PERSONAL INVESTING
By OOI KOK HWA
As a result of the recent market crashes, a lot of retailer players have been staying away from the stock market. Although the present market may be showing some uptrend, not many retailers are confident about investing.
ACCORDING to Stephen Vines in his book titled Market Panic, there are four types of market panic – phoney panic, end-of-cycle panic, contagious panic and real panic.
Phoney panic refers to that caused by some negative events which have no impact on the fundamentals of companies or the overall economy. For example, even though such panic causes heavy selling, it is short-lived and will recover within a short time, as the crash does not cause changes to the economic fundamentals.
End-of-cycle panic refers to panic selling as a result of the end of a market rally. This is a healthy pullback, as the market needs to consolidate before it can resume its upward momentum. However, such panic normally takes time to recover.
Nevertheless, if the crash is confined to the local market, it will be less severe compared with contagious panic.
Contagious panic usually refers to cross-border and international contagion.
For example, the terrorist attacks on World Trade Centre on Sept 11, 2001 led to the crash in the US market spreading throughout the world markets, including Malaysia.
The KL Composite Index (KLCI) tumbled more than 100 points within four days of the attacks. Nevertheless, it recovered to the pre-crash level three months after the crash.
The last type of panic – also the most dangerous – is real panic, which is triggered by the possibility of an economic recession, corporate failures or financial crisis.
The market will take longer to recover from these crashes as they are due to worries over economic recession and company fundamentals.
For instance, if the Fed did not cut interest rates on Jan 22 (before the market opened), we might have ended up with a global market crash, as the Asia-Pacific as well as European markets had already experienced big crashes before the US market opened.
Even though this crash relates more to real panic, it was also the result of end-of-cycle panic plus contagious panic, combining all three types of panic.
Buying panic
James L. “RevShark” DePorre, in his book Invest Like A Shark, introduced a new investing approach called “shark investing”. He says we need to invest like sharks because sharks have certain characteristics that can keep them away from danger and yet they are highly efficient eating machines.
Sharks are patient while they wait for opportunities. Given that the recent market panic may take longer to recover, we need to wait for opportunities. Unless we encounter strong buying opportunities that enable us to buy good quality stocks at very cheap prices, we need to be patient in waiting for the right timing.
Sometimes, the best buying opportunities arise when the outlook is at its worst. Unfortunately, except for institutional investors, most retailers will shy away from the market.
For example, not many investors would dare to buy when our market tumbled more than 100 points after the recent general election results. Most of them believed then that shares could get cheaper in the following few days.
Sharks plan their attacks. We should consider buying stocks when certain companies are selling far below their intrinsic value or their businesses are temporarily facing business difficulties and should correct them over time. Capital gains mean buy low, sell high.
For good quality stocks, we can only buy low when there is a lot of bad news. Unfortunately, most analysts focus on the bad news and seldom look at long-term prospects.
Lastly, sharks are risk-averse and do not hesitate to swim away when danger lurks. If our economy falls into recession (although most experts say it is quite unlikely), we need to hold more cash than stocks and wait until the worst is over.
However, we should hold on to good quality stocks that pay good dividends. We should not liquidate all stocks while waiting for the market to crash further as we will never know whether we have seen the worst.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Picking Stocks With Long-Term Prospects
Personal Investing by OOI KOK HWA
This first of a two-part article looks at the criteria for selecting the right stocks
Q: I don’t know how to select the right stocks for long-term investment. Do you have any systematic way for stock selection?
Lately, readers have asked us whether there are basic, systematic ways to select stocks for long-term investment. We find that it’s quite difficult to answer this question as there are many ways to pick stocks. Different fund managers have different methods of picking the right stocks for their funds.
Even though there are no short cuts in screening stocks, we can broadly group our selection according to seven criteria, namely SGPDBHM. “S” stands for sales, “G” – growth, “P” – price-earnings ratio (PER), “D” – dividend yield, “B” – book value, “H” – health and “M” for management.
In this article, we will look at the first four criteria: sales (S), growth (G), PER (P) and dividend yield (D).
S – Annual sales of at least above RM500mil
Our first criterion is to select companies that have total annual sales of RM500mil and above. The main purpose for this is to select big companies for investment. Normally, a company with total sales of above RM500mil is considered well established and is less dependent on its owner.
In most instances, it will be one of the market leaders commanding a certain market share in its industry. Although we are not saying that companies with annual sales of less than RM500mil are not good for investment, less established companies face stiffer competition and have more uncertainties in their future compared with more established companies.
This explains why the majority of our research houses prefer big companies to small companies. At present, if you are holding shares in a lot of small companies (although they have good fundamentals), the majority of them are not performing in terms of stock prices despite the current high stock market valuations.
This may be due to the same worries as well as analysts not paying much attention to those stocks.
