Thursday, 3 January 2013


AIM is a fully PAP owned ‘party asset’. Like Ma Ying-jeou, Najib Razak and Chua Soi Lek, the Secretary-General of the PAP has to explain to Singaporeans how these ‘party assets’ are managed in an open and transparent way.

The very first mistake, that the People’s Action Party makes, is to confirm the status of AIM - a fully owned PAP company.  AIM is now a party asset of the PAP and it has been established for more than 20 years. 

What is the purpose of setting up such a company? Has it had to do with political financing and money politics like Malaysia’s UNMO and MCA, as well as KMT in Taiwan?

UNMO, MCA and KMT have all been trouble by their ‘party assets’.   These assets have turned into political liabilities for them and have been accused by the oppositions for money politics.   

The PAP has many vehicles (Temasek, GLCs, even NTUC) for their political missions and strategies.  It is hard to believe they need to use a 2-dollar company to do such a thing. The money involved (with town councils) as compared to their big vehicles is really peanuts.  Why are they taking such a risk to venture into a town councils software project?  And it is done not in the names of individual party members but in the name of the PAP, its party logo and party assets.

Wrong judgment bad strategy
If there is any wrong doing, it is the party not party members will get into trouble, just like UMNO, MCA and KMT.  Remember Michael Palmer, it is a personal mistake, not the Party.

The PAP, after all, is not as smart as the Communist Party of China.  When their members get into trouble, even in the name of the party, all responsibilities are individual.  These corrupted party members will be charged in courts individually and respectively but not the Party.

The case of AIM is still developing.  If at the end of day, AIM is responsible for any wrong doing, then the responsibility will go to the PAP, not the three directors of AIM.   The company is belonged to the PAP and the directors are just proxies acting on behalf of the Party.  It means the PAP can no longer use the strategy of “弃车保帅” (Discarding the vehicle to protect the General in a Chinese chess).

Is it because of greediness? Although the size is small, there are still some oils to be extracted from peanuts. 

No wonder when running Singapore, the government is always thinking and using all means to ‘take money away’ from the people.

KMT, UMNO and MCA all admit they have assets
KMT, UMNO and MCA all acknowledge publicly that they have party assets.   These assets have since become political hot potatoes. 

The PAP has seldom (may be never) acknowledged they have party assets.  Is this the first time they do so? Teo Ho Pin is not a member of central executive committee of the PAP. Does he know the seriousness and consequence of making such a statement admitting the status of AIM as a PAP asset vehicle?

Perhaps, it is time the PAP openly acknowledges the existence of party assets and provides a list of these assets to Singaporeans for accountability and transparency.   

Below are some examples of what other political parties say about their assets:

KMT: No Timetable for Selling off Party Assets 
UMNO restructures its businesses
MCA Presidential Council to look at ways to protect party assets

Assets enhancement from RM1 to RM200 psf
Since everyone is hot and mad about property, we cannot ignore the story of asset enhancement in the form of property.  Let see below how a RM1 psf land could turn into a RM200 psf land when its original plan of kindergarten and community halls was turned into a condominium?

'Condominium now sits on Umno's cheap land'
Pakatan Rakyat today moved to rebut the Barisan Nasional's claim that the cheap lands it acquired in Selangor were for the rakyat, pointing out that a condominium now sits on one of the plots acquired in Kelana Jaya.
At a site visit today, Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua said the land acquired by Subang Umno in 2004 for RM1 per square foot (psf) is now valued at around RM200psf after development.
He claimed the said land, Lot 77297, measures 87,188 square feet, which bring its total market value to RM17.44 million.
The development, Suria Damansara, is a 200-unit condominium, with a unit worth an average RM450,000, which totals to an estimated gross development value of RM90 million.
"When they (BN) rebutted (our allegation), they said the land parcels were for building kindergartens and community halls and other services for the people. This is clearly not the case," Pua said.
Only a year after obtaining the land, Pua said it was developed and subsequently the condominium was launched in 2006 and is now fully occupied.
Sekinchan assemblyperson Ng Suee Lim revealed last month that between 2000 and 2008, BN component parties had acquired 24 plots of land in Selangor at a meagre price of RM1psf.
Ng had initially estimated the total value of those lands at RM20 million but revised it to RM300 million after factoring in the appreciation following the developments conducted on them.
Possible profit-sharing?
Meanwhile, Subang Jaya assemblyperson Hannah Yeoh noted that even after the development, a land search last month showed that the land had not been surrendered to the developer but remained in Subang Umno's possession.
"So it is possible that there was some form of joint venture with profit sharing, with Umno remaining the sole proprietor of the land," Yeoh said.
She flayed Selangor BN leaders for their lack of remorse in the land grab and for lying to the state assembly that the plots were intended for the rakyat.
"BN's slogan in Selangor is "Sayangi Selangor, Yakini BN" (love Selangor, be confident in BN), if they truly 'Sayangi Selangor', then they should return the land to the people of Selangor," she said.
Ng, who was also present today, described the controversy as Sapu Tanah 1 Malaysia (1 Malaysia Land Grab) or SAT1M, in a jibe against Umno's Selangor opposition leader Mohamad Satim Diman.
"For this project, even if Umno was given a cut of 30 percent, that would have been more than RM20 million.
"Had they built low-cost apartments for the poor, we would have lauded them, but instead they built a condominium to reap profits," he alleged.
More exposes expected
Ng ( centre, in photo ) added that he was in the process of obtaining the exact addresses for the other lands but indicated that some of the casualties of this land grab included squatters.
"They are in Kampung Berembang in Ampang and Lembah Jaya in Shah Alam, with the people there forced to leave with very little compensation," he claimed.
Elaborating on the Kelana Jaya deal, Ng claimed the development was carried out by Matroz Corporation Sdn Bhd, a wholly non-bumiputera company.
"Umno always accused us (Pakatan) of selling out the Malays, but Umno is the one selling out the Malays," he said.
Adding on, Pua ( on the right in photo ) said there was no wrong in Umno doing business with Chinese businesspersons but this was a case of hypocrisy due the allegations it had levelled against Pakatan.
He challenged Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who is also Selangor BN and Umno chief, to act on this matter.
"Najib said Umno has transformed, but where is the transformation? He can correct past mistakes by returning the land and profit to Selangor," Pua said, adding that DAP's Youth wing, Dapsy, would lodge a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission soon.
Subang Umno division chief Muhammad Bushro Mat Johor, when contacted, said there is no such land in possession of Subang Umno.
“No, there is not even a single piece of land listed in Subang Umno’s asset list since I became the division chief,” he said.
The Paya Jaras assemblyperson added that any query on the land is best directed to the previous division chief.
Meanwhile, opposition leader in Selangor Satim Diman said the matter should be referred to Umno Selangor secretary Mohd Zin Mohamed.
Mohd Zin, when contacted, said he needs some time and will respond in due time after his researcher gathers more information on the allegation.

To know more about political financing in Malaysia, here are some references:   

No comments:

Post a comment

The Awakening of Young Voters