• Mengapakah PEMANDU Corporation telah mengambil alih BFR Institute dan mengapa akaun kewangannya ‘kosong’?

    Kenyataan Media oleh Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Ahli Parlimen Serdang pada 22 Mei 2016

    Mengapakah PEMANDU Corporation telah mengambil alih BFR Institute dan mengapa akaun kewangannya ‘kosong’?

    Saya merujuk kepada kenyataan balas PEMANDU pada 19 Mei 2016 berhubung sidang media saya di Parlimen pada hari yang sama.[1] Kenyataan saya yang merujuk kepada pemilikan 51% oleh Dato’ Idris Jala dalam BFR Institute Sdn Bhd adalah berdasarkan profil carian syarikat yang dilakukan pada 25 Februari 2016 (rujuk bawah). Perpindahan 51% kepentingan Idris Jala kepada PEMANDU Corporation tidak ditunjukkan dalam akaun Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) setakat 25 Februari 2016.

    Mengikut carian syarikat yang dilakukan pada hari ini iaitu 22 Mei 2016, Idris Jala kini mempunyai kepentingan sebanyak hanya 51 daripada 400,000 saham BFR Institute Sdn Bhd, dan yang selebihnya dimiliki oleh PEMANDU Corporation.

    Menurut kenyataan PEMANDU, kepentingan yang dipegang oleh Idris Jala adalah dalam bentuk amanah memandangkan PEMANDU Corporation tidak dibenarkan mempunyai pegangan kepentingan melebihi 49% dalam syarikat lain.

    Saya memohon maaf kepada Idris Jala sekiranya saya telah menyebabkan orang lain berfikir bahawa Idris Jala menerima faedah kewangan secara langsung daripada kepentingan 51% BFR Institute yang kini telah ditukar kepada 51 unit saham sebagaimana dalam rekod terkini SSM.

    Pada masa yang sama, saya ingin meminta PEMANDU atau Idris Jala untuk menjelaskan sama ada pegangan 51 peratus yang dimiliki beliau masih dalam bentuk amanah ataupun rekod SSM terkini masih belum dikemaskini dan beliau sudah tidak memegang sebarang saham dalam BFR Institute. Ini adalah berhubung kenyataan PEMANDU yang menyatakan PEMANDU Corporation kini memiliki 100% kepentingan BFR-I secara langsung. Selagi Idris Jala memegang walau seunit saham dalam BFR Institute, sama ada secara langsung atau tidak, adalah tidak tepat untuk mengatakan PEMANDU Corporation memiliki 100% BFR Institute secara langsung.  

    Walau bagaimanapun, pengambil alihan BFR Institute oleh PEMANDU Corporation menimbulkan persoalan baru. Pertama, mengapa PEMANDU harus terlibat dalam memberikan perkhidmatan perundingan kerajaan kepada agensi kerajaan yang lain serta entiti di luar negara, sebagaimana yang sedang dibuatnya sekarang?

    Kedua, mengapa pembayar cukai perlu menanggung kos RM3.9 juta untuk penganjuran Global Transformation Forum selama 3 hari pada tahun 2015, memandangkan pemotongan bajet sedang dilaksanakan di agensi-agensi kerajaan yang lain, termasuklah institut pengajian awam?

    Ketiga, kenyataan PEMANDU bahawa lebihan RM10 juta yang diperuntukkan kepada Global Transformation Forum 2015 berada dalam akaun PEMANDU dan bukannya akaun BFR Institut tidak harus dilihat sebagai satu jaminan.

    Semenjak PEMANDU Corporation diperbadankan pada 26 Oktober 2009, ia telah mengemukakan 4 laporan tahunan kepada SSM, iaitu bagi Tahun Kewangan 2010, 2011, 2012 dan 2014. Dalam setiap laporan ini, perolehan dan keuntungan / kerugian yang dicatatkan adalah sifar (lihat bawah). Adakah ini bermakna PEMANDU tidak menerima sebarang geran daripada kerajaan Persekutuan untuk kos operasinya? Adakah PEMANDU Corporation langsung tidak menggunakan walau satu sen perbelanjaan operasi, terutamanya untuk aktiviti ‘lab’ (makmal), pembayaran kepada perunding dan sewa untuk hari terbuka yang kerap dijalankan? Adakah terdapat entiti lain di mana PEMANDU meletakkan perbelanjaan dan geran mereka? Saya berharap agar PEMANDU dapat menjawab persoalan tersebut secepat mungkin sebagaimana mereka telah menjelaskan fakta berhubung pemilikan saham BFR Institute.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Ahli Parlimen Serdang

    [1] https://www.pemandu.gov.my/assets/publications/annual-reports/Idris_Jala_Holds_No_Shares_In_BFR-I.pdf

  • Why did PEMANDU Corporation take over BFR Institute and why are its accounts ‘empty’?

