What "the untold MAS story" did not tell? (Part 5)

There were several sets of documents revealed by Malaysia Today and all sets did not show any offense that could significantly explained the alleged RM8 billion loss during Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli's tenure.

Using the last document revealed by Malaysia Today, which is the memo of Shaari Sulaiman, Managing Director of MAS Kargo to MACC, dated May 20th 2009, there was a tad of acknowledgement that nothing could be pinned on MAS former Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli.


Imagine ... Tajuddin had left since February 2001, but this is MAS bitching about the police and AG with the new MACC outfit for not prosecuting him.

Think again, after 10 years Tajuddin left MAS, they are only left to playing cheap propaganda using portal and blog to accuse of Tajuddin of some mumbo jumbo IT supplies contract to Edaran.

They had all the time to find fault with Tajuddin but the best they could was to pin an allegation of conflict of interest for the Agreement between Advanced Cargo Logistics Gmbh and MAS involving the Hahn Cargo Airport near Franfurt in 1999.

Read another piece below from Shaari's memo below:


Note the blame game.

Putting aside the minute profitability contract to Edaran, all the documents revealed by Malaysia Today only spoke of this offense of conflict of interest in the ACL and MAS deal.

Let's reproduce Shaari's allegations on the so-called conflict of interest involving Tajuddin below:






All the documents only focus on the same conflict of interest issue.

The earliest document was Dr Don's police report dated Januari 4th, 2002. Dr Don or Dr Mohamadon bin Abdullah was then the Senior General Manager Corporate Services.

Dr Don is one of those character in an office that is at odd with everyone for being insensitive. He was said to have not gone well with Tajuddin. For as a Malay Muslim, he had a rather liberal lifestyle.

Could he just being vindictive when he claimed there was a concealment of facts in the Hahn Cargo Airport deal?

ACA investigated but exonerated Tajuddin in 2003.

Then there was a letter from Dato Ong Jyh Jong dated May 5th, 2005. Dato Ong was the Senior General Manager, Cargo. He is a quiet and non-controversial character. Still water runs deep.

His report was more specific as to claim that ACL was controlled by Tajuddin and it is a conflict of interest for Tajuddin to be in a deal with MAS.

Off course, there was Ramli Yusoff's letter to the PM dated March 26th, 2007. See here.

ICC result on April 4th, 2007 exonerated ACL and Tajuddin. MAS accepted the arbitration and did not appeal.

Suddenly, it was Shaari Sulaiman's memo to SPRM. His memo can be obtained here.

Shaari is the Managing Director of MASkargo Sdn Bhd and son of Dato Sulaiman Sujak, a member of the board of Director at the times of Tajuddin's Chairmanship. Much has been said of the cold body language of Sulaiman in the presence of Tajuddin.

The allegations of TR having interest in ACL was that he had interest via Dannur. Malaysia Today revealed an organisation chart dated May 2003 based on the facts alleged by MAS as below:


Tajuddin had denied any interest in ACL or Dannur. Their alleged chart raised several questions.

If Dannur was allegedly the largest shareholder of ACL as at May 2003, did they realised that Tajuddin left MAS on February 14 2001?

If Tajuddin was connected to Dannur, as alleged in which he denied, how did he owe a fiduciary duty to MAS to reveal shares he acquired in 2003?

MAS claim of non disclosure of interest in the agreement involving ACL and MAS that resulted in major loss for MAS.

One of the party in ACL is Naluri Berhad via Naluri International Ltd, which Tajuddin had 47.41% stake and all necessary disclosure were made to the public.

What's the issue then?

Even without Tajuddin mentioning, the Directors of public listed company such as MAS cannot make that excuse of not knowing Tajuddin had interest in Naluri and in turn Naluri had interest in MAS and ACL.

ICC also cleared Tajuddin of any allegations of conflict of interest. If there was any issue in relation to Directors' fiduciary duties, it was the Directors that failed to do their fiduciary duties.

Why are some of them still around?