WANG EHSAN

Artikel ini dipetik daripada website http://www.theedgedaily.com/

5 May 2008: Cover Story: The wang ehsan money trail
Stories by Sharon Tan, Ghani Hamat and Siow Chen Ming

The statistics speak volumes of the discord between Terengganu's government expenditure and the socio-economic status of the people in the state.
Terengganu would easily qualify as the state with the biggest budget in peninsular Malaysia. Thanks to its natural resources, it gets more than RM1 billion each year from the federal government in oil royalties that give the state enough firepower to undertake fairly large projects on its own.
For instance, in the 2008 Budget, the budget was RM1.67 billion, of which RM1.5 billion was non-revenue income (penerimaan bukan hasil), which mainly constitutes the state's share of oil royalties from the federal government.
To give an idea of how large the budget is — in comparison, Selangor's budget is only RM1.3 billion. And Selangor's population is nearly five times more than Terengganu, which has slightly more than a million people. The Sultan is the present Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
While Selangor can claim to be the most developed state in the country, Terengganu comes nowhere close. In fact, the state has one of the highest poverty levels in the country. According to past budget speeches, in 2004 Terengganu's poverty rate was 10.6% — far higher than the national average of 5.1%.
Couple this with allegations of lavish spending by the state administration when Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh was the Menteri Besar, and it's enough to send ripples through the state. In Terengganu's case, it went right up to the palace.
After the general election, the Terengganu palace refused to swear in Idris as the menteri besar. Although nothing is official, speculation is rife that the palace, among other things, was generally unhappy with the way the money from Dana Khas (special fund), also commonly referred to as wang ehsan, was spent. Idris lost his job and was reluctantly replaced by Datuk Ahmad Said, who does not pretend that all's well in the state as far as the finances are concerned.
While there is no dispute that the state receives a princely sum each year, Ahmad wants to know the exact amount and be given a free hand to use and invest.
“They (federal government) gives us RM1 billion. We don't know the balance," says Ahmad, who seems to have the backing of the palace and the Terengganu People's Solidarity Council in his quest to get the entire royalty payment channelled back to the state coffers. He also has the support of political rival PAS.
His main complaint is that the state does not have any say in the projects that are supposedly financed by oil royalties.
“There are too many people managing the money. When a certain ministry implements a project, it is based on its own interest and does not take into account the needs of the people of Terengganu," he says.
Ahmad had been unhappy with some of the projects because of the high cost and lack of priority for the people.
"t is other people, not us, who make the decisions," he says.

Mega projects
Among the major projects that have hogged the limelight are the Monsoon Cup and Taman Tamudun Islam. The Monsoon Cup, which the state has a 10-year obligation to organise, is said to cost RM250 million annually, while the yet-to-be-completed Taman Tamadun Islam has a price tag of RM249 million.
Surprisingly, Ahmad, who was a state executive council member during Idris' term as Menteri Besar, says he does not know the cost of organising the Monsoon Cup.
“Actually, the Monsoon Cup is good to promote Terengganu to the world. But we have our doubts on the cost," he says in an interview with The Edge recently.
To a question on whether the cost came up to RM250 million, Ahmad retorts: “That is what they said. I have yet to check."
The annual race during the monsoon season is organised by the state government, with T-Best Events Sdn Bhd as the event manager, while the State Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) bears the title of strategic partner. While the yearly budget speech touched on the Monsoon Cup, there was no mention of figures or where the funding would come from (see separate story on T-Best).
On the RM249 million Taman Tamadun Islam project, Ahmad says it was channelled straight to the SEDC without consultation with the state.
Built on a 22.3ha site on Pulau Wan Man, the Islamic-themed park houses the floating Crystal Mosque and 21 replicas of Islamic monuments from around the world.
He says with the state having full control of the oil royalties, it would be easier to budget and plan as it would have its own priorities.
It was only after the Barisan Nasional lost the state in 1999 that the issue of oil royalty cropped up. The federal government re-channelled the oil royalty to the special fund or wang ehsan to prevent the PAS-led Terengganu government from laying hands on the money.
According to Terengganu PAS commissioner Datuk Mustafa Ali, the PAS government received only RM432 million in March 2000.
"t was supposed to be the second instalment to the 1999 royalty. The state government never received further oil royalty money from the federal government," says Mustafa, who was one of the key members of the PAS-led Terengganu government from 1999 to 2004.
The then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in his 2001 Budget speech announced that the royalty would be channelled to the state via federal government agencies.
According to the budget, the money would be provided to the state through the Wang Ehsan Financing Programme. The committee at the federal level responsible for the programme had identified programmes, which include provision of water and electricity, village roads, education, infrastructure, housing, cultivation of cash crops and assistance to coastal and deep-sea fishermen.
“They (federal government) built a lot of schools during our time, though. Usually when they want to build schools, the state only imposes a nominal charge on the land. But we charged the federal government based on market price because it was the only way we could increase our revenue.
“A lot of schools were built because Umno wants the projects to carry on because they need the money. In Terengganu, we had the highest number of schools built during our time because the projects were from the federal government," laughs Mustafa.

