To hold Khazanah's leadership accountable for losses in their 2024 fashion investment, it’s essential to critically examine both performance and responsibility. Here’s why the Chairman, CEO, and board should face consequences rather than receive top 1% income:
1. Fiduciary Responsibility: Khazanah's executive team is entrusted with the stewardship of public assets, a duty that demands high standards of diligence. If an investment in fashion led to losses, it raises questions about their investment strategies, oversight, and due diligence practices. Accountability should match these responsibilities.
2. Public Trust and Stewardship of Public Funds: Khazanah is a sovereign wealth fund backed by public resources, intended to yield long-term benefits for the Malaysian people. When investments fall short, particularly in volatile or experimental sectors like fashion, the leaders should demonstrate accountability. Rewarding high salaries amidst such losses can erode public trust.
3. Questionable Industry Decision: Fashion is a high-risk sector, with rapid cycles and intense competition, requiring deep sector knowledge. The leadership team must bear responsibility if they failed to adequately assess these risks or ignored expert advice. A strategy that disregards well-known market risks suggests poor judgment or negligence, which should lead to repercussions, not rewards.
4. Setting a Standard for Governance: Good governance requires consequences for missteps. Khazanah’s compensation structure should be merit-based, rewarding success and penalizing failures to align leadership incentives with performance. Top 1% income without corresponding outcomes contradicts best practices in governance and undermines the integrity of Malaysia’s financial institutions.
5. Public Sector vs. Private Sector Accountability: Unlike the private sector, where market forces discipline failure through loss of profits or jobs, public institutions like Khazanah must demonstrate higher accountability standards to justify their use of taxpayer funds. Continuing to reward the top brass in the face of missteps establishes a dangerous precedent and suggests that poor performance lacks consequences.
The failure of the fashion investment should act as a wake-up call, driving the board to implement a performance-linked evaluation for executive pay. Khazanah's top leadership must face consequences—not rewards—if public trust in its management and investments is to be maintained.
These major GLICs' top executives often fall within a total remuneration range of MYR 5-10 million per annum, depending on organization size and specific roles.
Disgrace and shame to the country and hurt the goodwill - Public Interest and Financial Impact: Much like the 1MDB case, which affected Malaysia’s international reputation and financial stability, failing to address the FV scam could have severe consequences, potentially impacting stakeholders, investors, and the broader public. If losses go unreported or uninvestigated, it signals that those at the helm are indifferent to potential misappropriations or financial risks within institutions that significantly influence Malaysia’s economy.
Legal and Moral Obligations: There are legal and moral obligations under the Corporate Governance Code and Anti-Corruption Act that bind leaders to act against fraudulent activity. Ignoring potential fraud or scams, even if indirectly, could violate these standards and set a dangerous precedent.
The failure of the fashion investment should act as a wake-up call, driving the board to implement a performance-linked evaluation for executive pay. Khazanah's top leadership must face consequences—not rewards—if public trust in its management and investments is to be maintained.
Cases involving possible mismanagement, lack of accountability, or breaches of trust by board members or management of sovereign wealth funds could fall under several legal frameworks, especially when there is an implication of failing in fiduciary duties or potential misconduct.
Duty of Care, Skill, and Diligence: Directors must perform their roles with due care, skill, and diligence. If they fail in these duties, especially by causing significant financial loss, shareholders or stakeholders might be able to take legal action.
Insolvent Trading: If the company had been trading while insolvent, this could indicate that directors breached their duty under Section 539 of the Companies Act. It could lead to personal liability if they allowed or continued trading despite the financial distress.
Penal Code: Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) - Section 405: If directors or officers are found to have dishonestly misappropriated, converted, or used the company’s assets, they may be charged with criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Penal Code.
Section 409: If proven that someone in a managerial position was involved in criminal breach of trust, this section imposes stricter penalties for CBT committed by a public servant or agent, which includes company directors or agents dealing with property on behalf of another.
Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) - Corporate Misconduct: If any form of fraud, insider trading, or unethical practices were involved, Khazanah’s directors could be subject to SC investigations. Misrepresentation of a company's financial health, hiding key information, or deliberately causing losses could all be grounds for legal action.
Public Governance, Accountability, and Transparency Laws - Government-Linked Investment Company (GLIC) and Sovereign Fund Obligations: GLICs like Khazanah have mandates to act transparently and responsibly. Failure to fulfill these can lead to public scrutiny and calls for reform. Although no specific law targets poor governance in GLICs, public authorities, including the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), can initiate inquiries and make recommendations for accountability.
Civil Lawsuits for Negligence or Breach of Duty - If shareholders or other stakeholders suffer due to the board’s negligent management, they may be able to pursue a civil lawsuit, claiming that directors breached their duties under common law principles. Stakeholders could seek compensation or even injunctive relief to prevent similar future mismanagement.
