Imapro Sdn Bhd : a piggy bank for whom?

A year ago, YB Loke Siew Fook mentioned about a dodgy deal uncovered by the Auditor General of Malaysia. A company called Syarikat Imapro Sdn Bhd borrowed some RM8.46 million for reasons unclear to the public and has not been repaying the state coffers since 2004.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/2009/nov09/bul/bul3985.htm

Ucapan Perbahasan Bajet Negeri Sembilan 2010 oleh Loke Siew Fook di DUN Negeri Sembilan pada Rabu, 25 November 2009:

Selain itu, saya juga ingin membangkitkan satu lagi persoalan mengenai “Pinjaman yang boleh dituntut” oleh Kerajaan Negeri seperti yang dilaporkan dalam Laporan Ketua Audit Negara untuk Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan tahun 2008. Laporan Audit tersebut menyatakan bahawa terdapat sebuah badan yang bernama Syarikat Imapro Sdn Bhd yang masih berhutang kepada Kerajaan Negeri sebanyak RM8.64 juta. Yang menjadi persoalan ialah syarikat ini langsung tidak pernah membayar balik hutangnya kepada Kerajaan Negeri dari tahun 2004

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per page 30 of the 2008 AG's report:
Bagaimanapun, dua Agensi iaitu Majlis Perbandaran Seremban dan Syarikat Imapro
Sdn. Bhd. tidak membuat bayaran balik pinjaman bagi tahun 2004 hingga 2008.



A year older and a year wiser, what has the Barisan Nasional state government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus done about this?

Well, according to the state financial statements, the purpose of the loan was "Membiayai Pembelian Tanah Bagi Penempatan Khinzir 2/1998", the tenure of the original RM22 million was 10 years and interest free. In 2009, RM345K was repaid hence RM8.3 million was still outstanding so it's a RM345K speech by YB Loke.

(if I remember correctly, 1998 was around the time when JE virus wiped out the pig livestock farming in Bukit Pelanduk. We even used to export pigs by the truck load to Singapore. The family of ex-national badminton player Yong Hock Kin was among those who were hit hard)

So who are the people behind Syarikat Imapro Sdn Bhd? A visit to the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia will do nicely.

Well, firstly the registered name is Imapro Sdn Bhd, not Syarikat Imapro Sdn Bhd, so perhaps the AG might want to consider revising the name slightly.

The business address is Pejabat Kewangan Negeri, Negeri Sembilan, so asking for repayment probably involve a walk accross the office space.

One of the directors is Dato' Mat Ali bin Hassan, probably the State Secretary (see extract of a mundane report below), who was appointed 30 April 2009 - some 6/7 months before YB Loke's speech. I suppose directorship follows the change of top administrator of the state. Menteri Besar Dato' Mohd bin Hassan might have a say in his appointment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ns.gov.my/daerah/jelebu/

Lawatan Kerja YB. Dato Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Ke Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Jelebu

04 Mei 2010 (Selasa) - YB. Dato' Hj.Mat Ali Bin Hassan, Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, bersama rombongan pegawai pengiring telah mengadakan lawatan kerja ke Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Jelebu.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imapro Sdn Bhd is actually a RM2 company owned by Menteri Besar Incorporated

A glance at the summary financial information below provide the following:

1) Total current and non-current liabilities is about RM9.4 million, probably consist of the RM8.3 million loan from the state plus some other payables; and the RM1.47 million current liability could mean there are some other parties getting priority claims from Imapro over the state government;

2) Current assets amounted to RM10.9 million. Now if the current assets is mainly cash then it should have the capacity to repay promptly. If, however, the current assets was mainly receivables then the money wound been taken out from the company and one would be interested to know how long the receivable was outstanding.

Whatever it is, someone seems to be keeping the money that is supposed to be returned to the people of Negeri Sembilan with the state treasury as trustee.

Imapro Sdn Bhd is not suppose to be a piggy bank. The company is listed as investment holding in the SSM report, more likely a debt holding company rather.

3) the reserves of RM1.7 million suggested the company has made a profit before. Another blogger has stated some transactions involving Imapro Sdn Bhd here.

