The

Bank
Negara
RM30 Billion
Forex
Losses
Scandal
nied that Bank Negara was engaged in speculative ac-
tivity in theforeign exchange market.

"This, however, does not seem to tally with thefacts. In

1989, it was reported that Bank Negara had been
criticised by Westernmonetary oficialsfor speculating
in the yen and the US dollar at a time when the Group
of Seven industrialisedcountries were hying to stabilise
the currency markets.

"InApril 1991, a Reuter news agency reportfiom Lon-

don described Bank Negara as 'adominantforce on the
foreign exchange scene for some years' and even ac-
cused by someforex operators as 'a market bully '.

"The Reuter report stal

'Over the past twoyears it has stepped up its d i n g

volume, and this year it has started dealing in what
dealer described as 'reallymassive amounts '...

Typically, Bank Negara operates in US350 million

lots, compared with the market norm of US$5million
or US$IO million and deals with maybe six major
banks in Europe and six in New York, dealers said.

One trader said the only dealers rivalling Bank

Negara would be the Japanese*&. But while these
f i d s enter the market no more than once or twice a
year, Bank Negara is coming in and doingyard (bil-
lions) of dollars in a day.
 CONTENTS

1. Foreword ............................................III...
2. Speech in the Dewan Rakyat on the
Royal Address debate on Monday,
April 11, 1994 .........................................-1

3. Speech in the Dewan Rakyat on the

1993 and 1994 Supplementary
Estimates on Tuesday, May 3, 1994..........29

4. Appendix .............................................-34
(i) Balance Sheet of BNM as at
December 31, 1993

(ii) Profit and Loss Appropriation

Account of BNM for the Year
Ended December 3 1,1994

(iii) Important notes to the

Account - December 31,1993
George Soros, the RM2.9 billion a year
and highest-paid fund-manager
in the world and Bank Negarafs
colossal forex losses.

Two news items in today's local newspapers provide the

most apt material for the foreword for this publication,
'The RM30 billion BankNegara Forex Losses Scandal'.

The first news item from Singapore is a Reuter report

under the heading 'Singapore forex trade badly hurt',
states:

"BankNegara 's exit>om activeforeign exchange trad-

ing has dented treasury activity at Singapore-based
banks and reducedforex trading volumes and volatility
in Asian time zones, according to industry sources.

"'The central bank had kept to its vow to abstain*om

speculativeforex trading, banking sources said, and its
inaction would trim treasurypro$its of Singapore-based
ojhshore banks sharply.

"'Theforex market is sujhering badIy because there were

quite a few banks in Singapore depending on Bank
Negara, some for as much as doper cent of their busi-
ness, 'said one senior currency dealer with a merchant
bank in Singapore.
iii
"'They were a big operator in the Far East andpro-
vided a lot of liquidity in the market, ' he said

"'Every time they did a deal with one bank alone, they
could do up to two yards (US32 billion or RM5.2 bil-
lion) so you can imagine the impact they have,' said
another senior dealer with a European bank in
Singapore. "

The other news report in today's local newspapers seems

to have no relationship whatsoever to Bank Negara's
RM30 billion forex losses scandal, and carries the an-
nual survey of the business magazine, Financial World
in its July 5 issue, on "The I00 most highly compensated
Wall Streeters".

The survey showed that the best paid people were hedge
fund or commodity fund managers and one fund man-
ager, George Soros, took home at least US$l.I billion
(RM2.9 billion) last year - which exceeded the gross
domestic product of at least 42 countries in the United
Nations.

The first item shows the magnitude of Bank Negara's

involvement in the foreign exchange speculation, which
both the Malaysian Government and Bank Negara had
still denied in Parliament in April 1993.

In my first speech in Parliament on April 27, 1993 on

Bank Negara's colossal forex losses, I said:

"The Finance Minister (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) in

hisfar; wancara inter vie^ 7 over TV2 de-
nied that Bank Negara was engaged in speculative ac-
tivity in theforeign exchange market.

"This, however, does not seem to tally with thefacts. In

1989, it was reported that Bank Negara had been
criticised by Westernmonetary oficialsfor speculating
in the yen and the US dollar at a time when the Group
of Seven industrialisedcountries were hying to stabilise
the currency markets.

"InApril 1991, a Reuter news agency reportfiom Lon-

don described Bank Negara as 'adominantforce on the
foreign exchange scene for some years' and even ac-
cused by someforex operators as 'a market bully '.

"The Reuter report stal

'Over the past twoyears it has stepped up its d i n g

volume, and this year it has started dealing in what
dealer described as 'reallymassive amounts '...

Typically, Bank Negara operates in US350 million

lots, compared with the market norm of US$5million
or US$IO million and deals with maybe six major
banks in Europe and six in New York, dealers said.

One trader said the only dealers rivalling Bank

Negara would be the Japanese*&. But while these
f i d s enter the market no more than once or twice a
year, Bank Negara is coming in and doingyard (bil-
lions) of dollars in a day.
 Its recent technique has been to hit major banksfor
US350 million each, then hit them 10 minutes later,
dealers said.

Then it changes centre and does it all over again.'

''Is there any truth in these allegationsthat BankNegara

has become an active forex trader - a role which no
prudent Central Bank would assume?

"The best answer has been given by none other than the
Prime Minister, DatukSeri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, last
Tuesday. Commenting on Bank Negara 's active par-
ticipation in theforeign exchange markets, Dr. Mahathir
said that although not all central banks are activeplay-
ers, Bank Negara had dabbled in theforeign exchange
markets because of the country's strong economy and
large reserves as well as because Bank Negara has the
ability and the knowledge. '"

The magnitude of Bank Negara's forex speculation is

mind-boggling. In my speech in Parliament on April 14,
1994(reproduced in this booklet) I said that Bank Negara
must have taken positions up to RM30 billion to RM40
billion to incur losses of up to Bank Negara's admitted
forex losses in 1993amounting to RM5.7billion.

However, as I had calculated in my speech in Parliament

in April 1994, Bank Negara's forex losses could be as
high as RM30 billion. Could Bank Negara's maximum
exposure be five times of RM30 billion to RM40 billion.
This seems totally unthinkable.
However, it would appear that I had given an underes-
timate. As I pointed out in my speech on BankNegara's
forex losses on May 3, 1994 (also reproduced here),
Malaysian Business - which is one ofthe publications in
the Anwar Ibrahim mass media conglomerate known hs
New StraitsTimes Group - estimated that Bank Negara's
maximum exposure in the foreign exchange markets
reached as high as RM270 billion -three times the coun-
try's GDP and more than five times the country's foreign
reserves at the time!