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 22nd of May, 2016

    Why did PEMANDU Corporation take over BFR Institute and why are its accounts ‘empty’?

    I refer to PEMANDU’s statement dated 19th May 2016 in response to my press conference in parliament on the same day.[1] My statement referring to Dato’ Sri Idris Jala’s 51% ownership of BFR Institute Sdn Bhd was based on a company search I did on the 25th of February, 2016 (See below). The transfer of Idris Jala’s 51% stake to PEMANDU Corporation was not reflected in the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM)’s accounts as of the 25th of February.

    According to the company search I did today, 22nd of May, 2016, Idris Jala now holds 51 out of 400,000 shares of BFR Institute Sdn Bhd with the remainder being held by PEMANDU Corporation.

    According to PEMANDU’s statement, Idris Jala held his shares of BFR Institute Sdn Bhd in trust as PEMANDU Corporation was not allowed to have a greater than 49% stake in another company.

    I apologise to Idris Jala if I have caused anyone to think that Idris Jala benefitted financially from his then 51% share of BFR Institute which was held in trust which has now been diluted down to 51 shares as per the latest CCM records.

    At the same time, I would like PEMANDU or Idris Jala to clarify if the remaining 51 votes he holds in BFR Institute is still being held in trust or whether the latest CCM records are not up to date and that he no longer holds any shares in BFR Institute. This is related to PEMANDU’s statement which says that PEMANDU Corporation currently owns 100% of BFR-I directly. As long as Idris Jala still holds on to a single share in BFR Institute, whether directly or in trust, it is not accurate to say that PEMANDU Corporation currently owns 100% of BFR Institute directly.

    However, the takeover of BFR Institute by PEMANDU Corporation raises a whole set of new questions. Firstly, why should PEMANDU be involved in the business of giving government consulting services, presumably for profit, to other governments and entities overseas, as it has been doing?

    Secondly, why should the tax payer have to bear the net cost of RM3.9m of hosting the 3 day Global Transformation Forum in 2015 given that budgetary cuts were being implemented left and right on other government agencies, including our public universities?

    Thirdly, the statement by PEMANDU that the balance of the RM10m allocated to the Global Transformation Forum 2015 is sitting in the accounts of PEMANDU and not BFR Institute should not be seen as an assurance.

    Since PEMANDU Corporation was incorporated on the 26th of October 2009, it has submitted four annual accounts to the CCM – for Financial Year 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014. For each of these annual accounts, the revenue and the profit / loss recorded was zero (See below). Does this mean that PEMANDU Corporation did not receive any grants from the federal government for its operating costs? Does this also mean that PEMANDU Corporation did not spend a single sen of operating expenses, especially for its many labs held, payments to consultants, and rental for their many open days? Is there another entity which PEMANDU uses to park its expenses and grants? I hope that PEMANDU can answer these questions in as speedy a fashion as when they clarified the facts pertaining to the share ownership of BFR Institute.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    [1] https://www.pemandu.gov.my/assets/publications/annual-reports/Idris_Jala_Holds_No_Shares_In_BFR-I.pdf

  • The Government of Malaysia should put an immediate stop to funding activities of BFR Institute, a private company that is 51% owned by its PEMANDU CEO, Dato’ Seri Idris Jala

    (Update on the 22nd of May, 2016:

    My statement referring to Dato’ Sri Idris Jala’s 51% ownership of BFR Institute Sdn Bhd was based on a company search I did on the 25th of February, 2016 (See below). The transfer of Idris Jala’s 51% stake to PEMANDU Corporation was not reflected in the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM)’s accounts as of the 25th of February. I apologise to Idris Jala if I have caused anyone to think that Idris Jala benefitted financially from his then 51% share of BFR Institute which was held in trust which has now been diluted down to 51 shares as per the latest CCM records.)

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 19th of May, 2016

    The Government of Malaysia should put an immediate stop to funding activities of BFR Institute, a private company that is 51% owned by its PEMANDU CEO, Dato’ Seri Idris Jala

    The BFR Institute[1] (BFR stands for Big Fast Results) organized its first Global Transformation Forum in October 20165.[2] One of the headline speakers invited to speak at this forum was Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Governor of California, and Hollywood actor. In a reply to my parliamentary question dated 16th of May, 2016, it was stated that the government allocated RM10 million to BFR Institute to organize this forum. (See attachment below)

    Under normal circumstances, I would already be sceptical of the government spending RM10 million to organize a single forum especially given the high speaker fees which some of these celebrities charge. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger charges an estimated US200,000 per speaking engagement, not inclusive of air and other travel expenses.[3] I am even more sceptical of the long term benefits to Malaysia for spending this exorbitant amount of money for a 3 day forum.

