The Arul Kanda-Tony Pua debate is over but DAP is in desperation to save the face of their wunderboy. In the manner of a barking Dog and a bulldozing Pig, DAP cybertroopers are trying to reverse the chickening out accusation to Arul.
Arul was announced yesterday to appear at PAC on December 1st. Instruction of Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia is clear that he cannot involve himself in any public LIVE debate. He has to abide [read here].
So the offer of Rafizi as replacement for Tony Pua is just childish dog bark. It is typical of neighbourhood dog barking at anyone unfamiliar. The moment the person come after the dog, it ran away. As soon as the person ignore the dog, it comes back barking.
They simplistically barked that Arul Kanda's reluctance to answer the 10 Questions posed by Tony Pua till after PAC as an act of guilt and trying to hide something.
The questions were briefly touched in yesterday's posting here. Azmi Arshad (AA) put together an impressive properly referenced responses to the 10 Questions [read in FB here]. Similar to the neighbourhood dog, most of Tony's questions have been ask and responded and nothing firm on any allegation of stealing.
Commentor Grand Marquis in AA's Facebook has an opinion on Tony. He felt "Tony knows in advance that he will not (or will chicken out) debate Arul. To cover his back, he put the 10 questions on his blog to show that he indeed has the substance.
"Off course with all these technicalities, many poops and zombies will drop on their knee in tears amaze by how great their master is, thus win more poops and zombies. People who do not follow the 1MDB subject will have doubt as they see a lot of money flowing here and their in to what deemed as unknown company or sources. The fact if we care to think is that if he indeed has the intention to debate Arul, would he reveal his questions or strategy?"
AA and his followers have been refering to the pro-Tun as zombies. Strangely, the pro-Tun are impressed and their Facebookers are with DAP on this. New political party PAN can campaign them to join should the alleged plan to form a new political party is not true.
The exchanges between Arul and Tony have been going on for a while. It could have been Tony's role to discredit Arul with his incessant bark. Arul has also been giving reponses. AA has done an impressive effort to compile Arul's responses:
21/10: http://www.1mdb.com.my/.../1mdb-will-answer-tony-pua-at...So Rafizi is irrelevant in the scheme of things because it boils down to Tony starting this challenge in August:
He then repeated the same challenge after a TV appearance by Arul recently.
Arul accept on condition in sync with the thinking of Parliament Speaker that Tony should resign from PAC to avoid a conflict of interest. Tony went on a political rant and Arul responded with "no condition, let's debate".
Tony froze but accepted with the condition only he can ask question. What kind of debate is that?
So game's over, folks. No need for Rafizi to replace. Or even the suggestion for Tun Dr Mahathir or Dato Abdul Kadir Jasin or Jebat Must Die.
Grand Marquis had his view. AA also has his view on the ploy behind the 10 Questions:
ANSWERING TONY PUA'S 10 QUESTIONSNo missing billions
You know, already in asking these questions, Tony has lied. He said he has these “10 questions” but I think I counted 17 questions. He just can’t stop lying can he.
One of the reasons Tony wants to be the only one asking questions and not be questioned is so that he can ask loaded questions and question based on false presumptions.
Then we cannot ask him to rephrase his questions correctly or ask him questions to clarify what he means. So if we cannot answer a stupid or meaningless question — like what is the price of bananas in Africa — then the pengecut will take it as a chickenmate... I mean checkmate.
Do poops and zombies bother looking for answers in their pretentious pursuit of the truth?
Of course not. They just parrot Tony’s questions without understanding what or why Tony is asking. Tony Pua is now their new hero after Khairuddin (who tried to sneak out the back door) and Matthias (who again didn't die from his hunger strike) couldn't escape the law.
Never mind, let’s try to humour Tony, poops and zombies by answering and not answering his questions:
QUESTION 1. Why did Bank Negara withdraw its approval for 1MDB to transfer more than US$1.8 billion overseas? Was it because most of the funds were transferred to an account which is unrelated to the 1MDB joint venture project with Petrosaudi International Limited, as revealed in the leaked Board meeting minutes which Arul Kanda has acknowledged to be true? How much was transferred to this unrelated account? Did this unrelated account belong to Good Star Limited and who owns or controls Good Star Limited?
--- (a) I don’t know if Tony is pretending to not have read BNM’s statement, which said — retrospectively — that BNM had given approval on the basis that information provided was “accurate and complete”. 1MDB and AGC also issued press statements in response so if Tony wants details he should ask BNM. I’ve given my own view of BNM’s silly withdrawal of the permissions.