Suit against Petronas
During PAS rule, money was channelled to the people in every constituency via an appointed coordinator from Umno. The Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (Village Safety and Development Committee) would be tasked to identify the hardcore poor.
According to Mustafa, about RM40 million was allocated for this purpose. PAS, however, was not able to trace the movement of the money into the state.
Interestingly, PAS took the matter to court by filing a civil suit in 2001 against Petronas and the federal government for not paying the oil royalty allegedly because of political differences.
The case was filed as “The state of Terengganu versus the government of Malaysia and Petronas" since PAS did not and could not file the case on its own behalf as it was the ruling political party.
Mustafa says the PAS government was informed of the termination via a faxed letter from Tun Daim Zainuddin, the then finance minister.
He says he met Petronas chairman Tan Sri Hassan Merican, who explained that Petronas abided by the agreement and disbursed the money.
“But Petronas is under the federal government. Previously, it was given directly by Petronas to the state government," he adds.
“The oil royalty accounted for 75% of the state budget. We had to survive on 25%. We had to abandon some programmes for the people such as housing and education," he says.
Umno-led Barisan Nasional reclaimed the state in 2004 and since then, the state gets between RM1 billion and RM1.5 billion in cash annually. The money makes up a good 90% of the state's annual budget.
Interestingly, even though the state has been under the control of Umno since 2004, it (the state) has not dropped the suit. The case is still pending in the courts.

Case not retracted
The oil royalty issue was left on the back burner until a few weeks ago when Ahmad officially made it known to the federal government that the state wants the money back. He also has no intention of dropping the lawsuit.
“PAS had already brought the matter to court. The case is still pending. We have never retracted it," he says.
To a question as to whether the state would withdraw the case, Ahmad says: “We need discussion. We only hope for the money to be returned."
Considering that the state already gets in excess of RM1.2 billion per annum in oil royalties, are there any more funds due to the state?
It is hard to tell but based on the rising oil price, the amount could be much more than what the state receives now.
In 2000, when PAS received the RM432 million part payment, oil was about US$25 to US$26 per barrel. Today, oil prices hover between US$116 and US$120. That is a huge sum and if managed well, could beef up the state reserves for years to come.
It is reported that Terengganu's oil wells will dry up by 2012 and hence, there is an urgency to regain the funds.
Perhaps Ahmad feels it is time for the state to be prudent in spending or utilising the funds for projects that generate higher returns.
While what he and the state plan to do with the money is a story for another day, there are a multitude of questions that need to be answered first.
Considering that Ahmad does not know how the money was spent, isn't it time perhaps to reveal who decided how the money should be spent? Did those projects benefit the people of Terengganu as they were meant to? Was there a proper accounting of how much in cash and kind the oil royalty amounted to? Will the oil royalty account in entirety be open for scrutiny?
Strangely, the chairman of the SEDC is the menteri besar; four exco members, including Ahmad, were part of the previous board. Is Idris going to maintain silence in the face of allegations? He lost his job because of these allegations; has he got much more to lose?
For a small state supposedly flush with oil money, it is difficult to comprehend that it has the second highest level of poverty. What ehsan is there?

