Police to be present at controversial Maika meeting
Maika Holdings shareholders have been given assurance by the company that its upcoming annual general meeting would be conducted professionally and with proper security arrangements.
Maika Holdings shareholders have been given assurance by the company that its upcoming annual general meeting would be conducted professionally and with proper security arrangements.
DAP's Save Maika Shareholders Committee secretary A Sivanesan said this was conveyed to him by Maika CEO Vell Paari, who is the son of MIC president S Samy Vellu, during a meeting at the company's headquarters in Kuala Lumpur today.
He was among seven shareholders who requested a meeting with Vell Paari to seek clarification on matters relating to the company's performance and the arrangements for its AGM scheduled for Dec 30.
"We were told that Maika has made an application to the police. Police and security personnel will be present. We were also assured by Vell Paari that the AGM will be conducted professionally," he said when contacted.
According to Sivanesan, security matters have been emphasised by shareholders at the meeting this morning because of a previous incident in 1995 when a shareholder was alleged to have been assaulted for raising questions about Maika shares.
"People have been afraid to attend the Maika AGMs. They are concerned that they may be either physically or verbally assaulted as had happened before," he explained.
Lift media ban
Sivanesan said Maika should also lift its seven-year ban on reporters covering the AGM which was implemented the year after the 1995 fracas was splashed on the front pages of national newspapers.
The DAP committee secretary said all shareholders have the right to know the decisions arising from the meeting even if they are absent.
"A maximum of 3,000 people can attend the AGM but normally only about 1,500 people would turn up. Maika has a total of some 59,000 shareholders so it is only fair for them to be able to read about the meeting in the press," he said.
On raising the matter with Vell Paari, Sivanesan said he had been told that a decision would be made on the matter within 48 hours.
Six challengers
Meanwhile, Sivanesan said the other discussions on the table this morning included voting methods for the company's board of directors as well as clarifications over the company's financial status.
He said Vell Paari had said that Maika shareholders would be asked to choose at the AGM whether they wanted to vote for the company's directors by a show of hands or by secret balloting.
"If we go by a show of hands, it would mean that each shareholder has one vote, regardless of the amount of shares they hold. But if we go for block voting, it would mean that each (shareholders' vote is weighted) depending on the amount of shares that the person holds," he said.
Aside from the six candidates proffered by Maika, Sivanesan said Vell Paari had confirmed that six other persons have been accepted to contest for director posts with the company.
individuals were submitted by the DAP committee yesterday while a sixth nominee was submitted independently.
Allegations of mismanagement
The Maika scandal has been a recurring one over the past decade over alleged mismanagement of the company's vast capital.
The company was established in 1983, purportedly to enable Indian Malaysians' to share in the country's economic growth.
By the 1990s, news of irregularity in Maika's management of its funds made headlines, prompting police and ACA investigations into the role of the MIC president in several financial controversies.
Although Samy Vellu was absolved of any blame, the Maika scandal was unearthed again recently during a row between the MIC president and Indian Progressive Front president MG Pandithan.
Pandithan, who has been leading the call for the MIC president to step down after holding the party's top post for more than 24 years, accused the latter of making the Indian Malaysian community worse off through failed ventures such as Maika.


Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.