Believe it or not! Five years continuous losses but Khazanah and PNB value Fashion Valet at RM300m?

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

 

Believe it or not! Five years continuous losses but Khazanah and PNB value Fashion Valet at RM300m?

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5, 2024: Malaysia’s so-called Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) Khazanah Nasional Berhad and Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) valued Fashion Valet Sdn Bhd at RM300 million despite it suffering five years of continuous losses.

And they allegedly gave majority control to Vivy, her husband and father.

Does that make any business sense? Prudent and competent business investment?

No News Is Bad News reproduces below The Coverage  posting on the issues:

News

Khazanah & PNB Valued A 5 Year Continual Loss FashionValet At RM 300 Million Valuation – Both Gave Majority Control To Vivy, Her Husband & Father Majority Control!

5 November, 2024

 

The public pressure was unbearable that the owner of FashionValet (FV), Vivy Yusof and Fadza Annuar officially apologised and resigned from the company.

Off course, they have to resign now that Afzal and his company, NBXT Partner have majority control. Its unlikely of him to keep the never profitable FV team. Otherwise, the member of the BOD of CIMB would be seen as in collusion.

Khazanah too issued a statement and cited the Covid 19 pandemic as the primary reason for the company’s failure.

A member of the Board of Director of FV, former CEO of Air Asia Berhad, and current President of Capital A Berhad, Irene Omar too spoke of the fnancial devastation of the pandemic on businesses including Air Asia.

Frankly she better put her life in order because she will be facing public scrutiny and someone could be facing “life sentence” for trying to cover-up for allegation of squandering public money.

Scoop.my’s Arjuna Mohanakrishnan revealed that FV was a loss making entity before and after Khazanah and PNB invested in the portal. It means Khazanah was misleading the public for directing the blame to Covid and hiding the fact that they overvalued the investment in FV.

The startling revelation is, as extracted below:

In 2018, the year sovereign wealth fund Khazanah and fund management firm PNB invested RM27 million and RM20 million, respectively, into FashionValet, the company recorded losses of RM20.18 million in losses after tax – a steep RM9.4 million increase from the previous year.

Edge wrote: “Separate wheat from chaffe, please“. NST reported the following headline:

Sabah Media’s Wan Azrain revealed that the RM27 million paid by Khazanah represented only 9% of the company,.

It means Khazanah management valued the loss-making (or more precisely never profitable company) at RM300 million. Is that a reasonable valuation?

That was invested in early 2018.

Not only, Khazanah and PNB pumped in RM47 millon for the loss-making company which they described as “promising homegrown e-commerce fashion platform”, both gave majority control to Vivy, Fadza and Vivy’s father, Yusof Perancis majority control!

That’s mind boggling, but do hold on to your fire. That’s not mind blowing enough yet.

Sometime in late 2018, around September, FV bought over 30 Maple, the supplier and owner of the Duck brand of tudung or these days it is more appropriate to be called *ucked-up brand for RM95 million.

Is it possible Vivy and her husband cashed out of their financial commitment to dump the company to FV and get paid handsomely?

So is it fair to accuse they “legally” enriched themselves but at the expense of public money in which Khazanah and PNB allowed it by giving the “anak beranak” (family) control?

Bodoh tak Khazanah and PNB?

So then, is the stupid decision by Khazanah and PNB made consciously by them or it is forced on them?

This leads to the politically video of You-Tuber Aswardy Morni (below). Be reminded that this blog cautioned about playing politics on this issue, however, the buck must stop somewhere.

If it does not stop at the management committee or Board of Directors, it could move up the Ministry and all the way to the Minister, in which Azmin Ali was the then Economic Minister.

The portfolio of government investment agencies were shifted by Mahathir and Daim away from Lim Guan Eng to Azmin!

Now then, why did Irene Omar gallantly defended FV to the point of losing her cool? Other than the fact that she is a member of the Board of Director of FV, why do another Naemah Daim?

This could be guesswork but one connot not notice the similarity of Air Asia with Tony Fernandez as the face of the product and Vivy Yusof as the face of FV.

Meanwhile the financial brain of Kamaruddin Meranun lies in the background of Air Asia. Similarly, the brain of FV was the husband and father who preferred to stay in the background.

Probably Vivy is a woman initiative to create a successful icon of young woman. Nothing wrong there as long it is legitimate and genuinely profitable.

Or perhaps because there is similarity of FV to Air Asia in seeking forgiveness for the reconstituted RM63.5 billion debts and given a 99.5% debt haircut to restructure RM33.7 billion liabilities.

That’s public money in Khazanah and PNB owned banks and listed companies similarly slashed like RM43.7 million investment reduced to a firesale of RM3.1 million.

Tell that to the millions of Malaysian entrepreneurs, who were denied opportunity by someone born with a silver spoon and adjucated bankrupt by banks and government agency for mere droplets of failure.

They would be cussing at all these people getting away scot free after making humongous loss.

Source : Thick Brick Blogspot

FashionValet posted losses 5 straight years before Khazanah, PNB investment

FashionValet Sdn Bhd (FV) in the limelight due to investment losses incurred by Khazanah Nasional Bhd and Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), saw five consecutive years of losses prior to their investment.

A check of financial account filings of the company between 2012 and 2017 showed that its losses widened to RM10.7 million in 2017 from RM166,793 in 2012, prior to Khazanah and PNB’s investment in the company in 2018.

The financial information was obtained from filings with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM).

In the year in which Khazanah and PNB invested in the company, it recorded a net loss of RM20.19 million.

The company’s current liabilities in 2012 exceeded current assets by RM401,248 before it improved in 2017 to  a net asset position of RM1.24 million.

Interestingly between 2015 and 2017, total assets grew almost 300 per cent to RM14.7 million, while total liabilities grew more than 100 per cent to RM11.7 million.

Khazanah and PNB invested RM27 million and RM20 million, respectively, into FV in 2018.

Business Times has reached out to Khazanah and PNB to clarify the innvestment criterias met which had led to their investment in 2018, given FV’s financial track record in 2017.

A Khazanah spokesperson referred Business Times to its previous statement, while PNB is yet to respond.

Previously, Khazanah said that FV was a promising homegrown e-commerce platform when it invested RM27 million for a nine per cent stake in 2018 with more than 400 brands and 15,000 products and expecting revenue growth of about 60 per cent annually.

“Our investment rationale was anchored on the theme of Offline-to-Online e-commerce, as well as a commitment to support Malaysian entrepreneurs and promising early-stage companies,” it said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) in a written reply to a query published on the parliament website last Monday said PNB’s investment was to support the rapidly growing Bumiputera digital retail company to become a regional retail platform for Malaysian brands.

MoF said the sale of Khazanah and PNB’s interest in FV to NXBT Partners Sdn Bhd represented a responsible exit to a strategic investor who could continue to assist FashionValet in addressing its financing needs holistically and reviving its business in a challenging industry environment.

As of Sept 30, 2024, NXBT Partners Sdn Bhd is FV’s biggest shareholder with 51 per cent, or 2.5 million stakes, followed by Datuk Fadzaruddin Shah Anuar (17.7 per cent) and Vivy Sofinas Yusof (17 per cent).

NXBT Partners is wholly-owned by Afzal Abdul Rahim, the chief executive officer of TIME dotcom Bhd and CIMB Group Holdings Bhd senior independent director.

Its last financial filing with SSM showed that FV posted a net loss of RM34.5 million against RM112.8 million revenue for the financial year ended Dec 31, 2022.

RM47 million investment down the drain?

Well its Business As Usual as some would say. Businesses take off, be successful, take a tumble, go down the drain, might get back up again. Or not! While Khazanah & PNB look at it as Business As Usual, I beg to differ. FV was never a good business proposition to begin with. It’s a fashion platform for premium products? Like seriously? Firstly, who decide they are premium?

Anybody can tell a designer to design a silk tudung cladded with sequin or even diamonds and call it premium. Anybody can do it and call it premium. Do they become premium? No. Made of expensive materials don’t necessarily mean premium. But that’s basically their products, right? Making something expensive even more expensive. That’s their definition of premium. You know what’s premium? Premium takes time to build.

Reputation that takes decades to build. Using names (in this case designers) that are well known for their quality and excellence, and then you use high quality expensive materials to make them. Then yes, then they can become premium. Now who is your designer? VY? Vera Yang? Nope.. its Vivy Yusof. Who???? Exactly So how is FV considered premium? Because they said so?

Whoever approved those investments had no idea about the business in the first place. You think FV stands for what, Fookie Vuitton? And it’s supposedly an online marketplace? Is it? Where? On the internet? Like everyone else???? Why not give the money to everyone else?

They wanted to compete with the likes of Zalora, Lazada? Err ambitious, I give them that. I’d praise them but would I give them even a million? Absolutely not. They never had scalability. That’s the number 1 consideration for business growth. Scalability. Zero. None. Scalability is difficult for premium products because as the country would know it by now after all the T15 hoohaa, we only have 15% of the working force (not the population), that can even afford anything premium. And if that 15% is mostly the non-Malays, how many % will buy your tudung?

And then again, you’re only premium because somebody who is a nobody said its premium. And then somebody somebody sitting on the investment board decided to believe in a nobody who said she’s somebody.

You know what RM47 million can do? That’s 27,647 months worth of minimum wage, a possibillity to take 2303 homeless folks off the streets and putting them to minimum wage employment for a year. And feed their children as well. And you know what 2303 people on minimum wage can create? An industry P/S: You want to know why your ASB/ASN/ASW dividends are low? Because of stupid PNB investments like this.

Why U Mobile?

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

For image info, go to https://www.u.com.my/en/about-us/our-company 

Why U Mobile?

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5, 2024: More and more questions arise with the Madani Unity Government (UG)’s decision to award the country’s second 5G Network to the smallest telecommunications - U Mobile.

Why U Mobile? The powerful owners?

No News Is Bad News reproduces below a posting by The Coverage on the issue:

News

Who Actually Own U Mobile? How They Beat CelcomDigi & Maxis For The Second 5G Network Tender – Potential Financial Losses For Taxpayers In Billions

5 November, 2024 

 

They cautioned that abandoning the single-network model could lead to substantial write-offs, including RM900 million in unused equipment, while DNB might need an additional RM1.6 billion to meet performance targets due to spectrum changes.

Opposition MP Wan Saiful Wan Jan echoed these concerns, highlighting risks of conflicts of interest and legal issues for mobile network operators under the new structure, potentially burdening taxpayers with further losses. DNB has spent RM5 billion on the existing 5G infra borrowing huge sums from the banking system.

U Mobile was launched in 2007 as Malaysia’s fourth-largest telco (before CelcomDigi merger). At the moment, its 4G network has over 9,000 sites nationwide and is said to have over 9 million subscribers in 2023.

As a comparison, Malaysia’s largest mobile telco, CelcomDigi, currently has nearly 25,000 sites post-merger. The telco is currently undergoing an integration and modernisation exercise aimed at providing a combined 18,000 5G-ready sites by the end of 2025. CelcomDigi currently has 20.2 million subscribers based on its Q2 2024 report.

Meanwhile, Maxis recently revealed it has over 11,000 sites as mentioned in its response to the second 5G network bid. The green telco currently has the second most mobile users in Malaysia with over 12.7 million subscribers according to their Q2 2024 report.

According to a recent report by Macquarie Research, CelcomDigi and Maxis dominate when it comes to revenue share for the Malaysian mobile market. Among the trio, CelcomDigi holds an estimated 50%, followed by Maxis at 37% and U Mobile at 13%.

 

According to the latest SSM data, U Mobile is effectively half-owned by a single Singaporean shareholder. Straits Mobile Investments Pte Ltd which is linked to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings currently holds 48.26%. This is followed by DYMM Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Ibrahim with 22.31%, Magnum Berhad at 7.84%, Singer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd at 6.10%, U Telemedia Sdn Bhd at 5.59% and Tan Sri Dato Koon Poh Keong at 2.35%.

There are other shareholders including Perbandanan Nasional Berhad, Koperasi Angkatan Tentera Malaysia Berhad and individuals who collectively own less than 10% of the telco.

In a statement issued on Saturday, U Mobile said it will reduce its majority foreign shareholding to 20% to ensure greater Malaysian control and invite participation from local investors.

This isn’t the first time a telco in Malaysia had to reduce its foreign shareholding but the sequence of events is different. Back in 2007, Digi, which was 61% owned by Norway-based Telenor reduced their stake to 49% before it could roll out 3G services. Besides reducing Telenor’s interest, Digi was also required to have at least 30% Bumiputra equity shareholding by the then Ministry of Energy, Communications and Multimedia.

Eventually, Digi obtained the 3G spectrum licence in May 2008 (transferred from Time dotCom). Digi launched 3G services in March 2009, four years after Celcom and Maxis, and almost two years after U Mobile.

Questions were raised about MCMC’s selection for the second 5G network

Since U Mobile is the third-largest mobile telco in terms of sites, subscribers and revenue, many questions were raised about MCMC’s selection. Critics also called upon the regulator to clarify how the second 5G winner was picked. The regulator released the Application Information Package (AIP) on 1st July 2024 to invite telcos to submit their proposal for the second 5G network, however, the details were not made public.

CelcomDigi and Maxis were seen as forerunners in the second 5G network race as both telcos have invested heavily to modernise their existing 4G network to be 5G-ready in the past few years. All they needed was the 700MHz and 3500MHz spectrum to provide 5G coverage using its existing infrastructure.

MCMC also announced that U Mobile can collaborate with other mobile network operators (MNOs) for the implementation of the second 5G network. This line was interesting as the regulator seems to imply that U Mobile would need help from other telcos to compete with DNB.

U Mobile mentioned previously that it is well-positioned to roll out the second 5G network, if needed, solely, to help the government realise its ambition of having two networks.

However, in their latest response, U Mobile said it is excited to work with CelcomDigi and TM to implement the second 5G network. So far, we have not seen any indication that CelcomDigi and TM will be onboard directly with U Mobile for the new network.

In addition, there’s also a huge question mark on TM’s equity deal with DNB. Initially, the government wanted full participation of all telcos in DNB before the transition to a dual 5G network could take place. However, TM has failed to complete the share subscription agreement with DNB as it couldn’t secure its shareholders’ approval on time.

Does this mean MCMC is giving TM a free pass to remain solely as an access seeker without owning equity or will it continue to require TM to take a stake in a 5G network?

Ultimately, the biggest question is how will MCMC ensure a sustainable dual 5G network model to achieve the government’s objective to accelerate 5G coverage and increase adoption?

If U Mobile were to roll out 5G alone on the second network, it would be a David vs Goliath situation as they would need to compete with CelcomDigi, Maxis, YTL and TM who will remain with DNB. CelcomDigi and Maxis combined would have over 29,000 sites which is already more than triple the number of sites U Mobile has at the moment.

Assuming U Mobile has its way with CelcomDigi and TM onboard with the second 5G network, that would create an imbalance as well. This leaves DNB with only Maxis and YTL, which won’t be fair and sustainable for the country’s first 5G network. As a regulator, it is MCMC’s responsibility to ensure fair and healthy competition in the local telecommunications industry.

Following the announcement by the MCMC, the other telcos issued responses to the latest development over the weekend. CelcomDigi insists that it has presented a compelling plan to build a new 5G network using its existing infrastructure and they are weighing their viable options forward. Meanwhile, TM says it will continue to support any 5G initiatives using its vast fibre network infrastructure.

Yesterday evening, Maxis issued a statement saying they are seeking clarity from the MCMC about its rationale for picking U Mobile for the second 5G network. The green telco emphasised they are a homegrown telco with 77% shares held by Malaysians and they are confident that they could roll out 5G to match DNB’s population coverage in far less time and resources including in-building 5G coverage.

Source : Soya Cincau

U Mobile, the new Ali Baba contractor for the second 5G network tender?

The dawn of Malaysia’s 5G future just took a shocking turn. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has chosen U Mobile to roll out the country’s second 5G network, a move that was supposed to open up competition and elevate digital infrastructure.

But with so many details cloaked in secrecy, we’re left with one burning question: What is really happening behind closed doors?

The regulator owes it to every Malaysian to walk us through the entire selection process — step by step — and explain why U Mobile, a comparatively smaller player, was deemed the best choice over giants like Maxis and CelcomDigi.

How does U Mobile, which lacks the scale and capacity of its larger competitors, intend to pull off this mammoth task?

U Mobile outsourcing the heavy-lifting of the work?

The MCMC’s decision to hand the tender for Malaysia’s second 5G network to U Mobile has stirred up more than a few questions. Here’s the curious part: U Mobile, while certainly ambitious, is far from the biggest player in the industry.

