Questions Time, 30 June 2008

Minister of Transport either misled or lied to Parliament about AirAsia’s debts!

Soalan Nombor 43: PR-1212-L13830

 

Tuan Wee Choo Keong [ Wangsa Maju ] minta MENTERI PENGANGKUTAN menyatakan di bawah undang-undang apakah MAB dan MAS dibenarkan oleh Kementerian untuk memberikan kemudahan kredit melebihi RM110 juta dan RM85 juta kepada AirAsia, sebuah syarikat swasta dan apakah langkah-langkah yang telah diambil oleh MAB dan MAS untuk mendapatkan semula hutang-hutang tersebut daripada AirAsia.

Jawapan:

Tuan Yang Di-Pertua

Pemberian kredit oleh Malaysia Airports Holding (MAHB) kepada AirAsia adalah tertakluk kepada polisi kredit syarikat yang diluluskan oleh Lembaga Pengarahnya. Berdasarkan polisi kredit syarikat, tiada had ditetapkan untuk sebarang kemudahan kredit yang diberikan kepada syarikat-syarikat penerbangan. Walau bagaimanapun, AirAsia diberi tempoh kredit selama 30 hari dan caj faedah dikenakan ke atas pembayaran lewat sebanyak 1% sebulan.

Bagi Syarikat Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS) pula, kemudahan kredit yang diberikan kepada AirAsia adalah bagi tujuan perkhidmatan udara luar bandar (Rural Air Services – RAS) untuk memastikan pelaksanaan RAS berjalan lancer. Kredit yang diberi oleh MAS adalah dari segi “maintenance” pesawat FAX.

Bagi mendapatkan semula hutang-hutang tersebut daripada AirAsia, MAS dan MAHB sedangan mengadakan perbincangan dengan AirAsia dan Kementerian Kewangan.

Note:

The Minister of Transport (MOT) was deliberately not answering the second part of the question i.e. what actions have been taken or to be taken by MAHB and MAS to recover the said debts of RM110 million and RM85 million from AirAsia. The MOT’s reply that “… MAS dan MAHB sedangan mengadakan perbincangan dengan AirAsia dan Kementerian Kewangan” was most ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of the Malaysian public.

AirAsia is a private company listed in the Bursa Saham KL. Why was the Minister of Finance involved with debts owed by AirAsia, a private company, since year 2002? Why was there no negotiation before the last Parliamentary sitting in May 2008 or before I questioned about these debts, which have been owed since 2002!. The MOT’s reply seems to suggest that the Minister of Finance has an interest in AirAsia. If this is so, then the Minister of Finance should announce his interests.

Further, AirAsia had been quoted in the press to have said that it only owed MAHB the sum of about RM60 million and not as announced by MOT. Under the circumstances, MOT must have lied in Parliament when he told Parliament that AirAsia owed MAHB about RM110 million. The MOT must be censured for telling a white lie in Parliament or misleading Parliament.

In any event, AirAsia should pay up the sum of RM60 million first before going through with the so-called “negotiations” with the Minister of Finance.

This matter will be pursued to the fullest in parliament because the MOT must not lie or mislead Parliament in the way the MOT did.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Questions Time, 30 June 2008

  1. anonymous

    I rather suspect that the officer in MOT misled or lied to the Minister. In any event, why there was no payment of the debts since 2002. I do agree with YB Wee’s notes with regards why Minister of Finance had to be involved in a debt between 2 GLCs and AirAisa, a private company.

    I am sure that there are many private companies owed monies to GLCs and the Minister of Finance was never called in to solve. Why must AirAsia be given special treatments.

    The Minister of Finance must not be involved in such private debts of AirAsia unless Minister of Finance has an interest in it.

    Minister of Finance, hands off if you have no interest in AirAsia. Otherwise announce your interests.

    Reply
  2. anonymous

    What level playing field when Minister lied in Parliament. This is typical BN Minister when replying in Parliament. YB Wee should press on to challenge the Minister on his lies to Parliament.

    Reply
  3. anonymous

    Level playing field: my foot! Tony Fernandes has been on the “rampage” in the MOT when Chan Kong Choy was the Minister of Transport. If AirAsia really wanted a level playing field then pay up all the debts to MAHB and MAS.

    Since AirAsia has stated that it owes MAHB about RM68 million and not the RM130 million as announced by Datuk Ong Tee Keat, the Minister of Transport, then just pay up the RM68 million first. Tony Fernadnes talked so much about AirAsia making massive profits and at the same time it is not paying its debts to MAHB since 2002.

    YB Wee, you have our support. No other MP talks about AirAsia ewxcept you. Please carry on probing and I am sure we will soon see more things at he end of the day.

    Reply
  4. lee wee tak

    MAHB cannot be deem as a normal company and operate base on a normal commercial entity because it is a national carrier. As a result of some jolly merry-going, MAS’s pricing seems higher compared to other airlines and Malaysians are paying for it.

    “Pemberian kredit oleh Malaysia Airports Holding (MAHB) kepada AirAsia adalah tertakluk kepada polisi kredit syarikat yang diluluskan oleh Lembaga Pengarahnya. Berdasarkan polisi kredit syarikat, tiada had ditetapkan untuk sebarang kemudahan kredit yang diberikan kepada syarikat-syarikat penerbangan

    – then there is no policy when there is no limit

    – any sort of comercial lending should based on collaterals, repayment periods/terms, credit limit

    – where in the business world that people would lend money on such generous terms to a competitior?

    – Even if Air Asia got the route, they, as a listed commercial entity, should find their own way of raising funds. By getting the funding from MAHB, one wonders if ultimately the tax payers have to ot the bill or not.

    “Bagi mendapatkan semula hutang-hutang tersebut daripada AirAsia, MAS dan MAHB sedangan mengadakan perbincangan dengan AirAsia dan Kementerian Kewangan.”

    – it seems that there has been no repayment period/terms agreed before the loan is disbursed.

    If MAHB management are professional enough, this would not happen. Unless the management is grossly negligent which can’t justify thei high pay, or they have been “arm-twisted” not unlike the ex-TNB honco by the previous adminsitration in connection with IPP agreements. Old models, new players.

    Reply
  5. anonymous

    Now AirAsia talks about level playing field. When Chan Kong Choy was the MOT, “level playing field” was never in their vocabulary.

    The CEO of MAHB should be sacked immediately because he allowed AirAsia to chalk up its debt to RM113 million since 2002 according to MOT.

    With the Sleep Head up there, MAHB can carry on not pursuing the RM113 million debt. Another form of subsidy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s