GLCs vs Tajudin: Corporate governance on trial

'There is so much secrecy behind this sweetheart deal that it stinks to high heaven. Again the taxpayers are being cheated.'

GLCs caught in a dilemma over Tajudin

Kit P: Most of these GLCs (government-linked companies) are public-listed companies with shares traded on Bursa Malaysia.

Even Khazanah's golden share does not give it the right to ignore all the rules of corporate governance and ethics. This is shaping up to be a mega-crooked deal to bail out TR (Tajudin Ramli), among others.

The instruction that only the Umno-linked law firm is allowed to handle the deal means the terms are likely highly prejudicial to the interests of the companies involved.

FellowMalaysian: This is outright arm-twisting to the highest order by the government against the GLCs.

Minister in the PM's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz, acting on behalf of the government, has instructed the GLCs to appoint Hafarizam Harun to represent them. The ministry has already spelled out the terms of settlement but will only be disclosed to the GLCs if they agree to appoint Hafarizam.

This action by the ministry brings forth the question of whether the government has the legal right to instruct GLCs to settle their disputes with Tajuddin when such disagreements have been brought to the court for review of judgment.

The GLCs are run independently by their board of directors and being a public-listed company, its powers as well as its duties are very much regulated within the confines set by the Securities Commission.

Tailek: Why should the GLCs be compelled to appoint an Umno lawyer or be kept in the dark?

It's surprising that the directive came from Nazri, who is a lawyer himself. I bet if he were still a practising lawyer and not a minister, he would be screaming blue murder at this ridiculous cloak-and-dagger arrangement.

There is so much secrecy behind this whole sweetheart deal that it stinks to high heaven. Again the taxpayers are being cheated.

All taxpayers should buy 100 shares in these GLCs and then band together to bring a class-action suit against their board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty if these settlements with TR are not above board and to the best interests of the GLCs concerned.

Lim Chong Leong: The right to legal representation is a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution. It is to be out of the free will of the person as to who is appointed to represent him or her.

Here, the Umno government is forcing the GLCs to appoint Hafarizam before they can be privy to the "off-site discussion" settlement when it involves them as creditors. Any settlement without them is barred by law and can be nullified as preferential treatment of creditors.

Umno, however, is bulldozing the settlement through under a cloak of secrecy and those not appointing Hafarizam as a precondition to their partaking the settlement will not be part of that settlement. That is downright broad daylight illegal.

The Bar Council should investigate Hafarizam for conflict of interest and for bringing the profession into disrepute in this matter.

Clearwater: If the GLCs bow to undue political pressure and accept a less than satisfactory settlement with TR, the minority shareholders of affected GLCs must band together and sue their board of directors for not looking after their interests.

By the way, what has the minority watchdog group got to say about the whole issue? No public statement from them?

Ksn: The GLCs need not be under any dilemma at all and need not 'kowtow' to anyone, including the finance minister.

They have their own BODs (board of directors), who are answerable to all shareholders with incumbent liabilities as directors. They should not agree to any settlement unless the losses suffered by the GLCs are paid back in full and the settlements made public.

Remember that all losses suffered are taxpayers' money. In the case of MAS alone, the loss runs into many, many millions when Dr Mahathir Mohamad used public funds to buy MAS shares from Tajudin for RM8 each when the market price was RM3.40 each, as pointed out LKS (Lim Kit Siang) and others.

There is definitely a criminal element involved here, I believe. Bar Council chairperson Lim Chee Wee has explained this aspect and the issues involved in this quiet settlement. The people, and the country, cannot afford to allow this to take place.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/172887

The BODs of all the GLCs affected should take a firm stand on this matter, being public-listed companies and in accordance with their responsibilities as directors under the Companies Act.

If the finance minister, Umno and Mahathir, decide otherwise and push this nonsense through, all BODs in question should resign en bloc making their stand and the reasons they are resigning public.

Rick Teo: The public shareholders who are affected by the GLC settlement should proceed to sue the BOD for their negligence. Directors of public company have a fiduciary duty to protect the interest of the company not be part of any dubious settlement.

Kgen: How unfair, asking to GLCs to appoint the Umno lawyer first before revealing the terms of settlement. It's like saying, "Sign the contract first, then I'll let you know the terms." Justice Umno-style. - Malaysiakini