Screenshots

What is that saying ... "all fart no shit"

Jeff,

Are we witnessing the dawn of.....something???

The rakyat are tired of both the bravura of Mahathir and the ineffectualness of Badawi. Why can't the prime ministers of Malaysia not succumb to playing the gallery but for once do straight what needs to be done for the country as a whole and not exclusively for one race or religion only?

And lest there be those ready to champion Nazib, he's turning out to be another politician aloof from the people and vacuous of leadership qualities.

Who else? thanks to Mahathir, no one, absolutely zilch. If he really cares for the future of Malaysia, he should chew on this, even while cooking another spin why he wouldn't know that his EPU, a stone's throw from his office then, had rode over Ani Arope to virtually hand the bank to the IPPs. For the same reason that his Mindef had bought F16s without source codes? And now they're waxing eloquent about his brilliant strategy behind the crooked bridge so that big ships can sail that narrow and shallow divide -for reality's sake, don't they even know the damn size and height of a panamax? What ze they smokin'?

Those who've seen the real world - and that doesn't include the belly-buttons of gyrating egyptian dancers - and seen how countries make forward, real, measurable, progress because of the strength and integrity of their governments, will not hesitate a second to excoriate these dummies, jokers, clowns and eunuchs.

Mahathir's vision for pax melayu has been punctured by power, greed, arrogance and insensitivity to other communities; Badawi is hobbling along holding the tattered pieces, and the whole shebang country is fast being bypassed by other countries coming up from behind.

Is Malaysia already a has-been because she has had such lousy leaders?

Rather than try and protect the position, the vote, the party - just for once do what is right for the country.

I am starting to be damn tired of life.

all fart no shit is too mild. how abt whenever "he" speaketh, u wonder if it is coming from the mouth or bottom hole.

Folks

Journalist Jacqueline Ann Surin's letter came 4 months late. Why wait until this whole fiasco blow up in nation's face.

The disappointments, frustrations, and anger had been voiced, in polite and impolite language by all the readers who wrote in on Jeff's blog.

Journalist Jacqueline Ann Surin open letter is no surprise.

Also, do you think the chaps in Putrajaya or in UMNO care two hoots about the mournings of a journalist.

The only people theUMNO leadership, Pak Lah, the UMNO Ministers in the Cabinet and the UMNO politicians will even make a pass at the article , are UMNO ministers themselves, and ex-UMNO strongmen like Musa, Razaleigh, and TDM. What Anwar says now falls on deaf ears of Pak Lah.

If the letter had been written by one of the UMNO Menteri Besars, UMNO Ministers, or ex-UMNO heavy-weights, then the article will carry weight.

As it is, it is of little value,and if anything, it helps you and I feel good that we had the same feeling since Pak Lah took office.

HaHaHa,in my humble view,it is show time.

TDM insists that AAB should respond,and rightly so,but ABB should open evrything during the last 22 years or even longer,why should the citizens be bounded by an old man who screwed up big time,as he himself admitted honestly several days ago.

Mr Anwar,pl get ready,I see that the old order is coiming down,and with TDM's fierce temper,it would come down in no time,before we even know it.

Now all opposition parties should just follow the lead of Anwar and DAP,and insist that AAB should answer all questions and more.

Cheers

it's easy for us to shift blame, AAB - TDM...AAB has inherited TDM's 22-year legacy and Malaysia is not what it is today because of TDM's doing per se but also built upon the works of the past premiers before him.

F&H,
I like your comment about "if the letter had been written by..."

Well I have this to add..all those mentioned in your list lost their balls when the join the govt..so I don't think you wish will happen.

Jacqueline Ann Surin should expect some UMNO youth visitors very soon..the attack dogs of our Gov't.

Mahathir has finally revealed his target. AAB will definitely not be able to withstand Mahathir's attacks.

AAB hasn't been able to achieve anything significant since his first day at office and he will not have any divine revelations. He will just let everything crumble at his feet like so many other weak leaders of the past.

Dogs of war are waiting... and the spoils are good...

It is indeed interesting times ahead for those planning to soak this country dry. Like they say, in any adversity there are always opportunities.

sometimes silence could means knowing nothing.

NST [17 june] The Proton saga revealed

The Proton saga revealed
By Rajan Moses

17 June, 2006

KUALA LUMPUR: Proton chairman Datuk Azlan Hashim tried to meet Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad several times to answer his lingering doubts on the sale of Italian bike maker MV Agusta and other issues at the national car maker. But all he got was a wall of silence — a revelation which turns on its head assertions that the national car company’s advisor was kept out of the loop over developments at Proton.