Now, what is the relevance of the world's highest-paid

fund manager, George Soros, to do with Bank Negara's
colossal forex losses.

This is what I said in Miri on 3rd June 1993 on Bank

Negara's 1992 forex losses:

"The bulk of Bank Negara's foreign exchange losses

was the result of its speculation inforeign currency, es-
pecially the Britishpound last September when the Brit-
ish pound fell by some 30 per cent as a result of the
European currency crisis.

"I have just read about the exploits of an American

money manager and speculator, George Soros, 62, who
is described as a iobber baron' who emerged withpro$@
estimated at w 5 billion by selling sterling short when
he led the raid on the Bank of England during last
September S European currency crisis.

"The Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim,

should explain how Bank Negara could lose RM16 bil-
lion in 1992 when an American money manager could
make RM5 billionfrom the Britishpound crisis last Sep-
tember.

"Apparently,George Soros made his RM5 billionprofit

by selling sterling short while Bank Negara made its
RMI 6 billion losses by buying sterling long. "
Many questions about the Bank Negara's colossal forex
losses cry out for answer.

It is my hope that this publication which contains my

two speeches on Bank Negara's colossal forex losses in
Parliament in April and May 1994 will help Malaysians
to ask more questions about the greatest financial and
banking scandal in Malaysian history and develop a
healthier and more wholesome culture of accountability
in the country.

Lim Kit Siang

Parliamentary Opposition Leader
Tanjong
18th June 1994
 The Bank Negara
RM30 Billion
Forex Losses Scandal
(Speech by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secre-
tary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang, in the
Dewan Rakpt on the Royal Address debate on Monday,
April 1 1, 1 994 on Bank Negara RM 16.5 - 30 Billion Forex
Losses.)

The colossal forex losses in the last two years

have knocked out a big 'black hole' in Bank
Negara, not only making it insolvent but de-
stroying its credibility and authority as the
'banker' and guardian of banks i via
-
The colossal forex losses of Bank Negara in the last
two years have knocked out a big black hole in Bank
Negara, not only making it insolvent but destroying its
credibility and authority as a 'banker and guardian of
banks' in Malaysia.

When Bank Negara's 1992 Report was released last

year, however, Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein, fully backed by
the Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, de-
nied there was any 'hole' in Bank Negara, asserting that
the RM9.3 billion forex losses which it was prepared to
admit were mere "paper losses" and that "Bank Negara's
loss is the nation's gain"!
When Bank Negara's 1993 Report was released two
weeks ago, there was another exercise to deny that the
'hole' in Bank Negara had become bigger, still denying
that there was any 'hole' at all, with the Prime Minister,
Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed declaring that the
RM5.7 billion forex losses last year came from "~rofits
made in forex dealings in prececding year

Bank Negara's forex losses in the past two

years could total as high as RM30 billion,
making it the biggest financial scandal in
Malaysia as well as a world-class financial
scandal

There was in fact a conspiracy of disinformation and

misinformation to 'cover up' the real nature, cause and
magnitude of Bank Negara forex losses in the past two
years which I will show in the course of my speech could
total as high as RM30 billion. It is not only the greatest
financial scandal in Malaysia, but has reached the stand-
ing to be a world-class financial scandal!

In the special DAP motion on the Bank Negara forex

losses in Parliament last April, the Finance Minister,
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim strenuously denied that Bank
Negara had "speculated" or "gambled" in foreign ex-
change.

Aliwar said that as Finance Minister, he was "fully sat-

isfied with the reasons" given by Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein
for the Bank Negara's forex losses.
However, truth cannot be concealed forever. as it would
always find some way of declaring itself.

This time, it is the Economic Adviser to the Govern-

ment, Tun Daim Zainuddin, who had let 'cat out of the
bag'. On Monday, April 4, 1994, Daim Zainuddin was
reported in the press as saying that "Central banks must
not play with fire by venturing into speculative money
markets where the risks or losses are high".

Tun Daim said that while those responsible for the huge
forex losses of Bank Negara had accounted for their
mistake by resigning, central banks should never go into
such ventures.

He said: "It is wrong to think thatyou cannot lose when

youplay in money markets. Yousee, ifyou make, some-
one else has to lose. Whenyou have limitedfirnds, you
do not speculate.

"You must not go into this. It is dzflerent if you are

pursuing long-term investments but ifyou are speculat-
ing, do not go into this unless you are prepared toface
losses.

"Central banks have a certain role to play and this

(speculativeventure) is a dangerous area where the risks
are high. You should not play withfire.

"Butnow that the central bank has suspendedsuch trad-

ing, I think it is all right. '"
Daim may know even more than Anwar
about Bank Negara's forex losses as Bank
Negara's forex 'speculation' was started
when Daim was Finance Minister

What more authoritative admission can Parliament or

the country get that Bank Negara's colossal losses
stemmed from imprudent foreign exchange speculation,
as Tun Daim cannot be accused like the Opposition of
'speculating' about the causes of Bank Negara's forex
losses?

Apart from the Prime Minister and the Finance Minis-

ter, there is no other person in the country who could
speak with greater knowledge and authority about the
real cause of Bank Negara's colossal forex losses. In
fact, Tun Daim may know even more than Anwar
Ibrahim because it was under Daim's tenure as Finance
Minister that Bank Negara ventured into speculative
foreign exchange trading - at that time with some mi-
nor success!

It is most unfortunate that when he was Finance Minis-

ter, Daim did not warn and direct ~ a n Negara
k to stop
'playing with fire', and for this reason, Tun Daim must
also bear responsibility for the colossal forex losses suf-
fered by Bank Negara.

Tun Daim praised Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein for resigning

as Bank Negara Governor and praising such 'culture of
accountability'. Is Tun Daim prepared to accept such
'culture of accountability' himself for his failure to stop
such speculative foreign exchange trading by Bank
Negara when he was Finance Minister, as such specula-
tive forex trading was started during his tenure?

Anwar must also bear responsibility for the

colossal Bank Negara forex losses
-
However, the person wh10must aIso bear 1responsit)ility
for the colossal Bank Nst;ala
"
,,
,
,I 6, , "I,,,,.n .
.
A .
I u l G n Iuabca, apalt from

Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein, must be the Finance Minister,

Anwar Ibrahim, himself.