Legal Recourse and Investigation To ensure accountability: - Auditor General and PAC Inquiry: These entities can review whether Khazanah’s board acted in compliance with its mandate and whether there was any misuse of public funds.
Independent Forensic Audit: An independent review could be requested to identify if there was genuine oversight failure, negligence, or any other malfeasance in the handling of this investment.
Timing and Justification of Divestment: Khazanah stated that it divested from FashionValet due to the investment reaching the end of its holding period. However, a large RM43.9 million loss suggests that the investment’s performance was problematic well before reaching maturity. The "end of holding period" explanation may seem like a deflection from discussing specific issues related to performance monitoring and strategic decision-making during the investment term.
Urgent Need for Funds: The announcement mentions that FashionValet was in urgent need of funds to continue operating, indicating potential financial distress. If this distress was recent, then Khazanah’s decision could arguably be a necessary but unfortunate exit. However, if this distress was long-standing, it raises questions about whether Khazanah properly monitored the investment and intervened promptly to either guide FashionValet or exit earlier.
Lack of Transparency Regarding Investment Failures: Sovereign wealth funds like Khazanah operate using public funds, so transparency is crucial. Khazanah’s statement does not provide a detailed account of why the investment failed or what factors led to FashionValet’s financial troubles. The lack of an in-depth explanation could reflect poor accountability to stakeholders.
Strategic Responsibility of Management: The responsibility lies with Khazanah’s board and management to ensure that their investments align with their mandate for value generation and strategic growth. With a substantial loss on record, it would be reasonable to expect some acknowledgment of oversight issues, as well as preventive measures to avoid similar occurrences in the future. Their emphasis on the “end of holding period” without mention of possible missteps in investment assessment or execution may come across as sidestepping accountability.
Reliance on Public Funds and Accountability: Khazanah’s portfolio is financed by taxpayer money, which emphasizes its duty to operate with fiscal responsibility and transparency. A sizable loss without clear justification might suggest that there were gaps in due diligence, market insight, or operational oversight on the board’s part.
Public Sector vs. Private Sector Accountability: Unlike the private sector, where market forces discipline failure through loss of profits or jobs, public institutions like Khazanah must demonstrate higher accountability standards to justify their use of taxpayer funds. Continuing to reward the top brass in the face of missteps establishes a dangerous precedent and suggests that poor performance lacks consequences.
Anti-Corruption: If corruption, abuse of position, or kickbacks were involved, the MACC Act 2009 would apply. Section 17A of the MACC Act makes commercial organizations liable for corruption unless they can demonstrate adequate procedures to prevent it.
Trustee Act 1949 and Common Law Fiduciary Duties - Although Khazanah is a sovereign wealth fund rather than a traditional trust, its directors and officers have fiduciary responsibilities similar to those of trustees. If they failed in this duty, there might be grounds to allege a breach of trust under common law, especially if it’s shown they acted recklessly or irresponsibly with public funds.
The heads of Khazanah and Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) bear a responsibility to report the Fashion Valet (FV) scam and, if failing to do so, might be considered as culpable as former Prime Minister in the 1MDB scandal involving JLow
Integrity, Accountability and Ethical Standards: Public trust in Khazanah and PNB is critical. Like in the 1MDB scandal, where Naj’s failure to address and prevent Low’s activities directly affected Malaysia's financial integrity, leaders of major institutions are expected to uphold ethical standards and act on misconduct. Not reporting any known misconduct, especially large-scale fraud, could imply that they are prioritizing reputation over accountability, which could lead to suspicion and erode trust.
as long as GLC or GLIC exist, 1MDB will recurrently. pls just close all GLC. gomen has no biz in biz. so why blame Ah Jir Kor for 1MDB, blame who start this GLC, or investment fund using tax payee money??? why Mana Ni still allow same abuse to happen?
We are different - more GLC, more foriegn investors, more prosperous here.....hehe
While Sarawak has made strides in offering free university education, Peninsular Malaysia still depends heavily on the PTPTN (Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional) loan system. This loan system has often led to financial strain on young graduates, many of whom struggle with repayment due to job market constraints and wage stagnation.
Sarawak's ability to offer free education could be partly due to its resource-rich status, especially in oil and gas, which has contributed to its higher income base. This raises questions about federal resource allocation, the impact of regional autonomy, and the effectiveness of wealth distribution policies. Sarawak and Sabah have, in some instances, pushed for greater autonomy over their finances and resources, arguing that this could better serve the needs of their populations.
On the other hand, Peninsular Malaysia's issues with scandals, such as 1MDB, the feedlot scandal, and corruption allegations, have cast a shadow on the federal government's management of public funds. These issues not only affect public trust but also hinder the government's ability to fund social initiatives, such as debt-free education.
