Sarawak Party Lodges Police Report on Tabung Haji Financial Fiasco

Borneo Herald

10.42PM MYT, 13-8-2026

Borneo Herald Carries in Full the Police Report on Tabung Haji by Parti Bumi Kenyalang

POLICE REPORT

REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO FINDINGS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO LEMBAGA TABUNG HAJI, FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES, INVESTMENT DECISIONS, ACCOUNTING TREATMENT, GOVERNANCE FAILURES, USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND POSSIBLE OFFENCES

Name of Complainant:

VOON LEE SHAN

Position:

President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)

Purpose of Report:

To request a comprehensive investigation by the Royal Malaysia Police and, where appropriate, referral and/or coordination with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), into matters disclosed in the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) Report concerning Lembaga Tabung Haji (“TH”).

1. INTRODUCTION

I, VOON LEE SHAN, President of Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK), make this report in the public interest and particularly in the interest of the millions of depositors and contributors of Lembaga Tabung Haji (TH).

Voon Lee Shan (centre), accompanied by his PBK members, lodged a lengthy police report on Tabung Haji in Kuching today.

I make this report following the publication of the Royal Commission of Inquiry Report (RCI) on Tabung Haji, which was made available to the public in July 2026.

The RCI was established pursuant to the appointment by His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on 20 January 2022, and that the Cabinet meeting on 29 July 2026 the RCI be published to the public.

The matters disclosed are sufficiently serious to warrant investigation by the enforcement authorities.

I emphasise at the outset that:

I am not asking the police to presume that any individual is guilty.

I am asking the authorities to investigate whether the facts disclosed by the RCI disclose any criminal offence, corruption, abuse of power, breach of trust, falsification, false accounting, dishonest concealment, misappropriation, or other offence under Malaysian law.

2. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Tabung Haji is not an ordinary private company.

It is a statutory institution holding and managing the savings of millions of Malaysian depositors, and is believed to include depositors from Sarawak and Sabah.

Its financial integrity therefore concerns not merely its management and board but the wider public interest.

If the RCI has identified circumstances in which the true financial position of TH was materially different from what had been reported, and if substantial investments, asset transfers, hibah, bonuses and Government financial support were involved, then the Malaysian public is entitled to know:

1.What happened to the money?

2.Who made the decisions?

3.Who authorised them?

4.What information was available to decision-makers?

5.What information was disclosed or withheld?

6.Were proper statutory procedures followed?

7.Were there conflicts of interest?

8.Were any public funds used to absorb losses?

9.Were Government guarantees or other public financial commitments given?

10.Who ultimately bore the financial consequences?

3. THE RM3.4 BILLION PROFIT VERSUS RM1.4 BILLION LOSS

One of the most serious matters requiring investigation concerns TH's financial position for 2017.

The RCI's findings have been reported as concluding that, applying the applicable accounting standards, TH should have recorded approximately RM1.4 billion net loss, rather than the approximately RM3.4 billion profit reflected in its reported financial position - see New Straits Times July 29, 2026.

This represents an apparent difference of approximately RM4.8 billion.

The RCI's findings reportedly included issues concerning:

impairment losses;

fair-value treatment;

recognition of dividend income;

valuation of assets;

and the use of the Realisable Asset Value methodology.

This raises fundamental questions:

(a)Who prepared and approved the relevant accounting treatment?

(b)Who knew of the actual financial condition of TH?

(c) Disposal of the TH Indo Plantations.What advice was given by the auditors, management, board and professional advisers?

(d) Were any accounting entries made which had the effect of presenting TH as financially stronger than it actually was?

(e) Were any persons aware that the financial statements did not accurately represent TH's financial position?

(f) If so, why were the accounts approved and presented in that form?

I respectfully request the police and/or MACC to obtain and examine the complete working papers, audit files, board papers, management papers, accounting records, and communications relating to the 2017 accounts.

4. THE DECLARATION AND PAYMENT OF HIBAH

The RCI's findings concerning hibah also require investigation.

