I refer to your article dated Dec 5, 2003 by Fauwaz Abdul Aziz entitled: ' Maika scandal: Police report lodged against Samy's lawyer '.

It was brought to my attention the above said article had mentioned lawyer S Shanmugam, as representing the shareholders. I, Selvam Shanmugam, deny meeting your Fauwaz Abdul Aziz or (that I) said the following as stated in your article:

"Met later, lawyer S Shanmugam - who is representing the shareholders - said as a former director of Maika, Cyrus (Das) was by fiduciary supposed to have looked into the affairs of the company and the interests of its shareholders.

"Instead, he overlooked their interests and conspired with Samy (Vellu) to appropriate Maika's funds," he said.

He explained that the term 'illegal activities' in the report referred to the alleged wrongdoings in the past in regards to a number of issues, including the Telekom shares scandal.

"In particular, they (the shareholders) are referring to the 'hijacking' of Telekom shares that Samy (Vellu) had diverted to three other of his companies," he added.

Furthermore, I contend that I (had only) accompanied the complainants to lodge the police report (Tun HS Lee Station report no: 31282/03 dated Dec 5, 2003).

I demand a written apology and to publish this in malaysiakini immediately.

Editor's note:

Malaysiakini journalist Fauwaz Abdul Aziz had indeed spoken to Selvam Shanmugam over the phone on Dec 5 to obtain further details regarding the police report lodged by Maika shareholders against Dr Cyrus Das.

Having received a copy of the police report at the police station in the morning, Fauwaz later contacted Shanmugan - one of the lawyers representing the Maika shareholders - to obtain further comments.

In the telephone conversation, Fauwaz had introduced himself as a journalist and sought Shanmugan's comments on the police report, which was given by him without any objection.

We stand by our story, and if at all there are errors in the story, it is that the report gave the wrong impression that Fauwaz had met with Shanmugam for the interview when in actual fact he had conducted the interview over the telephone. This is due to an oversight in the editorial process.