4) current year zero revenue and RM4K loss after tax suggest the company is now dormant. The only way for it to repay the state government now is for the State Secretary as the director to recover the money from the debtors and return the money to state coffers for public benefit.

5) one wonders why an interest-free loan was given to Imapro Sdn Bhd which also did not pledge any security to the state government. Did being owned by the Menteri Besar Incorporated meant entitlement to preferential treatment?

Page 32 of the 2008 Auditor General's report perhaps give an indication as to how business is being conducted between the MB and the state government

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4.8.2 Pelaburan
Pelaburan saham oleh Kerajaan Negeri melalui perbelanjaan mengurus ditunjukkan di Penyata Akaun Memorandum Pelaburan. Pada akhir tahun 2008, pelaburan saham di Penyata Akaun Memorandum berkurang sejumlah RM0.32 juta atau 4.8% kepada RM6.30 juta berbanding RM6.62 juta pada tahun 2007. Penurunan ini antaranya adalah disebabkan oleh Lain-lain Pelaburan berjumlah RM1.82 juta yang merupakan pelaburan oleh Menteri Besar Incoporated telah dikeluarkan daripada Penyata Akaun Memorandum. Pelaburan tersebut diuruskan oleh Menteri Besar Incorporated secara berasingan. Semua hasil pelaburan yang diperolehi tidak diperakaunkan sebagai hasil Kerajaan Negeri.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jawapan Kerajaan BN NS adalah "YA!"

Jarang kita rakyat biasa boleh bersua dengn Menteri Besar dan Jemaah Exconya, lebih-lebih lagi boleh bertanyakan beliau mengenai isu-isu yang berhubung kait dengan hidup kita saban hari.

Oleh itu para Wakil Rakyat memainkan peranan penting mendapatkan maklumat yang berkaitan serta memantau pelaksanaan pentadbiran negeri untuk kita. Jawapan-jawapan yang diberi dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri boleh dijadikan bahan kajian untuk rakyat menilai prestasi, keprihatinan, sikap bertanggungjawab dan keberkesanan kerajaan negeri yang dipilih menerusi undi rakyat.

Sama-sama kita renungi tiga soal jawab di bawah:



ADUN: Y.B. ADUN SIKAMAT

JABATAN PENGAIRAN DAN SALIRAN

i) Apakah jenis tindakan yang diambil oleh pihak JPS terhadap runtuhan tebing sungai yang sering berlaku berhampiran penembatan penduduk?

ii) Apakah perancangan yang sedang dibuat di sungai-sungai dalam kawasan Sikamat yang sering berlaku runtuhan tebing?


JAWAPAN:

i) Bagi runtuhan tebing sungai yang sering berlaku berhampiran penempatan penduduk JPS akan menjalankan kerja penahanan tebing. Walaubagaimanapun, ia bergantung kepada peruntukan Jabatan.

ii) Bagi sungai-sungai dalam kawasan Sikamat yang sering berlaku runtuhan tebing JPS sedang menjalankan kajian kebolehlaksanaan dan untuk kerja-kerja rekabentuk terperinci ia telah dipohon untuk dijalankan dalam RMK 10.


Ulasan:

Tindakan membanteras gejala bajir harus bergantung kepada betapa rumitnya masalah serta langkah-langkah yang perlu dan cukup untuk memastikan keselamatan harta benda serta nyawa dan bukanlah ke atas peruntukan yang dibuat oleh pegawai duduk dalam pejabat.

Merujuk kepada Penyata Kewangan Negeri Sembilan tahun 2008, peruntukan perbelanjaan Rancangan Tebatan Banjir Negari Sembilan dibelanjakan kurang daripada 50% meskipun masalah banjir terus berlaku.

Bahkan, menurut jawapan tersebut masalah setempat perlu dirujuk kepada EPU di Putrajaya untuk dimasukkan dalam RMK10 – jelas menunjukkan kerumitan sistem pemusatan kuasa di Persekutuan nan melengahkan masa dan bergantung kepada pegawai-pegawai tidak berada di tempat kejadian.