KUCHING: Petros, the Sarawak government-owned oil and gas company, is allocating about RM40 billion over the next five years for its capital expenditure, according to its chairman, Hamid Bugo. capital come from??
n a statement yesterday, the DAP Youth chief claimed the total shares of the company owned by bodies linked to the Sarawak government amounted to about 30%.
He said the court’s decision to allow a petition by the six financial institutions to wind up Serba Dinamik Holdings and its three subsidiaries – Serba Dinamik International Ltd (SDIL), Serba Dinamik Sdn Bhd, and Serba Dinamik Group Bhd – was “concerning” as the Sarawak government held significant shares in the company.
Yii said he raised the issue in May 2022, but that deputy premier Douglas Uggah Embas merely told the state legislative assembly that Serba Dinamik was “only going through a series of interim or short-term setbacks”.
He also asked about the government’s plan to recoup such losses and ensure zero repeat of such scandals. “Good governance is fundamental to ensure that the future of Sarawak and Sarawakians is protected,” said Yii.
FashionValet acquired 30 Maple, the company behind the dUCk brand, from Vivy Yusof. This acquisition took place in December 2018, following FashionValet's Series C funding round earlier that year. The valuation of this deal is reported to be around RM100 million
Vivy Maple's owner could exploit PNB and Khazanah through a combination of strategic misrepresentation, leveraging institutional trust, and potential misallocation of funds.
While internal audits play a crucial role in the governance of GLCs like Khazanah and PNB, they should be complemented by a multi-faceted approach that includes external audits, robust risk management practices, enhanced corporate governance, and technological solutions. This holistic strategy can provide a stronger defense against losses from suspicious deals and improve overall accountability in investment decisions.
Anti-Corruption Legislation: Laws like Malaysia's Anti-Corruption Act (MACC Act 2009) impose stringent obligations on leaders to prevent and address corrupt practices. Under Section 17A, for instance, companies are liable if employees or associates are involved in bribery unless the company has adequate procedures to prevent such acts. Inaction by leadership, therefore, can expose a company to severe penalties if fraudulent or corrupt activities are found to be occurring internally.
With over a dozen of passport retained, bank accounts frozen - We wishes to confirm that it has initiated an investigation into allegations of potential misappropriation of public funds. This decision underscores our unwavering commitment to upholding integrity, transparency, and accountability in public service.
We understand the seriousness of these allegations and their implications for public trust. Therefore, we assure the public that this investigation will be conducted thoroughly, impartially, and in accordance with the law. Our goal is to ascertain the facts surrounding these allegations and determine if any misconduct has occurred.
We encourage anyone with relevant information to come forward and assist in this investigation. Whistleblower protections are in place to ensure confidentiality and safety for those who contribute information.
As this is an ongoing investigation, we cannot disclose further details at this time. We ask for the public's patience and understanding as we carry out our responsibilities. We are committed to providing updates as appropriate while ensuring that our investigative processes remain unimpeded.
The ACC remains dedicated to fighting corruption and safeguarding the interests of the citizens we serve. Thank you for your continued support and trust in our efforts.
1) conflict of interest when gomen also involved in biz. 2) waste tax payee money and time to audit all GLC 3) use tax payee $$ to bail out each time GLC failed 4) usd300million legal cost already spend so far to recover 1MDB assets =damage control
5) no wonder gomen debts keep rising, need more SST whatever tax to cover big hole-reach rm1.4trillion already 6) just sell out all GLC/ GLIC settle all debts
No worries.....Next gomen will learn to confiscate dozens of culprits' assets to return to money to fund the people's subsidies and waive PTPTN......
Posted by chinaman > 30 minutes ago | Report Abuse
1) conflict of interest when gomen also involved in biz. 2) waste tax payee money and time to audit all GLC 3) use tax payee $$ to bail out each time GLC failed
Companies Act 2016 - Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Directors and officers of Khazanah, as in any company, have fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the company. Under the Companies Act 2016, directors have a duty to act honestly, in good faith, and for the benefit of the company as a whole. Failing to exercise these duties responsibly can expose directors to legal claims. Sections 213-218 of the Companies Act address these duties
According to a reply by Finance Minister Tengku Dato’ Sri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz to Dewan Rakyat, a whopping RM28 billion has been injected into MAS by its owner Khazanah Nasional. That’s already substantial but what about the years before Khazanah came in?
Clearly Khazanah has done its part to help sustain the company and MAS management had many chances for a turnaround alongside several bailouts. Most recently,business news portal The Edge Weekly reported financial aid amounting to RM2.1 billion was being sought by MAS from its owners. It was only in July thatthe Edge Markets reported a US$300 million (RM1.28 billion) worth of new funding - likely a government grant - was secured by MAS to support it through the pandemic.
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
Posted by EngineeringProfit > 3 weeks ago | Report Abuse
........while the shameless chairman, CEO and admin board continue wot take home T1% income