Darussalam Assets’ Ghost Capital: Just Paper or Public Money Written Off?

Darussalam Assets’ billion-dollar “ghost capital” has sparked questions far beyond accounting. Some say it was just a technical adjustment, but others wonder if uncollected debts and weak oversight were also at play. What’s clear is that transparency matters — silence only fuels more confusion and speculation.

Follow-Up to KopiTalk’s First Report | By Malai Hassan Othman

This article is a follow-up to my earlier report on Darussalam Assets’ billion-dollar capital reduction, where the company asked the High Court to cancel B$1.24 billion worth of “lost or unrepresented” shares. 

The first report explained the legal and technical background — how the move was framed as a balance-sheet clean-up — and raised questions about transparency and governance.

In this second piece, we dig deeper. Beyond the legal notices, what could have caused the mismatch? Could it involve uncollected debts and unrecovered receivables? And how has the public debate changed since the first report?

Beyond “Technical Adjustments”

In the first article, we talked about how ghost capital often comes from unpaid share subscriptions or unreconciled transfers. But analysts now suggest another angle: debts and receivables that have gone uncollected for years.

• Subsidiaries or joint ventures might have borrowed a lot from Darussalam Assets.
• Advances could have been given out without safeguards for repayment.
• Receivables may have stayed on the books even when recovery seemed unlikely.

If that’s the case, then the billion-dollar write-down was more than just a technical adjustment. It could mean that public funds were effectively written off due to weak financial discipline.

What the Public Is Saying

Since our first report, the public discussion has heated up. Bruneians are framing the issue in stark terms:

• “If you cancel B$1.24 billion, what could that money have done for unemployed youth?”

• “We’re told it’s technical, but to us it feels like a wasted opportunity — hospitals, housing, even daily costs.”

• “Foreign investors will see this too. If ghost shares can sit on the books for years, how can they trust other numbers?”

• “Ghost capital? More like ghost accountability.”

Some voices compared it to a restaurant menu listing burgers that don’t exist — numbers on paper that never turned into actual assets. Others pointed to bigger risks: if inflated capital was ever used as collateral, banks and suppliers may have relied on figures that weren’t real.

Alongside these, more speculative voices linked the mismatch to unpaid public bills or funds “already in someone’s tummy.” While unproven, these narratives reflect a deeper truth: silence breeds suspicion. Without audited statements or official explanations, both reasoned concern and wild speculation can thrive.

Bridging the Cultural Lens

Some Bruneians might think this is making too much of a technical issue — after all, no physical money was said to have disappeared, and the Court process is routine under company law. That instinct reflects a cultural norm of trusting authority to safeguard national interests. Yet governance isn’t just about whether dollars left the vault; it’s also about accuracy, discipline, and accountability in managing what belongs to the nation. Even if no cash was lost, the perception of a billion-dollar void without explanation undermines confidence and invites speculation. In the long run, silence can be more damaging than the figures themselves.

Governance and Debt Discipline

If ghost capital partly comes from uncollected debts, the governance implications are significant:

1. Who approved advances without ensuring repayment capacity?
2. Why were receivables left unreconciled for so long?
3. Why has no authority stepped forward to explain?

This is where the follow-up goes beyond the first article. The issue isn’t just whether shares were “represented” or not, but whether financial discipline across the group broke down, leading to a tolerance for non-payment.

Lessons from Abroad

Brunei is not alone in this situation. Other nations provide cautionary parallels:

• Malaysia’s 1MDB had receivables that were never collectable until the scandal broke.
• Indonesia’s PLN tolerated massive unpaid bills before the government stepped in.

Brunei’s case is smaller, but the similarities lie in the pattern of opacity, unreconciled debts, and silence that erodes trust.

Why It Matters for Wawasan 2035

Brunei’s path to Wawasan 2035 needs credibility in managing national wealth. The first article highlighted credibility as the core issue; this follow-up shows how deeper layers of doubt have emerged:

• Citizens are asking: If debts were quietly written off, how much public money has actually been lost?

• Investors are wondering: If B$1.24 billion could disappear on paper, what else might be hidden in GLC accounts?

Both questions show that this isn’t just an accounting issue — it’s about Brunei’s reputation for sound governance.

 

A Call for Forensic Clarity

As we said in the first report, just cleaning up the books isn’t enough. This follow-up makes the case even stronger: Brunei needs a forensic audit, not just a capital adjustment.

The public deserves clarity on:

• How much of the mismatch was unpaid share capital?

• How much was uncollected debt?

• Which subsidiaries or projects were involved?

• What safeguards will be put in place to prevent this from happening again?

In many countries, such findings would lead to independent reviews or even executive resignations. In Brunei, continued silence risks deepening mistrust.

 

Closing Reflection

The first article asked whether cancelled shares meant ghost entries or cracks in governance. This follow-up takes the next step: perhaps those ghost entries were not just “lost shares,” but uncollected debts and unrecovered advances that eroded public wealth.

For Brunei, this isn’t just about accounting hygiene. It’s a test of accountability, financial discipline, and trust.

This report doesn't aim to interfere with the ongoing High Court process. The legal outcome is up to the Court alone. What’s at stake here isn’t the judicial procedure, but the broader implications for governance, transparency, and public trust in how Brunei manages its national assets.

Unless addressed with transparency, ghost capital won’t just haunt Darussalam Assets — it will shadow Brunei’s journey to Wawasan 2035.(MHO/09/2025)