If TH's true financial position was materially weaker than reported, it is necessary to determine:

1.What was the actual financial position when hibah was approved?

2.Who recommended the hibah?

3.Who approved it?

4.What financial information was before the decision-makers?

5.Was the Board fully informed?

6.Were Government officials or Ministers involved?

7.Were political considerations involved?

8.Did the payment of hibah materially worsen TH's financial position?

9.Was any person pressured to approve or facilitate the payment?

10.Was any information concerning TH's financial condition withheld from the Board, depositors, auditors, or Government?

If hibah was declared on the basis of materially inaccurate or incomplete financial information, the authorities should determine whether any criminal offence was committed.

5. POLITICAL INTERFERENCE AND GOVERNANCE

The RCI reportedly identified political considerations influencing certain TH decisions, including matters concerning:

board appointments;

hibah;

Hajj-related payments and support; and

institutional and financial decisions.

The RCI has also recommended significant governance reforms, including restrictions on active politicians holding positions on TH's Board and subsidiary boards.

This raises an important question:

Were decisions made in the interests of TH and its depositors, or were political considerations permitted to influence financial decisions?

I respectfully request investigation into:

the appointment process;

communications between Ministers and TH;

communications between political officeholders and TH management;

board appointment records;

minutes of meetings;

instructions given to directors and management;

and any evidence of political intervention in financial decisions.

6. MULTIPLE DIRECTORSHIPS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The RCI's findings concerning senior officeholders holding multiple positions in TH subsidiaries require examination.

In particular, the role and responsibilities of the then Chairman, Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim, and the various senior management officers involved in the relevant transactions should be examined against the actual documents and decision-making records.

I am not alleging that the holding of multiple positions itself constitutes a criminal offence.

However, the authorities should determine:

1.Whether there were actual or potential conflicts of interest;

2.Whether such conflicts were disclosed;

3.Whether any person participated in decisions in which they had an interest;

4.Whether proper recusal procedures were followed;

5.Whether any person obtained personal or third-party benefit;

6.Whether TH suffered loss as a result.

- See The Edge Malaysia 11 Aug 2026

7. THE PT TH INDO PLANTATIONS TRANSACTION

I particularly request an investigation into the di investment.

I understand from publicly reported records that TH had previously lodged a police report concerning the disposal of approximately 95% of PT TH Indo Plantations, and that allegations concerning misrepresentation and withholding of material information had arisen in relation to the transaction -  See The Edge Malaysia 11 Aug 2026

The matter is particularly significant because the RCI has identified PT TH Indo Plantations among the investments requiring forensic examination.

I therefore request that the authorities obtain:

the original investment approval;

valuation reports;

investment committee papers;

board minutes;

legal advice;

due diligence reports;

sale agreements;

purchaser information;

correspondence between TH and the purchaser;

all financial consideration received;

and all documents relating to the alleged withholding or misrepresentation of information.

The authorities should determine:

Was TH's interest sold at a fair value?

Was all material information disclosed to the decision-makers?

Did any person receive an undisclosed benefit?

Did any person deliberately conceal material information?

Was TH deprived of money or assets?

Were any offences committed?

8. THE OTHER INVESTMENTS IDENTIFIED FOR FORENSIC AUDIT - see The Edge Malaysia 11 Aug 2026

I further request investigation into the other investments identified by the RCI for forensic examination, including:

1.PT TH Indo Plantations;

2.Emrail Sdn Bhd;

3.Wellspring Worldwide Limited;

4.Deru Semangat Sdn Bhd;

5.Trurich Resources Sdn Bhd;

6.Abraj Sdn Bhd;

7.Putrajaya Perdana Berhad;

8.Al-Rawda Real Estates;

9.Alfareeda Residential Fund;

10.TH Plantations Berhad;

11.TH Properties Sdn Bhd;

12.Alam Maritim Resources / TH Marine;

13.TH Hotel & Residences; and

14.FGV Berhad.