Kajian-kajian dilakukan, betul ke? Jawapan harus memaklumkan tempoh kajian dan adakah keputusan kajian itu akan diumumkan khasnya untuk tatapan penduduk yang terlibat

ADUN: Y.B. ADUN LOBAK


KOS PENGINDAHAN BANDAR SEREMBAN

Majlis Perbandaran Seremban telah melaksanakan projek pengindahan Bandar di sekitar Seremban baru-baru ini untuk menyambut Hari Pertabalan Yang Di-pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan

i) sila nyatakan secara terperinci projek-projek pengindahan yang telah atau sedang dilaksanakan pada tahun ini

ii) sila nyatakan kos secara terperinci untuk setiap projek pengindahan yang dijalankan

iii) sila nyatakan nama kontraktor yang telah dipilih untuk melaksanakan projek untuk setiap projek pengindahan tersebut


JAWAPAN:

i) Sebanyak 6 projek pengindahan bandar di sekitar Seremban telah dilakukan oleh Majlis Perbandaran Seremban

ii) Jumlah kos keseluruhan projek berkenaan ialah sebanyak RM864,399.00

Ulasan:

Iktibar ketelusan yang amat menakjubkan. Gagal memahami erti perkataan mudah seperti “terperinci” dan "nama kontraktor". Adakah ini akibat sikap angkuh enggan menjawab soalan nan dikemukakan ataupun terdapat perkara-perkara yang lebih baik jangan diumumkan?

Apakah 6 projek itu? Manfaatkan rakyat atau tidak? RM800 ribu lebih itu telah dibelanjakan atas apa? Betulkah hanya jumlah itu sahaja? Ada tender terbuka atau tidak? Siapa yang mendapat kontrak kerja tu? Ada kerja terbengkalai atau tidak?

Adakah pentadbiran lebih 50 tahun ini segan atau rasa tak perlu nak bentangkan butir-butir urusniaganya yang memakai duit rakyat?

Tetapi yang best adalah di bawah ini.........

ADUN: YB ADUN AMPANGAN

SOALAN:

PENAIKTARAFAN INFRASTRUKTUR DI DALAM DUN AMPANGAN

1.1 Adakan dirasakan kemudahan infrastruktur di DUN Ampangan masih boleh ditingkatkan bilangan dan kuantitinya?

1.2 Nyatakan apakah sikap pihak yang berwajib dalam hal ini?


JAWAPAN

1.1. Ya

1.2. Majlis Perbandaran Seremban memberi perhatian dan perancangan untuk memperbaiki dan melaksanakan kemudahan instrastruktur di dalam DUN Amapngan secara berperingkat-peringkat melalui peruntukan majlis, kerajaan negeri amhupun Kerajaan Persekutuan.


Ya ????Ya ???? Itu sahaja??????? I am lost for words!!!!!

What you can do with RM38mil in N. Sembilan?

Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Negeri Sembilan (PKNNS) has been a major shareholder in PK Resource Berhad, a company listed on the Bursa Saham Malaysia.

According to Bursa Malaysia records, as at 15 June 2001, PKNNS held 21,357,000 shares representing about 18.7% of the Company’s 114,035,500 issued and paid up ordinary share capital. PKNNS has maintained more or less the same shareholding level from 2001 till 2007.

Things became fast moving and interesting in 2007. Suddenly, a long term strategic investor in PKNNS did something significantly different.

On 26 April 2007, PK sold its subsidiary, Emerald Spirit Sdn Bhd (ES) to Gen Glamour Sdn Bhd. GG paid a total of RM49.3 million either by way of subscribing to share capital of ES or assuming the liabilities of ES

ES owns and runs the Allson Klana Resort in Seremban. (It boasted the biggest resort swimming pool in Malaysia when it was first completed, me thinks)

The disposal by PK was approved by the Foreign Investment Committee on 16 May 2007 subject to certain conditions.

Amazingly, 2 days later, on 18 May 2007, PK made an announcement to the stock exchange that PK and GG agreed to a waive a term in the sales and purchase agreement that required PK shareholders to approve the sale of ES by PK to GG.

