Endless kidnappings / piracies are very tragic news for Sabah

Endless kidnappings / piracies are very tragic news for Sabah 22 June, 2016 In the Philippines press, four Malaysians were reportedly abducted in Sabah, Malaysia on 15th June, 2016 Wednesday night, according to Senior Supt. Joselito Salido, the provincial police director of Tawi-Tawi. That could be true although the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the police were still awaiting confirmation from Philippines authorities. I would like to share this experience related to me to our PM/ DPM/Home Minister/ Defence Minister/Musa Aman/Adenan Satem, there are a lot of piracies/kidnappings without letting the Police know. The fishermen would just pay off the demand of ransom and pass on the ransom to consumers, and that is why seafood is so expensive. The modus operandi is like that as I was told by a fisherman with a big boat, and the pirates would come up the boat at night using hooks and armed with guns and demand ransom from the victims on the boat and money to be sent off by atms/transfer to bank accounts. The story goes like that the pirates would demand like RM100k and then once that money was through and the victims thought they would go home, but not so as another RM100k for the next kidnapper and so on for each kidnappers on boat ( a workable strategy), and it could be 4, 5 or 6 kidnappers. Police would not be informed or no deal with the victims to stay alive. So only God knows how many such piracies/kidnappings have been in the past decades that go unreported but resolved on the fishing boats. Despite as much as about RM1.3 billion that was given to Esscom since 2013 with RM146.9 millions, RM660m in 2014 and RM523m in Budget 2016, not much improvement to the security in the area has been observed. So have the Government really spent the said amount in the achieving the targets? Where are the two submarines worth over RM7b in securing the deep Sulu and Mindanao Seas east of Sabah? In the meantime, how would the demand of RM30m for the four recent victims of Sarawakians be set free on alleged payment in cash of RM12m on 7/8 June 2016 but only RM8.8m reached the Abu Sayapp kidnappers? So how would we understand the perception of ransom that had reached so low below the initial demand that the victims were released? Were the 4 victims already in the hands of the “authority” when the money reached Abu Sayapp? The said RM12m were delivered to the Malaysian Police by the local bank in Sandakan in 12 metal boxes on 24th May, 2016 and yet the victims were free on 7/8 June, 2016, a delay of two weeks. Why the money took two weeks to move to the hands of Abu Sayapp kidnappers? Isn’t it the very important time that the ransom money reached the kidnappers as soon as possible to secure their release before any unfortunate eventuality that could happen to them for the delay of the cash unnecessarily? What actually happened in the two weeks when cash of such amounts were in transits? Maybe the Police on both sides share this challenge of the delay. What actually happen to the difference of RM3.2m not received by Abu Sayapp is another issue that had emerged later? Would the whole episode be ever be told? Would kidnappings/piracies be things of the past soon around Sabah? Joshua Y. C. Kong