I respectfully request that the authorities determine, for each investment:

Who proposed it?

Who approved it?

Who valued it?

Who advised TH?

Who were the beneficial owners or counterparties?

What was the original investment amount?

What was the actual return?

What was the eventual loss, if any?

Were there conflicts of interest?

Were proper tender and procurement procedures followed?

Did any individual or related party benefit?

Was there any corruption, abuse of position, criminal breach of trust, fraud, dishonest concealment, or falsification?

9. UNAUTHORISED RM22 MILLION-PLUS CONTRIBUTION

I further request an investigation into the reported contribution of approximately RM22 million through Yayasan Tabung Haji which had previously been the subject of a police report - see The Edge Malaysia 11 Aug 2026

The authorities should determine:

1.Who authorised the payment?

2.What was the purpose?

3.Who were the ultimate recipients?

4.Was the payment authorised under TH's governing documents?

5.Were proper approvals obtained?

6.Was any political party, political activity or politically connected organisation involved?

7.Were TH funds used for purposes outside the lawful objects of TH?

8.Did any person obtain an improper benefit?

10. BONUS PAYMENTS DESPITE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES

The RCI reportedly found that TH staff received substantial bonuses, in some years equivalent to several months' salary and, in certain circumstances, as much as 13 months' salary.

The authorities should determine:

who approved these payments;

the financial position of TH at the time;

whether the payments were authorised;

whether proper performance criteria were satisfied;

whether Board approval was obtained;

and whether any payments breached statutory or corporate requirements.

Particular attention should be given to reported payments involving TH Properties, including special appreciation bonuses, where questions have reportedly arisen concerning the absence of required approvals.

If any payment was made without lawful authority, the relevant authorities should determine whether the conduct amounts merely to a civil/corporate breach or whether it discloses a criminal offence.

11. POSSIBLE FALSE CLAIMS AND FALSE DOCUMENTATION

The RCI reportedly identified matters involving false claims and other alleged misconduct.

I respectfully request that the authorities obtain and examine:

invoices;

payment vouchers;

claims;

quotations;

contracts;

supporting documents;

approval forms;

board papers;

emails;

electronic communications;

and bank records.

The purpose should be to determine whether any documents were fabricated, falsified, backdated, or deliberately used to obtain payment.

11.THE RM19.9 BILLION ASSET TRANSFER / URUSHARTA JAMAAH ISSUE - The New Straits Times August 11, 2026 @ 12:30pm

Another matter requiring careful investigation concerns the restructuring of TH assets and their transfer to Urusharta Jamaah.

Publicly available parliamentary material records the transfer of substantial assets, including equities and properties, under a restructuring arrangement involving approximately RM19.9 billion in consideration against reported asset values of approximately RM9.7 billion.

I do not allege that the difference itself constitutes an offence.

However, a difference of approximately RM10.2 billion is sufficiently substantial that the authorities should determine:

1.How was the RM19.9 billion consideration calculated?

2.How were the transferred assets valued?

3.Who instructed or approved the valuation?

4.What was the legal basis of the transaction?

5.What was the economic rationale?

6.What liabilities or obligations were assumed?

7.What Government guarantees or commitments were involved?

8.Did Cabinet approve the arrangement?

9.Was parliamentary approval required for any component?

10.Was Parliament fully informed?

11.Who ultimately bore the economic risk?

13. USE OF PUBLIC MONEY AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

This is one of the principal reasons for making this police report.

Where Government money, Government guarantees, appropriations, loans, statutory funds, asset transfers or other public financial commitments are used to rescue or absorb liabilities associated with a statutory body, Government-linked company or private entity, the public must be able to establish:

WHO AUTHORISED IT?

UNDER WHAT LAW?

UNDER WHAT APPROPRIATION OR STATUTORY POWER?

WHO BENEFITED?

WHO BORNE THE LOSS?

WAS PARLIAMENT INFORMED AND, WHERE REQUIRED, DID PARLIAMENT AUTHORISE THE EXPENDITURE?