“With reference to the announcements made on 3 May 2007 and 26 April 2007 pertaining to the above subject heading, the Board of Directors of PK Resources Berhad wishes to further announce that the parties to the Subscription Agreement dated 26 April 2007 have, on 18 May 2007, agreed that the Conditions Precedent in respect of the Company's Shareholders' Approval as stated in the said Agreement and any provisions related thereto be waived.”

Why the rush and did this violate the provisions of Companies Act, 1965 and interest of the shareholders, like PKNNS?

One would expect a strategic investor would be hopping mad if he or she was by-passed when the company they invested in did a deal behind their back. So what's PKNNS gonna do?

On 23 August 2007, PKNNS exchanged 11,551,000 PK shares it acquired to obtain 5,474,407 ES shares from GG. On 19 November 2007, PKNNS exchanged its remaining 10,070,000 PK shares with 4,772,512 ES shares owned by GG

This is the site to view the shareholding change.

Note the prefectly matched disposal and acquisition between PKNNS and GG Sdn Bhd


The cost of PK shares to PKNNS was RM38,917,800 and according to the valuation approved by the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan, the worth of ES shares acquired was RM17,296,000 – a loss of RM21.6 million! (source: audited accounts of PKNNS for the financial year ended 31 December 2007)

PKNNS has given up a strategic 18.96% hold in a listed company that has diversified interest in property development, education services, quarry, operation of golf and country club and landscaping in exchange for a mere 22.75% shareholding in a sdn bhd which sole assets was a resort in Seremban.

Based on the audited accounts as at 31 December 2007 of PK and ES, the net assets of PK and ES were RM558million and RM45million respectively. Had PKNNS not made the share exchange, PKNNS would have a holding of 18.96% in PK which amounted to RM105.8million but instead it ended up with a mere 22.75% in ES which was about RM10.3million.

A reasonable man who wonder about the following:

1) What is the rational for giving up so much to gain so little?

2) Did PKNNS, with its responsibility to uphold the economic well-being and development of the state of Negeri Sembilan, taken sufficient due care to consider the viability of this corporate exercise, e.g. payback period, return on investment etc?

3) Given the short time frame (GG acquired the shares in May and concluded the exchange with PKNNS took place within 6 months), did the Board of Directors of PKNNS performed a proper due diligence to ensure the economic interest of the state and rakyat been properly protected? (normal corporate exercise takes months or even a year before it can be completed)


Here are the answers given by the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan during the DUN sitting in October, which revealed and justified very little or a lot, form your own opinion:

"i. ...pihak PKNNS mempunyai satu matlamat iaitu untuk menjadi sebagai pemegang saham minoriti dari 19% di dalam PK Resources Berhad ke 22.75% di dalam Emerald Spirit Sdn Bhd..."

"ii pembelian dan penjualan saham-saham berkaitan telah melalui proses kelulusan serta penilaian yang sewajarnya telah dibuat dari segi ekonomi, kewangan dan lain-lain secara terperinci dengan mengambil kira fakta impak. Kajian telah dibuat dan taklimat sewajarnya telah diberikan kepada Lembaga Pengarah di dalam membuat keputusan yang bijak untuk bergabung dengan agensi kerajaan Negeri yang lain untuk menguasai pegangan dalam Syarikat Espirit Sdn Bhd"

My own conclusion is

1) What good does it bring to become a minority shareholder in a sdn bhd? You are under the thumb of the majority shareholder

2) First time I hear someone's ambition to become a minority shareholder in a sdn bhd, is that a good investment objective?

3) Any financial consultant with a wee bit of experience would wonder who was the valuer; who did the financial appraisal of the investment and result of the appraisal; who gave the briefing (taklimat); how come a financial due dilligence worth tens of millions can be concluded so fast; who were in the Lembaga Pengarah that voted for the transaction?

When Mahathir's policy goes wrong, Negeri Sembilan feels it too!