GST maybe a ‘saviour’ to Putrajaya but for Sabah it is a grievious dilemma

GST maybe a ‘saviour’ to Putrajaya but for Sabah it is a grievious dilemma 16/6/16 Lets assess how Goods and Services Tax (GST) had been treating you as a consumer since 1st April, 2015. Are all consumers happy to be paying GST on top of the normal income tax and other taxes? There are certain quarters who had been protesting in the open about GST and its implementation when the Government is not ready to do so. Certain groups would be affected one way or another for all consumers be they income tax payers or otherwise prior to GST when GST is chargeable on all/most items to the consumers. Is GST fair or not when Income taxes for individuals and companies have largely remained so as before GST? GST is a very broad tax scheme across the board of almost all consumer items at a fairly high starting rate of 6% although there are some zero and some exempt rates making a total ball game in the way business is done with greater recording procedures to be applied. Many trade/private transactions previously not subject to any tax are now chargeable to GST even for some commercial properties owned and transacted. I hope some proper research be done with the implementation of GST as how far it has impacted business specifically and generally? I think it is timely that such research be done now we have more than one year of GST in Malaysia so that adjustment be done with the rates and the way of the implementation of GST. We really need the feedback from the Royal Customs Department (RCD) and the consumers at large and the tax agents concerned. At the initial stage, RCD was very concerned with the numbers of business establishments to be registered with RCD and the hefty penalties levied for failure to register their qualified businesses. Massive GST collections at variance The government has collected a total of RM27.012 billion through the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from April 1 to Dec 31, 2015, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak as reported in the mass media. Najib, who is also the finance minister, said Malaysia’s economy is able to remain stable now due to the GST, adding that its collection to January, 2016 amounts to RM51 billion. So how do we reconcile the two figures within such a short time? RCD also spent less than RM1billion for all the programmes and incentives with softwares in preparation of the implementation of the GST in April, 2015. It is interesting to note that Malaysian Institute of Accountants is organising a nationwide seminar on the “Latest Customs audit findings, accounting entries and problem solving” possibly to smoothen the implementation within two years. Prices gone up Whatever the Government may claim that GST is not a burden to the people, but what had been observed generally is that prices of most goods and services had gone up quite significantly within the last eighteen months. Some prices had gone up as much as 40% and while certain items have gone up more than 100%. When prices have gone up to such unsustainable levels, what do consumers do to help themselves when individual budgets have shortfalls? Lifestyles and standard of living is sure to be adversely affected. The Government may argue that it had provided BRIM for the poor, but many consumers believe that BRIM at the present level annually is inadequate to address the gap of extra expenditure where GST is levied. So most consumers would have less and less disposable income for the basic and essential items when the low income remains low for certain groups of people. Who do we blame for the sudden upsurge of the prices level? Most businesses incur much expenditure to be GST compliant and hence are forced to pass on such expenses to the end consumers. Even many Government agencies, local authorities and related bodies do mark up their prices on their fees drastically causing consumers to pay much more for the essential services and products offered by them. The seminars that are likely important and compulsory are now priced much higher than that of the pre-GST period. So has the Government turned a blind eye to such “immoral”/burdening activities? Sometimes such high fees are not revenues to the Government and God knows where have such fees and charges gone to? In addition to the hefty price increases all round for all the consumers and business establishments following the especially with the introduction of GST and partial/full reduction of subsidies for certain essential items, the other worrying aspect is the hefty penalties of GST for a range of offence for registered companies of up to RM50,0000 for each item. Such penalties so paid would be steep burden for the business community and likely passed on to the consumers at large or such companies could go out of business in the worst scenario. Penalties I would like to add that there had been plenty of penalties or compounds for the taxpayers and business communities in many ways. Have such penalties possible in tens of Billions Ringgit over the decades as collected being used in any free programme to educate such offenders to upgrade them to be more knowledgeable and