During the debate in Parliament today, I spoke on the controversy of the RM5 billion EPF loan to Valuecap to double its funds to RM10 billion to buy undervalued stocks and asked for a full and proper accounting of Valuecap since its establishment about six years ago.
I said that the Second Finance Minister, Datuk Nor Mohd Yakcop, who was at the time the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, had announced when Valuecap Sdn. Bhd., was set up in early 2003, that it would be operating with RM10 billion funds – and that the cash for the RM10 billion had already been provided to Valuecap by the three equal owners, Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB) and Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen (KWAP).
However, Valuecap actually had RM5 billion and not RM10 billion as stated publicly by Nor Mohd Yakcop.
I asked Nor Mohd, who is now Second Finance Minister and was in the House to shepherd through the Finance Ministry’s committee stage, to explain.
As Valuecap had never given any proper accounting of its performance in the past five to six years, I asked Nor Mohd to provide such information in his reply.
I also raised the opposition of the workers and in particular the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) to the government directive to EPF to advance the RM5 billion loan from workers’ savings to Valuecap to prop up the stock market.
Nor Mohd will start replying first thing tomorrow morning.
On the way out of Parliament after today’s meeting, I bumped into him and spoke to him about the need for full and proper accounting of Valuecap to Malaysian taxpayers as this had never been done before.
The Minister agreed, remarking that the government’s problem is that it had not explained enough.
We can look forward to the first full and proper accounting of Valuecap’s performance in the past five to six years in Parliament tomorrow!
#1 by Godfather on Monday, 10 November 2008 - 7:23 pm
Short of supplying the Opposition with externally audited accounts, would you accept Nor Mohamed Yakcop’s verbal explanation at face value ?
Ask for audited accounts, or a list of securities bought by Valuecap, the timing of the purchases, etc. Since nothing has been sold, it would be quite easy to figure out the revalued assets of Valuecap.
#2 by baoqingtian on Monday, 10 November 2008 - 8:10 pm
Yes, make sure he furnishes us with all necessary reports. If it really made profit, then all of us will know which stocks to pick in the future.
#3 by Johnny Cheah on Monday, 10 November 2008 - 9:20 pm
YB LIM, don’t be surprised he will gives you a lot of crab tomorrow. Difficult to trust this type of people. He have to bring to Parliament all the shares transaction for the last few years where the MPs’ can scrutinise
#4 by hiro on Monday, 10 November 2008 - 9:26 pm
Uncle Kit is setting Nor Yakcop for BBQ tomorrow. Good work!
#5 by Loh on Monday, 10 November 2008 - 9:43 pm
Sorry, off topic
///Assuming that the highest pension is paid to the most senior of the judges, then he would have done extremely well to get RM5,000,000.00 (Five million Ringgit). He would have to draw pension for another 60 years to get RM5 million. Truly the Government is generous.///– TDM at CheDet.com
TDM is wrong to compute the payment as pension. It is compensation for defamation to the person of the Lord President by claiming that he should be removed under Article 125 (3) of the Constitution. TDM’s administration made it appear that Tun Salleh Abas ought to be removed from office on the ground of misbehavior or inability to discharge the function of his office, when he did not misbehave and was perfectly able to discharge the function of his office as Lord President. There are lesser persons who asked for hundred of millions for defamation through court cases. The AAB government is at least right in this case to compensate the judges for defamation brought about by the former PM, and they did not have to go through the court to decide that the former PM was wrong. The judges were magnanimous in accepting the government’s apologies without it announce publicly that the government was wrong. The apology was in the aspect that while the present office bearers were part of the government, they could not control the tyrant from acting as he pleased. The present government cannot apologize for the wrong of the past. When the government did not announce that the government action under TDM was wrong, it did not mean that TDM was right.
#6 by All For The Road on Monday, 10 November 2008 - 10:05 pm
We have been fed with garbage and rubbish all the time whenever a BN minister is asked to give a proper accounting of some dubious transactions of his ministry. Tomorrow’s explanation in Parliament of Valuecap Sdn Bhd’s controversy and performance by Second Finance Minister NMY will be no different either. We don’t expect much of the outcome. The recent PAC meeting to probe into the Eurocopter helicopters’ deal is a case in point. The result will most probably be a whitewash!
#7 by dawsheng on Monday, 10 November 2008 - 10:29 pm
EPF is not a bank!