On BNM’s first statement:
On BNM’s statement responding to AGC’s statement:
More opinions on BNM here:
BNM’s statement has been rebutted to death so it’s now up to BNM and Tony Pua (and poops & zombies) to prove 1MDB did not comply with BNM's requests. Better still, explain why BNM didn't say anything about money laundering or billions missing. Come on poops & zombies, humour me.
(b) How much transferred: Since Tony mentioned Good Star then he could be implying the US$700 million transferred to Good Star Limited’s account which he stupidly assumes to be unrelated to Petrosaudi. He hasn't done his homework. (See below).
Other than that, it has already been explained that BNM had been consulted but of course Tony is fond of asking questions that have been answered. Nobody really cares if Tony is not happy with past answers as long as billions are not missing. But Tony needs to keep asking to show he's not chicken.
(Actually it's too late for that. Damage has been done).
(c) Who owns Good Star Limited: Tony has not seen or pretends to not have seen the leaked Petrosaudi letter that confirmed that Petrosaudi owns Good Star Limited. This proves Tony is either ignorant or a liar in claiming that Good Star is not related to Petrosaudi. I don't understand why Tony prefers to keep barking and asking when instead he could have done a company search to prove otherwise.
QUESTION 2. Is it true that 1MDB had invested the initial US$1 billion cash to acquire 40 percent of 1MDB-PetroSaudi International while PetroSaudi only needed to invest its rights to certain oil reserves in the Caspian Sea and in Argentina for its 60 percent stake? In addition, were the rights to the Caspian Sea oil reserves terminated by PetroSaudi within two months after the signing of the joint venture agreement, which meant that Petrosaudi secured their 60 percent stake without investing anything significant?
--- Whatever the underlying value of Petrosaudi’s equity — which has already been explained -- the fact remains that 1MDB got back their money plus profit of USD488 million after exiting the joint venture. So what point is Tony trying to prove?
I personally am no longer interested in which oil reserves they initially intended to invest in. What matters is that 1MDB made money that proves allegations that billions were lost were false allegations. Again, Tony has not bothered to read or understand past explanations to recycled questions.
"In effect; 1MDB’s contribution was in cash, whereas PetroSaudi’s contribution was in independently valued assets worth USD2.7 billion."
About Petrosaudi’s equity:
About the ‘fund units’:
QUESTION 3. Is it true that 1MDB had proceeded to sign the joint venture agreement with PetroSaudi in a rush, without securing the necessary Board of Directors approval at that point of time, as revealed in the same Board minutes?
--- This kind of question shows Tony is scraping the barrel.
Things should be done quickly rather than slowly. Tony doesn’t seem to know how things work in the corporate world. He doesn’t know that sometimes board approval is obtained after signing of documents. That’s why sometimes agreements have conditions precedent such as “subject to board approval” before they become unconditional.
Bodoh betul Tony Pua.
[Note to AA: That could the reason his SES-listed venture Cyber Village failed! He can't even manage his own business but yet wanting to teach others.]
I touched on this -- see point no. 3 of my post.
QUESTION 4. 1MDB Financial Statements dated March 31, 2013 and 2014 stated that US$1.4 billion was held as a deposit by International Petroleum Investment Corporation (IPIC) as a condition for IPIC to guarantee 1MDB’s US$3.5 billion bond issue. Did 1MDB pay US$993 million from the US$1.22 billion it partially redeemed from the Cayman Islands investment fund and another US$975 million borrowed from a Deutsche Bank-led consortium to terminate options 1MDB granted to Aabar Investments as part of another condition by IPIC to guarantee 1MDB’s US$3.5 billion bond issue? What exactly is the total sum paid and payable to Aabar or IPIC? Why is it that IPIC disclosed in its December 2014 Financial Statements that 1MDB still owes IPIC a sum of US$481 million for the said termination? In addition, if the US$993 million from the US$1.22 billion redeemed from Cayman Islands was not paid to Aabar or IPIC, where did the money go?
--- Can any poop or zombie please explain to me the purpose of these multiple questions? What answers would you like to hear or would not like to hear? What would lack of details prove or disprove? Otherwise these questions sound more like a fishing expedition.
Knowing the purpose of these question would be helpful. Otherwise, honestly, I couldn’t be bothered searching for and providing long answers and details.
Where’s the part that would imply billions are missing? He’s not still trying to link any payment by 1MDB to the RM2.6 billion going into Najib’s account is he?
He should just spit it out -- unless of course he's thinking about Najib's lawsuit hanging over his head, which he is cowardly trying to strike out.
