Thursday, August 26, 2010
Kita semua tahu hakikatnya. Di Indonesia, dengan wang sebanyak RM100, kita boleh mengupah seramai 10 orang untuk menganjurkan satu demonstrasi mengenai apa saja isu.
Bermakna dengan RM50,000 kita boleh mendapat 5,000 orang untuk mengadakan satu demonstrasi besar-besaran. Dalam erti kata lain, kalau ada pulus, semua beres.
Sebab itu bila ditanya, majoriti yang melibatkan diri tidak tahu pun apa tujuan sebenar demonstrasi itu diadakan.
Tapi persoalannya sekarang siapakah dalang yang membiayai demonstrasi di hadapan Kedutaan Malaysia di Jakarta serta Konsulat Malaysia di Pekan Baru dan Medan?
Kita pasti boleh mendapat jawapannya sekiranya kita mencongak dari persoalan pokok ini:
Siapakah sebenarnya yang mahu melihat Malaysia dan Indonesia bermusuhan?
Apapun, rumusannya ialah kumpulan penunjuk perasaan di Jakarta yang memijak Jalur Gemilang dan membuang najis manusia kedalam kawasan Kedutaan Besar Malaysia di Jakarta, cukup kurang ajar dan tidak bertamadun. Kemungkinan besar mereka mendapat bayaran lebih sedikit kali ini kerana terpaksa bersusah payah mengumpulkan najis manusia dan sanggup menggunakan tangan untuk menyapu najis itu ke dinding Kedutaan.
Dengan wang ringgit, semuanya boleh dibeli. Bisa saja!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Today is the 19th day of August, 2010. Still no sign of the forensic audit and internal investigations report on Sime Darby Berhad's RM2 billion plus losses.
On June 15, Sime Darby chairman Tun Musa Hitam said:
"We will make the relevant disclosures as soon as the third phase or the forensic audit and legal investigations are ready, which are expected to be around the end of August 2010."
To be fair, Tun Musa did say "end of August". That gives him about 10 days more.
As I wait anxiously for the audit report, I wonder whether it will recommend punitive action against the entire Board of Directors as well as several senior management staff for their role in misleading the Government, the shareholders and the public in general:
To my mind, besides the Board, the following senior executives should be held answerable:
1. Sekhar Krishnan - The Group Financial Officer when Sime Darby ventured into Qatar and when the whole fiasco began.
2. Hisham Hamdan - The former Head of Group Stategy and Business - he vets through all investments. If he says no go, papers do not go to Board. All projects, including the Qatar projects and Bakun were okayed by him. He did not see the fact that Sime Darby was not ready for the projects in Qatar. It is strange that he is now tasked to lead Energy and Utilities Division.
3. Madam Tong Poh Keow who was appointed the Group Chief Financial Officer of Sime Darby Berhad on June 24, 2008 - She was Group CFO for year end June 2008 and June 2009 accounts - why did she failed to insist on provisions? Why did she sign the Statutory Declaration in the annual report saying that the accounts were correct?
In an Annual Report, the directors sign the Statement of Directors (s169(15)Companies Act). The CFO signs Statutory Declaration (s169(16) Companies Act) in accordance with Statutory Declaration Act 1960. So what is the CFO's legal position in making incorrect statutory declarations? In an Annual Report, the key sections are:
1) Corporate Governance Statement
2) Chairman's Statement - Nothing was mentioned in Tun Musa's statement in June 2008 and June 2009 in relation to E&U Division
3) Audit Committee Report
4) Statement of Internal Control - contains Board responsibility, risk management framework, etc
5) Directors' Report
Were the representations in the above sections accurate or misleading?
Since Annual Reports are tabled at the Annual General Meeting for shareholders, the Sime Darby shareholders, public at large, the Securities Commission, Bursa Malaysia, Minority Shareholders' Watchdog Group, etc were obviously misled. This is an obvious breach of the Companies Act.
4. Nik Muhammad Hanafi Nik Abdullah who was then Sime Darby's Head of Internal Audit. He failed to question the Finance and Accounts Department when it did not make provisions for the losses.
6. Foo Marn Hin, the former Head of Sime Darby's Risk Management. He was Head of Risk Management when Sime Darby venture into Qatar. He failed to warn the company about the risks involved in the Qatar projects, given the fact that Sime Darby lacked the experience and the expertise to venture into such projects at that point of time.
5. Abdul Rahim Ismail, who was then the Chief Financial Officer of the Energy and Utilities Division. He should have known all along the extent of the damage.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Birds of a feather flock together. Just like ex-convict Anwar Ibrahim, both Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz are tainted with scandals and therefore lack the credibility to even try to make each other look good. In other words, they lack moral ground.
So I am sure, those who read the joint article by Al Gore and Wolfowitz in the Wall Street Journal on Aug 3 asking their Government to interfere in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial would have simply laughed it off.
Wolfowitz, as we know, had an adulterous affair with his staff Shaha Riza and rewarded her for her "services" with a handsome pay package. He had to beg and plead to keep his job as World Bank President.
Al Gore also had his fair share of scandals. At least two more women have come forward claiming that they were sexually abused by the former Vice President.
Shortly following the announcement that he was divorcing Tipper, his wife of 40 years, Star Magazine reported that Gore was in the midst of a 2-year affair with Laurie David, the ex-wife of Larry David.
Then came the sexual assault allegations. Massage therapist Molly Hagerty accused Gore of sexually harassing her in Portland, Oregon, four years ago -- and she showed off her semen-stained pants on the cover of the National Enquirer to prove it. Gore emphatically denied her allegations.
Hagerty reported the incident to the authorities in 2006, and again in 2009, but they closed the case. Earlier this month, the Portland police reopened the investigation.
And now, two unidentified women -- both massage therapists -- claim that Al Gore made some unwanted advances towards them.
And in Anwar's case, although the Federal Court had in 2004 overturned the sodomy charge against him due to technicalities, the court held that there was evidence confirming that Anwar did engage in homosexual activities.
Given these scandals, it seems comical to me that both Wolfowitz and Al Gore have come together to support Anwar. And they even have the gall to say that Anwar's sodomy charges are "trumped up".
Denying their scandals at all cost is all they can do now! And for that, they need each other's help.