On the 12th of January 2007, popular blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin posted on his own website details of alleged wrongdoings by several parties including a section of the Malaysian Government involving a US$50bil loan. The story was also reported in Malaysiakini. The gist of the matter concerns the use of a company, which is in the process of a winding-up, to obtain the massive loan from 25 prime banks, which in turn would be funneled to the Malaysian Government in its efforts to finance the 9th Malaysian Plan.
The story itself allegedly involves numerous persons, including Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, Khairy Jamaluddin, certain individuals from Bank Negara as well as other individuals affiliated with the aforementioned company and the financing corporations related to it. There are even details of meetings between some of these individuals down to the time and place, as well as pictures of scanned documents allegedly lining out the deal.
The uproar centers around the fact that, ‘Reading the three letters together, it is clear that Bank Negara has agreed that a private limited company currently in the process of being wound up is to be used as a front to borrow USD50 billion and that this company will act as a front for the Malaysian government so that it will not be seen that Malaysia is borrowing USD50 billion from overseas,’ as Raja Petra Kamarudin put it.
Apparently, the scheme is to avoid informing the public that the nation does not have the funds to finance the 9th Malaysian Plan. One should realize, of course, nation states throughout the world habitually borrow currency in order to finance its own economic plans or projects. Whether or not such loans come to a profitable end is another point in kind.
A stranger fact also sticks out from the whole affair: how can a company in winding-up attain a loan, let alone one worth $50bil? There are numerous reasons for a company to face a winding-up, one of which is its inability to pay its debts. The last filed accounts for the aforesaid company allegedly dated 31 December 2000. There are no accounts filed since then. This is apparently sufficient cause to assume that the company has been going downhill financially since then. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Raja Petra quotes the company’s fixed assets in 2000 as RM542,248.00 with current assets of RM1,976,421.00. It also had current liabilities of RM1,071,641.00 and long-term liabilities of RM321,756.00. The profit for the year was RM39,512.00 with accumulated profits of RM125,272.00. Though Raja Petra feels that, ‘this is certainly not the kind of company Malaysia should be using to raise USD50 billion for the purpose of funding such an important matter like the RMK9,’ it is easy to see that the company, in 2000 at least, is not a company making a loss, and, judging from the figures shown, is more than capable of settling its liabilities. It is therefore hard to surmise whether Raja Petra is concerned with the type of company Malaysia should be using or whether it should be using a company at all.
But this is going into too much detail. Regardless whether the company is making or losing millions, the relevant questions which need to be asked are lost on many, including MP Lim Kit Siang who picked up the story and popular blogger Jeff Ooi.
On the 16th of January 2007, a letter from a ‘Jeffrey’ was published in Malaysiakini detailing the holes in the reportage; namely the ready acceptance of foreign financial banks to lend such a sum of money to a company in winding-up, the need for the Government to borrow money at all, the unusually low alleged interest rates attached to the loan, the inability and incapability of Singaporean proxies or even Singaporean GLC Temasek to loan such a sum to Malaysia, and the very authenticity of the whole report thus far.
On the 17th of January 2007, the apparent originator of the story, Ganesh Sahathevan, wrote back in reply in an attempt to uphold the credibility of not only his story, but also his own. Unfortunately however, his letter fails to provide any new evidence as he chooses instead to repeat the origins of the affair in stronger words as a rational attempt to vindicate himself. He also goes on to quote another financial scandal which has no relevance to the matters at hand to try and show that ‘it’s happening now because it has happened before.’ Quite frankly, his letter only seeks to strengthen the veracity of Jeffrey’s claims as Sahathevan finally goes on to question who Jeffrey is.
It is simply, to this author’s mind, irrelevant who Jeffrey is. His letter is not of any less importance or relevance even if ‘Jeffrey’ was the whole perpetrator of the fiasco himself. Therein lies a logical impropriety when one seeks to defeat an argument by defeating the arguer.
Nevertheless, one can be sure that this is not over. Other members of the Opposition have yet to comment on the story, and neither has any Government official publicly. Perhaps they are waiting to confirm the authenticity of the report? In any case, we must remember not to jump on the bandwagon for any cheap attempt at lambasting the Establishment, lest we become what the Establishment has been effortlessly trying to label us to be: Rowdy, insolent trouble-makers.
Stay tuned.
yeah agreee…well said, i said it;s a fishy official letter by REezal…FISHY la….:D
oooo very intressting i agree thouroughly!
*applauds*