well versed/improvement in their daily operations? Or were such penalties being used for other allocations which can be less beneficial or even wasteful? Is there any policy of the Government that zero penalties be achievable? Is there any index of the penalties to monitor such scenario? All these penalties or compounds add up to a substantial amount of costs of doing business. Sabah is sort of double taxed Now we come to Sabah case. The Chief Minister told the State Legislative Assembly on 23 November, 2013 that State Sales Tax (SST) of 15% be retained as a State revenue and he specifically stated as this and quote: “The SST is imposed on crude palm oil, slot machines and lotteries.” But is this the true position when SST was imposed on all local manufactured items prior to GST? Many parents are also feeling the financial pinch when school materials such as text books and exercise books are subject to GST now making big families real tough to keep it up for the education of their children in addition to put adequate food daily on the dining tables. So how could such scenario affect the education of their children when the bread earners cannot make ends meet? Ironically, such school materials like exercise books and pencils etc are items for the consumers at large, hence not likely to be exempted or zero rated. So the State and Federal Governments have to find ways to reduce such burden to young families. So I certainly think that the research of the impact of GST in Sabah being the second poorest state if not the poorest in Malaysia should bring to bear on the Federal Government to implement a slightly different approach in Sabah and possibly Sarawak in the context of GST. Development Gaps to be addressed The following undesirable status must be given serious consideration when the Prime Minister recently acknowledged the development GAPS in Sabah. 1. Sabah and possibly Sarawak be given the chance to catch up with the Peninsula Malaysia with a zero rate in GST until 2019 when industries can catch up or upgrade and better develop in the Borneo States as GST system would be an impetus to promote greater industrial development but we are very much behind in that aspect hence GST at 6% can be a hindrance to develop a range of industries to be competitive. Is GST in Sabah a legal tax constitutionally without the State Assembly passing a bill on it? 2. The important and strategic port business can be the catalyst to growth in Sabah when the Sabah ports faced a downturn in revenue from the introduction of GST in 2015. 3. Sabah still retains SST meaning some sectors are doubly taxed and such taxes are really borne by the already burdened consumers. 4. It is learned that the national fiscal system is no different even after GST as far as Sabah and Sarawak are concerned in the distribution of allocations in annual budgets and 11th Malaysia Plan (2016-2020). Why is 40% of GST collected in Sabah not coming back to Sabah. If there is no system in such identification when many international companies operating in Sabah account for their GST nationwide in Kuala Lumpur, Sabah is the worst loser here when distribution of the financial resources/revenue is done as distorted revenue collected. 5. Sabah is still “dreaming” of the MA63 pledge/promise of 40% revenue in Sabah back to Sabah for decades (can be up to arrears of RM100b) and the dilemma is of course the national infrastructure on revenue and expenditure very much centralised cannot identify Sabah’s portion for the past decades. Even MAS, the national airline operating out of Sabah once claimed in the earlier years to 1990s that it did not make a single cents out of Sabah sector despite very high flight charges. Without separate accounting for Sabah operations, how could such statement be made? Now is Air Asia making much from Sabah’s sector? The Federal Government has always claimed that it has incurred much expenditure in running Sabah but I would like to remind them that costs of collecting revenue are irrelevant in this aspect. The revenue collection could have been left to local people to do at a saving while Borneonisation is also fulfilled. 6. Nothing much to boast about Pan Borneo Highway as it is long overdue. 7. The security of Sabah also the national security even with ESSCOM is not much better for the genuine citizens of Sabah as the messy history of complicity is very much exposed. GST have brought much headache to many in Sabah especially for the sudden implementation and maybe more suffering would come when RCD starts its monitoring in desk/tax audits and investigations in a few months time. In such process, Sabah’s economy could be very much challenged as exacerbated by GST when oil and gas may not look so good with many substitutes in energy in advanced stage of development including cars to be driven by hydrogen in water. Maybe the development gap may remain and even be wider still. Positive development on the seven items above and several more need special and specific attention and action now. The Governments especially the State Government cannot be complacent and lax anymore. Joshua Y. C. Kong, Former Deputy President of Consumer Association of Sabah & Labuan FT