When Mahathir first mooted the Malaysia Incorporated Concept, it was explained as follows:

THE MALAYSIA INCORPORATED CONCEPT: A KEY STRATEGY IN ACHIEVING VISION 2020


Prime Minister's Department Malaysian Administrative Modemisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) Director General DR. ABDULLAH BIN ABDUL RAHMAN


The Honourable Prime Minister has broadly definedthe concept of Malaysia Incorporated to mean a system of cooperation between the Government and the private sector towards the creation of a Malaysian company to achieve progress and where the profits accruing will be shared by all. The government is a shareholder in this company, and if the company progresses and makes profit, a portion will accrue to the government and subsequently to the people as a whole.

With that, privatization of Malaysian public service went into fever pitch from utilities to waste and cark park management etc, creating creatures such as Indepedent Power Producers, Indah Water (you never know how they calculate charges for the shit water), Alam Flora, Plus etc.



One of the basic tenets of democratically elected government is to look after the interest of the people who pays their salaries. The elected government must reign in, when necessary, when profit orientated entrepreneurs are acting against public interest e.g. polluting the environment, producing hazardous products and services, exploit and oppress worker etc.

Through enactment and enforcement of relevant laws and legislation, it would achieve such objectives. However, what happens when a government that is suppose to be monitoring and overseeing commercial activities goes into business?


Menteri Besar Incorporated is a creature of Malaysia Incorporated.



According to the Auditor General Report on N Sembilan for 2008, flood occured in Lenggeng as a result of logging activities approved by the State Government to Syarikat Real Strong (M) Sdn Bhd, a joint venture with Menteri Besar Incorporated N. Sembilan.

Source: Laporan Ketua Audit Negara, Aktiviti Jabatan/Agensi Dan Pengurusan yarikat Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan Tahun 2008



According to Pejabat Menteri Besar, one of the key function is



~ Pejabat Menteri Besar juga bertugas menjadi tenaga pemantau kepada semua dasar dan projek yang dilaksanakan oleh Menteri Besar.








Commonsense will tell us that there is a conflict of interest. You can't oversee / regulate commercial projects when you are doing it yourself. The state government can't approve a commercial project whereby the head of the administration stands to profit from it.



Companies Act, 1965, provides that when a company is deciding on a commercial transation with another company where its director are aslo having an interest in, which would result in a conflict of interest situation, the director so affected must declare his interest in the other company and cannot vote in the board of director meeting that decides whether to enter into that transation/venture of not.



So why is there 2 sets of laws for Malaysians?



If the Pejabat Menteri Besar is an effective "Pemantau" then how come,


* Menteri Besar Incorporated borrowed more than RM260 million from state coffers and made no repayments from 2004 till 2008?



* The Auditor General has this to say about the MBI:


“Penurunan (pelaburan saham negeri) ini antaranya adalah disebabkan oleh Lain-lain Pelaburan berjumlah RM1.82 juta yang merupakan pelaburan oleh Menteri Besar Incoporated telah dikeluarkan daripada Penyata Akaun Memorandum. Pelaburan tersebut diuruskan oleh Menteri Besar Incoporated telah dikeluarkan daripada Penyata Akaun Memorandum secara berasingan. Semua hasil pelaburan yang diperolehi tidak diperakaunkan sebagai hasil Kerajaan Negeri.Kerajaan Negeri juga tidak mempunyai sebarang pegangan saham dalam syarikat milik Menteri Besar Incoporated.”


See, Mahathir wanted the following:



@ a system of cooperation between government and private sector



yet and our NS MB, along with other MBIs, dabble directly in business or as joint venture partner, which in itself already result in losing independence and put itself into position of conflict of interest

@ profit accrued shared by all?

MBI "borrowed money" without repaying (as good as taking a special bonus) and took over state investment fund without being accountable at all.

@ the state government is suppose to be a shareholder but how come MBI NS excluded the state government as a shareholder? the original spirit of Malaysia Incorporated is gone, replaced by a bastardise version of convenience.

Is this a result of all this foul up?

Ignorance no defence for Negri MB in RM10m transfer

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 30 — Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan has found himself in a pickle over his alleged transfer of RM10 million to London, due to the perception that he should have known better than to send the money through a money changer.