Anyway, Lim Sian See did talk about the “missing” USD1.4 billion:
QUESTION 5. It has been disclosed in 1MDB’s financial statements, parliamentary replies and media releases that 1MDB Global Investment Limited borrowed US$3 billion in March 2013 for the purposes in investing in a 50:50 joint-venture with Aabar Investments Limited, where the joint-venture will invest in the development of Tun Razak Exchange. The question is, how come more than US$1.5 billion of the borrowings have been utilised for purposes other than specified as disclosed in the March 2014 Audited Accounts, particularly since the joint-venture has yet to be activated to date?
--- The question should be: Did the lenders agree to any change of purpose, if so deemed. Obviously the lenders would have been aware as they did not call on any default and that’s what matters.
This sounds more like a compliance question rather than having anything to do with any fraud allegation.
My previous employer had raised bonds for a particular purpose and later the purpose was changed with both shareholders’ and bondholders’ consent — there was nothing sinister about the change of purpose. A specific business opportunity is not available forever and may be substituted with another investment opportunity in the better interest of the company.
Tony is deviating from fraud allegations. Isn't he interested in the billions "missing"?
QUESTION 6. Arul Kanda had earlier informed Malaysians and 1MDB Directors, according to the above leaked minutes, that the balance of the Cayman Islands investment amounting to US$1.108 billion was fully redeemed and was held in cash in BSI Bank Singapore. However, the 1MDB president has since admitted that the redeemed amount was not cash but they were “fund units” worth US$940 million. Why are these “fund units”, which were redeemed from the Cayman Island fund, still in the form of “fund units” and not in cash or, raw assets like property and shares? If they were in “fund units”, doesn’t it mean that the Caymans fund was never redeemed in the first place?
---> I think Tony has not properly understood what was redeemed. It was the Murabah notes that were redeemed. These notes were like redeemable convertible preference shares (RCPS). Anyone who knows corporate finance will understand what is meant when loans or preference shares are redeemed.
"The notes, which were paid back in full - with interest, were subsequently invested in a fund under the regulatory supervision of the Cayman Monetary Authority."
This is why poops and zombies should not terkejut beruk along with Opposition leaders when already back in December last year it had been stated that money was "invested in a FUND” so the denomination would obviously be in UNITS as is normal for any investment fund.
Even my Islamic savings account is stated in units. Bodoh.
But hang on, how come Tony is now not saying the fund units were worthless and is merely wondering why the money was invested in fund units and not cash, properties or shares? This is getting boring... nothing about fraud?
QUESTION 7. Arul Kanda announced the “debt for asset-swap” deal with IPIC, where the latter assumes some RM16 billion of 1MDB’s debts in exchange for 1MDB’s assets. IPIC has already advanced more than US$1 billion in the deal. Where is 1MDB going to produce these RM16 billion worth of assets to transfer to IPIC by June 30, 2016?
---> Only 1MDB can answer this but based on the balance sheet there are RM13.4 billion of “available-for-sale-investments” as at 31/3/2014.
Later 1MDB also issued a press statement to explain where RM42 billion had gone to and this included investments totalling RM15.4 billion as at 31/3/2014. The FY2016 accounts are not out yet but it looks plausible that 1MDB will come up with the assets, especially because of the higher USD:RM exchange rate compared to March 2014.
QUESTION 8. The Ministry of Finance (MoF) has also indemnified IPIC in the “debt of asset-swap” arrangement. Does it mean that if 1MDB fails to produce the necessary RM16 billion worth of assets by June 30, 2016, the MoF would have to compensate IPIC accordingly?
--- I dunno. But see my answer to question number 7. But errr ... what about the fraud allegations, Tony? Poops? Zombies?
QUESTION 9. Arul has declared that the disposal of the 1MDB subsidiary, Edra Global Energy Bhd, will allow it to remove RM16 billion to RM18 billion of 1MDB’s debt. However, the total debts associated with 1MDB’s energy arm amounts to approximately RM36 billion, comprising of US$3.5 billion of bonds, RM5.7 billion of direct loans and more than RM8 billion of inherited loans. Hence reducing up to RM18 billion of debt via the disposal of Edra Energy will still leave 1MDB with more than RM18 billion of outstanding debt associated with its energy acquisitions. Therefore, how will the sale of Edra Global Energy solve 1MDB’s cash flow problem, since there’ll be no assets left to pay the balance of the RM18 billion debt?
--- Ahhhh…. Tony is no longer talking about any missing billions but how debt will be managed.