RAPID KL

Artikel ini dipetik daripada website www.chedet.com

RAPID KL

Yang Berhormat Dato’ Bung Mokhtar Radin (Ahli Parlimen Kinabatangan) telah bertanya dalam Dewan Rakyat berkenaan 1000 lebih bas milik Rapid KL yang tersadai dan tidak diguna.

Bas-bas ini dikatakan asalnya milik Intrakota dan City Liner yang telah diambilalih oleh Rapid KL yang dipercayai adalah milik Khazanah. Bas-bas ini masih boleh diguna atau boleh diperbaiki dan dijual oleh Rapid KL.

Tetapi Rapid KL tidak berusaha bersungguh-sungguh untuk mendapat balik sedikit pun daripada kos pembelian syarikat-syarikat ini.

Kenapa?

Apakah Rapid KL begitu untung dan boleh tanggung rugi yang tidak kecil daripada menjadikan bas-bas yang dibeli olehnya sebagai besi buruk?

Rapid KL terkenal dengan jumlah besar bas baru yang dimilikinya. Umum tahu yang bas-bas ini kerap kosong. Oleh kerana ia adalah GLC dan melibatkan wang rakyat sepatutnya untung-ruginya diumumkan kepada orang ramai. Tetapi kita tidak pernah melihat kira-kira untung ruginya. Untung besarkah RapidKL dan Khazanah?

Kita bangga dengan design bas-bas yang dimiliki oleh Rapid KL. Ia amat moden. Saya ingin tahu siapakah yang membekal bas-bas ini. Saya percaya pembekal bas-bas ini meraih keuntungan yang besar kerana begitu banyak bas yang jelas dibeli oleh Rapid KL. Mungkinkah pelupusan dan write-off begitu banyak bas-bas lama adalah supaya bas baru dapat dibeli daripada pembekal tertentu? Jika ya, nampaknya Rapid KL diadakan untuk menguntungkan pembekal. Apakah adanya Rapid-Penang juga tidak mempunyai tujuan yang sama?

Apakah benar pembekal bas Rapid KL dan Rapid Penang ialah M-Trans yang dimiliki 100% oleh Scomi yang dimiliki oleh sipolan-sipolan yang mempunyai talian kekeluargaan dengan pemimpin besar negara?

Katanya pesanan untuk bas baru oleh Rapid KL adalah begitu banyak sehingga Scomi tidak dapat membinanya. Oleh itu Scomi dibenar import bas dari China. Apakah harga import dan harga jualan kepada Rapid KL? Apakah syarikat lain dibenar import bas baru dari luar negeri? Apakah duti import yang dibayar?

Kita juga dengar khabar angin bahawa Scomi juga dapat kontrak membekal unit-unit monorel untuk projek monorel di Pulau Pinang. Sekali lagi Scomi hanya akan membekal unit monorel sahaja dan tidak akan terlibat dengan pembangunan dan pengurusan sistem monorel di Pulau Pinang. Umum tahu pembangunan dan pengurusan tidak memberi keuntungan. Menjual unit monorel tetap untung terutama jika tidak ada tender atau tender di buat dengan spesifikasi yang hanya jenis unit monorel Scomi sahaja yang boleh menepatinya.

Auditor - Professional Independence

Artikel ini disumbangkan oleh seorang lagi rakan penulis yang juga sedang mengikuti pengajian Sarjana 'Forensic Accounting and Financial Criminology'.

The ethical principles governing your professional responsibilities as an auditor include independence, integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, professional behaviour and technical standards. There are few ethics issues in auditing that shown where there is no code of ethics, or where the code of ethics permits a degree of conflict of interest, the auditors tread at their own risk. The most common issues are on independence and competence.