As Anwar had assured Parliament last April that he was

'satisfied' with Tan Sri Jaffar's explanation for the 1992
Bank Negara forex losses, what had Tan Sri Jaffar done
differently in 1993 with regard to the 1993 Bank Negara
forex losses to require his resignation?

In fact, if the Prime Minister is right that the Bank

Negara's RM5.7 billion forex losses last year are from
profits made in forex dealings made in preceding years,
there is no need for Tan Sti Jaffar Hussein to resign at all.

Jaffar should be made a Tun instead of hav-

ing to resign i n ignominy if it could be shown
that over the years, Bank Negara had cu-
mulatively made more profits from forex
speculation despite the colossal losses in the
past two years

If it could be shown that since it ventured into specula-

tive forex trading under his Governorship, Bank Negara
had cumulatively made more profits from such specu-
lative forward forex trading despite the colossal losses
in the past two years, Jaffar should be rewarded with a
Tun instead of having to resign in ignominy!

Dr. Mahathir said last year that there was no need for
him to take action against any Bank Negara official,
and that "it would not be fair as no one made any com-
pliment when Bank Negara made large profits from its
foray into the forex markets earlier".

Dr. Mahathir was being unfair himself, as Malaysians

had not known that Bank Negara had been an active
forex speculator.

This is why the DAP had called on the GovernrnellLLu

present a White Paper to give full details of its annual
profits or losses from forex dealings in the preceding
years, so that Malaysians can know whether the cumu-
lative profits from Bank Negara forward forex dealings
are able to absorb the RM5.7 billion forex losses - let
alone the RM30 billion which could be the total forex
losses in the past two years!

There are two other reasons why Anwar Ibrahim must

bear personal responsibility for Bank Negara's forex
losses.

Anwar Ibrahim said last week that he had directed Bank

Negara to stop foward foreign exchange trading when
he discovered its forex losses 18 months ago. If Bank
Negara had followed his instructions to stop forward
forex trading in 1992,then how could Bank Negara suf-
fer RM5.7 billion losses in 1993,on top of the RM 10.1
billion to RM13.1 billion losses in 1992?
Furthermore, Anwar Ibrahim had misled Parliament last
July when I questioned him whether Bank Negara had
suffered more forex losses. Anwar said that this was
not true as he had been monitoring the Bank Negara's
forex dealings weekly.

On July 19,1993, I asked Anwar Ibrahim a supplemen-

tary question during question time as to whether at that
date, Bank Negara's provision of RM2.7 billion contin-
gent liability for forward forex trading in the 1992 Bank
Negara accounts had not only been confirmed, but even
more forex losses had been incurred.

This is Anwar's reply, from the of 19th July

1993 (p.28):

"Dato ' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim: Tuan Yang di-Pertua,

dukacitasaya memaklumkan inisatu beritayang h a n g
baik bagi YangBerhormat dari Tanjong. Kerugianyang
dimahudkan itu tidak berlaku dun tidak bertambah.
Yang Berhormat mahu percaya atau tidak tetapi saya
ada maklumat yang sebenar tentang keadaan tersebut.
Saya juga meneliti tiap-tiap minggu perkembangan
kerana masalahyang dihadapi sebelum ini....Saya ingin
memberijaminan kepada YangBerhormat dari Tanjong
bahawaperkara ini kita teliti lebih dekat dan kita lebih
waspada kerana pengalaman yang lalu. "

In this one short answer, Anwar Ibrahim had misled Par-

liament and the nation on three matters:

* that by July 1993, the provision in the 1992 Bank

Negara accounts for RM2.7 billion contingent liability
for forward forex trading had not been confirmed;
* that BankNegara had not suffered more forex losses; and
* that his weekly monitoring of Bank Negara's forex
dealings would prevent further colossal losses arising
from Bank Negara's forward forex trading.

If Anwar Ibrahim claims that he had directed Bank

Negara to stop forward forex trading 18 months ago,
and that "there are no new trading arragements" last
year as the central bank unwound its forward positions
in the market last year (Business Times April 6, 1994)'
then Bank Negara should not have incurred RM5.7 bil-
lion when its contingent liability provision for such for-
ward forex trading in end-1992 was RM2.7 billion.

Furthermore, there should not be another provision of

RM 1.4 billion as contingent liaiblity for forward forex
trading for 1994 in its end- 1993 Account.

As forward forex deals are usually for three or six

months, this must mean that BankNegara was still deal-
ing in new forward forex trades at least until June 1993.

Anwar's claim that there were no new forward forex

trading by Bank Negara in 1993 has been contradicted
by Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein, who said in his press confer-
ence on March 3 1 as well in his foreword to the 1993
Bank Negara report:

" In the Bank's 1993 accounts, a net dejciency in for-

eign exchange transactions of RMS.7 billion is reported,

an amount which will be written o f against the Bank's
furure profits. This loss reflected errors in judgement
involving commitments made with the best of intentions
to protect the national interest prior to the publication
of the Bank S 1992 accounts towards the end of March
1993. As these forward transactions were ur?wound,
losses unfolded in the course of 1993. In this regard,
global developments over the past year had not been
easyfor the Bank; indeed, they made it increasinglydv-
$cult for the Bank to unwind these positions without
some losses. For the most part, time was not on the
Bank S side. Nevertheless, this exercise is now complete
- there is at this time, no more contingent liabiliy on
the Bank's forward foreign exchange transactions on
fhis account. An unfortunate chapter in the Bank's his-
tory is now closed. "

This is an admission that unt11 late Marcn 1993, Bank

Negara was still dabbling in new forward foreign ex-
change transactions, with the suggestion that after
March, all these forward transactions were unwound.

But the provision of RM1.4 billion contingent liability

for forward forex trading in the end- 1993 account (Note
12) shows that new forex trading were still being en-
tered into well after March 1993.

Clearly Datuk Seri Anwar and Tan Sri Jaffar are not
telling the truth as to when Bank Negara ceased new
forward forex trading.

Only a full and independent investigation into the Bank

Negara's colossal forex losses can establish the truth
about its forex activities, as well as other important as-
pects of the Bank Negara forex losses scandal.
Dishonestand unethical accounting in treat-
ing the RM 5.7 billion in forex losses as an
asset item in the 1993 Balance Sheet.

