by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Friday, 15th April 1994:
Call on ACA Director-General, Tan Sri Zulkifli Mahmood to explain whether he has misled Parliament and the country about re-opening of ACA investigations into Samy Vellu and MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal
I am extremely shocked by a statement by the Anti-Corruption Agency Director-General, Tan Sri Zulkifli Mahmood in an interview with a local daily (Nanyang Siang Pao) yesterday that the ACA had completely ended investigations into the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal and that after 15 months of investigations, the ACA had found no evidence to justify action against MIC President and Minister for Energy, Telecommunications and Posts, Datuk Seri S.Samy Vellu.
This is shocking because when Tan Sri Zulkifli referred to the 15-months ACA investigations into MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal, he was referring to the first ACA investigations which resulted in the ACA clearing Samy Vellu last August when it declared that “no criminal offence has been disclosed”.
However, in Parliament last November, when replying to my speech during the budget debate criticizing the ACA handling of the MAIKA shares hijacking scandal, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Abang Abu Bakar announced the reopening of the investigations into the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal by the ACA.
This was after Samy Vellu’s right – hand man during the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal, former MIC Public Relations Committee Chairman and MIC Petaling Jaya Barat Vice Chairman, V. Subramaniam, had publicity confessed that he had assisted in the fabrictionof Telekom shares accounts to help Samy Vellu to obstructand frustrate ACA investigations into the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal.
Subramanian said he had acted under the instructions of Samy Vellu and that he had seen the actual accounts of the Telekom shares earnings and that none of the money went to the MIC-run TAFE College and that 10 to 12 other people were aware of the actual accounts.
When Tan Sri Zulkifli said in the interview in yesterday’s press that after 15 months of ACA investigations, ACA had not found any evidence against Samy Vellu, he could not be referring to the re-opening of investigations by ACA, as this took place less than five months ago.
How could Zulkifli ignore the re-opening of investigations by ACA into the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal in the last five months, and fall back on its initial 15-month ACA investigations to say that ACA had completely ended investigations?
Zulifli Mahmood owes the people and nation a full explanation whether the ACA had misled Parliament and the country about the re-opening of ACA investigations into the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal, when there had been no such re-opening; or whether the ACA had faced further political pressures for re-opening of investigations into the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal.
ACA Director-General should explain how ACA could ignore the new evidence which had surfaced incrimination Samy Vellu in the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal
The ACA Director-General should also explain how the ACA could ignore the new evidence that had surfaced about Samy Vellu’s role in the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal and which I presented to Parliament during the debate on the Royal Address two days ago.
These latest documentation about the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal contradicted the statement issued by the ACA Director-General, Tan Sri Zulkifli bin Mahmood on August 26, 1993 when clearing Samy Vellu by declaring that “no criminal offence has been disclosed” in the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal.
These new evidence referred to the proceeds of the sale of 420,000 Telekom shares by Advance Personal Computers Sdn. Bhd. in March/April 1992, which ACA said were “handed to MIED”.
In fact, these new evidence, which are documentation from the Bank of Commerce Jalan Masjid India Branch, where Samy Vellu maintains a personal account, No. 1402-0000168-00-2, comprising cheques, fixed deposit receipts as well as Samy Vellu’s bank statement account for April 1992, provide incontestable proof that the proceeds from the sale of 360,000 Telekom shares by Advance Personal Computers Sdn. Bhd. totaling RM4.09 million, did not go to MIED but were banked into Samy Vellu’s personal account.
Samy Vellu had not challenged my statement that the proceeds of the sale of 360,000 Telekom shares amounting to RM4.09 million and meant for MIED were banked into his personal account at Jalan Masjid India Branch of the Bank of Commerce in April 1992.
Samy Vellu had also not challenged the veracity of the document s I had produced in Parliament, including the April 1992 bank statement of his own personal account in the Jaln Masjid India Branch of Bank Commerce. If the cheques, fixed deposit receipts and his bank statement were false, Samy Vellu would have told the whole world already!
All Samy Vellu could say in response to my speech in Parliament is that he is ‘not bothered’ and would not reply to my fresh allegations against him in Parliament.
Samy Vellu could take a ‘not bothered’ attitude, but could the ACA, whose mandate is to fight corruption, abuse of power and all forms of malpractices especially by those in high political places, maintain a similar ‘not bothered’ attitude to the new evidence which had surfaced incriminating Samy Vellu in the MAIKA Telekom shares hijacking scandal?
I said in Parlliament on Wednesday that based on the new documentary evidence that have surfaced, there are ample grounds to arrest and prosecute Samy Vellu for criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of funds.
Why has the ACA Director-General not only failed to take any action, but instead made a public declaration at this time that no action could be taken against Samy Vellu in connection with the MAIKA shares hijacking scandal?