Issues in professional independence

As an approved auditor, you should maintain a high level of professional independence at all times. The lack of independence may be considered a contributing factor to unsatisfactory performance, especially where you are involved in the day-to-day management of a fund or are in a position to influence the fund’s decision making processes. The SEC claimed that auditors failed to exercise due professional care in 71% of the enforcement cases and to maintain an attitude of professional skepticism in 60% of the cases. In general, this failure on the auditors’ part can be found throughout the sanctioned audit engagements. There are several cases that can be lessons for other auditors in professional independence.

Cap Gemini (French Company) and Ernst & Young, Potential Self-Dealing case

Responding to SEC criticism of ostensible conflicts of interest, some major accounting firms, such as KPMG and Arthur Andersen, have spun off their consulting arms as independently owned and managed entities. Ernst & Young LLP chose another route. The story of E&Y and its alliance with Cap Gemini leads from a regulatory no-action letter to a court case alleging breach of the accountant's fiduciary duty. The tale leads to "lessons learned."

Independence of Auditors: SEC No-Action Letter to Ernst & Young LLP on Alliance with Cap Gemini Ernst & Young LLC. By no-action letter dated May 25, 2000, the SEC's Chief Accountant advised Ernst & Young LLP that it would consider E&Y to maintain its independence even though Cap Gemini Ernst & Young were to provide IT services to E&Y audit clients. The no-action letter imposed a number of conditions that

(1) limit at the outset and within five years end E&Y's equity interest in Cap Gemini;

(2) impose limitations on Cap Gemini's use of the E&Y name;

(3) require a strict separation of E&Y and Cap Gemini's corporate governance;

(4) forbid any revenue sharing between E&Y and Cap Gemini;

(5) forbid any joint marketing agreements between E&Y and Cap Gemini; and

(6) restrict any shared services between E&Y and Cap Gemini

Unfortunately, an SEC no-action letter is not a vaccine against client lawsuits. Accountants engaged in management consulting should pay careful attention to a ruling against Ernst & Young, LLP ("E&Y") and its successor in interest (by sale of consulting business), Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, U.S. LLC ("CGEY"). This case is instructive to anyone in a licensed professional capacity engaged in ancillary or multidisciplinary consulting practice.

In a pre-trial ruling in early January 2002 on a motion to dismiss, without deciding the final outcome, the court found that E&Y was potentially legally subject to claims of breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages arising out of a failed software implementation by CGEY, a company in which apparently E&Y is a substantial owner. (The was no allegation or showing of a failure to exercise the skill and care of a reasonably diligent accountant, so the court noted that there were no claims of professional malpractice (whether relating to accounting or computer consulting).

The alleged facts of the case, if true, would be particularly egregious. The following reports are provided according to the court's pre-trial decision. Whether the allegations will be proven remains to be seen.

In June 2000, E&Y recommended to a client, a medical and nutritional company, to retain CGEY as the vendor to implement a commercial off-the-shelf software package that the client had selected, based on E&Y's recommendation, for its short and long-term business needs. E&Y made a number of representations to the client to induce the client to hire CGEY, and the court concluded that, without those representations, the client would probably have selected another IT service provider. E&Y reportedly represented that

(1) CGEY was competent, experienced and qualified to implement the system selected by E&Y, and

(2) CGEY's performance of services had already been "coordinated" with E&Y.

A fiduciary relationship existed between the accounting firm and its client for several reasons. First, the client had developed a relationship of trusting the accounting firm's judgment based on prior professional services. Second, the accounting firm offered to provide additional consulting services. Third, the medical and nutritional company was less sophisticated than the accounting firm in the "specialty" for which the accounting firm and the services firm were hired.

When a fiduciary fails to disclose personal interests preliminary to contract, and/or represents the existence of a questionable competence and experience critical to the contract and procures a benefit such as that alleged to E&Y and the newly formed CGEY, the risk of liability for the negligent misrepresentations and a question of fraud is properly alleged." Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, NYLJ, Jan. 10, 2002. Accordingly, a fiduciary relationship arose and could have been breached if proven at trial.

