If you called them cronies, then why did you bail them out?
Although Selangor Menteri Besar (MB) Datuk Seri Azmin Ali has maintained an elegant silence over the allegations on the RM1.18 billion Ijok land scandal raised by BNSC director Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Dahlan a week ago, various aides to the MB has responded.
Among these include Strategic communications director from the Selangor MB’s Office Yin Shao Loong, the MB’s Political secretary Shuhaimi Shafiei and the Parliament Coordinator for Kuala Selangor Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad from Parti Amanah Negara (PAN).
However, their answers make little sense and merely seems to be weak attempts at a cover-up.
For example, Shao Loong calls the two private companies as crony companies which have failed to deliver. However, he then goes on to defend that the Selangor government had to give back the land to these two failed crony companies.
Similarly, Shuhaimi Shafiei said that the decision for the state government to give up the Federal Court case and settle with the two companies which he also called as “BN cronys” but said the arrangement is a win-win situation for all.
So, if both Shao Loong and Suhaimi both said they are BN cronys dating to the Tun Mahathir-era of the year 1998-2000, why then did the Selangor Govt bail-out the “BN crony” that had failed and now allow them to win – and in fact, “win” much more than the settlers?
More shocking is the statement from PAN’s Dr Dzulkefly who detailed out where the RM1.18 billion was divided up as follows:
– Compensation to the 981 settler families = RM300mil
– Bank payments and creditors = RM670mil
– Retained by the two “crony” companies = RM210mil
Dr Dzulkefly’s figures showed that our BNSC calculations of RM421mil given to the settlers were too generous since only RM300mil out of the RM1.18 billion went to the settlers while the remaining RM880mil went to the two “crony companies” to settle their outstanding bank loans, creditors and for them retain a bonus of RM210mil for themselves.
This means that out of the effective price of RM12.34 per square feet (psf) paid for the settlers land by the public company to the two “crony” companies which Mahathir loyalist Khairuddin Abu Hassan was once the Executive Director, the settlers themselves were only paid a price of RM3.12 psf for their land while the two companies pocketed the rest.
In their haste to try and blame BN for their scandal, the three persons have also neglected to state that it was the previous BN government who had given the land to the settlers.
This is a point that they should acknowledge.
Nevertheless, the three gentlemen’s weak attempt at explanation actually opens up even more questions such as:
a). Do you think it is fair that the settlers were compensated at a rate of only RM3.12 psf for their land – a price that would have been the market price 18 years ago – given that the listed company paid RM12.34psf to the two “crony” companies and given that agriculture land in the Ijok religion have now been listed for sale at between RM30psf to RM65psf?
b). If you say they are crony companies from the Tun Mahathir era, why do you still bail them out with RM810mil out of the RM1.18 billion?
c). What would be the price that you will get if the state govt had sold the land via open tender instead?
d). The listed company had publicly announced that their property project on these land will have a Gross Development Value (GDV) of at least RM15 billion. Wouldn’t it better if the Selangor Government had followed the model that Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had previously planned which is for the state to develop the land itself or in joint-venture with developers so that the profits can then be used to benefit the settlers and the state government?
e). Alternatively, there is another model.
If the reason for MB Azmin Ali’s settlement was to ensure the settlers get their compensation quicker, shouldn’t the state government used part of their RM3 billion reserves to pay the RM300mil directly to the settlers?
At the same time, the state government could have gone on to fight the Federal Court case to keep the land it had seized from the two companies under Tan Sri Khalid’s time – seeing that the state government’s had already won at the High Court and Court of Appeals.
The state govt could then sell the land to the listed company directly for RM1.18 billion and retain the RM810mil for itself instead of benefiting the two companies.
Or it could have practised transparency by selling the land via open tender so that it can get a higher price.
f). The three persons also vaguely mentioned that the state government could have ended up owing the banks “hundreds of millions”. Can either of the three persons specify how did the state government end up being liable for loans taken from the bank by the two private companies and exactly how much these “hundreds of millions” are?
If the land was forfeited based on breaches of the National Land Code by the two private companies, shouldn’t the land be free of encumbrances?
It is also noted that in the written judgement for both the High Court and Court of Appeals, there is no mention that the Selangor Government is judged to be liable for the bank loans taken by two private “crony” companies.
g). In the interest of transparency, can the Selangor Government reveal their final settlement agreement with the two private companies?
Eric See-To.
Deputy Director,
Barisan Nasional Strategic Communications (BNSC)
