by Din Merican
I perceived an email from Tan Sri Robert Phang attaching his press make the difference aggressive Dato' Seri
Nazri Aziz as well as A-G Gani Patail. The press make the difference is really blunt.
Robert Phang questioned the government's earnest upon the cases involving Tajuddin Ramli. This stemmed from Nazri Aziz's make the difference which A-G Gani Patail has concluded to devalue the offences committed by former MAS Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli.
Robert Phang again lifted A-G Gani Patail's involvement in the corporate scuffle in Ho Hup Bhd where the A-G filed 11 charges for the little really teenager late filings of orthodox returns.
The point lifted by Robert Phang about A-G Gani Patail's selective assign as well as abuses of energy is valid. We have seen most of such instances lately. The actuality which A-G Gani has taken no movement opposite Robert Phang for his incessant attacks can usually indicate which all of Robert Phang's allegations have been true.
Now read Phang's make the difference below:
Selective Prosecution by A-G Gani Patail
!1.On 6th Oct 2011, it was reported which the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Dato' Seri Nazri Aziz gave the created reply to Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) in Parliament confirming which former MAS Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, had committed offences underneath Sections 131 as well as 132 of the Companies Act 1965. The MalaysiaKini Report (dated Oct 6, 2011) is below.
2.This acknowledgment is the positive development. However, we find it really unfortunate which A-G Gani Patail has concluded which Tajuddin would be let off easily by usually compounding the offences which Tajuddin had committed. Indeed, there is su! ch the p rovision to devalue offences underneath Section 371A of the Companies Act. However, the practice of such powers contingency not be abused. If A-G Gani Patail is authorised to do so, the Rakyat will view this as unconditional things underneath the carpet. Where is accountability? Where is corporate governance?
3.The acts which constitute offences underneath Section 131 as well as Section 132 Companies Act have been really critical as they go to the really core of the association as well as of corporate governance. The Board of Directors as well as any as well as every director as curators of the association have been expected to behave with honesty as well as integrity as well as contingency never place themselves in the in front of of conflict, what more to pillage the inhabitant association for their own benefit. That, in essence, were the allegations opposite Tajuddin Ramli. And yet notwithstanding Nazri Aziz's admission, A-G Gani Patail will usually devalue his offences. To me ,that is unacceptable.
4. we contend so because we am now in possession of multiform charges for the little really teenager as well as technical offences. we am referring to the box of Dato' T C Low as well as his sister, Low Lai Yoong, involving the corporate scuffle in Ho Hup Bhd. There were allegations which A-G Gani Patail had abused his powers by assisting his friend, Dato Vincent L! ye, to p rosecute Dato' T C Low.
Pictures have since flush in the internet of A-G Gani Patail with Vincent Lye at Ho Hup's office. Documents have additionally flush of gratifications being provided to A-G Gani Patail. A-G Gani Patail has denied, though to date, the MACC has not issued any make the difference upon this matter.
5.What is perplexing to most association secretaries as well as those in the corporate world is which it is not odd for orthodox earnings to be delayed or filed slightly late with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM). But in the box of Dato T C Low where there was no dishonesty though usually the mere lateness, no devalue was offered. Instead, A-G Gani Patail filed the sum of 11 charges opposite them. This is preposterous. This constitutes an abuse of power.
6.I call upon the government which there should not be such discrimination. Everyone contingency be treated equally prior to the law. If Tajuddin's offence, which is really serious, can be compounded, then others should be too. Why is Tajudin since this special treatment? Why is the MACC not seeking into this as the box of abuse of power?
7. If PM's Najib's prophesy is to renovate the country, then, such inequalities as well as abuses contingency 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 might face assign underneath Companies Act
by Malaysiakini
Former MAS chairperson Tajuddin Ramli might face the assign underneath the Companies Act, though usually after the justice has likely of the slew of authorised suits filed opposite him by multiform government related companies (GLCs).
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz reliable which there is justification to uncover which Tajuddin had allegedly violated sup! plies un derneath Section 131 of the Companies Act 1965 (Act 125), as well as which the attorney-general had forwarded the box to the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) for further consideration.
However, Tajuddin had practical for the stay upon the assign until the courts dispose of the on-going suits filed opposite him, to which the attorney-general agreed.
Nazri pronounced this in the created reply to Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) in parliament.
There was no clear indication in the created answer upon which box Tajuddin will be charged, though it did state which the evi! dence wa s formed upon testimony available in the box file referred to the attorney-general in 2006.
The gravity of the assign is additionally vague, as the created answer merely settled which Tajuddin faces the "compoundable offence" underneath the Act. Offences underneath Section 131 of the Act carry the penalty of seven years jail, RM150,000 excellent or both.
Police Reports filed in 2002 as well as 2005
The final known investigation upon Tajuddin is believed to have been carried out by the commercial crime investigation dialect (CCID) formed upon dual police reports filed in 2002 as well as 2005.
It was claimed which the-then CCID Chief Ramli Yusoff recommended which movement be taken opposite Tajuddin as well as dual others underneath Sections 131(1) as well as 131(2) of the Companies Act for unwell to disclose their interests as well as making false declarations.
Tajuddin had allegedly acted inappropriately in the load doing contract in Germany between MAS as well as Advanced Cargo Logistics GmbH (ACL), the association which he was pronounced to have tranquil by nominees as well as had the close relationship with ACL directors. He is additiona! lly accu sed of regulating his in front of in MAS to secure the understanding for ACL, to the wreckage of MAS.
Tajuddin is currently facing the clutch of lawsuits by multiform GLCs, which have been claiming which he had unsuccessful to follow up upon the "global settlement" understanding which he himself had proposed to settle purported non-payment of loans taken up to account his merger of the 32 percent interest in the inhabitant conduit in 1994.
Tajuddin himself filed the counter-claim of RM13 billion opposite the GLCs as well as the government. The Kuala Lumpur! justice h as fixed Nov 3 for box management.
No comments:
Post a Comment