I am aware that the Federal Government's constitutional and financial framework permits expenditure through established appropriation mechanisms and provides for supplementary expenditure to be presented to Parliament.

Therefore, I am not alleging that every Government financial intervention necessarily requires a separate Act of Parliament.

Rather, I ask the enforcement authorities to investigate whether all relevant constitutional, statutory, appropriation, financial-procedure and Cabinet requirements were complied with in each transaction.

If public money was used outside the lawful authority granted by Parliament or outside the statutory powers of the relevant agency, that must be investigated.

14. LIMITS ON MINISTERIAL AND CABINET POWER

The fact that a decision was made by a Minister or Cabinet does not, in my respectful view, mean that the decision is automatically beyond investigation.

A Minister or Cabinet member should not be treated as criminal merely because a policy decision subsequently causes financial loss.

However, if evidence establishes that a Minister, Cabinet member or other public officer:

knowingly authorised an unlawful payment;

acted outside statutory powers;

participated in a dishonest transaction;

abused office for an improper purpose;

knowingly caused public money to be lost;

concealed material information;

received gratification;

directed funds for an improper benefit;

or participated in a criminal conspiracy,

then the person concerned should be investigated in accordance with law.

Accordingly, I respectfully request the authorities to determine whether any Minister, Cabinet member, civil servant, director or officer exercised powers outside the scope of lawful authority or participated in any offence arising from the matters identified by the RCI.

Although Lembaga Tabung Haji is fundamentally a religious savings institution established exclusively for our Muslim compatriots, the historical fact remains undeniable: when the institution faced a severe financial crisis in 2018, the Ministry of Finance ultimately deployed a staggering RM19.9 billion in public funds for an institutional bailout and restructuring. This massive injection of capital came entirely from the hard-earned money of Malaysian taxpayers across all ethnicities. Since the nation utilized the people's collective taxes to rescue the institution during its darkest hour, we, as taxpayers, possess every right and an even greater obligation to stand up and lodge a police report when extremist influencers attempt to destroy this system and tear our society apart with lies and fake news! Our decision to step forward is driven precisely by the need to defend the rights of all Malaysian taxpayers and to ensure that such institutional crises are never repeated through malicious political manipulation.

15. WHO ULTIMATELY PAID FOR THE LOSSES?

This question must not be avoided.

If TH suffered losses, the public needs to know whether those losses were ultimately absorbed by:

TH depositors;

TH reserves;

Government funds;

Government guarantees;

Government-linked entities;

statutory funds;

taxpayers;

or other public resources.

If public funds were used to stabilise TH, I request the authorities to identify the exact amount, source, legal authority, and decision-making process.

16. THE 2018 POLICE REPORTS - See Malay Mail 11 Aug 2026 7:00 AM MYT

I further request that the police locate and review the earlier police reports lodged by or concerning Tabung Haji in relation to:

1.the alleged RM22 million-plus contribution; and

2.the TH Indo Plantations transaction.

The authorities should inform themselves of:

whether investigation papers were opened;

whether any investigation was completed;

whether the Attorney General's Chambers made any decision;

whether MACC was involved;

whether any persons were interviewed;

whether documents were seized;

and why, if applicable, no prosecution followed.

If those investigations remain incomplete, the present RCI findings should be incorporated into the investigation.

17. MACC REFERRALS

Where the RCI has identified matters involving possible corruption, abuse of position, misappropriation or falsification, I respectfully request that the relevant matters be referred to or reinvestigated by MACC, where appropriate.

The purpose should not be political.

It should be to determine objectively whether the evidence satisfies the elements of any offence under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, the Penal Code, Companies Act 2016, financial legislation, or any other applicable law.

18. REQUEST FOR FORENSIC FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION

I respectfully request that the authorities undertake a proper forensic financial investigation rather than merely obtaining statements from selected individuals.

The investigation should include:

BANKING RECORDS

All relevant TH and subsidiary bank accounts.