BankNegara has used dishonest and unethical account-

ing to manipulate the 1993 Balance Sheet to hide the
RM 5.7 billion in forex losses so that the losses will not
be fully reflected in the accounts. This is done by in-
cluding the RM 5.7 billion forex losses as an Asset item
under Deferred Expenditure.

Such treatment of extraordinary forex losses as an asset

item is most shocking, unacceptable and violates gen-
erally accepted accounting principles.

Under any international accounting standards, includ-

ing Malaysia, such huge forex losses should be treated as
an extraordinary loss item in the Profit and Loss Account.

Under no circumstances should such forex losses be

capitalised and treated as an asset item in the Balance
Sheet! How can such losses be treated as an asset item
when it is not an asset that benefits Bank Negara but is
a huge loss to Bank Negara.

As a chartered accountant, Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein should

know that it is unethical and dishonest to treat such huge
forex losses as an asset to Bank Negara! It is a shame
not only to Bank Negara but to all Malaysians for Bank
Negara to try to hide the red ink by resorting to such
silly methods that any accounting student will spot im-
mediately.
Bank Negara i s insolvent -
where its
-
liaibilities exceed its assets by RM2.01 bil-
lion, and it would have been taken over if it
had been a commercial bank

It is clear that the intention of such malpractices is to

hide the fact that Bank Negara is technically insolvent
or bankrupt. In accounting terms, the Net Assets is used
as a rough indicator of a company long-term solvency,
value and financial performance. According to the Bank
Negara Annual Reports the net worth or net assets since
1990 are as follows:-

1990 1991 1992 1993

RM Millions
Paid-up Capital 100 100 100 100
General Reserve 3,258 3,458 3,556 3,556
Fund
Other Reserves 8,749 10,053 753 41
Net Assets 12,107 13,611 4,409 3,697

Bank Negara's net worth only dropped by RM 7 12 mil-

lion in 1993 to RM3,697 million because it only took
into account the net operating loss of RM 712 million
suffered by BankNegara, not the RM 5.7 billion in forex
losses. If the RM 5.7 billion in forex losses were taken
into account, Bank Negara would have a negative net
worth of (RM2,OlO) million or is technically insolvent.

Bank Negara is therefore insolvent - which means its

liabilities exceed its assets - by RM2.010 billion, and
the Governor and its Board would have been suspended
and the bank taken over if it had been a commercial bank!
If Bank Negara is bankrupt, then where is its authority
morally or ethically to regulate commercial and mer-
chant banks to ensure that they are solvent and main-
tains sufficient capital adequacy ratio. What difference
is Bank Negara now from Rakyat Merchant Bankers
Bhd(RMB) which it took over on 3.3.94 because it
breached its capital adequacy ratio requirements and was
technically insolvent? In fact what difference is Bank
Negara now from the 24 Deposit-Taking Co-operatives
which collapsed in 1986 or from the other collapsed banks
and finance companies which it took over in the past?

Bank Negara has always acted as the lender of last re-

sort and the rescuer of troubled financial institutions.
Who is there now to rescue the rescuer that is now in
severe financial trouble? And why does Bank Negara
not come out cleanly and openly recognise the RM5.7
billion forex losses for what they were as losses in their
financial accounts instead of trying to disgrace them-
selves by trying to package it and dress it up as an asset!

Government should 'top up8Bank Negara's

deficiency in net worth so that Ahmad
Mohamad Don would not'be humiliated in
international monetary circles as a Gover-
nor of an insolvent Bank Negara

Bank Negara Malaysia had always been held in high

esteem by the international banking community, but this
esteem had been lost as a result of Bank Negara's co-
lossal forex losses in 1992. I understand that at the re-
cent International Monetary Fund meeting, the Bank
 - -
Negara officials were treated like pariah other
central bankers.

With Bank Negara insolvent, how could the new Bank

Negara Governor, Ahmad Mohamad Don, stand tall in
international conferences with central bankers from
other countrie!

The Government snould 'top up' Bank Negara's

deficiency in net worth so that Ahmad Mohamed Don
would not be humiliated in international monetary circles
as a Governor of an insolvent Bank Negara. Let us re-
member that the humiliation of the Bank Negara Gov-
ernor is a humiliation of all Malaysians!

The proper thing for the Government to do is to recog-

nise the insolvency of Bank Negara and to inject RM 3
billion in capital into Bank Negara to overcome the
RM2.01 billion in deficiency in net worth, give suffi-
cient capital funds for Bank Negara to operate as well
as restore the credibility and image of the Bank Negara
Governor and other officials with their peers in inter-
national conferences.

Or is the Finance Ministry itself out of funds that it could

not 'top up' Bank Negara's deficiency in net worth?

Has Bank Negara concealed RM6.1 billion

forex losses by revaluation of the quoted
investments

This is not the only accounting malpractice to be found

in the 1993 Bank Negara accounts. The revaluation of
Bank Negara's quoted investments are also not taken
into account leading to the likelihood that these revalu-
ation gains have been used to conceal even greater forex
losses last year than the RM5.7 billion that have been
admitted.

Under Notes l(a) to the 1993 accounts, it is stated that

the Bank Negara has ".now consistently applied" the
current cost accounting method for all quoted invest-
ments - extending the 1992 change of valuation of gold
to mark-to-market basis.

Usually in such a revaluation exercise, there is a revalu-

ation gain because these investments were valued at the
original cost they were bought years ago, which was
very much lower compared to current prices. This is
shown by Other Assets jumping up by RM 6.1 billion
from RM 3.64 billion in 1992 to RM 9.75 billion in 1993
because of the revaluation exercise.

However, this revaluation gain of RM 6.1 billion is not

recognised or taken into account in the I993 Balance
Sheet as would be required under generally accounting
principles. There is no RM 6.1 billion increase in either
Other or General Reserves Account nor any RM 6.1
billion gain in the Bank's Net Worth.

It is likely that the revaluation gain of RM 6.1 billion

has been completely offset by further hidden and secret
forex losses. In other words, the 1993 forex losses do
not amount only to RM 5.7 billion but may be as high
as RM 1 1.8 billion!
This is another area which calls for full and independent
investigation, as to whether the Bank Negara had con-
cealed RM6.1 billion forex losses by the revaluation of
its quoted investments like MAS and MISC.

In my speech on the Bank Negara forex losses in Parlia-

ment last year, I had drawn attention to various account-
ing malpractices in the 1992BankNegara Balance Sheet
to deceive the public about the extent of Bank Negara's
forex losses.