G - growth in sales
We need to select stocks with strong sales growth. Higher growth in sales implies that a company is expanding fast.
According to Benjamin Graham in his book entitled “Security Analysis”, a growth company’s business can move faster than its stock price.
Given that our returns depend only on capital gain or dividend income, if a stock never pays any dividend, we need to make sure that we can get capital gains from the stock.
Unless we are able to catch them at cheap prices, we need to make sure that the company has very strong sales growth.
Higher sales will contribute to higher profits and higher stock prices.
P - Low PER stocks
To get a high margin of safety (MOS), we need to find stocks with low PER. For a stock that has a PER of 20 times, you would need to wait 20 years to get back your money, assuming that it can achieve the same earnings per share (EPS) over the next 20 years.
Hence, we should select stocks with low PER, especially lower than the overall stock market or its own industry average.
Given that the current market PER is about 15 times, if you can find a stock that is selling lower than 15 times, we can say that it is selling at a cheaper valuation than that of the overall market.
D- dividend yield of at least equal to fixed deposit rate
A good company needs to pay dividend. We believe this is the best way to rewards shareholders.
There are some listed companies that are making good profits but refuse to reward their shareholders with high dividends as they claim that they need to retain the profits for future expansion.
However, we believe “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”.
There are cases where companies are able to generate good returns from every dollar that they retain, but in most cases, some fail in their expansion programmes. To retail investors, there are too many uncertainties over returns from these investments.
We believe that companies that are unable to reward their shareholders with good dividend need to reward them with higher stock prices.
According to Warren Buffett, this is called the one-dollar premise, whereby every dollar that the company retains needs to translate into one dollar in stock price.
Given the present weak stock market, if a company is able to provide a dividend yield that is equal to the fixed deposit rate of 3.7% will attract investors to put their money into their stock instead of in the bank.
This first of a two-part article looks at the criteria for selecting the right stocks
Q: I don’t know how to select the right stocks for long-term investment. Do you have any systematic way for stock selection?
Lately, readers have asked us whether there are basic, systematic ways to select stocks for long-term investment. We find that it’s quite difficult to answer this question as there are many ways to pick stocks. Different fund managers have different methods of picking the right stocks for their funds.
Even though there are no short cuts in screening stocks, we can broadly group our selection according to seven criteria, namely SGPDBHM. “S” stands for sales, “G” – growth, “P” – price-earnings ratio (PER), “D” – dividend yield, “B” – book value, “H” – health and “M” for management.
In this article, we will look at the first four criteria: sales (S), growth (G), PER (P) and dividend yield (D).
S – Annual sales of at least above RM500mil
Our first criterion is to select companies that have total annual sales of RM500mil and above. The main purpose for this is to select big companies for investment. Normally, a company with total sales of above RM500mil is considered well established and is less dependent on its owner.
In most instances, it will be one of the market leaders commanding a certain market share in its industry. Although we are not saying that companies with annual sales of less than RM500mil are not good for investment, less established companies face stiffer competition and have more uncertainties in their future compared with more established companies.
This explains why the majority of our research houses prefer big companies to small companies. At present, if you are holding shares in a lot of small companies (although they have good fundamentals), the majority of them are not performing in terms of stock prices despite the current high stock market valuations.
This may be due to the same worries as well as analysts not paying much attention to those stocks.
G - growth in sales
We need to select stocks with strong sales growth. Higher growth in sales implies that a company is expanding fast.
According to Benjamin Graham in his book entitled “Security Analysis”, a growth company’s business can move faster than its stock price.
Given that our returns depend only on capital gain or dividend income, if a stock never pays any dividend, we need to make sure that we can get capital gains from the stock.
Unless we are able to catch them at cheap prices, we need to make sure that the company has very strong sales growth.
Higher sales will contribute to higher profits and higher stock prices.
P - Low PER stocks
To get a high margin of safety (MOS), we need to find stocks with low PER. For a stock that has a PER of 20 times, you would need to wait 20 years to get back your money, assuming that it can achieve the same earnings per share (EPS) over the next 20 years.
Hence, we should select stocks with low PER, especially lower than the overall stock market or its own industry average.
Given that the current market PER is about 15 times, if you can find a stock that is selling lower than 15 times, we can say that it is selling at a cheaper valuation than that of the overall market.
D- dividend yield of at least equal to fixed deposit rate
A good company needs to pay dividend. We believe this is the best way to rewards shareholders.
There are some listed companies that are making good profits but refuse to reward their shareholders with high dividends as they claim that they need to retain the profits for future expansion.
However, we believe “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”.
There are cases where companies are able to generate good returns from every dollar that they retain, but in most cases, some fail in their expansion programmes. To retail investors, there are too many uncertainties over returns from these investments.
We believe that companies that are unable to reward their shareholders with good dividend need to reward them with higher stock prices.