Threatened Security in Sabah is no small matter.

Threatened Security in Sabah is no small matter.. Thanks, but no thanks Duterte.. by Datuk John LO (DE Comment – 5th June, 2016) can send the wrong message to the whole world especially incoming President of Philippines Duterte.. as most people know the intention of Dutere when he relived the socalled dubious claim on Sabah. I strongly believe as in previous declarations of the dubious claim, there was no intention of Manila expecting Sabah to join them on amicable terms but likely by sort of force and not by coax. In previous scenario as it is now, the situation in Philippines can be tense. How come John thinks there is an option for Sabah and Sabahans to choose between Manila and Putrajaya? How come John trying to influence the other side in Manila to amend their ways of violent living to accommodate Sabah when it is none of our business to tell them how to live as we do in Sabah. Has John gone off in tangent of the reality of the prevailing unchangeable circumstance in the relationship of Malaysia with Philippines vis-à-vis Sabah when Manila had been damn serious in several past anticipations as widely reported in their own country in preparation to seize Sabah by sort of force via military or militant activities from Manila using devious means by proxies or otherwise. So we in Sabah must be vigilant of their harsh tactics to reclaim Sabah and that everyone be prepared to defend Sabah as the PM had anticipated recently; DPM had stated that Suluk commanders have been stationed within Sabah ready for action; There are countless numbers of Project IC holders and illegals of Filipino descent and others likely already outnumbered the genuine locals. In such scenario, how would Sabahans really defend ourselves in any unfortunate eventuality? The dubious claim had over the few decades being used by the militants or even terrorists to disturb/disrupt Sabah by illegal entries, illegal stay, illegal activities and many kidnapping for ransoms. So it is not easy matters as there are no options for Sabahans to decide to join them in any circumstances. We cannot be defensive but also offensive in our approach to deal with Manila and demand compensation for damages over 5 decades by Filipinos of at least RM500b even before we enter the next stage of negotiation or none of that. We must be master of our destiny and not to be pushed around any longer when patience runs thin. It is known that the dubious claim as repeated had been accompanied by devious plans to invade Sabah by various designs. There are at least three criminal incidences I can mention here to enlighten others to be extra cautious to deal with Manila. But Sabah had strangely survived those unusual ordeals known or unknown at those times. In March 1968, there was a massacre of trained “freedom fighters” who refused to come to Sabah from the Corregidor Island nearby and the massacre is known as Jabidah as disclosed in the Internet’s website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabidah_massacre). A reliable security source revealed that Moro chief Nur Misauri did come to Sabah in May 2001 after launched a civil war in Jolo against Manila (http://www.islamweb.net/en/article/2576/) but Malaysia gave him ‘free’ trip back to Philippines after a brief detention. Should Sabah entertain such a fugitive with criminal motive who had disguised it to claim Sabah then but the thousands of armed Moro army stationed in Gaya Island were found missing and so the armed struggle was aborted. There was also a case in the Internet of Michael Meiring, an American living in Manila from 1992 -2002 whose clandestine operations to come to Sabah fell through after he lost his feet by an unexpected bomb explosion in his hotel room in Manila. (source: http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/gladio/030309Fake.html) What I write these cases is not to frighten anyone but destiny for Sabahans already pre-decided divinely. What John had written does give sort of complacency like we have a choice possible by a sort of referendum but in any referendum the genuine locals would lose out to the illegals already loaded in the electoral rolls. Instead of under the constant dark cloud of dubious claim, we may have claim part of Philippines in lieu of the compensation if not paid up in full as the Filipinos of various sects had been undesirable pests in and around Sabah with heinous crimes against humanity. So have the wealthy Musa Aman as CM cum Commander in chief of state security in Sabah who claimed to have done much for Sabah done anything since becoming CM in 2003 about the dubious claim when this is the most important agenda in Sabah? Is he warped in sort of entanglement of various questionable involvement? Joshua Y. C. Kong 8 June 2016

RCI to resolve 1MDB

1MDB controversy warrants setting up RCI Published on: Saturday, June 11, 2016



 What is 1Malaysia Development Berhad in the context of management and accounting/auditing?

 Is it a public company aka sovereign fund owned by the Government/Ministry of Finance or owned by others including the Prime Minister/Finance Minister and others including private individuals?

The status is very important as all the directors of the 1MDB should know where they stand. Unless, we know what it is, we have been fed nothing worthwhile so as I went to the Commission of Companies Malaysia (SSM) to find the fact but nothing was available.

 I am now wondering why New Straits Times Editor Mustapha Kamil quit over 1MDB after 26 years. Was he a parrot of sorts when WSJ was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in April for its reporting on corruption allegations surrounding 1Malaysia Development Bhd?

 We all want to know the root causes of 1MDB as it had grown so big within a few years so unlike most big companies that have slogged for years to reach anything like it. How big is the group really? Big may not mean strong in its parameters if one very busy man does it all. There are lots of publicity – good or bad – of 1MDB based on banking information obtained by Sarawak Report (SR) and Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and that is a tip of the iceberg as only a few bank transactions from start to finish were exposed so far.