For instance, Bank Negara and the Government had tried

to mislead the public by claiming that Bank Negara had
suffered 'paper losses' of RM9.3 billion, when it had
suffered RM 10.1 billion losses. According to Bank
Negara's own 1992 Balance Sheets, its losses were not
RM9.3 billion but RM 10.1 billion as reflected by the
drop in the Other Reserves Account of RM 9.3 billion
after having transferred in RM 800 million. This RMIO. I
billion loss can also be double-checked and confirmed
by calculating the true drop in ilis net wolrth.

In accounting terms, retained p I1 increase the

net worth of a company and reduce it if losses are in-
curred. Bank Negara recorded a profit of RM 11,398
million in 1992, of which only RM 898 millionI was
retained because the remaining RM 500 million was paid
to the Government. This is shown as follows:-
PROFIT AND LOSS APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT
for BNM As At 3 1 December:-

1 291 1990
Millions
NET OPERATING PROFIT 1,398 1,200 1,074
Transfer To General
Reserve Fund 898 200 274
Amount Payable to
Federal Government 500 1,
Total 1,398 1,

In other words, assuming no forex losses or gains, Bank

Negara should have increased its net worth by RM 898
million. However despite having retained RM 898 mil-
lion in profits, its net worth dropped by RM9,202 mil-
lion because of forex losses instead of increasing. This
means that the true fall in the Bank's net worth position
is RM 10.1 billion, caused by forex losses of RMIO.1
billion. This is an example where Anwar and Tan Sri
Jaffar have tried to mislead the public by understating
the 1992 Bank Negara's losses as RM9.3 billion when
it should be RM 10.1 billion.

Furthermore, there was also the failure by the 1992 Bank

Negara's accountants to take into account the revalua-
tion gain from gold. BNM had changed its accounting
practice in- 1992 by revaluing gold which they had
bought at a low price in the past 20 years ago at current
prices. Since the current price is higher than the pur-
chase price, the amount gained would have been in-
cluded in the other Reserves Account.
 It had been estimated that gold was US$100 an ounce
in 1984just before Tan Sri Jaffar became Bank Negara
Governor, but by the end of 1992 its price had now risen
to more than US$300. With the further estimate that
BNM had RM1.5 billion worth of gold bought 20 years
ago at that time, and that this $1.5 billion worth of gold
had still been retained, the gold revalued at current prices
I
will be worth more than RM4.5 billion. This gain of
more than RM3 billion from such revaluation of gold in
1992 must be reflected in the 1992 Balance Sheet and
put in the Other Reserves Account.

The fact that this RM 3 billion gain in revaluation of

gold was not taken into account shows that even the
gain from gold revaluation was also lost. Just like the
missing RM 6.1 billion revaluation gain of quoted in-
vestments in 1993, it is likely that the 1992 gold revalu-
ation gain was again offset by additional secret hidden
forex losses.

In other words, the 1992 forex losses suffered by Bank

Negara is not RM 10.1 billion but likely to be RM 13.1
billion. In 1993, Bank Negara suffered RM5.7 billion
for forex losses and RM 71 1 million for net operating
loss. Taking into account the RM6.1 billion loss that
could be hidden by the revaluation of quoted invest-
& ments, Bank Negara could range from RM6.4 billion to
RM12.5 billion.

Taking both years together, Bank Negara could have

suffered forex losses ranging from RM 16.5 billion to
RM25.6 billion.
How did RM 10.1 billion in forex losses suf-
fered by Bank Negara in 1992 change from
paper lossesto reaiised losseswithin a year?

In a statement by Tan Sri Jaffar to the press on 20th

April 1993, Tan Sri Jaffar denied that Bank Negara lost
RM 9.3 billion in forex losses and insisted that they were
only book losses - or paper losses. Tan Sri Jaffar even a

said that such paper losses could even turn out to be a

profit. Datuk Seri Anwar confirmed this in Parliament
on 27th April 1993that the RM 9.3 billion in forex losses ,
were not real losses but merely paper losses.

The issue is what have occurred in the space of one year

for the Government and Bank Negara to now admit that
the RM 10.1 billion forex losses in 1992 were not paper
losses but actually real losses? Such blatant accounting
malpractices not only show that the Bank Negara's fi-
nancial reports do not represent a true and fair view but
that Bank Negara could have suffered more losses and
is hiding the real extent of such forex losses.

It is shocking that the Auditor-General Tan Sri Ishak

Tadin could still continue to approve Bank Negara's
Accounts that it represents a true and fair view when it
is misleading and dishonest and can only harm our in-
ternational reputation. *

Assets alone do not determine financial

viability

Anwar should not be misled by Bank Negara officials

that Bank Negara can afford up to RM 25.6 billion losses
in two years because its assets exceed RM 100 billion.
It is such wrong advice that caused Datuk Seri Anwar
to come out openly to state last year that the RM 10.1
billion in foreign exchange(forex) losses suffered by
Bank Negara in 1992 were "paper losses".

The additional RM 6.4 billion to RM12.5 billion losses

suffered by Bank Negara in 1993 has proven Datuk Seri
Anwar to be embarrassingly wrong that the RM 10.1
billion losses were not 'paper losses' but real losses.
Anwar should not make the same mistake by saying
that the country's financial position will not be affected
because Bank Negara's strong reserves and assets ex-
ceeded RM 100 billion.

It is true that Bank Negara has reserves and assets of

RM I00 billion as stated in its 1993 Balance Sheet. But
to only concentrate on the assets portion of the Balance
Sheet is to miss correctly interpreting the real situation.
This is because the Balance Sheet also contains a Li-
abilities portion that also exceeds RM 100 billion.

To fully understand the Balance Sheet to obtain the fi-

nancial health of an institution is to make a simple
calculation of its net worth or net assets. From my ex-
planation just now, BankNegara's actual position is not
as good as Datuk Seri Anwar said because it does not
have assets exceeding RM 100 billion but is actually
insolvent with a negative net worth of (RM2,O 10)million.

It is therefore also wrong for Prime Minister Datuk Seri

Dr Mahathir Moharned to say that the country's finan-
cial position is not threatened because the forex losses
are from profits made in forex dealings in the past.
Which ASEAN country's economy can avoid suffering
losses ranging from RM 6.4 to RM12.5 billion by its
Central Bank in a year without any adverse impact?