According to Warren Buffett, this is called the one-dollar premise, whereby every dollar that the company retains needs to translate into one dollar in stock price.
Given the present weak stock market, if a company is able to provide a dividend yield that is equal to the fixed deposit rate of 3.7% will attract investors to put their money into their stock instead of in the bank.
Money for votes?
TERESA KOK (DAP-Seputeh) said the prime minister’s reply to her question on money given by the Barisan Nasional to Kelantan voters to return to cast their ballots in the March 8 general election is “amazing”.
“It’s money politics ... I have all the photographs of voters receiving RM200 from the BN posted on my blog. How could the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) say the evidence did not qualify for an offence under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997?” she asked at a press conference at the Parliament lobby.
“Despite what have been reported in the papers, the ACA did not do anything. This is definitely not in line with the prime minister’s promise to curb corruption with an independent commission against corruption, just like in Hongkong.”
R. Sivarasa (PKR-Subang) also expressed disappointment with the prime minister’s reply. He said the Coalition for Clean and Fair Election (Bersih) had held a press conference on March 17 to make the issue public.
“The ACA does not need an official complaint to initiate an investigation as long as it receives the information from known or anonymous sources.
“So, why is the ACA saying now that it did not receive an official complaint and, therefore, it could not find sufficient evidence?” he said.
Sivarasa also questioned the response of the Election Commission, which said it did not have any information nor knowledge on the issue raised by Kok.
Source: theSun
“It’s money politics ... I have all the photographs of voters receiving RM200 from the BN posted on my blog. How could the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) say the evidence did not qualify for an offence under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997?” she asked at a press conference at the Parliament lobby.
“Despite what have been reported in the papers, the ACA did not do anything. This is definitely not in line with the prime minister’s promise to curb corruption with an independent commission against corruption, just like in Hongkong.”
R. Sivarasa (PKR-Subang) also expressed disappointment with the prime minister’s reply. He said the Coalition for Clean and Fair Election (Bersih) had held a press conference on March 17 to make the issue public.
“The ACA does not need an official complaint to initiate an investigation as long as it receives the information from known or anonymous sources.
“So, why is the ACA saying now that it did not receive an official complaint and, therefore, it could not find sufficient evidence?” he said.
Sivarasa also questioned the response of the Election Commission, which said it did not have any information nor knowledge on the issue raised by Kok.
Source: theSun
When the witness becomes the accused
The police officers started investigations after a report was lodged in Kajang based on the article which was published on April 28. The least they could have done was to read and digest the contents. If they had done so, they won’t be asking questions on Yeo and his famous quote.
by R. Nadeswaran
EVER WONDERED why the police force is unable to close files and solve crimes? Do you know why witnesses to crimes do not want to come forward? Why do witnesses suddenly have memory lapses and declare: “I did not see anything.” I got the answers yesterday. Two police officers from the Commercial Crime Division of Bukit Aman gave an insight into how investigations are carried out and I can tell you with a clear conscience that it was an exercise in futility because their line of questioning would have insulted the intelligence of any rightthinking person.
Assistant Superintendents Wan Zainal Wan Mat and Albany Hamzah turned up at the office and said that they needed to record my statement in relation to police investigations into the transfer of funds from Balkis. To say that they came ill-prepared would be an understatement. To say that they never read any of the reports in theSun or any other newspaper would be the bitter truth. They are supposed to be investigating the transfer of RM9.9 million, and yet had no clue as to how to go about doing the job. This is because they came with pre-conceived notions and pre-prepared questions, perhaps drafted by their superiors, in the hope that this writer would shoot himself in the foot by implicating himself.
After the caution was administered under the Criminal Procedure Code and the usual questions on my qualifi cations and my career, it was crystal clear they wanted me to reveal my sources and wanted documents in my possession. Not that I had run foul of the Official Secrets Act because none of the documents cited were classified, but they came on a fishing expedition to get me to expose my hand and to find out what is going to be published in the future. They expected me to sing like a canary!
Terence Fernandez and I looked at each other in despair when asked: Merujuk kepada petikan yang terdapat dalam artikel berkaitan dengan memetik kenyataan Yeo Yang Poh (former president of the Bar Council), dari manakah sumber petikan berkenaan diperolehi? (Your article had a quote from former Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh. What is the source of the quote?) If only the two officers had cared to read the first paragraph of my report which was in front of their eyes they would have known where it came from – the Malaysian Bar website. But no, they had read nothing. What has Yeo’s comments got to do with their investigations?
They wanted to know if “I was instructed to write” and wanted to know if I had read the constitution of Balkis. If they had read all the reports on Balkis, they would have known that I quoted its constitution extensively. But no, they just cast the line hoping for a bite. The next question: Adakah kamu ada menyimpan perlembagaan Balkis. (Are you keeping a copy of the constitution) Did they expect a “Yes” from me? Even if I had it, does it make it an offence unless of course they thought they are putting the fright into me?