KPMG Canada case (Lack of Independence.)

In June 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission entered into a settlement, in an enforcement action, with KPMG LLP (KPMG Canada), a Canadian audit firm, and two of its partners, Gary Bentham, the audit engagement partner, and John Gordon, the concurring and SEC reviewing partner. The SEC asserted that KPMG Canada, Bentham and Gordon lacked independence when they audited the 1999 through 2002 financial statements of Southwestern Water Exploration Co. (Southwestern), a now-bankrupt Colorado corporation.

The SEC claimed that KPMG Canada provided bookkeeping services to Southwestern and then audited its own work. Specifically, after KPMG Canada prepared certain of Southwestern’s basic accounting records and financial statements, it issued purportedly independent audit reports on those financial statements. KPMG Canada’s audit reports were included in Southwestern’s annual reports that were filed with the Commission.

The SEC found that KPMG Canada, Bentham and Gordon engaged in “improper professional conduct” within the meaning of Rule 102(e) of the SEC’s Rules of Practice by virtue of their violations of the auditor independence requirements imposed by the Commission’s rules and guidance and by generally accepted auditing standards in the United States.

Issues of professional competence

The auditor should be professionally competent, having the skills and knowledge to conduct the audit assignment, and he/she should maintain professional competence through appropriate continuing professional education and training.

CAs in public practice are especially vulnerable to risk if they don't stay up to date on the latest developments in auditing and accounting. This fictionalized account case describes the missteps that landed one of CAs members in front of the Professional Conduct Enquiry Committee (PCEC). Names and circumstances have been changed to preserve anonymity.

Bill, a sole practitioner, won the NPO audit engagement. Funded by a government agency, NPO had a number of branches throughout the province. The agency's funding agreement limited administrative expenditures, forbade expenditures in defined conflict of interest situations, required proper documentation, and required the auditor to report all unresolved issues in a management letter, regardless of materiality.

NPO's previous auditor had qualified his audit opinion for two reasons: five of NPO's branches hadn't produced sufficient supporting documentation for expenditures, and the audited statements from two branches had not been received. (These two branches operated independently and appointed their own auditors.)

Bill was confident he and his only staff member, Robert, a CA student, were up for this exciting but challenging audit.

A number of issues arose during the audit:

* The audited financial statements from the two independent branches were received, but Bill failed to notice that they hadn't amortized capital assets, as was by then required under the funding agency's policies. Bill had not informed the other auditors of this change.

Robert vouched a sample of expense items and noticed that ten items were not properly documented. Bill concluded that these were either satisfactorily explained or not material.

* Robert also found that NPO had administration expenditures in excess of the funding agreement's limitations. Bill subsequently stated that officers of the funding agency had assured him these excess expenses would not be challenged. Bill did not obtain confirmation of this departure from the funding agreement and did not report the matter.

Shortly after Bill issued his unqualified audit report, the government agency did a review of the grant to NPO. That report recommended disallowing material expenditures based on inadequate documentation and conflict of interest violations. Given the unfavourable review, Jim, the agency employee responsible for following up on these recommendations, was surprised that Bill's audit report was unqualified and that his management letter didn't address the expenditure issues found by the agency. Furthermore, he noted that the financial statement format did not comply with new CICA Handbook recommendations. Jim was concerned enough to refer the matter to the PCEC.

The Outcome

The PCEC found that Jim's concerns were valid, determining that Bill had breached several rules, particularly Rules 203 and 206:

Rule 203 requires that a member sustain his professional competence by keeping himself informed of, and complying with, developments in professional standards.

Rule 206 requires that a member in public practice perform his services in accordance with generally accepted standards of practice of the profession, including the recommendations set out in the CICA Handbook

The PCEC determined that Bill had not obtained sufficient audit evidence and had failed to document important matters. Most significantly, Bill could not demonstrate how he'd resolved the outstanding ten sample items. Bill's failure to comply with new CICA Handbook recommendations, and the absence of amortization of capital assets for two branches were of additional concern to the PCEC.