Making profits in the past is no justification for losing

RM 16.5 billion to RM25.6 billion in two years, espe-
cially when as a result of such huge losses BankNegara's
net worth is now insolvent with a negative net worth of
(RM 2,010) million.
I

How can ~ a i Negara

k lose RM 712 million as a result
of combating inflation in 1993 if it can successfully
combat inflation in 1992 and yet also record profits in
excess of R M 1 billion? Why is 1993 so unusual that
when combating inflation Bank Negara has to lose RM
712 million?

Why does a weaker ringgit not bring about

reserves gain?

Tan Sri Jaffar said on 20th April 1993 that the RM 10.1
billion forex "paper losses" was due to a stronger ringgit
because a stronger ringgit would bring about losses in
its international reserves. The ringgit appreciated by
5.63% in terms of the composite basket in 1992. Tan b

Sri Jaffar said such appreciation was the reason why the
forex losses were incurred.
1

We would therefore expect Bank Negara to make forex

gains if the ringgit depreciates. According to the 1993
Bank Negara's Report the ringgit depreciated or declined
by 5.22% in terms of the composite basket in 1993.
However instead of recording forex gains, Bank Negara
suffered a total loss of RM 6.4 billion to RM12.5 billion.

This only shows that massive speculation or gambling

in the forex market has resulted in losses which has
wiped out any gains from a weaker ringgit.

How much are the forward forex positions? They must

be RM30 billion or RM40 billion to be able to incur
losses of up to Bank Negara's admitted forex losses of
RM 5.7 billion in 1993. What gives the right to one or
two persons to have the authority to gamble so much
money in the forex market?

Bank Negara forex traders operate in huge lots in the

foreign exchange markets. While the market norm is to
deal with US$I million, US$5 million or US$IO mil-
lion lots, Bank Negara operates in a very agressive man-
ner, operating in US$50 million lots. 1 understand that
there had also been occasions when Bank Negara oper-
ated with US$500 million in one call!

Malaysians are entitled to the full facts of the Bank

Negara forex losses scandal. I had last year called for a
Royal Commission of Inquiry and I repeat this call.

Royal Commission of Inquiry should inquire

whether the total Bank Negara forex losses
since 1992 could exceed RM30 billion

The Royal Commission of Inquiry should first deter-

mine the actual extent of the forex losses suffered by
Bank Negara since 1992.
I had said that for the two years of 1992 and 1993, Bank
Negara's forex losses could range from RM 16.5 billion
to RM25.6 billion. The total forex losses could be more
when we take into account the RM1.4 billion contin-
gent liability for 1994 arising from forward forex com-
mitments.

Could there be other hidden and secret forex losses in

the 1992 and 1993 Bank Negara accounts apart from
those which had been discussed?

There could be. I will just give one possibility. Bank

Negara had been accused for instance of dumping large
amounts of ringgit into the market in the closing days
of 1993 to buy U.S. dollars, causing the ringgit to fall
steeply. That manoeuvre improved Bank Negara's year-
end financial position by raising the value of its cur-
rency and gold reserves in ringgit terms.

It is interesting to note that as of November 30, 1993,

Bank Negara's Gold and Foreign Exchange and Other
Reserves including SDRs stood at RM60 billion, but
within a month by December 31, 1993, it had shot up
by RM16.4 billion to RM76.4 billion - and hefty in-
crease of 26 per cent in one month.

Bank Negara's Gold and Foreign Exchange and Other

Reserves including SDRs stood at RM46.2 billion. If it
had increased at 26 per cent per month, as happened in
the one month of December 1993, Bank Negara's Gold
and Foreign Exchange and Other Reserves would have
multiplied to the impossible figure of RM587 billion!
It is therefore possible that the RM16.4 billion increase
of Gold and Foreign Exchange and Other Reserves could
conceal forex losses, bringing total forex losses to over
RM30 billion since 1992.

The first task of the Royal Commission of Inquiry is to

ascertain whether Bank Negara's forex losses since 1992
could exceed RM30 billion.

The second task of the Royal Commission of Inquiry is

to ascertain whether there had been any financial mal-
practices and abuses in view of the inconsistencies and
conflicting explanationsabout the colossal forex losses.

It is ridiculous for Bank Negara to blame the late deliv-

ery of sophisticated computers for causing such huge
forex losses. After all, how is it that Bank Negara can
not only not lose money but make profits in the past
without these sophisticated computers? And how is it
that unsophisticated Central Banks of other countries
which do not have sophisticated computers do not incur
such colossal losses from forward forex operations?

Thirdly, the Royal Commission of Inquiry should es-

tablish as to how the Bank Negara could incur such co-
lossal losses.

In fact, Anwar Ibrahim should be able to tell Parliament

the size and details of Bank Negara's foreign exchange
losses, by releasing details on Bank Negara's foreign
transactions, the composition of its reserves, aspects of
its intervention operationsand its forward commitments
in the various currencies.
Last April, Jaffar said that to give details would be "show
my hand to the market", and that "there should be no
problems disclosing such information if the bank is no
longer in the foreign exchange business. "

Anwar Ibrahim said the same thing in Parliament dur-

ing question time on July 19.

Now that Bank Negara had announced that it has ceased

all forward forex transactions and that all positions had
been unwound, Anwar Ibrahim should have no reason
to refuse to furnish all these details about the Bank
Negara's colossal forex losses to Parliament.

What intrigues me is the position ofNor Mohamed Yak-

cop, the man with direct oversight of the bank's forex
dealings and therefore directly responsible for the co-
lossal Bank Negara forex losses.

Although Nor Mohamad has also submitted his resigna-

tion, which takes effect on July 10 after a three-month
leave, the talk is that Nor Mohamed would be trans-
ferred to a very responsible government-connected po-
sition, and the new Kuala Lumpur International Airport
has been mentioned.

After the 1992 Bank Negara Report on the RM 10.1 bil-

lion to RM 13.1 billion forek losses was made public,
.
Nor Mohamed was appointed Senior Adviser to Bank
Negara, and he was conferred Darjah Johan Setia
Mahkota (JMN) on the birthday of the Yang di Pertuan
Agong on June 5,1993.
Malaysians must wonder whether the 'culture of ac-
countability' which Daim talks about followingthe res-
ignation of Jaffar Hussein isa farce.

The BN Government must realise that Bank Negara is

owned by all Malaysians and these losses cannotjust be
ignored as irrelevant and unimportant. As sharehold-
ers, all Malaysians are entitled to demand full account-
ability and responsibility by all those responsible for
the losses to our international financial credibility and
funds built up over 37 years - whether he be Bank Negara
Governor or even Finance Minister.