Are you in possession of a letter from the Registrar of Societies dated April 14 addressed to the mentri besar? Well, that’s not a classified document and even if I had it, would they have expected me to say: “Yes, I have it.”? They showed their hands too early and they thought they trumped me by asking: “You write that “according to documents sighted by theSun”, can you tell me what the documents are. My curt reply: “I cannot tell you because it is unethical for journalists to reveal what (documents) they saw or read.”
By which time, they had no more cards to play. They threw in the sai-lang card: “Dimanakah kamu dapat dokumen-dokumen berkenaan?” (Where did you get the documents from?”) Was this an investigation into Balkis or a probe to trace the source of my documents?
When they asked the final question, I blew my top because it not only became harassment but also bordered on stupidity. I was asked: Adakah kamu tahu siapa hakim bertindak sebagai penasihat undang-undang kepada Bakti sebagaimana yang dinyatakan oleh akhbar theSun? (Do you know the identity of the judge who acted as the legal adviser of Balkis?)
I asked the relevance of such a question. The answer was: ‘When the case goes to court, we need to answer all these questions”.
Don’t they read the newspapers? Didn’t theSun name the judge after which the Bar Council and the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers commented on it? My answer: “This was previously reported in theSun. Please refer to the papers.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBT issue goes to RoS
by Opalyn Mok
GEORGE TOWN: The wives of the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen and MPs in Penang will be filing a formal request with the Registrar of Societies (RoS) regarding the status of Persatuan Bunga Tanjung (PBT) today.
Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who disclosed this yesterday, declined to give further details except that the wives of the assemblymen and MPs will hold a press conference about it.
Asked to comment on former PBT president Puan Sri Chui Kah Peng’s allegations that Lim had insulted and demeaned women by his statement “leave the poor lady alone”, Lim said it was just an English expression which means “don’t make it hard for her”.
“There is nothing derogatory about it. I think they know what I meant,” he told reporters.
Lim also read out a transcript of what he had said: “Maybe we need the former chief minister to clarify. I do not want to mention Puan Sri. She may not be familiar with the rules required to follow. I do not want to blame her. She may get advice from the adviser. Otherwise, why do we need advisers? I don’t think we should go for the poor lady. Let’s leave the poor lady alone.”
He said he just meant to say “do not put too much pressure on her”.
“I was only trying to say that maybe she has been wrongly advised. If she’s wrongly advised, then you ask the adviser to explain,” he said.
“They are making an issue of nothing. It is now more important to address the issue at hand rather than talk about such personal attacks, which distract attention from the real issue.
“We should address the issue as to whether the members had the right to dissolve the organisation and distribute the money. This body was established for the wives of assemblymen and MPs, except from the Opposition.
“By refusing to address this issue, I think the people can judge for themselves. Why is it that they do not want to address this issue when the PBT constitution clearly states that this association is for the wives of the state government’s wakil rakyat and had expressly excluded the Opposition.”
theSun reported that PBT had followed Balkis, the association of wives of assemblymen and MPs in Selangor, in transferring its funds to Bakti, the federal association of wives of ministers and deputy ministers, an action the RoS is now scrutinising.
In reply, Chui said PBT donated the RM590,665 which was in its account before its dissolution. It gave RM350,000 to Bakti, RM220,000 to the Bureau on Learning Difficulties, and RM20,665 to the Penang Cheshire Home, Mental Health Association and Mount Miriam Hospital.
Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi then questioned the details of the donations. He alleged that checks showed Mount Miriam Hospital had yet to receive any amount greater than RM2,572.63, which was paid on April 1.
He also alleged that the Cheshire Home and Penang Mental Health Association received only RM1,000 each, while referring to the PBT members as “desperate housewives”.
On May 1, Chui called a press conference declaring that the former PBT members were not desperate housewives and issued a challenge to Lim and Ooi for an open debate over the handling of the group’s funds and its contentious dissolution.
They gave Lim and Ooi 48 hours to respond to the challenge.
Lim declined the challenge and invited Chui for a private meeting with him instead.
Chui then issued a media statement threatening to “take appropriate measures to defend our integrity and dignity”, and Lim’s political secretary, Ng Wei Aik, issued another statement, reiterating the invitation to Chui to meet with Lim.
PBT has turned down the invitation and declared that it will no longer engage in a war of words through the media with Ng or Lim.
On the state government’s next course of action, Lim said he will let the RoS decide.