#8 by disapointed86 on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 - 1:47 am
nor mohd yakcop must do his homework well today..hahaha..if not…sorry to say
#9 by Tonberry on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 - 2:12 am
We shall pay attention to our currency speculator as he speaks.
#10 by k1980 on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 - 2:43 pm
That #@* played a pivotal role in Bank Negara’s forex scandal between 1992 to 1994, causing a colossal loss of up to RM30 billion of the people’s money.
#11 by Loh on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 - 7:35 pm
Sorry, off topic
///Siew Sin remarked that the British identified the Chinese as a whole unjustly with the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army which was controlled by the Communists. The Emergency of 1948-1960 generated even greater suspicion against the Chinese community because the movement was directed by the Communists who were largely Chinese.
“This fear,” Siew Sin said, “led the British to a policy of restricting citizenship rights for the Chinese as they felt that it would be dangerous for too many of them to become citizens….The result was that only about 200,000 Chinese had managed to become citizens out of a total of more than two million then resident in the former Federation of Malaya”.///—TDM at CheDet.com
TDM must have agreed with Siew Sin (later Tun, President of MCA) on his assessment of the treatment towards the Chinese by the British before Independence. It shows that the British administration did not favour Chinese over the Malays. It is thus illogical that the Chinese should bear the burden of the so-called affirmative action for Malays. If the achievement of the Chinese during British rule did not come about because the British favoured the Chinese against the Malays, it was illogical that the Chinese should be asked to offer handicap as if in a golf game. It has long been proven that no one race is more capable than any others, and the differential treatment for different races by the government only created the mindset that Malays are born inferior, and would require special assistance. That inferiority entitlement gets entrenched as time moves on. It is worse now than fifty years ago when the division was first initiated.
TDM is known to excel in giving conflicting justifications and opposing views to a single action, such as the quota system in UMNO election as the situation demands. In this case, it was TDM’s intention to show that the British discriminated against the Chinese, and UMNO did not do any worse. He also mentioned that Siew Sin thought that the then UMNO leaders were fair. That also provides two possible implications. One, Tunku was too kind to the Chinese, and TDM when he became President of UMNO was responsible to right the wrong by exacting a pound of flesh from the Chinese. TDM by quoting Siew Sin’s statement wants to prove that UMNO leaders were fair. Unfortunately the only President of UMNO who was fair was Tunku. When AAB said that he wanted to be a PM for all Malaysians, TDM wasted no time in condemning AAB for not doing enough for Malays. That was 48 years after independence, and 16 years after NEP should have ended. Of course TDM succeeded in making AAB step down ahead of his planned retirement.
#12 by Loh on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 - 10:02 pm
Sorry, off-topic
///Apakah mungkin pendapatan yang tinggi dan banyak ini datang daripada urusan-urusan berkaitan dengan kes-kes penswastaan Kerajaan dan lain-lain keperluan “conveyancing” Kerajaan? Ini sangkaan saya sahaja. Jika tidak benar tunjuk bukti yang ianya tidak benar.
5. Jika benar patutkah bekas Menteri ini tutup mata pencarian yang lumayan ini kepada peguam Bumiputera yang lain kerana ingin dikenali sebagai seorang yang liberal yang tolak Dasar Ekonomi Baru dengan peluang-peluang untuk Bumiputera?
6. Apa perlunya dasar-dasar DEB selepas kita sudah sampai ke atas? Buang sahajalah supaya orang lain tidak mendapat manfaat daripadanya.///—TDM at CheDet
From the above argument, one can only conclude that TDM does not consider NEP a stop-gap measure to get sufficient number of bumiputras to attain a standard, after which all Malaysians will be treated equally. According to TDM’s logic whoever has benefited from NEP is duty bound to ensure that the scheme continue forever, even though there might have other means to help not only the Malays but other Malaysians as well. Thus, Malays who are able to read and write, or who have attained any tertiary education or have obtained professional qualifications are the results of NEP created as TDM saw fit. They will be seen as ungrateful should they ever question the need for the continuation of NEP.
TDM’s concept of NEP shows that he has been using NEP as a means for him to continue his position as PM. The so-called target of 30% corporate share for Malays was just an excuse, and he would always say that the figure stays around 18.9 %, a long way to the target and hence no need for any review. His successor learned the trick and chose to lie when the government realized that the report from ASLI in 2006 stating that Malays had acquired more than 30% of the share capita was indeed correct. The government has since keep its elegant silence on the computation of Malays’ share of corporate capital even though it promised to reveal how EPU compiled the figures within a month in December 2006.