Tan Sri Jaffar said in his New Delhi lecture in 1989 that
when he joined Bank Negara in 1985 from the private
sector, he was informed that the main thrust of reserves
management in Bank Negara was to preserve the value
of what we have and the main considerationswere safety
and liquidity. He said he had added a third and fourth
dimension: profit optimization and market expertise.
It is finally the failure of these two new dimensionsthat
have led to Bank Negara's colossal forex losses and the
ignominous departure of Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein.

RM30 billion losses would be tantamount to

seven or eight years of tax holiday for all
Malaysians from having to pay individual
income taxes

The Government has still to convince the people that it

is serious about the colossal Bank Negara forex losses
which could exceed RM30 billion since 1992.
With RM30 billion, the Government can declare a 'holi-
day' for all Malaysians from having to pay individual
income tax for seven to eight years!

Let the Government prove its seriousness by establish-

ing a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate into
the biggest financial scandal in Malaysia, and for all
concerned, starting with the Finance Minister, Anwar
Ibrahim, stepping forward to bear his responsibility for
the colossal Bank Negara forex losses scandal.

Call for urgent appointment of PAC Chair-

man, who should be an Opposition MP, to
inquire into the 1993 forex losses of Bank
Negara

I had told Parliament last July that in Mongolia, two

former central bank governors and three of their staff
were charged in court for negligence and over-stepping
their authority in gambling for two disastrous years on
the world's foreign exchange markets, causing a loss of
US$90 million.

This is a puny figure compared to the RM30 billion

losses that could have been lost by Bank Negara since
1992.

It is most regrettable that the Federal Govefnment has

not supported the proposal for the establishment of a
Royal Commission of Inquiry into the colossal Bank
Negara forex losses. In fact, the Finance Ministry and
the Bank Negara had refused to allow the Public Ac-
counts Committee to conduct a f i l l investigation into
the colossal forex losses, and Tan Sri Jaffar did not at-
tend the PAC meeting in July last year to discuss the
forex losses.

Now, with a second consecutive year of colossal forex

losses, the PAC is unable to operate and meet because it
has no chairman as its former chairman, Datuk Dr.
Affifudin Omar had been appointed a Parliamentary
Secretary.

I call on the Deputy Prime Minister to introduce a mo-

tion to appoint a new PAC Chairman without any fur-
ther delay so that the PAC could meet urgently over
Bank Negara's 1993 forex losses.

The Cabinet and Parliament should accept the estab-

lished parliamentary convention in Commonwealth Par-
liaments by appointing an Opposition MP to head the
PAC.
This will also show that the Government and Bank
Negara have nothing to hide and are not afraid of a full
and thorough investigation into the forex losses by the
PAC.
RM30 billion is a colossal sum.
If a person is to strike a RM2
million lottery everyday, it would
take him 41 years to reach 30
billion!

If RM30 billion is divided among

the 19 million Malaysians, in-
cluding new-born babies, every-
one will be entitled to RM1,578!

Or, alternatively, it could mean

a tax holiday for all Malaysians
where no individual income tax
need be paid by all Malaysians
for eight years!

Or it could be used to build 1.2

million low-cost houses at
RM25,OOO per unit, which would
resolve the long-standing low-
cost housing problem in the
country, or build 45 universities,
five North-South Highways and
four Kuala Lumpur International
Airports like the one being built
in Sepang!
 Bank Negara speculated
a s much a s RM270 Billion
at one time
= =
Speecn by ranramentary Opposition Leader, uAr secretary-
General and MP for Tanjung,Lim Kit Siang, in Dewan Rakyat
on Tuesday, May 3,1994 on the 1993 and 1994 Supplemen-
tary Estimates

Was Bank Negara's maximum exposure at

the height of its forward foreign exchange
speculation in the region of RM270 billion,
which was three times the country's GDP and
more than five times the country's foreign
resewes two years ago?

Up to now, neither Parliament nor the country has got

the fill and true story as to what really happened to cause
the colossal Bank Negara forex losses since 1992.

Malaysians must realise that if the Barisan Nasional

Government is allowed to get away scot-free with the
colossal Bank Negara forex losses without full account-
ability as to what really happened, then in future, there
would be even bigger financial scandals!

I therefore call on the Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar

Ibrahim, to give answers to five aspects of the colossal
Bank Negara forex losses scandal.

Firstly, the real losses suffered by Bank Negara as a re-

sult of its speculation in the forward foreign exchange
markets since 1992.
The Government had only admitted that Bank Negara
had suffered RM5.7 billion forex losses in 1993. It had
not fully and publicly admitted any Bank Negara forex
losses in 1992 - but only 'paper losses' of RM9.3 billion.

I have said in my urgent motion in Parliament on the

Bank Negara forex losses two weeks ago that Bank
Negara's forex losses since 1992 could have amounted
to as high as RM30 billion, and the Finance Minister,
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, had failed to give a full re-
buttal to my figure.

Secondly, the truth of the statement by Anwar Ibrahim

that he had directed Bank Negara to stop forward ex-
change trading when he discovered its forex losses IS
months ago, i.e. around October 1992.

If this was true, then there is no reason for the Bank

Negara to suffer any forex losses in 1994 at all as for-
ward forex commitments are usually for three-month or
six-month contracts. Even if Bank Negara had been so
imprudent as to speculate with one-year deals, all such
forward foreign exchange contracts should have been
wound up by 1993 itself.

How come, then, could Bank Negara provide for a con-

tingent liaiblity for RM1.4 billion losses in 1994 arising
from its forward foreign exchange commitments?

Was Anwar Ibrahim telling the truth that he had directed

Bank Negara to stop forward foreign exchange trading
around October, 1992 and if so, had Bank Negara disre-
garded the directiveof the Finance Minister as to suffacon-
tinued losses from such forward forex speculation in 1994?
Parliament and the nation are entitled to know, if not the
detailed figures, at least the global figures of the commit-
ments of Bank Negara in its forex speculation at the time
Anwar Ibrahim ordered a stop in forward forex trading
around October 1992 - such as the total commitmentsof
Bank Negara at that time on three-month forward forex
deals, six-month forward forex deals, and one-year for-
ward forex deals.

Thirdly, whether it is true that at the height of Bank

Negara's speculation in the forward foreign exchange
market in 1992, Bank Negara's maximum exposure was
in the region of RM270 billion - three times the country's
GDP and more than five times the country's foreign re-
serves at the time!

