Don't deny the intelligence of the old ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENCY. They have the facts. That is why Pak Lah make it a Commission, to make it independent. Does it have any BACKBONE?

You have to bear in mind that the people not forgetten everything bad that has befallen the indian community. as a matter of fact, many people forgot the many issues that MIC tortured the people. reminding us this way is a good act of telling us that we must unite to get the facts out in the open. we must make sure that nobody gets away. i say re-open the maika-telecom investigations and other matters.

What is puzzling is the fact that in spite of so much overwhelming evidence, the Anti- Corruption Agency (ACA) after 17 months of investigation cleared Samy Vellu of any wrong-doing but unfortunately without clearing the doubts in the minds of the Malaysians. In 1994, the then chairman of MIC public claims committee, V Subramaniam – also known as Barat Maniam – made a startling public accusation. He charged that the accounts were fabricated to make it appear as if all the profits from the sale of Telekom shares were channelled to MIED. In challenging Samy to take him to court, he declared, "I have come out with this statement to prove that Samy Vellu is a thief. He has stolen (Telekom) shares from the Indian community." Athi's case would have brought everything into the open but now we will never know.

indeed all the details pertaining to various scandals would have come up at the hearing, inlcuding info such as Samy Vellu had taken away from Maika RM120 million in profits (which it would have attained had it just held on to the 10 million shares until 1993). Samy Vellu made it extremely clear that he personally decided to allocate only one million shares to Maika. According to Samy Vellu, "I could have given all the shares to Maika Holdings if not for their past business record. They don’t deserve 10 million shares because of the dismal performance of the Maika management. They have to learn to do business on their own and not depend on shares and make money out of it". (New Straits Times May, 16 1992) His autocratic style and arrogance comes through so forcefully: "I could have given all the shares to Maika Holdings…," he boasts. "They don’t deserve 10 million shares…," he berates. It is very apparent that he keeps a very tight hold on Maika. That being the case, how could Maika undertake any business venture without his knowledge and blessing? Shouldn’t he be part of the debacle that is haunting Maika today? Shouldn’t he also shoulder the blame for "the dismal performance of the Maika management?" And why should he give nine million shares to three obscure companies? SB Management Services Sdn. Bhd and Advanced Personal Computers Sdn Bhd were in fact shell companies with paid-up capital of RM2 each. The third company is Clearway Sdn. Bhd. Samy Vellu decided on the shares allocation – not the Ministry of Finance! On what criteria did Samy Vellu decide that the three companies deserve to get the Telekom shares instead of Maika? What business experience and success could these companies boast about to warrant their being chosen from among all the other Indian businesses in the country?

Thanks for reporting it the way it should be reported. A tidal wave of questions continue to engulf the share holders after all these years. We still dont have explanations for the following: 1) Why did the Finance Ministry cancel the initial offer of the 10 million shares and subsequently allot only one million shares to Maika? 2) Who was responsible for the retraction of the original offer? 3) Who lied to the Finance Ministry? 4) Who informed them that Maika had recommended that the nine million shares be given to three companies? 5) Who supplied the names of these three companies? 6) Who coerced the Finance Ministry to change their mind? 7) Who aborted this offer? (There was no earthly reason for the Finance Ministry to change its mind on its own after having allocated 10 million shares).

Show us that the government cares about Malaysian Indians as equal citizens who are entitled to equal protection under the law. the plundering of Maika Holdings without any accountability was never questioned by the government, Bank Negara and the investigation authorities. The authorities' total apathy regarding this scandal shows its attitude towards Indians – we are nobody's children. this court case has rekindled the scandals involving samy vellu and the mic and i hope we join hands and puruse it to the fullest.