Lim also said:
» he will chair the Penang Tourism Council, which will be set up within two weeks;
» there is a need for closer cooperation between the state and federal governments to develop the tourism industry in the state for mutual benefits;
» the tourism sector, which is the second largest income earner for the state, has remained stagnant for the past 10 years;
» Penang International Airport needs to be upgraded and the state hopes the federal government will upgrade it for the sake of the tourism industry.
by R. Nadeswaran
EVER WONDERED why the police force is unable to close files and solve crimes? Do you know why witnesses to crimes do not want to come forward? Why do witnesses suddenly have memory lapses and declare: “I did not see anything.” I got the answers yesterday. Two police officers from the Commercial Crime Division of Bukit Aman gave an insight into how investigations are carried out and I can tell you with a clear conscience that it was an exercise in futility because their line of questioning would have insulted the intelligence of any rightthinking person.
Assistant Superintendents Wan Zainal Wan Mat and Albany Hamzah turned up at the office and said that they needed to record my statement in relation to police investigations into the transfer of funds from Balkis. To say that they came ill-prepared would be an understatement. To say that they never read any of the reports in theSun or any other newspaper would be the bitter truth. They are supposed to be investigating the transfer of RM9.9 million, and yet had no clue as to how to go about doing the job. This is because they came with pre-conceived notions and pre-prepared questions, perhaps drafted by their superiors, in the hope that this writer would shoot himself in the foot by implicating himself.
After the caution was administered under the Criminal Procedure Code and the usual questions on my qualifi cations and my career, it was crystal clear they wanted me to reveal my sources and wanted documents in my possession. Not that I had run foul of the Official Secrets Act because none of the documents cited were classified, but they came on a fishing expedition to get me to expose my hand and to find out what is going to be published in the future. They expected me to sing like a canary!
Terence Fernandez and I looked at each other in despair when asked: Merujuk kepada petikan yang terdapat dalam artikel berkaitan dengan memetik kenyataan Yeo Yang Poh (former president of the Bar Council), dari manakah sumber petikan berkenaan diperolehi? (Your article had a quote from former Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh. What is the source of the quote?) If only the two officers had cared to read the first paragraph of my report which was in front of their eyes they would have known where it came from – the Malaysian Bar website. But no, they had read nothing. What has Yeo’s comments got to do with their investigations?
They wanted to know if “I was instructed to write” and wanted to know if I had read the constitution of Balkis. If they had read all the reports on Balkis, they would have known that I quoted its constitution extensively. But no, they just cast the line hoping for a bite. The next question: Adakah kamu ada menyimpan perlembagaan Balkis. (Are you keeping a copy of the constitution) Did they expect a “Yes” from me? Even if I had it, does it make it an offence unless of course they thought they are putting the fright into me?
Are you in possession of a letter from the Registrar of Societies dated April 14 addressed to the mentri besar? Well, that’s not a classified document and even if I had it, would they have expected me to say: “Yes, I have it.”? They showed their hands too early and they thought they trumped me by asking: “You write that “according to documents sighted by theSun”, can you tell me what the documents are. My curt reply: “I cannot tell you because it is unethical for journalists to reveal what (documents) they saw or read.”
By which time, they had no more cards to play. They threw in the sai-lang card: “Dimanakah kamu dapat dokumen-dokumen berkenaan?” (Where did you get the documents from?”) Was this an investigation into Balkis or a probe to trace the source of my documents?
When they asked the final question, I blew my top because it not only became harassment but also bordered on stupidity. I was asked: Adakah kamu tahu siapa hakim bertindak sebagai penasihat undang-undang kepada Bakti sebagaimana yang dinyatakan oleh akhbar theSun? (Do you know the identity of the judge who acted as the legal adviser of Balkis?)
I asked the relevance of such a question. The answer was: ‘When the case goes to court, we need to answer all these questions”.
Don’t they read the newspapers? Didn’t theSun name the judge after which the Bar Council and the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers commented on it? My answer: “This was previously reported in theSun. Please refer to the papers.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBT issue goes to RoS
by Opalyn Mok
GEORGE TOWN: The wives of the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen and MPs in Penang will be filing a formal request with the Registrar of Societies (RoS) regarding the status of Persatuan Bunga Tanjung (PBT) today.
Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who disclosed this yesterday, declined to give further details except that the wives of the assemblymen and MPs will hold a press conference about it.
Asked to comment on former PBT president Puan Sri Chui Kah Peng’s allegations that Lim had insulted and demeaned women by his statement “leave the poor lady alone”, Lim said it was just an English expression which means “don’t make it hard for her”.
“There is nothing derogatory about it. I think they know what I meant,” he told reporters.
Lim also read out a transcript of what he had said: “Maybe we need the former chief minister to clarify. I do not want to mention Puan Sri. She may not be familiar with the rules required to follow. I do not want to blame her. She may get advice from the adviser. Otherwise, why do we need advisers? I don’t think we should go for the poor lady. Let’s leave the poor lady alone.”
He said he just meant to say “do not put too much pressure on her”.
“I was only trying to say that maybe she has been wrongly advised. If she’s wrongly advised, then you ask the adviser to explain,” he said.