This is a completely unthinkable figure and if true, the

Bank Negara must be deplored as being utterly irrespon-
sible with the funds of Malaysian taxpayers!

I have not invented this figure of Bank Negara specu-

lating at the international foreign currency markets with
as much as RM270 billion at one time. This figure came
from the latest issue of Malaysian Business - which is a
publication close to the 'establishment'.

This confirms what I said in Parliament last month, that

Bank Negara forex traders were 'very aggressive' players,
who operate in huge lots in the foreign exchange markets.

While the market norm is to deal with US$l million,

US$5 million or even US$IO million lots, Bank Negara
operated in US$50 million lots, and on occasions, even
as high as RM$500 million in one call!
Fourthly, the assurance given by Anwar Ibrahim to me
in Parliament during question time on July 19,1993 that
BankNegara had not suffered any 'new or increased forex
losses' as he was "examining Bank Negara's develop-
ments every week". If this was the case - that as of July
1993 Bank Negara had not suffered 'any new or increased
forex losses' - then how could Bank Negara lose RM5.7
billion by the end of December 1993?

Fifthly, for how long had Bank Negara indulged in for-

ward foreign exchange speculation, the total profits it
had made since it started forays into the forward forex
speculations, and the real nature of the "unfortunate cir-
cumstances and errors of judgement" which .caused such
colossal lossesto BankNegara and the Malaysian taxpayers.

If the Finance Minister is not prepared to provide an-

swers to these five questions on the colossal Bank Negara
forex losses, then clearly, the Government and Bank
Negara has something to hide.

In such circumstances, the new Chairman of the Parlia-

mentary Accounts Committee, Datuk Dr. Jamaludin
Jarjis, who was appointed by Parliament last week, has
his first immediate task cut out for him - to examine into
Bank Negara's colossal foreign exchange losses and to
find answers to the five questions which I havejust posed.

Although speculation is rife of early dissolution of Par-

liament, there should be at least another Parliamentary
meeting some time in July, and the PAC should work
over-time to present a report on its investigations into
the colossal Bank Negara forex losses to the next meet-
ing of Dewan Rakyat.
If the PAC dare not investigate into the colossal Bank
Negara forex losses, or is unable to present its report to
the next meeting of Dewan Rakyat, then it will only con-
firm criticisms about the fundamental flaw of appoint-
ing an MP from the government to chair the PAC.

Parliament, the PAC and Malaysians cannot take lightly

the RM3O billion Bank Negara forex losses, for they are
not losses suffered by Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein personally
or BankNegara, but RM3O billion losses suffered by the
people-

RM30 billion is a colossal sum. If a person is to strike a

RM2 million lottery every day, it would take him 4 1 years
to reach RM30 billion!

If RM30 billion is divided among the 19million Malay-

sians, including a new-born babe, every one will be en-
titled to RM1,578!

Or alternatively, it could mean a tax holiday for all Ma-

laysians where no individual income tax need by paid by
all Malaysians for eight years!

Or it could be used to build 1.2 million low-cost houses

at RM25,OOO per unit, which would resolve the long-
standing low-cost housing problem in the country, or build
45 universities, five North-South Highways and four
Kuala Lumpur International Airports like the one being
built in Sepang!
 APPENDIX

BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA

Balance Sheet as at Dee 31 1993

Liabilities
Authorised Capital RM200,000,000
Paid-up Capital
General Reserve Fund
Other Reserves
Currency in Circulation
Deposits:
Commercial Banks, Finance Companies &
Merchant Banks
Federal Government
Others
Bank NegaraMalaysia BondsIBills
'~llocationof Special Drawing Rights
Other Liabilities

Assets
Gold & Foreign Exchange
International Monetary Fund Reserve Position
Holdings of Special Drawing Rights
Malaysian Government Papers
Bills Discounted
Depositswith Financial Institutions
Loans & Advances
Deferred Expenditure
Other Assets

Profit & Loss Appropriation Account

for the Year Ended Dee 31 1993
1993 1992
RM RM
Transfer to General Reserve Fund - 897,879,941
Amount Payable to Federal Government

Net Operating hofit/(Lm)

Transfer fiom Other Reserves
 -
Important Notes to the Accounts December 31 1993

1. Accounting Policies

(a) Gold, Securities and Investments

Gold and securitiesare valued at a mark-to-mar~erbasis
as at December 3 1 1993. This policy is now consistently
applied to all quoted investments.

(b) Foreign Currency Translation

Assets and liabilities in foreign currencies have been re-
valued at rates of exchange ruling on the balance sheet
date. Transactions in foreign currencies during the year
have been translated into ringgit at rates of exchange
ruling on value dates.

2. Net Operating Loss

The Net operating loss of the Bank was arrived at after

charging the cost of absorbing the very substantial pool
ofexcess liquidity in the financial system to combat in-
flation.

3. Deferred Expenditure

This represents the net deficiency arising from foreign

exchange transactions. The Government has undertaken
to make good this deficiency as and when required to do
so by the Bank.

4. Contingent Liabilities

Total contingent liabilities as at December 3 1 1993was

RM3,63 1,499,381. These comprise:-
(a) an amount of RM2,207,209,411, which represents
the obligation of the Bank to pay in full, in SDR or other
convertible currencies, the amount of Malaysia's quota
in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under the Ar-
ticles of Agreement;

(b) an amount of RM1,413,664,726, being the net liabil-

ity on forward foreign exchange transactions; and

(c) an amount of RM10,625,244, being liability arising

from various transaction on bilateral payments arrange-
ments.
OTHER TITLES BY THE AUTHOR
Time Bombs In Malaysia (1 978)
Malaysia In The Dangerous Eighties (1982)
This Day In The Last 18 Months (1983)
Constitutional Crisis In Malaysia (1 983)
The BMF scandal (1 983)
Harris Salleh - Politics And Morality (1984)
Human Rights In Malaysia (1 985)
-
BMF The Scandal Of Scandals (1 986)
Malaysia - Crisis Of Identity (1986)
The North-South Highway Scandal (1987)
Prelude To Operation Lalang (1 990)
The Dirtiest General Elections In The History Of
Malaysia (199 1)
Selected Speeches & Press Statements - Volume I
(1 992)
Selected Speeches & Press Statements- Volume I1
(1 992)
Battle For Democracy (1 992)
Vijandran Pornographic Videotape Scandal I1 (1 992)