by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjung, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Monday, 26th March 1990:
Lim Kit Siang confirms meeting with Ling Liong Sik at MCA headquarters tomorrow at 10 a.m. and suggests the presence of KSM Receiver, Khoo Eng Choo, the Receivers’ lawyers, and Kamunting Chief Executive, T.K.Lim
I confirm that I will be at the MCA Headquarters at 10 a.m. tomorrow, together with DAP MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Guan Eng, the MP for Seputeh, Liew Ah Kim and DAP Malacca Assemblyman for Durian Daun, Kerk Kim Hock to meet with the MCA President, Datuk Dr.Ling Liong Sik, on the best possible deal for the 50,398 KSM-Multi-Purpose Holding Bhd. Investment Fund (KSM-MPHBIF) unitholders.
I notice that one newspaper had mentioned that Dr.Ling had suggested that tomorrow’s meeting be held at the Transport Ministry, while all other papers had reported the venue as the MCA Headquarters. It would be most improper to have such a meeting at the Transport Ministry as the subject-matter has nothing to do with the Transport Ministry and solely concerns the rights interests of present or former MCA members who are KSM-MPHBIF unitholders.
I have this morning asked my secretary to fax a confirmation to Dr.Ling at MCA Headquarters at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and that I would be accompanied by the DAP MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Guan Eng, the MP for Seputeh, Liew Ah Kim and the Malacca Assemblyman for Durian Daun, Kerk Kim Hock.
Dr.Ling said he would invite the lawyers’ panel and Bank Negara officials to discuss the issue, the MCA President should arrange for the presence at the meeting at the MCA Headquarters tomorrow the KSM Receiver, Khoo Eng Choo, the Receivers’ Lawyers and the Kamunting Corporation Bhd. Chief Executive, T.K.Lim.
I am surprised that in his statement yesterday, Dr.Ling should repeat the threat that I would have to bear the full consequences of any losses incurred by the 50,398 unitholders.
Challenge to Liong Sik to explain how my concern that the unitholders get the highest possible price for their 147.8 million MPHB shares could result in their not getting a single cent?
I challenge Dr.Ling to explain how my concern that the 50,398 unitholders have the best deal in getting the highest possible price for the 147.8 million MPHB shares could lead to a situation which he and other MCA leaders had been hinting where the 50,398 unitholders will not get a single cent back for the 10 year investment?
I know that on the ground, the MCA is spreading word to create worry and fear among the 50,398 unitholders that as a result of Guan Eng and mu criticisms and objections, the Receivers’ share-for-share scheme could be destroyed, and the investment unit certificates would be reduced to worthless pieces of paper.
If Liong Sik could explain how, in our championing the right of the 50,398 unitholders to get the highest possible price foe the 147.98 million MPHB shares, the unitholders could lose every cent of their investment, I am prepared to shut up and not say a single word!
I find it amazing that after my various statements, MCA leaders do not understand the point that I am making. Let me reiterate:
Firstly, I am not objecting to the ‘share-for-share’ exchange of one MPHB share for one investment unit.
Secondly, what Guan Eng and I had objected is the present formula approved by the MCA leadership whereby after the ‘share-for-share- exchange, the Manager of the Fund will distribute the 147.98 million MPHB shares to the 50,398 unitholders to keep or sell on the open market.
All the national MCA leaders, including four Ministers and six Deputy Ministers, do not seem to understand what is very clear to everyone: that it would benefis the 50,398 unitholders more if the 147.98 million MPHB shares (which represent 19.7 stake of MPHB) are sold I one block at a premium price, than if the unitholders dump the 147.98 million shares in the open market for individual retail sale as this is likely to cause the MPHB price to plummet.
Is MCA national leadership prepared to reimburse the 50,398 unitholders the loss of $147.98 million or the actual loss incurred?
I had calculated that if the entire block of 147.98 MPHB shares fetch $1 a share if sold by retail individual by the 50,398 unitholders (assuming that this occur at a time when the stock exchange has suffered a crash), when it could be sold in one block at the premium price price of $2 per sahre (after all, Kamunting paid $2.05 per share for KSM’s 28.9 per cent stake of MPHB ten months ago), the 50,398 unitholders would would suffer a loss of $147.98 million.
In such circumstances, is the MCA national leadership prepared to stand guarantee that they would reimburse the 50,398 unitholders this loss of $147.98 million, or whatever the loss actually incurred?
Is Dr.Ling and the MCA leaders threatening to punish the 50,398 unitholders by withdrawing the share-for-share exchange?
Up to now, this issue has not been replied to or addressed either by Datuk Dr.Ling Liong Sik or the other MCA leaders who have made statements on it.
Instead, they have been hinting darkly that if Guan Eng and I continue to criticise the formula approved by the MCA leadership, the 50,398 unitholders may lose everything and that both of us must bear the ‘full consequences’ when this happens.
This threat has been repeated often enough, and I want the MCA leaders to spell out how such losses to the unitholders could occur.
Is Dr.Ling and the other MAC national leaders suggesting that if Guan Eng and I continue to demand that the unitholders should get the highest possible price for their 147.98 million MPHB shares by way of a block sale, MCA and the KSM Receivers will abandon and scuttle the whole scheme, and withdraw their Court application for the ‘share-for-share’ exchange and punish the 50,398 unitholders by giving then not a single cent for their 10-year investments?
What is the stand of Lee Kim Sai: is he for block sale at premium price or for individual retail sale at very much lower price?
The time has come for every MCA leader to declare his stand on this issue. The Deputy MCA President, Datuk Lee Kim Sai, for instance, has been unusually quiet on this issue. Let him and all other MCA leaders declare their individual stand: whether they are for block sale of the 147.98 million MPHB shares at premium price, or for individual retail sale by the 50,398 unitholders at very much lower price.
If I can persuade the MCA national leaders to see and accept that it is in the best interests of the 50,398 unitholders that the 147.98 million MPHB shares be sold in one block at premium price, then this issue would have been settled.
Dr.Ling and other MCA leaders accuse me of having ‘bad political motives’ on this issue and wanting to politicise it. If to safeguard the best interests of the 50,398 unitholders is to have ‘bad political motives’, then I plead guilty!
However, it is so simple for Dr.Ling and the MCA leaders to stop me from so-called ‘politicising’ the issue, by doing what is right and honest-by declaring that the MCA national leadership agrees that the 147.98 million MPHB shares should be sold in one block at premium price.
Once the MCA national leadership agrees to this, then I have nothing more to say, and the MCA national leadership can heave a sign of relief for I will have no ‘political’ issue to capitalise on. Why won’t the MCA national leadership do such a simple and right thing?