ACCOUNTING RECORDS

General ledgers, journals, payment vouchers and accounting entries.

BOARD RECORDS

Minutes, resolutions and written circular resolutions.

INVESTMENT RECORDS

Investment committee papers and approvals.

VALUATION DOCUMENTS

Independent and internal valuation reports.

COMMUNICATIONS

Emails, WhatsApp messages, text messages and other relevant electronic communications, subject to lawful investigative procedures.

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP

Identification of ultimate beneficial owners of counterparties.

RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Any relationship between decision-makers and beneficiaries.

MONEY TRAIL

Tracing funds from TH to the ultimate recipients.

19. PERSONS WHO SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED ACCORDING TO THEIR ROLES

I respectfully request that the authorities identify and interview all relevant persons who were responsible for the matters under investigation, including, where relevant:

former TH Chairman Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim;

former senior management including Ismee Ismail;

Johan Abdullah;

former CFO Rozaida Omar;

former COO Adi Azuan Abdul Ghani;

former Legal Adviser Hazlina Mohd Khalid;

former senior officer Rifina Md Ariff;

former senior officer Mohd Hisham Harun;

relevant board members;

investment committee members;

auditors;

valuers;

legal advisers;

Government officials;

Ministers;

Cabinet members;

and any other person identified by the RCI or documentary evidence.

I emphasise that being named in this report does not mean that any person is alleged by me to have committed an offence. They are needed to assist police investigation - to find truth.

They should be investigated because of their respective positions, responsibilities, and involvement in decisions identified by the RCI.

20. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

I respectfully request immediate preservation of all relevant evidence, including:

original RCI exhibits;

Cabinet papers;

Treasury documents;

TH board papers;

investment committee papers;

audit working papers;

accounting records;

electronic communications;

valuation reports;

contracts;

bank records;

correspondence;

and records relating to Government guarantees, loans or asset transfers.

Particular care should be taken because some relevant evidence may be held by persons who were involved in the transactions.

21. POSSIBLE OFFENCES

I respectfully request that the authorities determine, based on evidence, whether any conduct disclosed by the RCI constitutes offences including, where applicable:

corruption and gratification offences;

abuse of position;

criminal breach of trust;

cheating or dishonest inducement;

falsification of documents;

use of false documents;

conspiracy;

misappropriation;

offences relating to false or misleading corporate/accounting records;

offences under the Companies Act 2016;

offences under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009;

or any other offence disclosed by the evidence.

I stress that I am not alleging that any particular person committed these offences.

I am asking the authorities to investigate whether the facts disclose such offences.

22. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW

If an ordinary employee misappropriates a small amount of money, the law will investigate.

If a director causes substantial losses through dishonest conduct, the law should investigate.

If a Minister or Cabinet member knowingly participates in an unlawful transaction involving public money, political position should not provide immunity from investigation.

At the same time, a person should not be criminalised merely because a legitimate policy decision subsequently results in financial loss.

The dividing line must be evidence, legality, intention and conduct.

That is precisely why an independent investigation is necessary.

23. REQUEST FOR ACTION

I respectfully request the Royal Malaysia Police to:

1.Register this report as a formal complaint concerning the matters identified above.

2.Obtain and examine the complete RCI report and all available exhibits.

3.Identify all persons responsible for the relevant decisions.

4.Obtain the complete documentary records.

5.Conduct forensic accounting of the relevant transactions.

6.Trace the movement of funds.

7.Investigate the 2017 accounting treatment.

8.Investigate the declaration and payment of hibah.

9.Investigate the TH Indo Plantations transaction.

10.Investigate the RM22 million-plus contribution.

11.Investigate the other investments identified by the RCI for forensic audit.

12.Investigate the bonus payments and alleged unauthorised payments.

13.Investigate allegations concerning false claims and documentation.

14.Investigate the restructuring and transfer of assets to Urusharta Jamaah.

15.Determine the extent of Government financial support, guarantees, appropriations and liabilities.

