More inconsistencies in Talam deal
MCA’s Chua Tee Yong questions why land supposedly transferred to the Selangor government has not been done and why was there ‘special’ RM36 billion discount for Talam in the debt-recovery exercise.
Teoh El Sen, FMT
Land received by the Selangor state government as part of the Talam Corporation Bhd (now Trinity Corporation) debt-restructuring exercise has not been transferred to the state even after two years, MCA’s Chua Tee Yong alleged today.
The MCA Young Professionals Bureau chairman said this was the case for “a majority” of the land assets which were supposed to have been transferred to the state or its subsidiaries when debt recovery started in 2010.
Showing reporters copies of land titles he obtained from a search, Chua said this was another “glaring example of incompetence” of the state government, adding that whoever is the adviser to the Menteri Besar [Khalid Ibrahim] should be sacked.
“So what is the status? They say everything is being nicely done, everything is okay. But when you look at the land titles, they still indicate that lands do not belong to Permodalan Negeri Selangor Bhd (PNSB) or the state government.
“Why is it taking so long to switch land title when the transaction occurred two years ago ? If land title does not state your name, it does not belong to you,” said Chua, who is also Labis MP and Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister, at a press conference here.
He also said that some of the land accepted by the Selangor government contained “a lot of registrar caveats and private caveats”, with the parcel at Danau Putra containing more than 100 caveats.
“This means a lot of people are saying they are entitled to part of the land. If you were the buyer, wouldn’t you be worried? If so many caveats, why did the government accept the land?”
He said that these caveats would need to be cleared before the land is more marketable as it is not free from encumbrances.
‘What is so special?’
Chua said the land also still has charges by banks and “to protect the rakyat interest, the Selangor government should clear all the bank charges to make sure that the land can be transferred to its rightful owner”.
Chua also questioned why there was an “early incentive” discount of RM36 million given to Maxisegar Sdn Bhd (a subsidiary of Talam) despite the debt being paid at least two years late.
“The Pakatan Selangor government must explain the rationale for agreeing to reduce the debts due to Unisel (Universiti Selangor) from Talam by RM36 million despite the expiry of the agreement on March 8, 2007.
“When Talam fails to fulfil this agreement, they should not be entitled to this discount. What is so special? Is it an oversight that shows the incompetence of the Selangor state government?”
Chua said this was more worrying as Unisel is reportedly in a great financial distress to sustain its core education services and to ensure hostel services are available.
“This shows Unisel is in greater financial distress because of the Talam deal.”
Chua explained that based on the March 8, 2007 supplemental settlement agreement, the total debts due to Pendidikan Industries YS (which owns Unisel) from Maxisegar (Talam) is RM284 million.
However, an early incentive settlement (calculated by way of net present valuations) was given amounting to RM36 million.
“Thus the total amount due to Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Bhd and Pendidikan Industri YS (KDEB’s subsidiary and runs Unisel) is RM248 million,” he said.
