When they asked Jesus why he was not accepted amongst his own, his response was that a prophet is always accepted last in his own land. I can never be a religious conscious because I am not worthy enough! But as a start I can certainly try to be a governance conscious!
Now those that have read my pieces will note that I have this 1, 2, and 3 approach to behavioural patterns. If it happens once it's just a mistake, twice means a pattern is emerging and you need to keep an eye on it and if it is three times it's too much of a coincidence, there is a clear cut behaviour that communicates the culture and the ethical and moral persuasion of the organisation.
Now folks, I don't know if you have noted but the Indian authorities have cited the organisation (that likes to dress their serving ladies in bright red) for investigation in RS220 crores in alleged money being paid for issuing a licence via Singapore, I cannot remember if there is also alleged inference to money laundering!
And now in today's UK paper, the Guardian, there is a piece on the Rolls Royce bribery, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia is cited. Now guess which company is involved, this is how it was displayed, "Extract from statement of facts on charge that Rolls gave AA executive credits worth USD3.2m for maintenance of a private jet.
Now please remember we must not jump the gun and assume that they are guilty, remember everyone is innocent until guilt is proven.
But what puzzles me is that there seems to be a pattern of questionable behaviour emerging when the group wants to sell its air leasing arm and seek dual listing. To me, the man on the street is,
1. Why has the company not issued any denial of the two situations.
2. Would it not effect the transaction price of the two proposed corporate transactions thereby denying its shareholders better returns.
3. Would the company not be exposing itself to regulatory sanctions and reputational risk since their Annual Report has a CG statement about their strong respect for good governance.
4. Is this the private jet that was transferred to the company sometime in 2016 burdening the company with unnecessary costs.
What intrigues me is that it's as though this company thinks it can do anything it wants at its own liking and can get away with it, past examples,
1. the passenger service tax saga when they first started, if they got a discount, should that money not have been refunded to the people that paid the tax?
2. We don't like Malaysia, we will move our regional HQ to Indonesia and then quietly with tails between the legs coming back months later.
3. Then the ruckus on klia2 was not being built to our specifications, so we refuse to move, until the airport management company started releasing documents to show otherwise.
4. The GMR saga, at first denials but subsequently and quietly doing some of the things that was highlighted as not done.
5. Further complaints about KLIA2 until the airport operators said they would release info on who the major debtors were. The response was, oh we will have a Muhibbah meal.
6. Then we want KLIA2 name changed.
And now the Indian and RR saga. Whats wrong with these guys, they behave like babies always wanting their way and if not given will sulk!
Tan Sri Dato Seri Chairman, since this is a public interest entity, I believe that at the very least you should demand that your front line regulator ask the company to make clarification, oh dear cannot do that now, got confusion on who is the CRO and not the CRO, hi ya one thing has so much effect on others. What will people say about corporate Malaysia when the regulators are so ineffective!
No comments:
Post a Comment