`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Sunday, October 16, 2011

Robert Phang slams A-G Gani Patail Again

by Din Merican

I received an email from Tan Sri Robert Phang attaching his press statement attacking Dato‘ Seri Nazri Aziz and A-G Gani Patail. The press statement is very blunt.

Robert Phang questioned the government’s seriousness on the cases involving Tajuddin Ramli. This stemmed from Nazri Aziz’s statement that A-G Gani Patail has agreed to compound the offences committed by former MAS Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli.

Robert Phang again raised A-G Gani Patail’s involvement in a corporate tussle in Ho Hup Bhd where the A-G filed 11 charges for some very minor late filings of statutory returns.

The point raised by Robert Phang about A-G Gani Patail’s selective prosecution and abuses of power is valid. We have seen many of such instances lately. The fact that A-G Gani has taken no action against Robert Phang for his incessant attacks can only suggest that all of Robert Phang‘s allegations are true.

Now read Phang’s statement below:

Selective Prosecution by A-G Gani Patail

1.On 6th October 2011, it was reported that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Dato’ Seri Nazri Aziz gave a written reply to Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) in Parliament confirming that former MAS Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, had committed offences under Sections 131 and 132 of the Companies Act 1965. The MalaysiaKini Report (dated October 6, 2011) is below.

2.This admission is a positive development. However, I find it very disturbing that A-G Gani Patail has agreed that Tajuddin would be let off lightly by just compounding the offences that Tajuddin had committed. Indeed, there is such a provision to compound offences under Section 371A of the Companies Act. However, the exercise of such powers must not be abused. If A-G Gani Patail is allowed to do so, the Rakyat will view this as sweeping things under the carpet. Where is accountability? Where is corporate governance?

3.The acts which constitute offences under Section 131 and Section 132 Companies Act are very serious as they go to the very core of a company and of corporate governance. The Board of Directors and each and every director as fiduciaries of a company are expected to behave with honesty and integrity and must never place themselves in a position of conflict, what more to plunder a national company for their own benefit. That, in essence, were the allegations against Tajuddin Ramli. And yet despite Nazri Aziz’s admission, A-G Gani Patail will just compound his offences. To me ,that is unacceptable.

4. I say so because I am now in possession of several charges for some very minor and technical offences. I am referring to the case of Dato’ T C Low and his sister, Low Lai Yoong, involving a corporate tussle in Ho Hup Bhd. There were allegations that A-G Gani Patail had abused his powers by assisting his friend, Dato Vincent Lye, to prosecute Dato’ T C Low.

Pictures have since surfaced in the internet of A-G Gani Patail with Vincent Lye at Ho Hup’s office. Documents have also surfaced of gratifications being provided to A-G Gani Patail. A-G Gani Patail has denied, but to date, the MACC has not issued any statement on this matter.

5.What is perplexing to most company secretaries and those in the corporate world is that it is not uncommon for statutory returns to be delayed or filed slightly late with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM). But in the case of Dato T C Low where there was no dishonesty but just a mere lateness, no compound was offered. Instead, A-G Gani Patail filed a total of 11 charges against them. This is preposterous. This constitutes an abuse of power.

6.I call on the government that there should not be such discrimination. Everyone must be treated equally before the law. If Tajuddin’s offence, which is very serious, can be compounded, then others should be too. Why is Tajudin given this special treatment? Why is the MACC not looking into this as a case of abuse of power?

7. If PM’s Najib’s vision is to transform the country, then, such inequalities and abuses must stop!

“HUMBLENESS IS GOOD VIRTUE, ARROGANCE SHALL FALL, THE MEEK WILL RULE THE WORLD”.

Tan Sri Datuk Robert Phang Miow Sin
Justice of Peace

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/177887

October 6, 2011

Tajuddin may face charge under Companies Act

by Malaysiakini

Former MAS chairperson Tajuddin Ramli may face a charge under the Companies Act, but only after the court has disposed of a slew of legal suits filed against him by several government linked companies (GLCs).

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Aziz confirmed that there is evidence to show that Tajuddin had allegedly violated provisions under Section 131 of the Companies Act 1965 (Act 125), and that the attorney-general had forwarded the case to the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) for further consideration.

tajudin ramli mas 070910However, Tajuddin had applied for a stay on the charge until the courts dispose of the on-going suits filed against him, to which the attorney-general agreed.

Nazri said this in a written reply to Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) in parliament.

There was no clear indication in the written answer on which case Tajuddin will be charged, though it did state that the evidence was based on testimony recorded in a case file referred to the attorney-general in 2006.

The gravity of the charge is also vague, as the written answer merely stated that Tajuddin faces a “compoundable offence” under the Act. Offences under Section 131 of the Act carry a penalty of seven years jail, RM150,000 fine or both.

Police Reports filed in 2002 and 2005

The last known investigation on Tajuddin is believed to have been carried out by the commercial crime investigation department (CCID) based on two police reports filed in 2002 and 2005.

It was claimed that the-then CCID Chief Ramli Yusoff recommended that action be taken against Tajuddin and two others under Sections 131(1) and 131(2) of the Companies Act for failing to disclose their interests and making false declarations.

Tajuddin had allegedly acted inappropriately in a cargo handling contract in Germany between MAS and Advanced Cargo Logistics GmbH (ACL), a company which he was said to have controlled through nominees and had a close relationship with ACL directors. He is also accused of using his position in MAS to secure the deal for ACL, to the detriment of MAS.

Tajuddin is currently facing a clutch of lawsuits by several GLCs, which are claiming that he had failed to follow up on a “global settlement” deal that he himself had proposed to settle alleged non-payment of loans taken up to fund his acquisition of a 32 percent stake in the national carrier in 1994.

Tajuddin himself filed a counter-claim of RM13 billion against the GLCs and the government. The Kuala Lumpur court has fixed November 3 for case management.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.