 The lack of information to the people mainly by blocking many websites or news items in the Internet is not helping at all and many denials by the people in the thick of action – proper or illegal – only give rise to more suspicion. I would “specialise” myself into the works of auditing of the few public auditors and the Government’s Auditor General on the developments of 1MDB.

 The little publicity on the auditors albeit too late to stop the rotting of the socalled “sovereign fund” of Malaysia is injustice to the people of Malaysia. Is it what in 1MDB considered a fraud and or misappropriation or embezzlement? Isn’t it the duty of auditors to detect frauds in their work apart from routine auditing? It should be the auditors to expose frauds and not any other whistleblowers like SR and WSJ.

 We know some auditors have grown very big and maintain their positions over decades. Now we know how they have become big and stay so big to be intimidating at most times. Good luck to those big 3, 4 or 5 firms but the people must be given due justice when such people have insights to the “truth” of the firms they audited.

 We can learn something specific from those infamous cases like Enron and Worldcom both audited by the same very big firm then albeit built up with sincerity and honesty by Arthur Anderson as a young man of 28. So who do we blame now for the disappearance of that firm?

 It is not only the three very big public auditing firms at fault here but it would appear the Auditor General is also at fault.

 The circumstances had been murky and have become murkier by the days with lots of unverified denials by various parties and that is where the auditors – 3+1 – have the sole proprietary role to expose to the people for it is their duty to do so without fail. Instead, what do were hear? Silence all round?

 Let’s now see how the 3+1 auditors performed so far as per Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Ernst & Young (EY) was the first auditor appointed on March 25, 2009, but had its contract terminated on September 15, 2010, before 1MDB submitted its first financial statements for the financial year ending March 31, 2010. Then KPMG appointed on September 15, 2010, had its contract terminated by 1MDB’s shareholders on December 31, 2013, and also before the submission of 1MDB’s 2013 financial statements. On December 31, 2013, Deloitte was appointed as 1MDB’s auditors.

Deloitte has audited the 2013 and 2014 accounts of 1MDB. Audit of 2015 accounts is still outstanding.

