per cent or 1.50 cents per kWh from Jul 1 to Sep 30 this year, compared to the previous quarter.
“The increase is mainly due to the higher cost of natural gas for electricity generation compared to the previous quarter,” SP Group said.
For households, the electricity tariff will increase from 22.15 to 23.65 cents per kWh.
The announcement of SP Group has come at an opportune time for the beleaguered Hyflux, which has recently obtained a court protection from its creditors.
In a public statement last month, Hyflux Chairman and Group CEO Olivia Lum blamed the depressed electricity prices in Singapore for her company’s woes.
Tuaspring dragging Hyflux’s net profit down
In particular, Tuaspring, an integrated water and power plant, has been dragging Hyflux’s net profit down. Hyflux posted its first ever annual loss last year since listing, and continued losing into the first quarter of this year. It reported a net loss of S$22.2 million in the three months ended March 31, with net debt surged to 165 times EBITDA earnings from about 32 times at the end of last year.
Ms Lum, who was hailed from Malaysia said, “One of our landmark projects is Tuaspring, the first Integrated Water and Power Project in Asia, which is an important track record to boost the group’s solution offering to its municipal clients.”
“This innovative project which contributes significantly to our nation’s water security, has, in recent years, not escaped the impact of depressed electricity prices in Singapore,” she added.
“As a result, 2017 marked the first full year of losses in our operating history. Although improvements in wholesale electricity prices have reduced losses in the last few months, a sharper rebound in prices is necessary to restore the group to its previous levels of profitability.”
She said that operating in a capital-intensive industry, Hyflux has always tried to divest their completed projects in order to recycle capital into new investments. However, plans to divest Tuaspring and another project in China “have taken longer given the prevailing market”.
“This has added stress to the business,” she acknowledged.
Now that SP Group has announced an increase in electricity tariffs for the next quarter, it should spell good news for Ms Lum.
Assuming that the electricity tariffs will continue to “rebound” sharply in prices in the coming quarters, Hyflux should surely be restored to its “previous levels of profitability” and Ms Lum would be smiling again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nitecrawllerr
I have this question. Msia had been charging Spore 3 sens till today. How come lightning keep increasing our water bills? Poor sillyporeans. Ka ki ciak kaki lang!
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-lim-guan-eng/
Malaysia had just avoided “financial Armageddon” after GE14: Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng
Published on 2018-06-27 by The Online Citizen
In an interview with The Malaysian Insight published on Jun 22, Finance Minister of Malaysia, Lim Guan Eng said that the nation “had just avoided financial Armageddon” through the timely change of government in the 14th General Election on May 9.
Lim was quoted as saying that had Barisan Nasional managed to stay in power under the leadership of former Prime Minister Najib Razak for even one more term, Malaysia’s debt could have risen to RM3 trillion, an amount that would have been beyond the government’s capacity to repay.
“Look at the way the money was spent? Look at the bags of cash, jewellery, super yachts,” Lim told The Malaysian Insight, justifying his prediction of the RM3 trillion debt.
In a press conference in Putrajaya on May 22, Lim announced that Malaysia’s debt has surpassed RM1 trillion.
This is in stark contrast to the figure of RM686.8 billion given by the former Barisan Nasional administration.
Lim had reportedly said that the RM1 trillion debt as of Dec 31 last year included RM686.8 billion in Federal government debt, plus RM199.1 billion of government guarantees to be paid on behalf of entities that were unable to service their debts, including RM42.2 billion for Danainfra Nasional Bhd, RM26.6 billion for Prasarana Malaysia Bhd, and 38 billion ringgit for 1MDB.
The RM1 trillion figure also includes various leases for private and public projects such as school construction, police station, road-works and others amounting to RM201.4 billion.
There were also several “mini-1MDBs” where the government is paying the debts of companies that it guaranteed, he said. These debts amount to between RM500 million and RM1 billion.
“Some of these companies had no financial resources any more, so all the expenses were taken over by the government or the government has to pay for loans that these companies took out,’ according to Lim.
The Pakatan Harapan government has also decided to halt large-scale infrastructure projects, including a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, as a means to reduce government expenditure in the meantime.
In response to the Finance Minister’s statement in his interview with The Malaysian Insight, a netizen under the pseudonym of Ckone J commented:
“If BN won GE14, Malaysia would have a similar fate to Venezuela which coincidentally also had sham election right after Malaysia GE14. The only difference was that the ruling party won again. Maduro used all kinds of dirty tactics including barring key opposition figures from contesting. The ruling party had spent frivolously immediately after Chavez’s win in 1999. As a result, the country became saddled with huge debts and began defaulting on its obligations when oil price tanked in 2014. The country is a huge mess right now: people had to queue for hours just to buy toilet paper, the currency became almost worthless, there is no basic medicine, prices of everyday goods went up 5000+% annually for years due to hyperinflation, social order has broken down completely with rampant crime and people are leaving in droves. This is an example of what could happen if BN had won again. A Malaysia totally destroyed and Malaysians forced to migrate overseas to make a living. Malaysia would become a failed state where the rule of law no longer applies. […] Let this be a reminder for all Malaysians of the independence of free and fair elections and the separation of powers between all branches of government. The next time a Najib or Maduro type of politician appearing in Malaysia, [he] would likely be much more smarter and cunning, having learnt the lesson of GE14 and therefore be much harder to remove. The changes made to ensure our democratic systems are robust must be enshrined in the Constitution […] This is crucial!”
Julia Yeow, in her think-piece for The Malaysian Insight, “The view from across the Causeway”, dated Jun 25, echoes the Finance Minister’s sentiments about the possible consequences of the re-election of the previous Barisan Nasional administration:
“Just months before the 14th general election, Singapore’s ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan said in an interview that he “should certainly hope Barisan Nasional and Prime Minister Najib (Razak) are returned” to power, but conceded the election results were “not my business”.
Mr Bilahari, who is policy adviser to Singapore’s ministry of foreign affairs, said while Singapore was ready to work with whoever takes charge of Malaysia, “it would “be easier to deal with some kinds of government”.
I’ll not try to make any inference as to why Mr Bilahari would think that a corrupt, kleptocratic government would be easier to deal with, but the fact is that while Najib might have been good for Singapore, his re-election would have guaranteed many more years of a Malaysia mired in racial politicking and unconstrained corruption.
[…]
In less than two months, we have already sought to trim down the excesses of the previous government, reviewed lopsided domestic monopolies and foreign deals, and reopened investigations into major financial scandals that have handicapped our country for years.
It will be many years before Malaysia can recover from the crippling effects of wastage, corruption and inefficiency, but make no mistake that we will.”
Nation fund-raising effort on reducing debt
Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced the setting up of Tabung Harapan Malaysia (THM) on 30 May as a legitimate channel through which Malaysians could contribute voluntarily towards reducing the country’s debts, according to The Star Online.
Economist and Chairman of Centre for Public Policy Studies, Ramon Navaratnam was quoted by MalaysiaGazette in response to THM as saying that “the country is not bankrupt yet,” and that national debt is the government’s responsibility, and it should not be extended to the people.
However, RHB Research Institute Sdn Bhd Chief Asean Economist Peck Boon Soon remarked, in a statement to Bernama on Jun 16, that Malaysia is not the first country to have a national crowd-funding initiative to alleviate the nation’s debt, as South Korea had initiated a similar campaign during the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and 1998.
Collections for Tabung Harapan Malaysia (THM) have since surpassed the RM100mil mark, less than a month since it was launched.
A total of RM108.2 million has been collected as of 3pm on Jun 25, according to New Straits Times Online.
