|
|||||||||||||||
| An Aliran response Why Vadiveloo?
Why not MAIKA or Samy Vellu?
by P Ramakrishnan
Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. We also welcome donations.
It was amazing that even Datuk Seri Samy Vellu could not be provoked to react when the then Chairman of the MIC Public Claims Committee, V Subramaniam – also known as Barat Maniam – made a startling accusation publicly. In 1994 he charged that the accounts were fabricated to make it appear as if all the profits from the sale of the Telekom shares were channelled to MIED, the MIC education arm (See AM Vol. 14 No. 1). In challenging Samy to take him to court, he declared, “I have come out with this statement to prove that Samy Vellu is a thief. He has stolen (Telekom) shares from the Indian community.” (AM Vol. 14 No. 3) Why Vadiveloo responding? The information contained in the article, Maika Bleeding Again, was culled from previously published articles in Aliran Monthly in 1992, 1993 and 1994. These very facts were not refuted or disputed then. Why then is Vadiveloo responding to this Aliran article now on behalf of Maika? This is a fair question. Vadiveloo claims, “It is public knowledge that Maika Holdings Berhad (MHB) did not at any time apply to the Government for an allocation of STMB shares that were offered to the public in 1990.” This cannot be accepted as fact. Can Vadiveloo produce tangible evidence to support his claim? In 1990 the public was not aware of this at all. They were not privy to this information. Details only emerged when this issue suddenly erupted in 1992. Since then, it has been a nightmare that has been haunting the MIC without any let-up. Details as to what transpired then which is now being disclosed by Vadiveloo – more than 13 years later – begs the question why these were not made public when the scandal broke in 1992? Aliran’s reporting then was not challenged, refuted, denied or clarified. Why? Letters are being quoted by Vadiveloo to support certain claims now. These should have been made public when Tan Sri G K Rama Iyer came out with his statement on May 16, 1992 providing background details on how the 10 million Telekom shares were allocated to Maika and the availability of a RM 50m loan to purchase these shares. This statement was carried in full in the Aliran Monthly (Vol.12 No 5). Why didn't MAIKA or Samy respond? Again in a subsequent statement on 7 December 1992 – “I stand by everything I have said” – Iyer had stated, “At that stage, I gave a full and true factual account supported by all the pertinent documents.” Why didn’t Maika or Samy challenge this statement? Were they silenced by the supporting facts of Iyer? In all fairness, how could Iyer now respond to this new revelation by Vadiveloo 11 years later when he is no longer with Maika and without any access to its records? How is it that Vadiveloo is in possession of these records now? Vadiveloo states, “While we do not know what the MD told Cik Munirah over the phone on 4 October 1990, we do know that Cik Munirah responded within hours of the phone call and delivered letter dated 27 September 1990 allocating 10 million shares to Maika Holding in clear contravention of the directive contained in the letter dated 22 September 1990 from MITI.” This does not, however, reveal anything. He does not tell us if there was any consequence for Cik Munirah for acting “in clear contravention of the directive” referred to. If what Vadiveloo claims is true, then Cik Munirah had exceeded the bounds of her authority without valid reason or cause. This is indeed a serious allegation. Vadiveloo and Samy Vellu should have taken her to task. But they did not, as far as we know. Neither was she subjected to any discuplinary action for acting in clear contravention of the directive, as far as we can discern. Neither does he explain why Cik Munirah had “responded within hours of the phone call” by delivering a letter backdated to 27 September 1990? Could it possibly mean that the phone call on 4 October 1990 jolted Cik Munirah’s memory to rush the letter that was lying around all that while? Suspicious cash transactions
This does not state what Ram actually contended. Ram’s full sentence reads, “Then it transpired that Samy Vellu had nominated three other companies to get the bulk of Telekom shares - taking away from Maika RM 120m in profit if it had just held on to the extra 9 million shares up to today (1993).” Vadiveloo claims that “the shares were traded at RM 5.80 or thereabouts upon listing” but according to Edmund Terence Gomez the story differs. “When it was first traded (it) fetched a price of RM 6.15, and that too during a bearish market” (AM 12 No 5). Why wasn’t Gomez’s claim contradicted? Vadiveloo fails to disclose the actual amount of profits handed over to MIED and how it was handed over. According to Aliran Monthly Vol. 13 No. 10, a profit of RM2.318 