I tried to google MBI NS but found that it does not have an official website. Is this right?

For such an important, powerful administrator and recepient of public funds, it needs to be accountable, transparent and open with its purpose, objective, activities, results, achievement, membership and other relevant information which affect the welfare and livelihood of the people who pay the taxes or purchase the goods and services that finance MBI NS.

Negeri Sembilan : Sleepy Hollow No More

Negeri Sembilan has always been a relatively “quiet” or “stable” state. No scandals, no wastage and looked like a happy ship, unlike Kuala Lumpur and Selangor where numerous scandals or dubious arrangements have been discovered, highlighted, reported and until significant pressure from people like Nadeswaran, Terence Fernandez and Lim Kit Siang etc, Malaysians would not have heard of PKFTZ, Mickey Mouse tour by Menteri Besar, Zakaria Istana, Toyo’s property etc.

Or is there something simmering beneath in Sleepy Hollow?

Note: 2004 (47.5 mil); 2005 ( 46.95 mil); 2006 (25.37 mil); 2007 (20.32 mil); 2008 (15.60 mil)

According to LAPORAN KETUA AUDIT NEGARA, PENYATA KEWANGAN KERAJAAN NEGERI DAN PENGURUSAN KEWANGAN JABATAN/AGENSI NEGERI SEMBILAN TAHUN 2008, the state has been running deficit budget for past 5 years consecutively.

If a government is spending more than it can earn continuously, it must get money from elsewhere so naturally the state government of NS borrowed from the federal government.

The borrowing as at end of 2008 is RM2 billion, which is about 10 times the annual income which stood at RM260.7 million for 2008. The cost of funding is not cheap. Look at 4.5.4 below the graph.

“4.5.5 Pada akhir tahun 2008 bayaran balik pinjaman berjumlah RM16.26 juta telah dibuat bagi 23 pinjaman. Bayaran balik pinjaman ini terdiri daripada bayaran balik pokok berjumlah RM2.19 juta dan bayaran balik faedah berjumlah RM14.07 juta.”

Only 13.5% on the repayment go towards reducing the principal while the rest constitute interest payment. Isn’t it great to be the federal government?

Ok, interest charged by the federal government may be out of control of the state government. Mitigating consideration is perhaps the state government really did borrow the money and apply it for the benefit of the citizens of NS?

On page 21 of the report, it is stated that,

"ii) Analisis terhadap perbelanjaan pembangunan bagi tahun 2008 berbanding tahun
2007 menunjukkan tujuh maksud perbelanjaan pembangunan yang melibatkan
empat Jabatan mengalami peningkatan perbelanjaan antara 0.4% hingga 725.6%.
Manakala sebanyak tujuh maksud perbelanjaan yang melibatkan lima Jabatan
mengalami penurunan perbelanjaan antara 4.1% hingga 29.9%.

iii) Semakan Audit mendapati dua maksud perbelanjaan pembangunan yang melibatkan Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri mengalami peningkatan perbelanjaan antara 34.5% hingga 725.6% pada tahun 2008 berbanding tahun 2007. Projek yang terlibat adalah Kerja-kerja Kecil dan Bangunan Kerajaan masing-masing berjumlah RM7.7 juta dan RM23.20 juta. Butir-butir perbelanjaan pembangunan adalah seperti di Jadual 4.23. "

725.6% cost overrun related to "Pelaksanaan Projek Ubahsuai Bangunan Kerajaan" ...something that the man and woman in the street cannot benefit directly, if at all.

In at-arms length commercial world, a cost overrun of 50% could mean curtains for some project manager but for the State Secretary of NS, during the GE year of 2008, the renovation of the state government building suffered a budget overrun of 7 times from its planned expenditure. One wonders who were the lucky contractors….

- update: I need to correct myself. The 725.6% means increase against last year's expenditure and not 7 times over its budget. however, my opinion that money has been diverted from meaningful and rakyat centric purposes to whatever renovation contracts that would not benefit rakyat on a wide spread basis

Common sense would tell us that when you spend a lot of money on something, one has to cut back spending on another. E.g. buy more clothes, eat less or things like that.