I am glad that malay mail was the only english newspaper that dared to publish this outcome of the much anticipated trial because a lot of things would have come out in the open. my only interest is maika holdings and i hope you will continue highlighting our problems. Maika Holdings raised RM108 million in 1981 from Indians, especially rural folks from the lower- and middle-income groups. These people were told to use their life savings – and even sell their jewelry – to invest in Maika Holdings because they were told the company would give them returns that were 10 to 20 times their initial investment. This, of course, is sweeter an offer than any licensed bank could make. If you ask anyone who was in MIC at that time about how they organised groups of people to go out there to convince the masses to part with their money, you will be surprised. They even went to the extent of telling would-be investors to sell their properties and cattle to invest in Maika Holdings. In other countries, this would have been considered a huge financial scandal, not just because of the amount of money involved, but because of the number of people involved in fleecing equally vast numbers of poor and less-educated citizens. The RM108 million then had a buying power that was 10 to 15 times its value today. In today’s terms, it would be valued between RM1 billion and RM1.5 billion. Shortly after the initial investments were collected, the recession in the mid-1980s enabled the cash-rich Maika Holdings to go shopping for properties and collect fantastic deals. If those properties were still in the hands of Maika Holdings, the company would be worth some RM3 billion to RM5 billion today. But those properties were sold at below-market prices through shady deals in which more money was transferred under the table than through actual and legal sales agreements.

S. Vell Paari is something of an enigma having been in the shadows of his powerful and domineering father – Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu — all these years. But things are beginning to change for Paari, 47, a burly married man weighing over 115kg with a nine-year-old daughter Bhavya Vel studying at the elite Alice Smith International School. Paari, the CEO of the controversy-hit Maika Holdings, has launched his political career. He had long wanted to enter politics formally but his father had always opposed it.But after the March 8 general election disaster Samy Vellu announced he would not stop Paari from contesting. His defeat in Sungei Siput had brought him closer to Paari, his only son, after others close to him deserted him in the aftermath of his defeat.He has been getting prominent coverage in recent months in the family-owned Tamil Nesan daily, commenting on national and international issues, including the urgent need to protect and promote the welfare of Tamils here and abroad. But some of his father’s scandals and his own have stymied his standing, earned him ridicule in the Indian community and is set to hinder his ambitions to be a political leader like his father. My point is this: Paari could very well be the next Athi Kumanan. Give him your support.

Mr. Athi Kumanan's contributions towards Tamil journalism and Tamil literary work is highly remarkable. He has set an unprecedented record as the most successful editor for various Tamil Dailies and Weeklies in Malaysia. His contribution for the well being of the Malaysian Indians through his forceful writing is enormous. He is appreciated as a man who would voice for the rights of the Indians at all times. His untiring contributions towards the Tamils and the Indians are well recognised by the Malaysians as well as many people and organisations abroad. The fact that he took on samy vellu all the way in search of justice proves the mettle the man is made up. Bravo to his family as well for fighting till the end.

NTS Arumagam Pillai, owner of Tamil Malar and a multi-millionaire sacked Athi for his union activities. Athi's law suit at Industrial court failed. The court president branded Athi "an opportunist". In 1977 he started Vaanambadi, a weekly paper, in 1981 started Tamil Osai together with Sivalingam, a close ally of dato Subramaniam. In 1990 a bitter strugle with political turncoat Sivalingam for control of Tamil Osai that led to its closure. He then started Malaysia Nanban and was President, Tamil Writers Association for 13 years. Was a good man and the only one i know who bravely took on the MIC leadership for the problems they created.