 Recently, the Auditor General submitted a “special” audit report but marked “OSA”. I wonder how would the auditors (3+1) react to my views to be elaborated below. The facts before us is that EY failed to complete the job for any year and also failed to alert all the shareholders including the general public as it was deemed a Sovereign Fund in early years. Obvious fraud and the likes was on the menu of the audit papers. KPMG on the other hands completed audit for 2010, 2011, 2012 – three long years in a stretch and possibly also issued “clean and unqualified” audit reports for the three years and well done or not? Now which years were related to the fraudulent payments as exposed now? Now Deloite had done two years plus another in progress for 2015, and also happy to be retained as auditors for those years with questioned transactions. Did Deloite also issue “clean and unqualified” audit reports for the two years? For EY and KPMG, the issue of unavailable documents was raised hence the premature terminations and Deloite has no complaint over documents? So what is the real situation since 2009? Now we have to address the “OSA” audit report of the Auditor General (AG) for his failing to handle the supervisory audit since 2009 as it has been deemed a Government agency. What is the AG trying to convey to the people who are taxpayers? What is the purpose of such an “OSA” audit report unheard of if only the PM can see it? Is the PM the sole ‘boss’ of the 1MDB? If anyone wants me to give a better and precise report on the management, accounting and auditing of the 1MDB, please let me have copies of the accounts in particular the cash flows statements and the balance sheets with respective schedules of assets and liabilities for the purpose of matching those transactions. With those audited accounts, I would be in the right position to highlight something like I did in an AGM of a public listing company recently for a “black dot” affairs giving rise to the unreliability of the annual report as likely prepared jointly by the said company and the big 4 audit firms. In the consequences of Enron and WorldCom, the auditor was dissolved with massive punitive measures financial or otherwise. Do we expect such moves to appear in auditors 3+1? Is the AG too old now, too? So let’s come to 1MDB, as who is or are responsible for the failure since 2009 when 3+1 auditors could have “arrested” the rot or frauds in the earlier years causing less of a headache now. Also what about the management/directors board of 1MDB to be absolved of all responsibilities of what we hear today? All past and present directors must be held accountable for the demise of 1MDB and who is/are going to pay for the massive outstanding debts of such a short period? Can the auditors just walk away as if nothing has happened? Should not they be held accountable to the debts accumulated over 5 or 6 years by apportionment of the respective years of frauds and the likes not detected and not alerted and for the overlook/lack of transparency. It is most unfair that the country be brought down by latest adverse financial developments in the declining rates of currency exchanges, stock exchange depression, foreign funds flying away, and whatever adverse image of the nation due to one company. Taxpayers should not foot the massive debts or national resources not sold off to foreigners to pay off the debts due since 1MDB is likened as a dormant “volcano”. How can such a company 1MDB be granted tax reliefs/incentives for a period of 10 years even now frauds have been exposed? It is also most unfair that Sabah and Sarawak be deemed not affected by the debacle of 1MDB. The truth of 1MDB is all out there no matter how it is hidden given the resources in the cyber sphere. I call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to resolve the crisis and apportion blame for compensation of damages to whoever had been involved one way or another. http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/344644 RCI to resolve 1MDB What is 1Malaysia Development Berhad in the context of management and accounting/auditing? Is it a public company aka sovereign fund owned by the Government/Ministry of Finance or owned by others including the Prime Minister/Finance Minister and others including private individuals? The status is very important as all the directors of the 1MDB should know where they stand. Unless, we know what it is, we have been fed nothing worthwhile so as I went to the Commission of Companies Malaysia (SSM) to find the fact but nothing was available. I am now wondering why NST editor Mustapha Kamil quits over truth and 1MDB after 26 years. Was he a parrot of sort when WSJ was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in April for its reporting on corruption allegations surrounding 1Malaysia Development Bhd? We all want to know the root causes of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) as it had grown so big within a few years so unlike most big companies that have slogged for years to reach anything like it in 1MDB. How big is the group really? Big may not mean strong in its parameters if one very busy man does it all. There are lots of publicity – good or bad – of 1MDB based on banking information obtained by Sarawak Report (SR) and Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and that is a tip of the iceberg as only a few bank transactions from start to finish were exposed so far. The lack of information to the people mainly by blocking many websites or news items in the Internet is not helping at all and many denials by the people in the thick of action – proper or illegal – only give rise to more suspicion. So in this article, I would “specialise” myself into the works of auditing of the few public auditors and the Government’s Auditor General on the developments of 1MDB. The little publicity on the auditors albeit too late to stop the rotting of the socalled “sovereign fund” of Malaysia is injustice to the people of Malaysia. Is it what in 1MDB considered a fraud and or misappropriation or embezzlement? Isn’t it the duty of auditors to detect