Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The AliBabengs of Bayan Mutiara: Why Ivory Not PDC?


Ivory Properties Group Bhd is in talks with a few parties to develop commercial components in Bayan Mutiara, says executive director/chief operating officer, Murly Manokharan. He said the interested parties are from local and overseas including from Singapore and Japan, who showed interest in the commercial development in Bayan Mutiara. "We expect one deal on the joint venture partner within the next three months," he told reporters after the group's annual general meeting in George Town, Penang, today.

On whether Ivory is offering land for sale in Bayan Mutiara, Murly said: "I won't denied it but offering for sale is not the right word. It was looking for value-add investors specifically for commercial content, hospital and office." Stressing that it won't be a direct outright sale, Murly said the partnership will be an added value like the strategic collaboration between Ivory and Dijaya Corporation Bhd. He said for investors who are interested to own land in Bayan Mutiara, a joint venture company could be set up for financing and cashflow positioning of the projects. According to him, joint venture partners would enable the group to become an international player as well as raising the benchmark in terms of pricing, quality, planning and design.

The entire project covers a total land size of 41.5 hectares (ha), comprising 27.3ha of existing land and 14.2 ha area to be reclaimed. The development components will include luxury condominiums, medium-rise condominiums, business suites, serviced residences, iconic office block, waterfront entertainment city, commercial and retail spaces, waterfront villas and medical facilities. Murly said the commercial content would comprise about 20 per cent of the whole project, offering between 2.5 million sq ft and three million sq ft of commercial space. He said the first phase of residential development in Bayan Mutiara would be launched at year-end or first quarter of next year, with a gross development value of between RM700 and RM800 million. To be developed under a joint venture company, Tropicana Ivory Sdn Bhd, the first phase would comprise affordable homes with 1,500 units measuring 500 sq ft to 600 sq ft.

Murly said Ivory received the planning permission approval for the sales gallery in Bayan Mutiara and hoped it will be completed by year-end. On the entire project, he said the group will be re-submitting the entire masterplan to Penang Development Corporation (PDC) by September for approval especially the details on reclamation. "PDC required us to get the approval for the reclamation as well. Initially we submitted (the plan) without the reclamation portion. So now they want to look how reclaim approval process taken to prepare the masterplan," he said.

On whether the protests over Bayan Mutiara land issue would effect Ivory's plans, Murly said the plan will still proceed as the developer have not heard anything from the residents. "It (the protest) is between the non-governmental organisation and state government. So far we have not heard anything from the residents. It's political, therefore, we don't want to comment," he added. -- BERNAMA Source here 

Oh my.

As expected the AliBabeng is now looking for "partners"

Remember my previous post (here)



They first got Dijaya to come in.

Now they are looking for others to "partner"

Why loh? I tot Ivory has the "Financial Capacity" and "Skills" to develop the "Master Plan"

Why in the world does PDC needs to sell the Land to Ivory when PDC can also enter into JV's to maximise the Revenue and Value it can extract from the Bayan Project????

Cheap Minister ah.......can explain mah.....


Careful loh lu sudah masuk bakul angkat sendiri manyak tinggi loh....

Nanti jatuh tergolek dog......

Oh before I forget it Ivory sudah bayar belum harga tanah??

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

SatuSatuEmpatA: A look into the Reality

I am signatory no 82 of the Online petition Netizens against Evidence (Amendment) (No2) Act 2012 (here)

What is the essence of the amendment (refer the Bill here)


3. The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 114 the following section: “Presumption of fact in publication

114A. (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host , administrator, editor or sub- editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(3) Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which  any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

(4) For the purpose of this section—

(a) “network service” and “network service provider” have the meaning assigned to them in section 6 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588]; and

(b) “publication” means a statement or a representation, whether in written, printed, pictorial, film, graphical, acoustic or other form displayed on the screen of a computer.”.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT : Clause 3 seeks to introduce a new section 114A into Act 56 to provide for the presumption of fact in publication in order to facilitate the identification and proving of the identity of an anonymous person involved in publication through the internet.


We are presumed to be the person committing the offense. The explanatory statement clearly describe the intent of the clause is to facilitate the identification of an anonymous person.

That would be me.

Let us look at some other parts of our Law lets say the Penal Code (here)

Defamation
499. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person 
Or say 
Causing, etc., disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion  298A. (1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organizing, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organizing, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner— (a) causes , or attempts to cause , or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will; or (b) prejudices, or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.
Let us also look at the Communications and Multimedia Act (here)

Prohibition on provision of offensive content 
211. (1) No content applications service provider, or other person using a content applications service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person. (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued after conviction. 

 Improper use of network facilities or network service, etc.
233. 
(1) A person who—
(a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly(i) makes, creates or solicits; and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person;
(b) initiates a communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or may not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or electronic address, commits an offence.

(2) A person who knowingly
 (a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or
(b) permits a network service or applications service under the person’s control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a), commits an offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction
Let us assume that an Offense such as described above has been committed by an Anonymous Blogger.

The Regulators would first have to identify the identity of the said blogger.

To do that they would have to get a court order to compel Blogger or Wordpress to disclose the email account that is linked to the site. The Second step would be for the Authorities to identify the Internet Protocol Address of the user which uses the particular email address to access the Blogger or Wordpress Admin module for the particular offensive site.

The situation becomes more complex with Twitter Retweets or being mentioned in a tweet or Facebook walls post by 3rd party or or tagged in a FB post or picture.

Do you think that they have the capabilities?

Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open. -Lord Thomas Dewer