Because of the above breaches, the PCEC also found that Bill had breached Rule 202 by not performing his professional services with due care.

In addition, Rule 205(a) prohibits association with written statements that a member should know are false or misleading.

The PCEC felt that Bill should have known the audit report and statements were misleading.

The funding review made NPO and the funding agency aware of Bill's lapses. Accordingly, the PCEC concluded Bill had also breached Rule 201.1 by failing to maintain the good reputation of the profession.

Bill accepted the PCEC recommendation that he be issued an anonymous reprimand, attend a number of professional development courses, agree to a third party tutor file review prior to the release of any assurance reports for one year, and pay the costs of the investigation and a significant fine.

The Message

Bill had considered himself relatively up to date, but it had been a while since he'd undertaken any formal training in auditing and accounting. The PCEC investigation led him to strengthen several areas, but he's still not sure he'll ever reverse his loss of credibility with NPO and the funding agency.

As the business world becomes increasingly complex, members need to sustain individual professional competence by keeping abreast of and complying with developments in professional standards. This is especially important for small practitioners who don't have access to a national standards group to help keep them current.

LHDNM - Pendaftaran Kontraktor (Kelas A, B & C)

Melalui semakan di laman web Pusat Khidmat Kontraktor (PKK), didapati tiada maklumat atau dokumen berkaitan cukai pendapatan yang perlu dikemukakan semasa ingin membuat pendaftaran kontraktor. Borang permohonan juga didapati tiada ruangan untuk memasukkan no rujukan cukai pendapatan. Pada pendapat saya, sekurang-kurangnya no rujukan cukai pendapatan perlu dimasukkan semasa ingin membuat pendaftaran kontraktor. Ini bagi memastikan bakal kontraktor itu mempunyai fail cukai pendapatan dengan LHDNM serta seterusnya pendapatan syarikat tersebut dapat disalurkan semula kepada kerajaan melalui cukai pendapatan.

Ini dapat mencegah kes-kes seperti kelewatan pihak LHDNM mengesan syarikat-syarikat ini. Terdapat juga kontraktor-kontraktor yang hanya ditubuhkan semata-mata untuk menjalankan projek tertentu sahaja dan terus menutup syarikat tersebut sebaik sahaja sesuatu projek. Ini dapat dilihat sebagai langkah proaktif pihak LHDNM di dalam mengesan pembayar-pembayar cukai seperti ini.

Berdasarkan kepada pengalaman, didapati projek-projek kerajaan mempunyai nisbah untung bersih yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan projek swasta.

Ingin juga saya mencadangkan agar sistem integrasi dibuat di antara pihak LHDNM dengan pihak Kementrian Kewangan di mana penyaluran maklumat-maklumat berkaitan sesuatu kontrak dibuat dengan lebih efisien dan efektif. Sistem lama di mana surat-surat pemberitahuan dihantar melalui mel perlu digantikan dengan sistem atas talian (online system) sahaja. Maklumat-maklumat seperti syarikat yang menerima kontrak, nilai kontrak, tempoh kontrak serta sebarang kerja-kerja tambahan (VO) perlu sentiasa dikemas kini agar pihak LHDNM dapat mengambil tindakan yang selanjutnya. Sebagai langkah permulaan, mungkin tumpuan diberikan kepada kontraktor kelas A, B dan C terlebih dahulu iaitu untuk kos kerja / nilai kontrak melebihi RM 2 juta.

Saya percaya dengan terlaksananya cadangan ini, beberapa objektif penting dapat dicapai : -

Membesarkan asas cukai LHDNM

Meningkatkan kecekapan dalam sistem penyampaian perkhidmatan awam dan mengatasi karenah birokrasi

Meningkatkan tadbir urus korporat

Wallahu’alam.