“They are making an issue of nothing. It is now more important to address the issue at hand rather than talk about such personal attacks, which distract attention from the real issue.
“We should address the issue as to whether the members had the right to dissolve the organisation and distribute the money. This body was established for the wives of assemblymen and MPs, except from the Opposition.
“By refusing to address this issue, I think the people can judge for themselves. Why is it that they do not want to address this issue when the PBT constitution clearly states that this association is for the wives of the state government’s wakil rakyat and had expressly excluded the Opposition.”
theSun reported that PBT had followed Balkis, the association of wives of assemblymen and MPs in Selangor, in transferring its funds to Bakti, the federal association of wives of ministers and deputy ministers, an action the RoS is now scrutinising.
In reply, Chui said PBT donated the RM590,665 which was in its account before its dissolution. It gave RM350,000 to Bakti, RM220,000 to the Bureau on Learning Difficulties, and RM20,665 to the Penang Cheshire Home, Mental Health Association and Mount Miriam Hospital.
Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi then questioned the details of the donations. He alleged that checks showed Mount Miriam Hospital had yet to receive any amount greater than RM2,572.63, which was paid on April 1.
He also alleged that the Cheshire Home and Penang Mental Health Association received only RM1,000 each, while referring to the PBT members as “desperate housewives”.
On May 1, Chui called a press conference declaring that the former PBT members were not desperate housewives and issued a challenge to Lim and Ooi for an open debate over the handling of the group’s funds and its contentious dissolution.
They gave Lim and Ooi 48 hours to respond to the challenge.
Lim declined the challenge and invited Chui for a private meeting with him instead.
Chui then issued a media statement threatening to “take appropriate measures to defend our integrity and dignity”, and Lim’s political secretary, Ng Wei Aik, issued another statement, reiterating the invitation to Chui to meet with Lim.
PBT has turned down the invitation and declared that it will no longer engage in a war of words through the media with Ng or Lim.
On the state government’s next course of action, Lim said he will let the RoS decide.
Lim also said:
» he will chair the Penang Tourism Council, which will be set up within two weeks;
» there is a need for closer cooperation between the state and federal governments to develop the tourism industry in the state for mutual benefits;
» the tourism sector, which is the second largest income earner for the state, has remained stagnant for the past 10 years;
» Penang International Airport needs to be upgraded and the state hopes the federal government will upgrade it for the sake of the tourism industry.
No commission paid: Najib
‘SCORPENE AND SUKHOI PURCHASES MADE ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES’
by Tim Leonard
KUALA LUMPUR: No commission was paid by the government to any party for the purchase of the RM4.5 billion Scorpene submarines and the RM3.2 billion Sukhoi jets, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said yesterday.
Najib, who is also the defence minister, said allegations of corruption and cronyism were baseless as all these transactions were made in keeping with proper procurement procedures.
He was responding to calls by Opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday to the prime minister to set up an independent commission to probe these purchases for which, she claimed, large amounts of commission were paid.
Speaking to reporters after presenting excellent service awards to Defence Ministry personnel in conjunction with Workers Day, Najib advised those who make such allegations to check their facts first.
The Defence Ministry also issued a statement that allegations that the ministry had paid RM540 million to Abdul Razak Baginda (an accused in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial) as commission to secure the Scorpene deal were without basis.
It said a local company, Perimekar Sdn Bhd, was awarded a contract worth 114.96 million euros to provide support and coordination services for a period of six years. This was the amount that was misconstrued as “commissions”.
The company’s job scope included preparing accommodation facilities for 27 families and 156 submarine crew in France and Spain, preparing offices and health insurance policies for staff and crew, paying daily allowances of 50-60 euros a person and buying return flight tickets for the crew three times a year.
Perimekar is a joint venture company among Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, Boustead Holdings Bhd and KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd.
The ministry also clarified that the purchase of Sukhoi SU30MKM fighter jets was made through direct negotiations with Russian company Rosoboronexport and the Russians had engaged a Malaysian company to facilitate their business transactions here at their own prerogative.
“But the ministry is not involved and has no interest whatsoever in any company appointed by the Russians,” the statement read.
Asked about DAP chairman Karpal Singh’s recent comments on the Sultan of Perak that some quarters deemed seditious, Najib said it is up to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide if they want to press charges against him.
“His comments were seen as seditious and challenging the constitutional right of the Ruler, but it depends entirely on the A-G’s chambers to decide what to do next,” said Najib.
Karpal had recently claimed that the Sultan of Perak had no jurisdiction over the transfer of Datuk Jamry Sury from the Perak Religious Department.
Perak Umno Youth lodged a police report against him on Monday.
In Sungai Buloh, Umno vicepresident Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said Karpal’s statement was an act of “rudeness”.
He said questioning the action of the Ruler openly was not the Malaysian custom and that the MP for Gelugor should have expressed his dissatisfaction in a more “courteous” and “polite” manner.
“We in the BN (Barisan Nasional) government had never expressed our views on such matters and if we have any (dissatisfaction), we will seek an audience and convey our views politely. So this (action by Karpal) lacks finesse,” Muhyiddin, who is also the international trade and industry minister, said at a press conference after visiting a furniture factory.
“We must respect (the monarchy). It’s not that we want to fight with anyone. Sometimes he (Karpal) thinks that after being in Parliament for 26 years, he knows everything, so there is no need to give respect to others, especially the Rulers.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sukhoi and Scorpene deals ‘properly made’
Source: The Star
KUALA LUMPUR: The purchase of Sukhoi jets and Scorpene submarines was done according to proper Government procurement procedures, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Perimeker Sdn Bhd, which is said to have received a commission for the deals, is a joint venture between Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, Boustead Holdings Bhd and K S Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd.
“I have already made statements previously. The purchase of the submarines was not something that was done without following acquisition procedures.
“The accounts of the joint venture companies were audited and people can look at it,” he told reporters after the Workers Day celebrations at the Defence Ministry level yesterday.
Najib said this when asked to comment on Opposition Leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail call in Parliament on Monday for the Government to set up an independent commission of inquiry into the purchase of Scorpene submarines and Sukhoi jets.
She said the purchase of the two Scorpene submarines worth RM4.5bil through negotiated tender had attracted attention as a commission exceeding RM540mil had been paid to Perimeker Sdn Bhd, which she claimed was owned by Abdul Razak Baginda who was an adviser to Najib.
Wan Azizah also alleged that for the purchase of the Sukhoi jets worth RM3.2bil, IMT Defence Sdn Bhd, a company controlled by former Malacca chief minister Datuk Adib Adam, was paid a RM380mil commission.
Najib said in the case of the Sukhoi jets, the Russian Government had the right to appoint the agent.
“Don’t make wild allegations. You must focus on facts,” he said.
Asked to comment on a media report that the Anti-Corruption Agency was probing Padiberas Nasional Bhd and the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry regarding the import of rice, Najib said: “I’m not sure about the truth of the report. It is up to the ministry to look into it.”
On whether there was any mismanagement in Bernas over the creation of a stockpile, Najib said: “Bernas is a public listed company. Creating a stockpile would be beyond its means.
“That is why the Government announced two days ago about the approval of RM2.5bil for the food security programme. Part of the money will be used to purchase rice under the stockpile scheme.”
by Tim Leonard
KUALA LUMPUR: No commission was paid by the government to any party for the purchase of the RM4.5 billion Scorpene submarines and the RM3.2 billion Sukhoi jets, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak said yesterday.
Najib, who is also the defence minister, said allegations of corruption and cronyism were baseless as all these transactions were made in keeping with proper procurement procedures.
He was responding to calls by Opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail in the Dewan Rakyat on Monday to the prime minister to set up an independent commission to probe these purchases for which, she claimed, large amounts of commission were paid.
Speaking to reporters after presenting excellent service awards to Defence Ministry personnel in conjunction with Workers Day, Najib advised those who make such allegations to check their facts first.
The Defence Ministry also issued a statement that allegations that the ministry had paid RM540 million to Abdul Razak Baginda (an accused in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial) as commission to secure the Scorpene deal were without basis.
It said a local company, Perimekar Sdn Bhd, was awarded a contract worth 114.96 million euros to provide support and coordination services for a period of six years. This was the amount that was misconstrued as “commissions”.
The company’s job scope included preparing accommodation facilities for 27 families and 156 submarine crew in France and Spain, preparing offices and health insurance policies for staff and crew, paying daily allowances of 50-60 euros a person and buying return flight tickets for the crew three times a year.
Perimekar is a joint venture company among Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, Boustead Holdings Bhd and KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd.
The ministry also clarified that the purchase of Sukhoi SU30MKM fighter jets was made through direct negotiations with Russian company Rosoboronexport and the Russians had engaged a Malaysian company to facilitate their business transactions here at their own prerogative.
“But the ministry is not involved and has no interest whatsoever in any company appointed by the Russians,” the statement read.
Asked about DAP chairman Karpal Singh’s recent comments on the Sultan of Perak that some quarters deemed seditious, Najib said it is up to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide if they want to press charges against him.
“His comments were seen as seditious and challenging the constitutional right of the Ruler, but it depends entirely on the A-G’s chambers to decide what to do next,” said Najib.
Karpal had recently claimed that the Sultan of Perak had no jurisdiction over the transfer of Datuk Jamry Sury from the Perak Religious Department.
Perak Umno Youth lodged a police report against him on Monday.
In Sungai Buloh, Umno vicepresident Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said Karpal’s statement was an act of “rudeness”.
