KUALA LUMPUR: Ketika rakyat ternanti-nanti untuk menonton debat antara pengarah strategik Barisan Nasional Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan dengan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, kedua-duanya telah mengemukakan 15 soalan masing-masing untuk debat berkenaan. Rahman Dahlan, Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan, ketika ini berada di luar negara telah mencabar Lim untuk mengeluarkan 15 soalan ketika Rahman Dahlan sendiri telah mengeluarkan soalan kepada Lim.
Debat ini yang dijangka disiarkan melalui sama ada TV1 atau TV3 — yang bersedia menjadi stesen penyiaran — mengingatkan kita tentang debat antara Menteri Penerangan Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bertajuk “Bentuk kerajaan hari ini, esok harga minyak turun” ketika harga minyak naik beberapa tahun lalu.
Siapakah yang dapat menjawab dengan meyakinkan menggunakan dalil, fakta, dan bukti?
Meskipun faktor lain penting dalam debat, seperti bahasa, retorik, bahasa badan, suara, dan keyakinan, namun bagi debat ini, sejauh mana kedua-duanya dapat menjawab 15 soalan berkenaan dan soalan-soalan lain, akan menentukan siapa yang bakal menang, atau ditanggapi menang di mata penonton.
Isu debat adalah berkaitan tentang pembelian tanah di Taman Manggis, Pulau Pinang.
Two days ago, I promised to release some of my “Soalan-soalan Bongkar” for YAB CM Lim Guan Eng. This is so that to prepare his answers, and make full use of the period during which I am on an overseas trip – a trip I had planned a long time ago.
These are just some of the questions that I plan to ask:
(1) Request for Proposal (RFP) awarded to a financially doubtful company.
Please explain why the Taman Manggis RFP was awarded to KLIDC in 2010 when the audited statement for KLIDC Sdn Bhd for that year had stated KLIDC had negative assets, including an Auditor’s “Emphasis of Matter” stating that there existed significant doubts as to whether the company could continue as a going concern?
If your answer is that you were not aware of it at the time of the award, were steps taken to ask the company to rectify its position?
(2) Land allegedly too small for a 17-floor flat, but big enough for 30-floors hotel/medical centre.
Why did you use the excuse that the Taman Manggis land was too small for a 17-floor low-cost housing project (meant for the poor and low-income Penangites), but the very next year after the RFP had been awarded to KLIDC – the same piece of land was big enough for a 30-floors hotel/service apartments complex and medical centre?
(3) Commercial value substantially increased via land use changes granted by state government
Do you agree that the commercial value of the Taman Manggis land would have increased substantially after the state government changed the land use conditions from 100% medical centre to one that allowed a 30-storey high-rise complex comprising of 70% hotels/service apartment and 30% medical centre just one year after the RFP was awarded to KLIDC?
After this shocking change in land use conditions (made after the tender was awarded) was exposed on social media, this approval was subsequently changed by the state government to 33% hotel/apartment and 66% medical facilities. Do you agree that this is a serious breach of the tender process that gave KLIDC an unfair advantage over other bidders?
(4) Planning and Building approval given to a company with no reported employees and revenues.
Please explain why did the Penang state government still approve the planning and building approvals to KLIDC – despite KLIDC showing negative net assets, zero employees and no revenues – even to the extent of renewing and extending the Taman Manggis leasehold terms up to the maximum allowable 99 years in April 2015?
(5) Will you apologise to me?
KLIDC owner, Datuk Tang Yong Chew, confirmed in his interview with Nanyang that the sales agreements were indeed signed. This is exactly what I had exposed. Will you apologise to me for calling me “Menteri Khabar Angin”, when I have revealed the actual agreements (duly signed and stamped), which are now confirmed to be in existence?
(6) Was KLIDC reprimanded for attempt to flip the land via a backdoor sale of all shares of the company?
Why was the Penang government not aware of this backdoor attempt to sell the land (purely intended to make a windfall profit)? Why hasn’t the Penang state government reprimanded the owner for attempting to sell the land (meant for the poor and low-income Penangites) though this backdoor transaction?
(7) Land and project valuation now closer to RM70.6m from RM11.5m despite no physical work having been done on land in almost 6 years
If KLIDC were to be purchased for a total of RM70.6 million (as per the exposed signed and stamped agreements) and was done for the purpose of obtaining bank financing (as revealed by the KLIDC owner), would you agree that RM70.6 million is a good indicator of the true value of the Taman Manggis land and project – despite there not having been any physical development on the land for close to 6 years?
(8) No progress on Penang projects after 6 years.
Is it normal practice that a privatisation project by the Penang state government be left idle and undeveloped for almost 6 years without invoking any cancellation, reprimands or penalties to the party that had been awarded the RFP?
(9) BN’s timely expose might have stopped backdoor sale of land
According to the stamped and signed share-sales agreements, the final date for payment was on the 22nd March 2016.Do you agree that YB Datuk Shabuddin Yahya’s timely exposure of the under-priced bungalow, and Taman Manggis scandal in Parliament earlier on the 17th March 2016 might have stopped the completion of the sale?
(10) Penang government land deals of tens of billions raises valid concerns from the public
Since the year 2008, the Penang government has been involved in various state land sales and reclamation rights deals allegedly worth between RM30 billion to RM40 billion. What is your assurance to the Penang’s rakyat that there are no similar backdoor deals that will help the unscrupulous to reap windfall profits from under-valued state land at the expense of the rakyat?
(11) Phang Li Koon may have sold her Bungalow at a lossIt is easy to
grasp that, when Phang Li Koon bought the 25 Jalan Pinhorn bungalow she must have secured a loan on the property to finance the purchase.
If this is the case, don’t you think it is safe to conclude that apart from letting go millions in profits from property price appreciation (accumulated for 7 years in 2015) she would have lost substantial amount of money when she sold you the bungalow at RM2.8 million – since the accumulated rental collected throughout the tenancy, and RM300k gross profit would not have been sufficient to cover legal costs, interest (estimated RM700k) and renovation cost she had confirmed to have incurred?
(12) Penang CM’s property price cheaper (on psf basis) as compared to Penang government’s affordable home scheme.
How will you explain to the buyers of state affordable housing in Penang that the price (per square foot) that they paid for their units (of up to RM400psf) is much higher than the price (per square foot) that you paid for prime land for your own home (RM275psf)?
(13) Hard to conceive that no one will check market value before making multi-million ringgit investment.
Do you think that it is reasonable that someone making a multi-million ringgit house purchase, and taking out a RM2.1 million loan will not, at least, do a check on the market value of the property that they intend to buy?
(14) Please confirm if you know JPPH’s valuation price and/or market price at time of purchase.
Putting aside the nonsensical ‘no swimming pool’, ‘bad fengshui’, ‘cultural prejudice’ and ‘suka-sama-suka’ answers forwarded recently by DAP leaders, can you confirm once and for all whether or not you were fully aware that the property that you bought was below JPPH valuation and market value?
(15) Phang Li Koon is long-time employee who became business partner to KLIDC’s owner.
The owner of KLIDC had recently admitted to the press that Miss Phang Li Koon was his employee for over 20 years whom he later made his business partner to manage his business in Penang.Were you aware of this relationship when you purchased the bungalow in 2015?
Soalan tersebut dikemukakan bagi memudahkan kedua-dua pihak membuat penyelidikan dan menyediakan bukti dan testimoni, tetapi sejauh mana mereka dapat menjawab dengan yakin banyak menentukan prestasi di kaca TV.- Sarawakvoice.com