Unlike giants CelcomDigi and Maxis, which have built extensive proprietary networks covering the nation, U Mobile operates as a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO), relying on shared infrastructure rather than its own towers.

This fundamental difference in scale raises serious questions: how can U Mobile, without the deep, independent infrastructure of its rivals, be expected to take on the massive responsibility of deploying Malaysia’s second 5G network?

Yet, almost as soon as the announcement was made, MCMC added an odd caveat — U Mobile could collaborate with other telcos to get the job done. Collaborate? A concession for a multi-billion-ringgit national infrastructure project?

It’s as though MCMC already knew U Mobile couldn’t carry this massive undertaking alone. They seem to be setting the stage for U Mobile to hand off critical aspects of the project to Maxis or CelcomDigi, the very telcos with the size, experience, and resources that the project truly demands.

So why bother giving the tender to U Mobile in the first place? What’s MCMC’s play here?

From the start, it feels like MCMC has been bending over backwards to make this arrangement work, with one foot out the door to let U Mobile “share” its role. In most tender processes, subcontracting is left to the main contractor’s discretion. But here, we have MCMC, the regulatory body, practically dictating that U Mobile can pull in its rivals to help.

What’s really going on? Why does it feel like MCMC is tiptoeing around something, pushing U Mobile forward only to let it lean on the very competition that could have taken on the project directly?

The whole setup has an air of something more calculated, as if there’s a script behind the scenes that we’re not seeing.

Doors slammed shut, access denied

Consider this — the Access and Interconnection Plan (AIP) and tender specs for this second network were not disclosed to the public. Not disclosed! Imagine that.

A monumental project shaping our digital landscape, affecting millions of Malaysians, yet not a single taxpayer, telecom expert, or watchdog agency was given the courtesy of a peek into the specifications.

Digital Nasional Berhad (DNB), Malaysia’s initial 5G provider built on taxpayer money, wasn’t just sidelined but outright denied access to these crucial documents. And it didn’t stop there.

The Minister of Digital himself, the top official responsible for ensuring transparency in our telecommunications sector, made a formal request for access to this information. His request? Denied.

And the Ministry of Finance, whose duty is to safeguard public funds? They, too, were left in the dark, never seeing even a fragment of the specs. This isn’t just a little secrecy; it’s an impenetrable wall. And when it comes to a national asset like the 5G spectrum, the stakes are much, much higher.

Forget the dodgy tender process — the real storm is brewing with the second network itself

Let’s pause and consider what this means. The 5G spectrum isn’t just airwaves; it’s a vital, national resource that belongs to every single one of us. DNB, our first 5G provider, was set up as a government entity funded by billions in taxpayer money.

If DNB suffers from this sudden addition of a second network, the government could be left scrambling to cover its costs — and that scramble, as always, falls on the taxpayer.

Then there’s the billions invested by Government-Linked Investment Companies (GLICs) in the telco sector. Institutions like the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), KWAP, and PNB, holding a combined RM30 to RM40 billion in stocks like Axiata, CelcomDigi, and Maxis, are at risk of seeing the value of these investments take a nosedive when markets open on Monday.

These aren’t just corporate losses; they are direct blows to the wealth of everyday Malaysians. With pension funds on the line, the impact of a second 5G network is as much about livelihoods as it is about digital connectivity.

Unless of course, one of them gets to be U Mobile’s “partner”.

DNB’s investment under threat

DNB has already sunk billions into Malaysia’s 5G rollout, relying on a single-network model to provide affordable and widespread access. The entire project was based on preventing duplicated networks and unnecessary costs.

By introducing a competing network, the government risks undermining this original strategy.

The decision to introduce a second 5G network in Malaysia has raised alarms about potential financial losses for taxpayers, with former minister Khairy Jamaluddin and Shahril Hamdan warning it could set state-run Digital Nasional Bhd (DNB) up for failure.

They cautioned that abandoning the single-network model could lead to substantial write-offs, including RM900 million in unused equipment, while DNB might need an additional RM1.6 billion to meet performance targets due to spectrum changes.

Opposition MP Wan Saiful Wan Jan echoed these concerns, highlighting risks of conflicts of interest and legal issues for mobile network operators under the new structure, potentially burdening taxpayers with further losses. DNB has spent RM5 billion on the existing 5G infra borrowing huge sums from the banking system.