He said questioning the action of the Ruler openly was not the Malaysian custom and that the MP for Gelugor should have expressed his dissatisfaction in a more “courteous” and “polite” manner.
“We in the BN (Barisan Nasional) government had never expressed our views on such matters and if we have any (dissatisfaction), we will seek an audience and convey our views politely. So this (action by Karpal) lacks finesse,” Muhyiddin, who is also the international trade and industry minister, said at a press conference after visiting a furniture factory.
“We must respect (the monarchy). It’s not that we want to fight with anyone. Sometimes he (Karpal) thinks that after being in Parliament for 26 years, he knows everything, so there is no need to give respect to others, especially the Rulers.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sukhoi and Scorpene deals ‘properly made’
Source: The Star
KUALA LUMPUR: The purchase of Sukhoi jets and Scorpene submarines was done according to proper Government procurement procedures, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Perimeker Sdn Bhd, which is said to have received a commission for the deals, is a joint venture between Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, Boustead Holdings Bhd and K S Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd.
“I have already made statements previously. The purchase of the submarines was not something that was done without following acquisition procedures.
“The accounts of the joint venture companies were audited and people can look at it,” he told reporters after the Workers Day celebrations at the Defence Ministry level yesterday.
Najib said this when asked to comment on Opposition Leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail call in Parliament on Monday for the Government to set up an independent commission of inquiry into the purchase of Scorpene submarines and Sukhoi jets.
She said the purchase of the two Scorpene submarines worth RM4.5bil through negotiated tender had attracted attention as a commission exceeding RM540mil had been paid to Perimeker Sdn Bhd, which she claimed was owned by Abdul Razak Baginda who was an adviser to Najib.
Wan Azizah also alleged that for the purchase of the Sukhoi jets worth RM3.2bil, IMT Defence Sdn Bhd, a company controlled by former Malacca chief minister Datuk Adib Adam, was paid a RM380mil commission.
Najib said in the case of the Sukhoi jets, the Russian Government had the right to appoint the agent.
“Don’t make wild allegations. You must focus on facts,” he said.
Asked to comment on a media report that the Anti-Corruption Agency was probing Padiberas Nasional Bhd and the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry regarding the import of rice, Najib said: “I’m not sure about the truth of the report. It is up to the ministry to look into it.”
On whether there was any mismanagement in Bernas over the creation of a stockpile, Najib said: “Bernas is a public listed company. Creating a stockpile would be beyond its means.
“That is why the Government announced two days ago about the approval of RM2.5bil for the food security programme. Part of the money will be used to purchase rice under the stockpile scheme.”
Friday, May 2, 2008
No ‘approval to tint’ given, explains JPJ
MARANG: The Road Transport Department (JPJ) has not given written approval to any operator of car accessories to tint vehicles.
JPJ's Corporate and Research Department director Zairi Mat Ali said no such approval was given to any of the operators by the department to tint or use any type of films to filter ultraviolet light.
“What we have done is to set the standard for tinted films that could be used and that’s all,” he said after the closing of a JPJ community project in Alur Limbat on Wednesday.
Zairi was commenting on the complaints by vehicle owners that they received summonses from JPJ enforcement despite assurance by the accessory companies that they had received the necessary approval to tint.
He explained that all newly-registered vehicles had been affixed with tint films that could filter ultraviolet rays up to 20%.
Zairi said the JPJ standard for tinting is 70% for the front and 50% for the side and rear windows of a vehicle.
“Therefore, with the 20% standardised requirement, an owner is only allowed to increase the capacity to additional 30% for the side and rear windows,
“What is happening now is that the operators are overlooking the standardised requirement and the tinting reaches almost 100%,” he added.
Zairi said the vehicles failed the test on tinted glasses during checks by enforcement departments due to improper advice from operators.
Source: The Star
JPJ's Corporate and Research Department director Zairi Mat Ali said no such approval was given to any of the operators by the department to tint or use any type of films to filter ultraviolet light.
“What we have done is to set the standard for tinted films that could be used and that’s all,” he said after the closing of a JPJ community project in Alur Limbat on Wednesday.
Zairi was commenting on the complaints by vehicle owners that they received summonses from JPJ enforcement despite assurance by the accessory companies that they had received the necessary approval to tint.
He explained that all newly-registered vehicles had been affixed with tint films that could filter ultraviolet rays up to 20%.
Zairi said the JPJ standard for tinting is 70% for the front and 50% for the side and rear windows of a vehicle.
“Therefore, with the 20% standardised requirement, an owner is only allowed to increase the capacity to additional 30% for the side and rear windows,
“What is happening now is that the operators are overlooking the standardised requirement and the tinting reaches almost 100%,” he added.
Zairi said the vehicles failed the test on tinted glasses during checks by enforcement departments due to improper advice from operators.
Source: The Star
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
