Malaysiakini : COMMENT | They were not loose arrangements. Each was legally binding and held the parties to terms, obligations, and conditions precedent and antecedent.
A rocket scientist would not be needed to solve this problem. Simple arithmetic would provide the answers, but together with them come bigger headaches caused by interfering politicians.
So, here’s the question: If A had been compelled to share its annual revenue of RM10 million with B, which was then an unknown party, and a 10 percent levy by C, how much would A have lost over nine months?
It’s straightforward – nine makes three-quarters as revenue of a calendar year, and the answer is RM4.5 million, leaving A with a meagre RM3 million.
Why would anyone want to enter such deals? To put it in context, if A is a local council in Selangor, B is a third-party parking concessionaire, and C is the state government, it will all fall into place.
Sherlock : The concessionaire is linked to "untouchable"? Yet again? Is that the reason why government reps are tip-toeing around the topic? Repeat of FiFA FAM Heritage player? At 200Million, for 1800 cameras, it comes to RM110k per camera.
Read it all here.....How about installing HiKvisions cctv camera, Shopee sells less than RM80/pc. RM110k, can buy 1375 cameras. Will Selangor council accept this as the so called 200Million commitment by Concessionaire?
GrayParrot9290 : Lodge MACC report ? Opposition, Any audit done by PAC on revenue collected and shared with local council ? Very dubious tender procurement and make no money sense ?
No comments:
Post a Comment
I do not aim to please anyone. This is my blog, there is no blog like this. I am not mainstream. Read my disclaimer before posting comments and threatening me. Not to worry, I will not quiver in my boots. If you are not happy, no problem, just take a hike!!