Corruption - Let IRB deal with it

Melalui pengalaman dan cerita kawan-kawan, pada zaman mutakhir ini perbelanjaan-perbelanjaan seperti ini (rasuah @ duit kopi) seolah-olah menjadi belanja pasti (darah daging @ duri dalam daging) di dalam perniagaan terutama sektor pembinaan dan projek kerajaan. Selalunya perbelanjaan-perbelanjaan seumpama ini dikenali sebagai ‘unexplained expenses’. Walaupun pihak LHDNM telah memberikan pandangan berhubung isu ini semasa dialog Jabatan Teknikal LHDNM dengan Persatuan Akauntan pada 15 Mac 2006 (Item 7 Appendix C), tetapi didapati tiada peruntukan yang jelas di dalam Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967.

Sebagai menyahut seruan YAB Perdana Menteri dan salah satu sasaran keutamaan Pelan Integriti Nasional (PIN) (TEKAD 2008) iaitu mengurangkan gejala rasuah, penyelewengan dan salahguna kuasa secara berkesan, saya merasakan satu peruntukan berkaitan dengan isu rasuah ini perlu dimasukkan ke dalam Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967 (mungkin pada Seksyen 39 ACP 1967). Peruntukan ini akan menunjukkan pihak Kerajaan adalah sangat serius di dalam menangani gejala jijik ini.

Berdasarkan kajian yang dibuat, didapati Australia melalui Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 mempunyai peruntukan seperti ini. Seksyen yang berkaitan adalah 26-52 dan 26-53. Kemungkinan kita juga boleh mengguna pakai seksyen-seksyen ini mengikut kesesuaian dan keselarasan dengan peruntukan Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997 (Seksyen 10 hingga 20).

Saya juga secara peribadi sangat bersetuju dengan satu artikel dari akhbar The Star (Feb 13, 2007 yang bertajuk ‘Let the IRB deal with the corrupt’. Unit risikan dan pengesanan LHDNM perlu diperkemaskan. Adalah lebih baik sekiranya pihak LHDNM dapat bekerjasama dengan Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) di mana kes-kes yang tidak mempunyai bukti-bukti yang kukuh untuk dibawa ke mahkamah, diberikan sahaja kepada pihak LHDNM untuk menanganinya. Saya pasti ‘unexplained income’ ini sekurang-kurangnya dapat dicukai oleh pihak LHDNM.

Wallahu'alam.

Kemusykilan Penggabungan ECM Libra - Avenue

Satu ulasan yang sangat menarik untuk dikaji dan dianalisis. Tuduhan dan kenyataan yang dibuat perlu dipertimbangkan dan dikaji dari aspek forensik perakaunan. Artikel di bawah dipetik dari laman web mykmu.net.

http://mykmu.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5142

Apa pandangan dan tindakan pihak berkuasa seperti Security Commission, Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia dan Bursa Malaysia.

Analisis dan kajian hendaklah dibuat dengan ‘tanpa prejudis’ agar kesimpulan dan pertimbangan dapat dibuat dengan objektif bukan dengan emosi.

Wallahu'alam

Who Get the Benefit ???

Artikel ini disumbangkan oleh rakan seperjuangan. Rakan penulis ini adalah seorang pelajar Master di dalam jurusan Forensic Accounting and Financial Criminology di salah sebuah IPTA tempatan)

When the Ninth Malaysian Plan (9MP) was unveiled, most of the businessmen especially contractors queried whether they can be considered to involve in the mega projects as the main contractor or at least to get some portion of the job. When the announcement was made most of the mega project would go to the Government Linked Companies (GLC) without them even bidding for it [ GLC are defined as companies that have a primary commercial objective and Malaysia Government has direct controlling stake. The controlling stake not only as major shareholder but Government has ability to appoint Board of Directors member, senior management and make major decision.]

For example, Pak Lah has announced that the construction of second Penang Bridge has gone to UEM Group which will partner with Chinese firm.[ UEM Group’s holding company is United Engineers (Malaysia) Berhad, a wholly owned by Khazanah Nasional Berhad – the Malaysia Government’s instrument arm ]. UEM Group has agreed to hold 49% stake in the joint venture with JV Construction of China Harbour Engineering Co. (CHEC) . The Chinese counter part will provide a big portion of the funding (recently RM2.7billion loan agreement has signed).

