'Why was Talam's subsidiary given RM36mil incentive?'
MCA central committee member Chua Tee Yong questioned why Talam Corporation Bhd’s subsidiary Maxisegar was given an incentive of RM36 million despite having settled its debts to Universiti Selangor (Unisel) two years later.
MCA central committee member Chua Tee Yong questioned why Talam Corporation Bhd’s subsidiary Maxisegar was given an incentive of RM36 million despite having settled its debts to Universiti Selangor (Unisel) two years later.
Chua, at a press conference at the MCA headquarters, said that the previous BN-led state government had signed a “supplemental settlement agreement” with Pendidikan Industries YS, which owns and runs Unisel, on March 8, 2007 and expired a year later.
“In that agreement total debts due from Maxisegar to Pendidikan Industries YS (a subsidiary of state-owned investment arm Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Berhad) was RM284 million.
“An early incentive settlement (calculated by way of net present valuations) was given amounting to RM36 million. Thus, the total amount due from Talam to Unisel is RM248 million,” he said.
However, after Pakatan Rakyat took over the state’s administration, the early settlement incentives of RM36 million were still accorded to Maxisegar in the Talam debt restructuring exercise undertaken by the state in 2010.
“The Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government did not disclose in the state assembly that the debts due from Talam to Unisel were reduced by RM36 million and the rationale for the reduction or discount,” he pointed out.
Chua, waving a thick-pile of documents, also said that Talam “guaranteed” to pay the settlement due to Unisel, in the event its subsidiary, Maxisegar, was unable to make the payment.
“Under the agreement, the Selangor Pakatan government could have taken action against Talam for failure of its obligations to repay the debts,” he said.
“When Talam failed to fulfil the agreement they should not be entitled to the discount. What is so special? Is it an oversight that shows the incompetence of the state government?” he hit out.
Chue reiterated that “only a full disclosure” of the state’s valuation report and the subsequent agreements between the parties could shed light on the matter.
“Instead of wasting time rebutting my points, the state should hurry up and finish the white paper they promised,” he said.


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