16.Determine whether any Minister, Cabinet member, public officer, director or private individual exceeded lawful authority.

17.Refer matters falling within MACC's jurisdiction to MACC.

18.Review earlier police reports and investigations relating to Tabung Haji.

19.Determine whether any offence has been committed.

20.Take appropriate criminal action against any person where the evidence establishes an offence.

24. FINAL STATEMENT

I make this report because public confidence in Tabung Haji must be protected. At the same time, taxpayers’ money should also be protected.

The depositors are ordinary Malaysians.

Their money is entrusted to the institution for a specific purpose.

They should not have to bear the consequences of political interference, poor governance, improper investments, questionable accounting or unlawful conduct by individuals entrusted with managing their money.

Likewise, if public funds were subsequently used to stabilise or rescue an institution, the Malaysian taxpayer, whether Muslims or not, is entitled to know:

Why was the money required?

Who caused the loss?

Who authorised the rescue?

What law permitted it?

Was Parliament properly informed and, where required, did Parliament approve the expenditure?

Who ultimately benefited?

Who is accountable?

I therefore respectfully request a full, independent, forensic and evidence-based investigation into the matters disclosed in the RCI Report.

25.Request for Investigation into Alleged Online Video Linking National Leaders and DAP to Tabung Haji Misconduct

PBK has received information concerning a TikTok or social-media video which allegedly accuses the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, former Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng, and DAP of conspiring to misappropriate funds belonging to Lembaga Tabung Haji. 

This is not a question of race or religion. It concerns public confidence, the integrity of national institutions, and the protection of depositors’ funds. The truth must be determined through evidence and due process—not through viral content or political propaganda.

PBK has not independently verified the video, the identity of its speaker, or the accuracy of its allegations, and in this respect, while not prejudging the truth or falsity of the allegations, the police and MCMC are requested to seriously investigate to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations in the video. With this, I respectfully request PDRM and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to:

1.Identify the individual who created, published, or circulated the video.

2.Secure and preserve the original video, metadata, account details, and relevant digital evidence.

3.Require the individual to produce the alleged “solid proof” for proper examination.

4.Establish whether the video is authentic, edited, fabricated, misleading, or taken out of context.

5.Investigate whether the allegations are supported by documents, witnesses, audit material, or other admissible evidence.

6.Determine whether the content constitutes defamation, the spreading of false information, improper use of network facilities, criminal intimidation, public mischief, or any offence involving the incitement of hostility or disturbance of public order.

7.Take appropriate legal action if the allegations are knowingly false, malicious, fabricated, or intended to provoke racial or religious tension.

8.Take appropriate action against any other person who knowingly amplified or republished unlawful content.

The authorities should consider the relevant provisions of Malaysian law, including Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, applicable provisions of the Penal Code, and any other law that is properly engaged by the verified facts. If the investigation discloses an offence under the Sedition Act 1948, the authorities may also consider that law in accordance with the statutory requirements and prosecutorial discretion.

This matter should not be treated as a political dispute between parties. It concerns allegations about public funds, Tabung Haji, the Prime Minister, a former Finance Minister, and the integrity of national institutions. False allegations of this nature can damage public confidence, provoke racial or religious hostility, and disturb public order. At the same time, legitimate criticism and evidence-based reporting must not be suppressed merely because they are politically uncomfortable.

I therefore urge the authorities to conduct a fair, independent, transparent, and prompt investigation. If the person who made the allegations possesses genuine evidence, that evidence should be examined through lawful procedures. If the allegations are false or fabricated, the responsible persons should be brought before the court and dealt with according to law.

Let the investigation establish the facts. Let the courts determine liability. Social media must not become a substitute for evidence, due process, or the rule of law.

This police report is made in good faith and in the public interest, without prejudging the guilt or innocence of any person mentioned herein.

I leave it to the enforcement authorities to investigate the evidence and determine whether any criminal offence has been committed.

As Reported by Voon Lee Shan, President of

Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK)#~Borneo Herald™