I’m too lazy to answer this. Arul did say any remaining debt will be at a manageable level.
I’ve said before I’m not interested in financial management issues. I’m more interested in the fraud allegations. So where’s the proof or the questions that would lead to conclusions that billions are missing, Tony? Sighhh...
QUESTION 10. Did the federal government issue a “letter of support” in May 2015 to Bank EXIM to borrow US$150 million (RM600 million), with the funds was utilised by 1MDB to pay for its land acquisition from Tadmax Resources Bhd for approximately RM300 million? If so, what was the balance of the proceeds from the borrowing used for?
--- I don't know and I don't need to know but if Tony is now reduced to asking about the utilisation of RM300 million, which is merely cashflow operational details (that can be figured from the cashflow statement of the audited accounts) rather than any missing RM42 billion or RM27 billion or other billions then it's no wonder he chickened out of the debate with Arul.
If by my answers you think I misunderstood any of Tony's questions then you should be able to see why it is necessary he should not be the only one asking questions.
Poops and zombies are welcome to criticise and reject my answers but don't try the tony-pua-chicken-debate-format with me. My wall is not a talk show for you to play host. Make sure you answer questions too .
- AA -
Notice that AA started asking for where is the missing billions or the squandered money from question 4.
Our doubt in the whole 1MDB scandal arise out of the same question. What more when most of the persons raising the issues has vested political/business interest or questionable character or plain naive or just spinning and not sincere in pursuing truth.
It is not about bad management, or corporate governance or transparency or bad investment decisions. There are and it was realised long before anyone knew the existence of 1MDB. Back in 2009/10, this blogger told the then CEO Dato Shahrol in his face, "If this is the way you managed 1MDB, you will put Dato Najib in trouble." Masin mulut ...
There is nothing on stealing. Facebooker Daniel Goh realised this too ...
Now that we know what Tiny Pea's 10 questions to Arul Kanda are, we can be sure of a few things....Woof woof woof? Any convincing evidence without any doubt? Sorry, the dog can't bark any more.
(1) There was nothing in the questions that would suggest any fraud or criminal wrongdoing on the part of 1MDB
(2) There was nothing to suggest that RM42 billion or RM27 billion or any amount that moron and conspirator in chief Mamakutty can dream of in his wet dreams that was hilang or lesap
(3) There was no mention whatsoever of Jho Low or the role he played in supposedly siphoning off millions if not billions from 1MDB when he seemed to appear in every flowchart that SR and the Edge produced.
(4) There was no question related to 1MDB supposedly overpaying for its IPP assets and the ridiculous commissions it allegedly paid to Goldman Sachs that are way above market norms
(5) There was no question that would link the RM 2.6 billion donation to 1MDB or its subsidiaries or associates
(6) There was no question that would suggest 1MDB overvalued its RM 50 billion plus assets when Tiny Pea has been going around telling everybody they are worth not more than RM16 billion
(7) There was no question to ask 1MDB to explain why the land purchases by LTH and Affin Bank are not considered bailouts when the DAPigs have been quick to shout bailout as soon as those deals were announced.
(8) All the 10 questions were basically of a technical nature who will bore even Arul Kanda to doze off, never mind the audience, yet another pathetic piece of deceit by that goondoo Tiny Pea to impress his ever more stupid Zombie DumbAssPiglets and of course those Pooptuns. It's just recycling the same old shit that had been answered million of times over and over again
Basically, the 10 questions only prove 1 thing ie that Tiny Pea actually did not lose his telors. They just got shrunk into peas and then those peas were transplanted into his brain, so he is thinking with his pea sized testes now What a bloody waste of everybody's time that pygmy brain asshole is.
No wonder LGE claimed that the DAPigs are spoilt f or choice to select someone better than Tiny pea to debate Arul. Any stray dog that the piece of feces LGE culled recently would have been able to ask more intelligent questions
Did somebody mentioned that he graduated from Oxford University or did he just went window shopping at Oxford Street and came back with a parking ticket that he thought was a degree from Oxford University? PPE = Poor Parking Etiquettes?
To be continued......My 10 Questions for Tiny Pea related to 1MDB
We are not in the habit of some of our friends to quickly assume as "ini mesti ada" or "takkan tak" so and so hanky panky to happen from merely incompetence and bad management practices. More so to form opinion from conversation with this and that person, even if he is a Minister.
Mind you, incompetence and bad management is not a criminal offense.
Suspicious YES, but assume NO. Presume NOTHING till evidences are laid out. This is especially so when it involves billions and toppling a national leader. It cannot be on hearsay!