It’s already struggling to pay of its debts, the second network is a going to be a nail in the coffin. This isn’t a mere strategic shift; it’s a potential financial and legal catastrophe.

A process shrouded in darkness — where’s the accountability?

Now we turn to the MCMC, the supposed guardian of fairness and transparency. How can they defend this selection process as fair when the specs in the AIP remain hidden from stakeholders?

Without the ability to scrutinise these documents, how can we, the public, trust that these criteria were just? This is more than a bureaucratic oversight; it’s a deliberate decision to keep critical information out of reach.

There’s only one way forward — the specs in the AIP must be released to the public. Only then can we dissect the technical aspects, understand the logic behind the requirements, and see for ourselves if the rules were applied impartially.

The time for questions is now

Regulators, if you insist this decision was just and fair, open up the specs. Show us the AIP and let us evaluate the criteria that shaped this choice. Explain why a comparatively small player like U Mobile was selected over the nation’s biggest telcos. Demonstrate that Malaysia’s second 5G network rollout isn’t just another case of smoke and mirrors, but a genuine attempt to foster a competitive and transparent digital landscape.

Malaysia deserves nothing less.

Source : Politik Ekonomi

Give details about U Mobile deal, say industry experts

The government has been urged to be more open about the appointment of U Mobile to operate Malaysia’s second 5G network, with one telecommunications expert calling for details to be made public.

Internet veteran Mohamed Awang Lah said there was only sketchy information on U Mobile’s selection.

“I hope the details on the conditions and key performance indicators of the second operator will be made public,” said Mohamad, former chief executive of Jaring, Malaysia’s first internet provider.

He said he did not understand the government’s statement that U Mobile “is allowed” to work with other mobile network operators.

“Does that mean U Mobile can operate alone?” said Mohamed, who is known in the industry as Mal.

U Mobile, a private company whose chairman is billionaire tycoon Vincent Tan, was named on Nov 2 as the operator of Malaysia’s second 5G wireless network.

Maxis, which had been considered the front-runner for the second network, said yesterday it would hold talks with the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) on the rationale for its decision.

The company, rated as Malaysia’s second-largest mobile network operator, said it would have taken far less time and resources to roll out the second 5G network with its advanced capabilities.

CelcomDigi, the leading network provider, also said it would have been able to start almost immediately to build a network to match the existing 5G network already created by government-owned Digital Nasional Bhd (DNB).

Mohamad said 5G services should be managed by a neutral party to avoid conflict. and ensure equal access for all mobile companies. “Better yet, all companies should be allowed to operate their own 5G networks,” he said.

Julian Gorman, the Asia-Pacific head of the UK-based GSM association, said clear licensing requirements should be established, to ensure a balanced distribution of 5G services.

“The specific benefits (for service providers) will depend largely on the terms of U Mobile’s licence, which have not yet been fully disclosed,” he said.

“If retail network operators are allocated to a particular wholesale provider, the anticipated benefits of increased competition in the wholesale market may be limited,” he told FMT.

He hoped the second network could intensify competition, enabling service providers to lower prices, making 5G services more affordable and widely accessible.

Gorman said the primary focus should be on stimulating 5G innovation and transformation to support Malaysia’s digital ambitions.

5G refers to the fifth-generation of mobile network technology, and a new global wireless standard that promises the ability to connect everything together with greater speed, providing massive network capacity and improved efficiency.

Malaysia’s first 5G mobile network was rolled out by DNB, which was set up as a single wholesaler providing services to private wireless network companies.

Following intense lobbying by the telcos, the new government led by Pakatan Harapan decided to allow a second network to be set up, and to sell 70% of DNB to the private companies.

Shares were sold to Maxis, CelcomDigi, U Mobile and YTL Communications, with Telekom Malaysia awaiting shareholder approval for the deal.

However, the decision to establish a second network was criticised over potential conflicts of interest, anti-competitive behaviour, wastage of billions of taxpayers’ money, an increased digital divide between urban and rural areas, a decline in 5G service quality, and higher prices for consumers.

Source : FMT

Not everyone can get away with just a RM1,000 fine for assault

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

 

Not everyone can get away with just a RM1,000 fine for assault

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5, 2024: In Malaysia, those with “special elite credentials” can get away with assault with just a RM1,000 fine.