Samy Vellu has not been consistent in his public statements on whether the full amount was initially offered to Maika. Neither has the leader of the Indian party in the Barisan been consistent about why Maika was not to be offered the full 10 million shares. Prima facie, not allowing Maika to get the full allocation of Telekom shares, and thus undermining Maika’s profits, is a criminal breach of trust. First he said Maika could not afford the shares. When Tan Sri Rama Iyer produced the letter from Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank offering Maika a loan to take up the full 10 million shares, Samy changed his tune and said the shares were not being offered to Maika because it had a poor track record in its investments. But what was the record for the 3 companies that together took up the 9 million Telekom shares under instruction from MIC? Two of these companies were in fact shell companies with paid-up capital of RM2 each. Is it pure coincidence that the leader of the opposition, Lim Kit Siang found letter-heads and business cards that showed Samy Vellu’s son as director of one of the companies? Samy Vellu, of course, claimed these items were fakes. Dubious dealings Of the 3 companies that equally received the 9 million Telekom shares in October 1990, Clearway Sdn Bhd, sold its 3 million shares within a month for a net profit of RM2.3 million. The other two companies, Advance Personal Computers (APC) and SB Management Sdn Bhd (SBM) which together received 6 million Telekom shares, sold 5.5 million shares also in early November 1990 for a RM2.1 million profit. With this profit, they bought 3 million Renong shares. The remaining half a million Telekom shares were sold only in March-April 1992, just about the time the Maika controversy became public. The companies supposedly were to make profits from Telekom shares (which was a pretty sure thing given that it was an initial flotation) to be channelled to Tafe. It is hard then to fathom why APC and SBM used the money from selling the Telekom shares to buy shares in Renong. Why did the profits not go straight to Tafe? Why were the funds instead put in Renong shares which appear not to have been sold until 1992? Had these companies become the investment arm of Tafe? Who would underwrite the losses of this further investment? In fact the Renong shares purchased in November 1990 had gradually fallen in value and by the middle of 1992 were only about half their cost. If there had been profits from the Renong investment, who would have benefited? APC and SBM held on to 0.5 million of the Telekom shares received in October 1990 and only sold these in 1992. For those who have been following the Maika-Telekom issue, there is now a new puzzle. How, in spite of all these coincidences and curiosities, could an investigative body like the ACA come to the conclusion that there had been no wrong-doing on the part of Samy Vellu? many would jump to the conclusion that the ACA investigation was a cover-up. It is hard for the intelligent public to reconcile the conclusion of the agency with what is known from press reports. Prima facie, not allowing Maika to get the full allocation of Telekom shares, and thus undermining Maika’s profits, is a criminal breach of trust. Shareholders of Maika had put their faith in Samy Vellu and money in Maika. Many had borrowed as much as they could in order to buy Maika shares. Then it transpired that Samy Vellu had nominated 3 other companies to get the bulk of Telekom shares — taking away from Maika RM120m in profit if it had just held on to the extra 9 million shares up to today. How could the ACA say there was nothing wrong in diverting profits from Maika to obscure companies with no established record? What were the facts that supported the ACA conclusion? Without going through all the facts discovered by the ACA it is not easy to see how it reached its conclusion. If the report remains only for the eyes of the selected few, the credibility of the ACA will be affected. The agency must make public the reasons for its conclusion, or risk its acronym (ACA) being widely perceived as standing for something quite the opposite.

The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) have stated they find the MIC leader, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu, innocent of any criminal wrong-doing relating to the allocation of Telekom shares to Maika Holdings. Samy Vellu, who has consistently maintained his innocence, but not been consistent about very much else, would thus appear to have been vindicated. Samy Vellu has certainly not been consistent about who the 10 million Telekom shares were supposed to go to. First he said they were to be allocated to Maika, the investment arm of MIC; but since Maika did not have the finances, the shares were allocated to other parties representing Indian interests. Then, it was made public that Maika in fact had arranged a loan that would have allowed it to take up the full 10 million Telekom shares. Following this, Samy Vellu changed his tune. The 10 million shares were not being offered to Maika but to MIC, he now said. And MIC it seems, allocated only one million Telekom shares for Maika, and the rest were for other companies that would make profits to be channelled to the MIC educational institution, Tafe College.

Who can lead all Malaysian Indians? Who can stand up & say MIC is not just for Tamilians but for all those from Indian ethnic groups? Who on this post really knows him and what good or bad he really has done, not just rely on mass media for information? I have came across many people who talk & talk & talk but they themselves are NO better. I have nothing against anyone, but I get annoyed with people who just sit on their bums and say bad things of others, INSTEAD of getting up and doing something to make a difference. I want to be very clear. I am not writing this to defend Dato Samy Vellu or any party, I have no acquintance with him and have not benefit from any program or party. I chose to stop talking and try to make a difference if I could do some good in this world. I am only writing this to ask you, what are you doing in life to make a difference for the people apart from opening facebook groups against individuals?