One mega project at the down south of Malaysia has gone to Malaysian Resources Corp Berhad (MRCB) which estimated at RM1billion cost of construction the Eastern Dispersal Link (EDL). This highway would run through the Iskandar Development Region and end at Johor Bharu. [The major shareholder of MRCB is Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Board]

From the example above, it has become very clear that only GLC will feature in the economic zones that are being mapped out under the 9MP. Why is that the case? What happened to open tenders? Why not consider non-GLC which have proved their worth overseas? Whether any crony company would also get some portion of the job?

Man United menang

Manchester United telah berjaya menjuarai Champions League pada pagi ini. Man United telah memenangi menerusi tendangan penalti 6 – 5 setelah kedudukan terikat 1 -1 semasa permainan tamat selepas masa tambahan. Man United telah berjaya mendahului Chelsea menerusi penyerang sensasinya, Christiano Ronaldo sebelum diikat oleh jaringan Frank Lampard (Chelsea) sebelum rehat separuh masa pertama.

Penang Realty Case

Penang Realty case

Compulsory Land Acquisition

Patut @ tak patut kena cukai ???

Di atas keputusan mahkamah yang memihak kepada pembayar cukai di dalam kes Penang Realty vs DGIR, pihak LHDN telah mengisu Decision Impact Statement (http://www.hasil.org.my/english/eng_DecisionImpact.asp) bagi menerangkan pemakaian kes ini (administrative treatment).

Walau bagaimanapun, peguam yang mewakili pembayar cukai di dalam kes ini telah memberikan maklum balasnya di dalam artikel beliau yang bertajuk :

“Can the IRB Disregard the Judicial Pronouncement in the Penang Realty Case? A Legal Perspective on the Decision Impact Statement”.

Artikel menarik ini boleh didapati di Accountants Today keluaran Februari 2008. Kalau tidak silap saya, artikel yang sama telah dikeluarkan oleh majalah Tax National (dah tak ingat keluaran mana).

Selain itu, pembayar cukai juga boleh merujuk komen daripada PricewaterhouseCoopers di dalam isu yang sama. Artikel bertajuk “Compulsary land acquisition: Is it taxable?” boleh didapati melalui PwC Alert Issue No. 67 keluaran September 2007.

Saya mengambil pendirian bahawa setiap kes mempunyai fakta kes tersendiri. Oleh itu, pembayar cukai perlu berhati-hati kerana kadang-kadang pembayar cukai menang, kadang-kadang LHDN menang. Saya berpendapat bahawa antara factor utama yang mempengaruhi keputusan setiap kes seperti ini adalah kepandaian dan kebijaksaan peguam (LHDN mahupun pembayar cukai) memberikan hujah masing-masing semasa perbicaraan berlangsung.

Wallahu’alam...

MV Agusta

Purchase and sale by Proton

Kenyataan di bawah dipetik dari website Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Agusta

Heavily indebted, the manufacturer was bought by Malaysian carmaker Proton in December 2004 for 70 million euro. In December 2005 however, Proton decided to cut its ties with MV Agusta and sold it to GEVI SpA, a Genoa-based financing company related to Carige, for a token euro excluding debt.

In 2006 that financing company, GEVI SpA, with 65% of the share capital, had refinanced MV Agusta, and by so doing allowed the company to continue, and brought MV Agusta ownership back to Italy.

Husqvarna sale to BMW

In July 2007 MV Agusta Motor S.p.A, sold the Husqvarna motorcycle brand to BMW Motorrad for an undisclosed amount. Accorting to MV Agusta president Claudio Castiglioni, the sale was a strategic step to concentrate all of the company's resources in order to expand MV Agusta and Cagiva presence in the international markets having more financial resources for new models development.

Persoalannya, adakah tepat / betul nilai MV Agusta hanya 1 euro ?

Walau bagaimanapun setakat ini, penulis masih belum menemui amaun sebenar pihak BMW membeli MV Agusta ini.

Wallahualam.