frauds in their work apart from routine auditing? It should be the auditors to expose frauds and not any other whistleblowers like SR and WSJ. We know some auditors have grown very big and maintain their positions over decades. Now we know how they have become big and stay so big to be intimidating at most times. Good luck to those big 3, 4 or 5 firms but the people must be given due justice when such people have insights to the “truth” of the firms they audited. We can learn something specific from those infamous cases like Enron and Worldcom both audited by the same very BIG firm then albeit built up with sincerity and honesty by Arthur Anderson as a young man of 28. So who do we blame now for the disappearance of that firm? It is not only the 3 very big public auditing firms at fault here but it would appear the Auditor General is also at fault. The circumstances since 2009 had been murky since 2009 and have become murkier by the days with lots of unverified denials by various parties and that is where the auditors – 3+1 – have the sole proprietary role to expose to the people for it is their duty to do so without fail. Instead, what do were hear? Silence all round? Lets now see how the 3+1 auditors perform so far as per Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Ernst & Young (EY) was the first auditors appointed on March 25, 2009, but had its contract terminated on September 15, 2010, before 1MDB submitted its first financial statements for the financial year ending March 31, 2010. Then KPMG appointed on September 15, 2010, had its contract terminated by 1MDB’s shareholders on December 31, 2013, and also before the submission of 1MDB’s 2013 financial statements. On December 31, 2013, Deloitte was appointed as 1MDB’s auditors. Deloitte has audited the 2013 and 2014 accounts of 1MDB. Audit of 2015 accounts is still outstanding. Recently, the Auditor General submitted a “special” audit report but marked “OSA”. I wonder how would the auditors (3+1) react to my views to be elaborated below. The facts before us is that EY failed to complete the job for any year and also failed to alert all the shareholders including the general public as it was deemed a Sovereign Fund in early years. Obvious fraud and the likes was on the menu of the audit papers. KPMG on the other hands completed audit for 2010, 2011, 2012 – three long years in a stretch and possibly also issued “clean and unqualified” audit reports for the three years and well done or not? Now which years were related to the fraudulent payments as exposed now? Now Deloite had done two years plus another in progress for 2015, and also happy to be retained as auditors for those years with questioned transactions. Did Deloite also issue “clean and unqualified” audit reports for the two years? For EY and KPMG, the issue of unavailable documents was raised hence the premature terminations and Deloite has no complaint over documents? So what is the real situation since 2009? Now we have to address the “OSA” audit report of the Auditor General (AG) for his failing to handle the supervisory audit since 2009 as it has been deemed a Government agency. What is the AG trying to convey to the people who are taxpayers? What is the purpose of such an “OSA” audit report unheard of if only the PM can see it? Is the PM the sole ‘boss’ of the 1MDB? If anyone wants me to give a better and precise report on the management, accounting and auditing of the 1MDB, please let me have copies of the accounts in particular the cash flows statements and the balance sheets with respective schedules of assets and liabilities for the purpose of matching those transactions. With those audited accounts, I would be in the right position to highlight something like I did in an AGM of a public listing company recently for a “black dot” affairs giving rise to the unreliability of the annual report as likely prepared jointly by the said company and the big 4 audit firm. In the consequences of Enron and Worldcom, the auditor was dissolved with massive punitive measures financial or otherwise. Do we expect such moves to appear in auditors 3+1? Is the AG too old now too? So lets come to 1MDB, as who is or are responsible for the failure since 2009 when 3+1 auditors could have “arrested” the rot or frauds in the earlier years causing less of a headache now. Also what about the management/directors board of 1MDB to be absolved of all responsibilities of what we hear today? All past and present directors must be held accountable for the demise of 1MDB and who is/are going to pay for the massive outstanding debts of such a short period? Can the auditors just walk away as if nothing has happened? Should not they be held accountable to the debts accumulated over 5 or 6 years by apportionment of the respective years of frauds and the likes not detected and not alerted and for the overlook/lack of transparency. It is most unfair that the country be brought down by latest adverse financial developments in the declining rates of currency exchanges, stock exchange depression, foreign funds flying away, and whatever adverse image of the nation due to one company and one person. Taxpayers should not foot the massive debts or national resources not sold off to foreigners to pay off the debts due since 1MDB is likened as a dormant “volcano”. How can such a company 1MDB be granted tax reliefs/incentives for a period of ten years even now frauds have been exposed? It is also most unfair that Sabah and Sarawak be deemed not affected by the debacle of 1MDB when everything is not going well in both the states, yet the Chief Ministers of both state seem to have resigned to all the lies and denials of one person and his gang. The truth of 1MDB is all out there no matter how it is hidden given the resources in the cyber sphere. I call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to resolve the crisis and apportion blame for compensation of damages to whoever had been involved one way or another. Joshua Y. C. Kong

Of defensive and offensive actions, the way forward in solutions

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.