    However, what is totally unacceptable is the fact that BFR Institute Sdn Bhd is 51% owned by none other than the PEMANDU CEO, Dato Seri Idris Jala, who is also the Managing Director of BFR Institute (The other 49% is owned by PEMANDU Corp. See attachment below). There has been much speculation that PEMANDU will be significantly downsized in the near future and that Idris Jala will transition into a new role, most probably via the BFR Institute. In fact, many PEMANDU staff have been sent overseas to places like Tanzania to help governments ‘deliver’ the big fast results which were seemingly so successfully implement in Malaysia.[4]

    While Idris Jala is free to utilize his experience as PEMANDU CEO to sell his services via BFR Institute to whomever he chooses, including foreign governments and to profit from the provision of these services, the Malaysian government should not play any role in funding a private company that is majority owned and controlled by a private individual, namely Idris Jala. While Idris Jala and the government of Malaysia may try to ‘spin’ the activities of BFR Institute as part and parcel of our country’s overseas ‘outreach’ to developing countries, it should be obvious that this is ethically indefensible.

    The Clinton Foundation, for example, has and is facing criticism and public scrutiny over allegations that government funding had been channelled to pay its staff salaries[5] and for receiving grants from the State Department when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state.[6]

    As a man of principle and integrity, I am surprised that Idris Jala was comfortable with this funding arrangement especially since he has been in the forefront in promoting transparency and accountability.

    I call upon the Government of Malaysia to put an immediate stop to funding the activities of BFR Institute and for PEMANDU Corp to divest its 49% interest in BFR Institute so that any conflicts of interest between the government and the activities of BFR Institute as a private entity can be avoided.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    References:

    1) Parliamentary Answer on BFR Institute

    2) (SSM) BFR Institute Company Profile

    ———————————

    [1] http://bfrinstitute.com/

    [2] http://globaltransformation.com/

    [3] http://www.businessinsider.my/celebrity-booking-rate-list-2014-6/?r=US&IR=T#KAl2xPkpz5lI0egg.97

    [4] https://dfid.blog.gov.uk/2013/03/19/big-fast-accountable-results-now-mr-president/

    [5] http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/taxpayer-tab-for-clinton-inc-16-million-116008

    [6] http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-charities-raked-in-millions-of-taxpayer-dollars/

  • Najib should ask for those who attempt to bribe voters to be investigated under the Election Offences Act 1954

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 4th of May, 2016 in Simanggang, Sri Aman

    Najib should ask for those who attempt to bribe voters to be investigated under the Election Offences Act 1954

    I like, many of my friends, were shocked by the irony of Najib’s ‘advice’ to the residents of Jegai Anak Jawa Long House in Kampung Purai, Undop (under the N32 Simanggang state seat) when he paid a visit yesterday (3rd May 2016). He asked that the voters must not sell their rights for money.[1] It is an ironic piece of advice since it is a well-known and well reported BN practice for bags of cash to be distributed to many longhouses the day before polling day in order to buy votes.[2]

    This time, it was the BN candidate for N32 Simanggang, Francis Harden, who accused one of the other candidates for offering voters RM100 before polling day and RM200 after polling day if he is successfully elected. Najib was reported to have said, “They (voters) must think of long term development in their areas and not look for short term gains by selling their votes to those willing to offer money.”

    It is clearly stated under the Elections Offences Act 1954, Section 10, that any attempts to bribe voters using cash and offers of cash is illegal. When the BN candidate made these accusations, Najib should have responded by asking for a police report to be made and for investigations to be conducted to see if any election offences have been committed.

    What is the real reason behind Najib’s supposed ignorance? Is it because the BN will offer an even larger amount to the voters in N32 Simanggang before polling day? If the voters of N32 Simanggang and Sarawak wants real and sustainable development, they should vote for a strong opposition candidate from a strong opposition party who put pressure on the Sarawak state government to spend the resources of the state wisely and transparently.   I therefore urge the voters of N32 Simanggang to vote for the DAP candidate, Leon Jimat Donald.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    [1] http://english.astroawani.com/politics-news/voters-must-not-sell-their-rights-money-najib-104377 and http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v8/bm/ge/newsgeneral.php?id=1241541

    [2] http://www.kuangkeng.com/2014/08/16/sarawak-rural-vote-under-grip-of-money-intimidation/, https://sarawaknews.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/camapign-to-reject-vote-buying-candidates/, https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/161534

Page 31 of 208« First...1020...2930313233...405060...Last »