So on page 21 also, it is stated that

“iv) Tiga maksud perbelanjaan pembangunan mengalami penurunan perbelanjaan yang ketara iaitu 21.2% hingga 29.9% pada tahun 2008 berbanding tahun 2007. Penurunan ini adalah disebabkan oleh peruntukan bagi maksud perbelanjaan Rancangan Tebatan Banjir Negeri Sembilan yang melibatkan Jabatan Pengairan Dan Saliran dibelanjakan kurang daripada 50%.”

So actual money allocated to handle the flood issues faced by the rakyat was not spent according to plan. Let’s look at some relevant news reports…..

Thursday April 17, 2008
Floods force out 28 families in Temiang (click "Floods" to read the news)

Sunday April 20, 2008
Squatters blocking anti-flood plan (Click "squatters" to read the news)

Sure, blame it on the rakyat. I rest my case.

According to the graph above, the department that fouled up its budget by 726% got most of the allocation under the 9th Malaysian Plan….ok, what for?

Lo and behold!

Item 12 shows the State Secretary Department ran 80 tourism projects…make sense to you?

If you take Bil 6 – 12, excluding 8, the State Secretary got RM465.4 million (if you include the Pejabat Menteri Besar allocation of RM45 million) to implement 125 projects, an average of RM5.8 million per project. By comparison, RM35.9 million was allocated for 46 agricultural projects, about RM780,00 per project, over 5 years of RMke-9.

Securing flood supply in NS should be the primary concern of the state government. I remember there was a boom time for the vegetable farmers in Sikamat and also the pig rearers in Bukit Pelanduk. Not only residents of NS gotten fresh and cheaper source of food, the pigs were exported to Singapore to earn valuable Singapore Dollars.

Just like week, in a NTUC shopping mall at Ang Mo Kiow,...I noticed the frozen pork consumed by Singaporeans are imported from....BRAZIL. ASEAN Trade Block opportunity illustrated.

As the government is borrowing from the federal government at an exorbitant rate, due care must be given to cash flow management so that the crippling debts can be repaid as soon as possible and we have this gem of a generous state government.

The 2 charts below showed that more than RM280 million of state fund was lent to Menteri Besar Incorporated and Syarikat Imapro Sdn Bhd and from 2004 till 2008, only repayments made were RM12.35 million and RM10.62 million in 2007/2008.

The 8.64 million owing by Imapro is more than half of the state deficit for 2008 which was RM15.6 million. Collect that and half of the deficit is wiped out. Who is behind Imapro?

A blogger wrote this:

2. Taukeh tanah untuk ternakan babi ialah orang Melayu (Syarikat IMAPRO Sdn. Bhd. milik Bumiputera 100%). Dengan modal RM2.00 ianya mengaut untung sebanyak RM1,718,232.00 (pada 31 Disember 2006). Kadar untung ke atas modal ialah 859,115 kali ganda. Ini adalah untung atas angin

The Auditor General has this to say about the MBI:

“Penurunan (pelaburan saham negeri) ini antaranya adalah disebabkan oleh Lain-lain Pelaburan berjumlah RM1.82 juta yang merupakan pelaburan oleh Menteri Besar Incoporated telah dikeluarkan daripada Penyata Akaun Memorandum. Pelaburan tersebut diuruskan oleh Menteri Besar Incoporated telah dikeluarkan daripada Penyata Akaun Memorandum secara berasingan. Semua hasil pelaburan yang diperolehi tidak diperakaunkan sebagai hasil Kerajaan Negeri.Kerajaan Negeri juga tidak mempunyai sebarang pegangan saham dalam syarikat milik Menteri Besar Incoporated.”

In a nutshell, the AG reported that dear Menteri Besar just took away the state money to trade in shares and not accounting its action and results, not even a sen, back to the state government. I wonder which state statute empowers him to do so. I hope there is a provision for that.

Well, sleepy hollow, I miss thee, for you hold more mystery that I never thought it could be…..