million was paid to MIED in November 1990 (Cash receipt No 3701 dated 24 November 1990) and another profit of RM100,000 was purportedly paid to MIED in December (Cash receipt No 3702 dated 2 January 1991) The interesting thing about these cash receipts is that between 24 November 1990 and 2 January 1991 it appears that no other transaction took place. No money was received whatsoever during the span of 39 days because the receipts follow one after the other: 3701 and 3702. Why were these payments made in cash? Vadiveloo doesn’t answer this question. But Barat Maniam, who claimed a fraud was involved in rewriting the accounts for a cover-up, states: “Can you imagine any organisation, company, group or even political party, that would operate in cash, receiving RM 2.418 million, disbursing cash RM 2.418 million. Nobody would operate in cash. This itself clearly tells you that there is some thing wrong.” Deafening silence from Maika and Samy But what must be rather bewildering is Vadiveloo’s last paragraph: “The Press Statement dated 7-5-1992 by Lim Kit Siang revealed that the son and brother-in-law of Dato Seri Samy Vellu were not directors of SB Management Services Sdn. Bhd. and Advanced Personal Computers Sdn Bhd. which had a issued capital of RM 250,000.” Way back in 1992, Gomez had written in Aliran Monthly stating, “Other major allegations made by various quarters were that of the three companies in question, SB Management Services Sdn Bhd, Advanced Personal Computers Sdn Bhd, and Clearway Sdn. Bhd, the first two were RM2 companies and that Samy Vellu’s son and brother-in-law were directors of these companies.” Maika or Samy Vellu, on their own volution, should have written to the Aliran Monthly to correct the mistake. But they didn’t. Even now they haven’t. Why? Instead it is left to Vadiveloo to fall back on Kit Siang to correct this mistake. True, Samy’s son and his brother-in-law were not directors of these companies. True, Advanced Personal Computers Sdn. Bhd. had an issued and paid up capital of RM250,000. And true, the other two companies were two-dollar shell companies. But Vadiveloo doen’t touch on the status of these three companies that inherited the nine million shares to justify why they should be more deserving to receive the Telekom shares instead of Maika. This was the crux of the problem and yet no attempt was made by Vadiveloo to address this issue. What business experience and success could these companies boast about to warrant their being chosen from among all the other Indian businesses in the country? Serious conflict of interest There was a serious case of conflict of interest involved in this scandal. A director of Maika was also a shareholder and director of one of the three companies, all of which divided the nine million Telekom shares equally. Lim Kit Siang named this person as R Selvendra on 7.5.1992 - the very statement that Vadiveloo quoted to correct the mistakes in the Aliran Monthly. But he had conveniently ignored the other salient points contained in that statement. Two of the three companies - Advance Personal Computers Sdn. Bhd. and S.B. Management Services Sdn. Bhd. - shared the same business address: Level 2, Block F-North, Damansara Town Centre, Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur. These two companies had the same Company Secretary: S. Balasubramaniam s/o M. S. Survai. Significantly, S. Balasubramaniam s/o M. S. Survai and Sothinathan s/o Sinna Govinder were both directors and shareholders of these two companies. Does this information in any way suggest that these “three companies represented the interests of the Indian community”? Since Vadiveloo seems to know the inside story, can he oblige us by stating who recommended these three companies? Abdullah must act The more one digs into this Maika scandal, the mystery only deepens. More questions are raised than answers found. If the ten million STMB shares were allocated for the MIC, who would be the natural inheritors of these shares on behalf of the Indian community - Maika with its 66,400 shareholders or three insignificant private companies with six shareholders? In the larger interest of justice and accountability, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must get involved in this terrible tragedy that has befallen the Indian community. He must institute an independent investigation to clear the air and convince the shareholders who feel that they have been swindled that there was no element of corruption in this sordid episode. This would lend legitimacy to Badawi’s so-called crusade against corruption.
Now e-mail us and tell us what you think. Your comments might be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly.
| |||||||||||||||
Maika or Samy Vellu, on their own volution, should have written to the Aliran Monthly to correct the mistake. But they didn’t. Even now they haven’t. Why?