“A meeting requires two consenting people or more to come together. Let me tell you unequivocally that we have made various attempts to arrange appointments and he has not been available... I understand because he is, of course, very busy and he will I suppose give us an appointment when he is ready,” Azlan told a news conference after the launch of Proton’s latest Satria Neo model.

The New Straits Times understands that on at least five occasions, the board attempted to meet Dr Mahathir.

Azlan made this disclosure when asked to clarify complaints in the media by Dr Mahathir that he was still waiting for answers on why Agusta was disposed for one euro.

His comments also are the first in a series of responses by government agencies and ministries to questions raised by Dr Mahathir — questions which led the former prime minister to launch a scathing personal attack on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his adminstration last week.

Proton has defended its actions in the past, and the tone of its Press statement and Azlan’s polite but business-like comments at the Press conference suggests that this will be the last time that questions on Agusta will be entertained.

Apart from questioning the sale of the Italian bike maker, Dr Mahathir also was irked that Tengku Mahaleel Tengku Arif was removed as the chief executive officer of Proton.

Proton has defended its actions in the past, and the tone of its press statement and Azlan’s polite but business-like comments at the Press conference suggests that this will be the last time that questions on MV Agusta will be entertained.

Though Proton did not refer to anyone by name in the press statement, there was no mistaking the sarcasm in it.

Describing continued criticisms over the sale of MV Agusta and change in management in July 2005 as "uninformed speculation", the national car company said there was "a refusal among some, to acknowledge explanations provided earlier".

The saga began to unfold when Tengku Mahaleel complained that the Goverment was not doing enough to suppport Proton .

He and Dr Mahathir also claimed that key questions raised by them had not been answered, among which was the loss that Proton incurred when it sold its stake in MV Agusta for one euro.

In its statement, Proton said its critics failed to note that the company also got rid of the motorcycle maker’s US$128.4 million (RM467.7 million) ) debt.

Also, had MV Agusta gone into bankruptcy, Proton would have been subjected to a liability of up to US$256 million , the statement said.

Proton, when it was run by Tengku Mahaleel, bought a majority stake in MV Agusta in December 2004 for RM370 million).

Azlan yesterday shed more light on what happened after the purchase.

For a start, he noted that the company was in debt and the moneyspent to buy it was written off in the same year.

"Therefore, really the carrying value of this investment had already been reduced to one ringgit," he added.

In addition, Proton had made further advances to MV Agusta resulting in a loss of RM500 million.

Not many people were interested in buying the company from Proton, he noted.

"In fact, invariably, in these circumstances one would almost expect to have to pay people money to take this company off your hands," he added.

Although Proton owned a majority stake in the company, but the structure in which the shares were all tied up with the minorities, giving Proton very little flexibility.

"When we went to the banks, the main financier to the company said the shares were worthless.

"And then the other partner we had, who sold the company to us, also reckoned that the shares that we held were worth not more than one euro," Azlan said.

NST [17 June] Spotlight: The Proton saga Q&A

Spotlight: The Proton saga Q&A

17 June, 2006

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former Proton chief executive officer Tengku Tan Sri Mahaleel Tengku Ariff have on recent occasions criticised Proton Holdings Bhd for selling motorcycle maker MV Agusta. Yesterday, Proton provided answers to questions raised by them and others regarding the sale.

Q: Why was MV Agusta sold?

A: The acquisition of Agusta was unlikely to deliver on the original justifications presented by the management.

Q:What were some of the justifications put forth when buying Agusta?

A: One was that it would diversify the revenue stream and reduce reliance on the increasingly competitive car market. But it did not diversify the revenue stream and was unlikely to do so. Agusta had lost approximately Euro118 million over the last six years to Dec 31 2005, averaging about Euro 20 million a year.

It was said that the purchase of Agusta would achieve operational, engineering and technological synergies between Agusta and Proton but this did not happen as Proton manufactures cars for the masses while Agusta manufactures motorcycles.

Another reason was to act as a catalyst and accelerate Proton’s own motorcycle manufacturing programme but Proton does not have any such programme.

Q: Could Proton not have turned Agusta around?

A: It would have required substantial backing from Proton over an extended period. There was the real possibility that Agusta would fall into bankruptcy. In the event Agusta fell into bankruptcy, Proton would have been subjected to a contingent liability for an amount up to Euro202 million (RM923.1 million).

