Friday, 6 July 2012
'MCA made mega blunder in Talam deal accusation'
DAP today debunked MCA's claim that the Selangor government was involved in a "RM1 billion questionable deal" with Talam Corporation Bhd, saying the MCA had entirely misrepresented the state's debt recovery exercise.
In fact, DAP publicity chief Tony Pua (left) said, Talam did not receive a single sen from the deal, but parted with RM676 million of its assets.
MCA deputy minister Chua Tee Yong had not only engaged in "elementary double-counting" to back his "mega blunder", but neglected publicly available announcements on the matter Talam filed with Bursa Malaysia, Pua told a press conference today.
Referring to announcements made to Bursa Malaysia in March and April 2010, Pua said the RM676 million in assets taken over by the Selangor government from Talam was partly used to offset RM379 million of Talam's state debt.
The remaining amount was to cover loans taken from banks by Talam to buy the land.
Pua said the only cash Talam paid to Selangor was RM12.7 million, to settle the remainder of the state debt amounting to RM392 million.
The RM266 million which Chua (left), a trained accountant, claimed was paid in cash to Talam to buy additional assets was in fact the charges owing to the bank and this became the responsibility of Selangor, since the land was now the government's.
Pua said this is what Talam had meant in its annual report, when it said that the RM266 million had been settled with lenders.
"All this information is from public documents, which means I didn't get this from the state government. All are reported on Bursa Malaysia.
"If someone had done his homework, he wouldn't have made these stupid blunders. The documents are still there," Pua said.
Bursa announcements spell out details
According to the Bursa documents, there were two settlements, the first on March 12, 2010 involving RM241 million, and another on April 9, 2010 for about RM151 million.
The second settlement involves RM354 million of encumbered land, with the differential value used to settle with the bank.
Asked why Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Bhd’s financial statement as of March 31, 2012 states that it is still owed RM150 mil, Pua said this does not mean that the state has run away with the money.
He said that the state, via MB Incorporated, is likely to have entered into an agreement with the three state subsidiaries which Talam owed in 2010, but the transaction could have been staggered.
He said while he does not know the details, he knows that part of the amount has already been disbursed to the subsidiaries.
“It is for MBI to sort this out with the subsidiries. How the Selangor government wants to park is money is up to the state. Some have been paid, some have signed agreements...
“What Selangor has got is land, they are trying to realise the value. I don’t have the details as these are not in public documents,” he said.
On Chua’s assertion that RM300 million for Geran Selangorku did not actually come from the recovered Talam debts, Pua said that the money would have been from MBI as the RM300 million could not have come out of nowhere.
“Surely (the state) would have realised some of the cash (from the properties), otherwise, where would cash come from? The state financial officer would have needed to ensure there is liquidity,” he said.