And in this case, a policeman got away with just a slap in wrist for assaulting/punching a defenceless deaf Grab driver, Ong Ing Keong.

No News Is Bad News reproduces below a Finance Twitter commentary that was reposted by The Coverage:

News

Now Every Elite Can Punch A Defenceless E-Hailing Driver With Disabilities & Get Away With Just RM1000 Fine?

5 November, 2024 

 

According to Finance Twitter , finally, after more than five months since a deaf Grab driver, Ong Ing Keong, was assaulted and punched by a bodyguard of Johor regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, popularly known as TMJ, the much awaited justice has been served. Lance Corporal Muhammad Taufik Ismail, 32, admitted to the charge of voluntarily causing hurt to 47-year-old Ong, but got away with a slap on the wrist.

Magistrate Farah Nabihah Muhamad Dan only dared to slap the despicable royal police escort with a fine of RM1,000, even though under Section 323 of the Penal Code, she could deliver a prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to RM2,000 to teach the Johor royal bodyguard, who shamelessly punched the defenceless e-hailing driver with disabilities, a lesson.

But if even Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, supposedly the most powerful man in Malaysia, was too afraid to offend the Johor Crown Prince, whose father Sultan Ibrahim has been crowned as the 17th Agong (King) in January this year, who is a junior ranking judge to deliver a punishment that could humiliate the Sultanate of Johor? In fact, the pathetically RM1,000 fine was an insult to the independence of the Judicial.

Mr Ong, like any other e-hailing drivers, was just trying to make a living at about 11.40 am on May 28, 2024 outside the St. Regis Hotel lobby in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur. The only difference is the Grab driver is deaf. But he isn’t blind, hence he’s perfectly fit to work. He was waiting to pick up four passengers at the posh hotel, but all hell broke loose when a VVIP entourage was leaving the hotel lobby.

The VVIP turned out to be Johor Crown Prince Tunku Ismail. Apparently, one of the crown prince’s bodyguards knocked on Mr Ong’s car window and asked him to move his vehicle. Due to his disability, Ong was unable to comprehend their hand gestures. He then lowered his window and gestured using sign language, only to be greeted with a sudden punch in the face by Muhammad Taufik.

As a result, the disabled man sustained soft tissue injuries and was treated at Kuala Lumpur Hospital. Still, amazingly, the Grab driver professionally completed his task – dropping off his passengers at the destination despite with swelling on his face. The entire incident was captured in the dashcam. He thought he could easily seek justice with all the evidences.

The deaf man then made a report at about 1pm on the same day after the assault at the Brickfields police station. Unfortunately for him, Royal Malaysia Police – arguably one of the most corrupted institutions in the country – has different standards for the elite and ordinary folks like Ong Ing Keong. He should thank God that he managed to come out alive in one piece from the notorious police station.

It immediately raised a red flag – and a cover-up – when there was a contradiction within the police force. While the head of the Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department (CID) confirmed that an investigation was underway, the Kuala Lumpur police chief Rusdi Mohd Isa proudly declared that the matter had been “settled amicably” – claiming that the disabled man did not wish to prolong the issue.

The disgraced KL Police Chief was clearly working hand-in-glove with the royal house bodyguards to intimidate, bully and even threaten the poor victim when it claimed Mr Ong lodged a second report at about 9:59pm on the same day of the incident to close the case. But thanks to the Malaysian Deaf Advocacy and Well-being Organisation (DAWN), it quickly becomes a scandal.

As revealed by DAWN secretary-general Anthony Chong, there were four reports lodged, with three prepared by the cops. Stunningly, while the deaf Grab driver had lodged only one report, the police mysteriously cooked up three extra dubious reports and had Ong signed without fully understanding what were being written. The most damaging part – Johor palace representative was present at the police station.

What really happened on the day after the deaf man was assaulted by the royal bodyguard? When the police received Ong’s report that it was the Johor Crown Prince’s bodyguard who had beaten him, he was asked to show proof. After showing a video on his phone, he was asked to undergo a medical examination, during which he was asked to rush back to the police station on the same day (May 28, 2024).

The purpose was to forward the video so that the superior of the Brickfields police station could review the contents. However, in what appeared to be a sign of police intimidation, the disabled man was escorted to the police officers’ office and left unattended for hours upon arrival at the police station between 5pm and 6pm. He was asked to surrender his phone and treated like a suspect.

