Well-known former MAS towkay Tajudin Ramli has bad-mouthed Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The tycoon claimed the Grand Old Man made him buy Malaysia Airlines System (MAS) to help bail out the country's central bank.
Tajudin purchased a controlling stake of 29% in MAS in 1994 from the central Bank Negara, paying RM8 per share when the market price was around half that.
Tajudin said he was reluctant to buy the under-performing MAS, but Mahathir had told him he was performing a service to the nation, which was why he took out a RM1.8 billion loan for the purchase.
Things went sour following the Asian crisis in 1998. The loans Tajudin took became non-performing and were taken over by Danaharta. In May this year, Danaharta sued Tajudin to recover RM589 million. Tajudin claimed this was impelled him to file his countersuit. Last week he lodged a suit against the government and a number of state-owned companies for RM13.46 billion, alleging he was the victim of a conspiracy.
Tajudin claimed he didn't reveal this ‘secret MAS deal’ but had honoured it because he was given repeated assurances by Mahathir and Daim that he would not suffer any financial losses and liabilities.
He described Danaharta’s legal action against him as a breach of an ‘overriding agreement’ by the government of Malaysia and he now had no choice but to reveal ‘the truth’.
No doubt his squealing would appeal to the anti-Mahathir groups, but before we submit the ole man to the stake for verbal burning, why don't we examine the current circumstances within which Tajudin has made the accusation:
(1) Tajudin is in big financial trouble, being currently sued by the state owned-Telekom Malaysia and its subsidiary Celcom, which he used to head, to recover money owed for salary payments and an investment management agreement.
(2) His accusation of Mahathir is right in the middle of the Mahathir-AAB stoush, when even a foreign newspaper, the Singapore Straits Times saw fit to involve itself on the side of AAB.
It must be the season for fish - while I don't see any red herring this time I do catch a whiff of decomposing ikan sembilang (catfish).
I think his expose is actually make TDM look good. It actually give a bad light to the current government which did not keep their end of the bargain. And this is in line with what TDM has been saying "the current government broke its promises".
ReplyDeleteanother thing, if the expose is to the advantage of AAB, how come it was not reported in NST or The Star?
ReplyDeleteNST did today, portraying it bad for TDM than Malaysiakini did. MCA owned Star woudl always wait to see which side is the wind blowing.
ReplyDeleteYou keep on saying "the Singapore Straits Times saw fit to involve itself on the side of AAB."
ReplyDeleteOn what grounds? Straits Times reported only what is gleaned from Malaysian sources and reported both Tun Mahathir's statements and UMNO's responses. ST did did not "join the fray."
Please be fair and correct. I am not from ST nor am I in favour of St. All knows they ranked 140th out of 167 in media reporting.
It galls me that you keep harping on ST only but not other International media.
Keep it all in context, from the Singapore involvement in their bridge about-turn, from Lee KY & Goh CT writing to Mahathir (letters produced by Matthias Chang) it's OK to go ahead with the building of the bridge to the new Sing govt reneging on those PMs' words by demanding sand & airspace as quid pro quo before it would accept the bridge, to Kay-Poh-Cee-ing into an UMNO affair on the side of AAB just when AAB was feeling the heat from Mahathir's questions.
ReplyDeleteMahathir asked AAB 4 questions, when then the Sing ST's editor said, "Here's 22 questions for you". The editir not only asked that but stated it was in direct connection to Mahathir's 4 questions for AAB.
This was Malaysiakini reported of the Sing ST - see http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/53382
“Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is only in his third year as prime minister but his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad already has four questions for his administration to answer. They relate to Proton's sale of MV Agusta; the exit of the former Proton chief executive officer; approved permits for cars; and scrapping of the bridge project,” wrote Gunasegaram.
“While we would like to hear a better explanation from the government than what has been given so far, Abdullah should not be the only one answering questions. I am sure we all have questions for Mahathir too - on how he ran the country for 22 years.
“Here's a list of 22 questions or rather 22 groups of questions we would like to ask Mahathir, one for each of his 22 years in power.”
Read some of those questions and ask yourself whether a foreign newspaper (with strong links to its govt) has the right to ask a neighbouring country on issues like Malaysia's right to build an Int'l airport, or the late Hussein Onn selecting Mahathir to be his deputy president in UMNO?
Ask yourself why a foreign newspaper (with strong links to its govt) felt necessary to intervene on AAB's side?
Those were nothing more than to draw the Malaysian public's attention from Dr Mahathir's question, the principal one being which Malaysian had persuaded the Sing govt to include the 'sand & airspace' demand.
Could it be possible that ST, a Sing newspaper, wanted to protect the PM of Malaysia? Or, was there another reason?
Put all that in context, apart from the UNPRECEDENTED Sing interference in an UMNO internal affair, and we smell the foul stench of fish on the sand (of the beach)