Dato’ Eric See-To
In a classic example of answering a question that no one ever asked, the Selangor Menteri Besar’s (MB) office now says that they have never sold any land in Ijok. https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/416874
However, no one had never accused the Pakatan Selangor Government of selling the controversial land in Ijok.
And that is precisely the problem. If the Selangor Government had sold off the land and not returned the land, we would not be having this conversation today.
The real question is not that Selangor sold the land but why Selangor returned the land.
Let me quote how the MB’s office had simplified this in their statement yesterday:
“It is like if I own Pavilion (shopping centre), but people start screaming at me when KL Plaza and Sungei Wang (shopping centres) get sold,”
Now let us paraphrase him to tell you of the true situation.
“It’s like you got Pavilion (shopping centre) from two cronies who owed the state government money and people start to scream why you returned Pavilion to the two cronies even though you had legally won it twice.
Now, people are also screaming why your written condition of returning it is that the two cronies can only sell it to one particular buyer and that another condition is that a large part of the sales money has to be paid to certain 3rd parties, many of whom have now been arrested by MACC.”
From the very begging the scandal was about the Selangor Govt returning the Ijok land to the “two crony companies” before the Federal Court case had even started despite the Selangor Govt winning the first two cases over the ownership of the land.
The MB Office’s answer in saying that they did not sell any land in Ijok makes a mockery of the Pakatan leaders and the MB office’s multiple past statements to defend the return of the Ijok’s land.
Merely brushing off that they did not sell the Ijok land means that all these Pakatan politicians and the MB Office had been defending the wrong land in the past.
It also means that it was pointless of PKR’s Subang MP R. Sivarasa, Amanah’s Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad and Dzulkifli Ahmad to issue a joint statement two days ago to attack the MACC on why they had arrested four persons from the consulting companies whom they claimed had supposedly “helped resolve the dispute over the land and provide an amicable solution to all involved”.
And does the MB Office’s reply also mean that the MACC had wrongly arrested 6 persons and wrongly frozen RM87mil in bank accounts because the Selangor government did not sell the land?
According to a August 2017 court judgement, the return of the land and who gets to share in the RM1.18 billion are contained in the Settlement Agreement, the Supplemental Settlement Agreement and the Consent Judgment which were all entered into with the full knowledge, support and sanction of the Selangor State Government. (see picture)
https://www.aseanlip.com/…/citra-tani-sdn-bhd-v-muj…/AL20523
I now call on the Selangor Government to disclose all three of these agreements so that we can find out why RM262mil from the RM1.18 billion sale of the settlers’ land was paid to 3rd party consulting companies and what role did they play to justify such huge fees when the settlers themselves only received RM300mil even though it was their land that was sold.
In coming up with their false flag reply, the MB office had also skipped answering the following questions of mine.
I repeat them here:
- a) Instead of sanctioning a side private deal, why didn’t the Selangor Govt sell this land in an open tender where it is possible to receive sales prices closer to market value of RM35psf to RM65psf instead of just RM12.34psf and causign the state government to forego at least RM3 billion in profits?
- b) Why did the Selangor Government think it is just and fair that settlers only receive RM3.13psf for their land?
- c) Who appointed the new settlers committee to negotiate with the state government that suddenly replaced a long existing committee?
- d) Was R.Sivarasa’s firm’s services as the lawyer who represented the settlers paid by the two crony companies as stated in a FAQ distributed by his law firm to the settlers? Is this a conflict of interest?
- e) Were the settlers adequately informed on how the RM1.18 billion sales proceeds would be shared. Did the settlers know that they would only be receiving only RM300mil while 3rd party consulting companies would be receiving at least RM262mil and where the balance of the sales price would go too?
Source: Eric See-To