When the victim, still shocked after being punched by the Johor Crown Prince’s bodyguard, asked for his phone in order for him to contact his wife and a friend, his request was flatly rejected. Not only was the police acted like a brutal gangster, but was also inhumane as Ong was still in mourning after his child had passed away about three weeks prior to the incident. 

Worse, no sign language interpreter was offered – suggesting that the police might have malicious intentions from the beginning by shutting down transparency. Ultimately, the deaf man was given two options – to proceed with the case or to drop the case. However, if he chooses to go to court, his phone would be confiscated. He will be compensated if he drops the case.

It’s not rocket science that the police, together with the palace, were offering bribes to silence the Grab driver, and threatened to make his life difficult if he dares to go to the court. Under pressure, as any ordinary people would be under such circumstances, the Grab driver agreed to drop the case. This is a criminal case – the police have no business conspiring with the royal house for a settlement.

Only after the deaf victim – reluctantly – agreed to drop the case that the police released his identity card, obviously another intimidation tactic. Upon collecting his identity card, he was asked to sign a third police report. He was so confused that he could not tell the difference between the second and third report. But he certainly remembers one thing – the Johor Palace was a freaking cheapskate.

Yes, the palace representative was so cheapskate and pathetic when he tried to negotiate on the asking price of RM1,000. Like a night market haggling, the compensation finally settled at RM800 after Mr Ong refused to accept RM500. But Lawyers for Liberty said there was no such thing as a “settlement” of a criminal case between the perpetrator and victim of a crime.

Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek said – “Once the police receive information regarding commission of an offence, they are duty-bound to investigate the matter. Section 3(3) of the Police Act 1967 tasks PDRM (Royal Malaysia Police) with the preservation of the peace and security of Malaysia, the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.”

The simple fact that the palace representative was willing to pay (or rather bribe) was the clearest proof that the bodyguard had committed a crime, which the police shamelessly tried to help covering up by seizing the disabled man’s phone and even his vehicle’s dashboard camera. It’s not hard to see how they have planned to destroy evidence should the victim go to the court.

Interestingly, while Johor Crown Prince Tunku Ismail said that he “does not condone illegal action or intimidation” and urged authorities to investigate the matter thoroughly, he hilariously claimed that there is a “movement” to smear the royal institution’s reputation. Exactly how could his royal house be tarnished when the brutality of his bodyguard has been recorded in dashcam?

A popular Chinese idiom says “one needs to know who the master of the dog before beating it”. It means before punishing someone, one should consider how that punishment would affect others associated with him. If you still hadn’t a clue, it means the gangster bodyguard was supposed to be untouchable because his master is the royal house, which would be humiliated if he is punished.

On June 5, 2024, Inspector General of Police (IGP) Razarudin Husain announced the police have sent the investigation papers on the assault of the e-hailing driver to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. But as expected, there had been silence after the Royal Malaysia Police passed the ball to the AGC. Even the government was trying to avoid, evade and run away from the issue.

Amusingly, even Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil has been trying very hard to refrain from addressing questions regarding the assault involving the Johor Monarch. When Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was finally cornered under pressure, the biggest cheerleader of “rule of law” tried to insult the people’s intelligence with a laughable excuse – the case “takes time”.

Anwar’s attempt to beat around the bush was quickly mocked and ridiculed as if the simple case was more sophisticated and complicated than multi-billion dollar 1MDB scandal. If the coward premier was too chicken to even tell the monarch that their bodyguards must face the same rule of law like everyone, imagine where he would go hide should the royalty beat or kill an ordinary folk on the street?

Even if Anwar Ibrahim, the president of PKR, had forgotten (or pretends to have forgotten) why his political party is called the People’s Justice Party to begin with, he should remember how former Inspector-General of Police Abdul Rahim Noor assaulted and slapped him twice in police custody, leaving him with a “black eye” in 1998. He must have felt delighted to be beaten in such splendid fashion.

Is Anwar so power-hungry that he would rather kiss the hands of the royal household? Between a gangster policeman and a deaf Grab driver, the choice isn’t hard. Not only justice is delayed and not seen to be done, but the insane punishment actually sends the wrong message – now everyone with power can punch anyone they dislike, and get away with just RM1,000 fines.

Source : Finance Twitter