IF my ER see holes where the pix were supposed to be,please use thy richer-than-Desi's pigment of imagineation!:)
OR badder steal, surf to
rockybru.com.my
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Throw Section 134 at your own boss, SC told
Conflict of Interest. The SC's use of Section 134 of the Securities Commission Act 1993 to cow practising journalists has now brought focus on the SC itself, in particular its chairman Zarinah Anwar.
Investigative corporate blogger A Voice, who helped expose skeletons and dig out dirt in Sime Darby, IJN, and Labu airport in recent times, has this time trained his sight on the alleged involvement of Zarinah's husband in various companies. The level of involvement itself should have disqualified Zarinah from the top chief regulator position, A Voice argues in Will SC's interrogating goons dare harm "Mrs" Zarinah?
Explosive stuff. I hope you'd understand if I can't allow comments. If you wish to respond to A Voice's posting, you will have to go there. H e r e, let me provide you the link again so that you can leave comments there if you wish.
The SC must come out and defend itself against these allegations. More importantly, it must resist any temptation, if any, to try and silence the bloggers with its Section 134.
at 5:19 PM Links to this post
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Throw Section 134 at your own boss, SC told
Conflict of Interest. The SC's use of Section 134 of the Securities Commission Act 1993 to cow practising journalists has now brought focus on the SC itself, in particular its chairman Zarinah Anwar.
Investigative corporate blogger A Voice, who helped expose skeletons and dig out dirt in Sime Darby, IJN, and Labu airport in recent times, has this time trained his sight on the alleged involvement of Zarinah's husband in various companies. The level of involvement itself should have disqualified Zarinah from the top chief regulator position, A Voice argues in Will SC's interrogating goons dare harm "Mrs" Zarinah?
Explosive stuff. I hope you'd understand if I can't allow comments. If you wish to respond to A Voice's posting, you will have to go there. H e r e, let me provide you the link again so that you can leave comments there if you wish.
The SC must come out and defend itself against these allegations. More importantly, it must resist any temptation, if any, to try and silence the bloggers with its Section 134.
at 5:19 PM Links to this post
********************************************
AND the following is copied from the Malay Mail online edition which I hear from very goOdand impeccable sources -- no need for an SD signed b4 a lawyer-lah! -- is picked up by KLites and Klangkites like hot cakes. Velly solly, in peyton placesque Furong, these hot babes -- oops, cakes -- aren't available. Too many DOMs around, I gas:(
You are here : Home | | The Star looks at other options in their 'fight' against Securities Commission
The Star looks at other options in their 'fight' against Securities Commission
Submitted by Najiah on Wednesday, June 30th, 2010
* Kenmark Industrial Co. (M) Bhd
* Local
* Securities Commission (SC)
* the Star Publications (M) Bhd
Notice for lawyer to appear before SC described as 'odd'
KEVIN ONG
Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 20:50:00
PETALING JAYA: The serving of a notice on the lawyer for The Star reporter B.K. Sidhu, who was allegedly questioned for eight hours in relation to the Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd share issue, to appear before the Securities Commision (SC) at 2pm tomorrow has been described as "odd".
Counsel Tharminder Singh said this was because such notices were usually issued in criminal cases.
"These notices can only be issued on the excuse of a criminal offence. Unless the SC has characterised the case as criminal, I have no idea what they want from me."
Last Wednesday, Sidhu was called up for questioning after reporting on the SC obtaining an ex-parte injunction to refrain Datuk Ishak Ismail of KFC fame from dealing with the RM10.2mil worth of proceeds he got from the sale of his shares in Kenmark.
Yesterday, she was interviewed for the second time in the presence of Tharminder. Subsequently, he was issued the notice.
Tharminder had yesterday made a written request that the SC withdraw the notice.
"I came for the interview only as an observer, nothing more," he said, adding that he would wait until 3pm today for the SC to get back to him on his request for the notice to be withdrawn.
It was reported that The Star would consider pursuing other legal options if the SC fails to do so.
Tharminder told The Malay Mail that he was only aware of the alleged eight-hour interview which the SC conducted on Sidhu and nothing more regarding the issue involving Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd's shares.
"I was instructed to appear before the SC tomorrow at 2pm. However, I am not sure in what capacity I can assist the SC. Honestly, this scenario could lead to an escalating situation whereby I am most likely to appear before the SC tommorow and I most probably will be bringing with me another legal counsel," he said.
"What happens next? Will the SC issue a notice to my accompanying counsel, too?" questioned Tharminder. "In my opinion, people assisting the SC should be respected and not treated in this manner."
Meanwhile, The Star executive director Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai said it was perplexing that a lawyer who went to assist the SC's investigations ended up being served a notice.
"The media is in a position to assist the SC in all means neccessary to help them build-up a case against the culprits responsible for the issue at Kenmark.
"Once again, those assisting should be treated accordingly, because our only intention is to help and cooperate with the SC."
In the same week, another journalist from Business Times, Azlan Abu Bakar, was called for questioning, while Malaysian Reserve's Dalila Abu Bakar was also called on Monday morning for similar purposes.
Last month, troubled furniture maker Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd came into attention when its Taiwanese managing directors and key management officers went missing and left the company at a standstill.
Sometime early this month, Ishak, who is Kenmark director, became the substantial director and two weeks after his appointment, he sold off all his stake.
On June 15, the SC obtained a court injunction to refrain Ishak from using the RM10.2 million proceeds he obtained from selling 58.7million Kenmark shares.
READ MORE: Journalist must keep ethics intact and SC should respect that, say editors
READ MORE: 'Interrogation not justified', CIJ tells Securities Commission
READ MORE: Securities Commission taken to task
No comments:
Post a Comment