After due consideration and professsional advice, given the limited options available, it was clear that the most optimal route for Proton was to exit Agusta completely via a disposal of its equity interest.

The primary consideration was to minimise future potential losses to the group.

Q: Did the sale have an adverse impact on Proton?

A: "The disposal itself did not have an adverse impact on the accounts or the financial standing of the Group. The losses were in fact recognised at the time of the purchase.

When we bought the company for approximately 70 million euros, this company was in a net liability situation. Therefore the entire consideration of 70 million euros was recognised as goodwill and the management at that time then treated it as goodwill and wrote it off in the accounts in the immediate year. Therefore, really, the carrying value of this investment had already been reduced to one ringgit.

Q: So the sale did not result in the loss?

A: During the ownership period, Proton made further advances to Agusta and this is what resulted in us having to make the additional provisions during the financial year ended March 2006. Again that would prove clearly that the sale or disposal that we signed up in December 2005 and completed in March 2006 is not the action that resulted in the loss. The loss really was already recognised at the time of the purchase and on the provisioning and advances already made earlier before any decision to sell.

Q: Why were provisions made?

A: Because the advances were unsecured and were given as clean advances or direct advance of money or assistance in purchases. That was a total loss of about 500 million ringgit. It is educational to actually go back to examine why was it purchased in the first place then, since that was what caused the loss.

Q: Is Proton saying it was a bad buy?

A: Firstly, this is a very specialised business, number two it was producing motorbikes that are of relatively high value, again not a mass market.

Number three this is a loss making company with a track record of losses and it continued to lose money. Number four it had a huge debt burden and if the debt burden wasn’t bad enough there was a contingent liability attached to it.

Therefore you can imagine not many people would be interested to buy this company.

In fact, invariably, in these circumstances one would almost expect to have to pay people money to take this company off your hands.

These shares that we had were the majority, but the structure in which the shares were all tied up with the minorities gave us very little flexibility.

Q: But why sell it for one Euro?

A: When we went to the banks, the banks that knew this company very well, the main financier to the company, the bank said the shares were worthless. And then the other partner we had, who sold the company to us, he also reckoned that the shares that we held were worth not more than one euro.

By that time we had already been in discussion with an investment bank with a global network and they said this was going to be extremely difficult as it was firstly so specialised, and two, the financial situation of the company was so bad.

Q: How did Proton get the buyer?

A: Word had gone around and these people approached us. They were related to some bank in Italy and they felt that they wanted to give it a go.

Q: Why sell it to them?

A: Firstly there was not much choice. Number two, whoever it was that was going to buy this company had to meet several conditions. They had to be financially sound, they had to be comitted to see it through over a period of time,they had to put up a credible plan acceptable to bankers and this credible plan had to meet with the acceptance of the local authorities.

You must remember that this company had just come out of controlled administration. This is similar to our section 176 or chapter 11 in the American context,. So when you come out of it there are still certain conditions. This company was prepared to put in money, make available additional lines and was able to convince exisiting bankers and put up a plan that was accepted by the local authorities.

Q: Why did Proton not ask for a higher price?

A: Of course we sought a higher figure. We wanted to try and recover our entire investment, but that was not to be. We tried everything possible. We had five months of intensive discussions and evaluations. The board’s directors had access to advise from our professional advisers, investment bankers and lawyers and the like. We were going back and forth.

It was with a very heavy heart that we had to call it a day.

Q: Why wasn’t the tenure of former chief executive officer Tengku Tan Sri Mahaleel Tengku Ariff not extended?

A: The board of directors at its meeting on July 25, 2005 resolved not to renew his tenure. This was well within the ambit and authority of the company and the board of directors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto policy good for business

Proton Holdings Berhad managing director Syed Zainal Abidin Syed Mohamed Tahir on the National Automotive Policy:

Q: Has the NAP placed Proton at a disadvantage?

A: I don’t think so. I think what the NAP provides is a very clear environment in business for going forward.

The support of the Government is very clear and the outline is very clear in terms of what is required in going forward — investment, and the level that is required to get the necessary incentive.

It doesn’t make a difference whether you are a national car or non-national car maker.

To go forward, at least for the next five years, (the situation) is very clear. That is very important to us.

Now we know and can put our strategy in place to support the Government in making Malaysia an automotive hub. (This includes) the localising programme that we have to do, the research and development that we have to do and the export programmes that we have to do.

In that sense, we have been waiting for the Government for many years to come out with the NAP. Now, the outline is very clear.