Three Years of Exposés Must Not Be Forgotten
M Shanmugam’s column in The Edge Weekly dated October 26, 2026, “What happens after the corporate mafia probe is crucial”, raises a fundamental question: will the investigation expose the alleged Corporate Mafia in its entirety, or merely produce a report that leaves its principal operators and institutional connections untouched?
Another Brick in the Wall began writing about the corporate controversy surrounding Revenue Group Berhad in 2023, following the boardroom struggle and allegations of a forced corporate takeover. This was three years before Rafizi Ramli suddenly emerged as a prominent commentator on the Corporate Mafia, drawing on Bloomberg’s reporting on older cases and more recent developments. He should have investigated who the new owner of Revenue IF Berhad.
Nevertheless, Rafizi is entitled to raise these matters, but his recent interventions must not eclipse the work of those who have followed the controversy since its beginnings. Nor should the investigation be diverted into political and personal disputes involving Ramanan, Farhash, Azam Baki or others.
Any credible allegations against them should be investigated on their merits, but the overriding objective must remain the alleged network associated with Victor Chin Boon Leong. The question is not who has the loudest political voice or the latest revelation. It is who allegedly built the network, how it operates, who protects it and who receives its financial rewards.
The Ethnic Composition and Hierarchy of the Alleged Network
 |
| Organisational chart circulating from Corporate Secret portal for few years |
There is an uncomfortable dimension that should not be avoided merely because it is racially sensitive. My observation is that the alleged Corporate Mafia has a predominantly Chinese core among its principal corporate operators, proxies and influential intermediaries.
Malays and Indians may also feature in the wider network, but the question is whether their positions, influence and financial benefits are comparable to those of the principal operators.
This distinction matters.
Organised networks do not necessarily distribute authority or rewards equally. Those who allegedly control corporate manoeuvres and retain substantial financial benefits may occupy a very different position from individuals who provide access, facilitate transactions or perform supporting roles for comparatively small rewards.
Investigators should therefore examine the actual structure of beneficial ownership, shareholdings, financial transfers, decision-making authority and relationships between the principal operators and their intermediaries. If some participants have received only modest kickbacks while others have accumulated much larger economic benefits, the evidence should reveal that disparity.
There is also a question of trust and secrecy. Closed networks can be sustained by longstanding personal relationships, shared commercial interests and informal codes of loyalty. Where criminal conduct is involved, such relationships may make outsiders less trusted and the network more difficult to penetrate.
Whether these dynamics explain the present allegations must be established through evidence, but they should not be excluded from the investigation simply because the subject is ethnically sensitive.
My concern is that less influential Malays or Indians could become convenient scapegoats when operations unravel, while the principal beneficiaries remain beyond reach. This possibility deserves particular attention if the distribution of responsibility and financial rewards is markedly unequal.
This is not a claim that ethnicity establishes guilt, nor that every Chinese corporate operator is implicated. It is a call to examine an observable pattern and determine whether ethnicity-linked relationships, trust and business connections have played a role in the alleged organisation of the network.
Investigators must be prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without allowing either racial sensitivities or political convenience to obstruct the truth.
Cabinet Must Not Narrow the Terms of Reference
The Cabinet's responsibility is to ensure that the investigation is comprehensive enough to expose the network, not merely the transactions or individuals already identified.
The terms of reference must encompass the alleged network's evolution since its earlier corporate controversies, its relationships with other publicly listed companies, its financial beneficiaries, its proxies and any possible involvement by serving or former personnel in PDRM, MACC, BNM, the Securities Commission Malaysia, the Attorney General's Chambers and Bursa Malaysia.
This does not presume that any particular official is guilty. It means that no individual should be excluded from scrutiny because of office, influence or institutional connections.
Cabinet must also guard against an investigation whose scope is quietly reduced, whose findings stop at peripheral participants or whose recommendations avoid uncomfortable institutional questions. If the terms of reference are narrowed in ways that leave credible lines of inquiry unexplored, the public will inevitably question whether the process is intended to uncover wrongdoing or contain its political and institutional consequences.
A report is not proof of accountability. The test is whether the evidence is pursued, the principal beneficiaries are identified, and prosecutions follow where the evidence and law warrant them. Any suggestion of a cover-up would seriously undermine the credibility of the entire exercise.
Malaysia Cannot Afford Another Loss of Investor Confidence
The consequences extend well beyond individual companies. Malaysia should pay close attention to Indonesia's current predicament.
On October 15, 2026, MSCI announced a consultation on a proposal to reclassify Indonesia from emerging-market to standalone-market status. Its concerns include opaque shareholding structures, suspected coordinated trading and insufficient evidence of effective enforcement. The announcement triggered a severe market sell-off, demonstrating how quickly doubts about market integrity can affect investor confidence and valuations. MSCI's final decision is expected by the end of June 2027.
Malaysia must not assume that its own market standing is immune to similar concerns. International investors assess not only corporate financial statements but also whether regulators act independently, whether ownership is transparent and whether misconduct is dealt with consistently.
The Serba Dinamik affair remains a cautionary example. The decision to compound the company and four senior executives after charges concerning a false financial statement involving RM6.01 billion in reported revenue were dropped prompted questions among capital-market participants about the consistency and deterrent effect of enforcement. The episode demonstrated how regulatory and prosecutorial decisions can become a source of concern for investors.
If the Corporate Mafia investigation ends with an incomplete account, particularly where influential corporate operators or possible institutional connections appear to have escaped scrutiny, the damage could be compounded. A further serious governance failure could expose Malaysia to heightened investor scepticism and adverse ESG assessments, especially concerning governance, regulatory independence and minority-shareholder protection.
The risk is not simply reputational. Persistent doubts about market integrity can raise the perceived risk of investing in Malaysian companies, weaken capital inflows and reduce the attractiveness of the market to international funds.
Pursue the Network, Not Merely the Headlines
The investigation must not become an exercise in revisiting every scandal of previous administrations, nor be redirected by the latest political revelations. Historical abuses may explain institutional weaknesses, but the immediate task is to confront the alleged network operating today.
Cabinet must ensure that the terms of reference are not diluted, the investigation follows credible evidence across corporate and institutional boundaries, and the findings are disclosed to the fullest extent consistent with due process. Where offences are established, prosecution must follow regardless of the individuals' ethnicity, status or connections.
Malaysia cannot afford another episode in which the public sees a few participants held responsible while the most influential beneficiaries remain untouched.
The ultimate test is whether the investigation exposes the alleged Corporate Mafia in its entirety. Anything less risks repeating past failures, undermining investor confidence and turning a corporate scandal into a national governance crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment