MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

The Prime Minister revokes a super-crony's casino licence

THE PRIME MINISTER, DATO' SERI MAHATHIR Mohamed, broke official silence at last over Pahang's second casino. He revoked the gaming licence is revoked because the concessionaire, his super-crony, Tan Sri Vincent Tan, breached the conditions. "The machines are supposed to be for the club, not for public use, he said. Normally when clubs breach the conditions of the gaming licence, they is charged in court as well. Would this super crony be treated as harshly? If not, why not? Only slot machinese (one-armed bandits) were allowed, so and to recover the cost of the pseudo-French resort built to resemble the French town of Colmer. Dr Mahathir wanted it,

Tan Sri Vincent built it, with an understanding that a gaming licence would be issue. Only that it was clear to him from the start it was a casino no matter what it was called. A gambling website reported the gaming centre would cost RM50 million, a hotel and other facilities a further RM1,000 million, most of that capital raised from the slot machine income. The resort reportedly is RM245 million in debt. He needed not slot machines but something more. He assumed it was, and planned accordingly. Dr Mahathir did not know this, but does a listed company controlled by a son have more than a nominal role in the gaming licence?

The issue is more than semantics. The Prime Minister says the licence is for a casino. But in practice it was. When Dr Mahathir summoned the second finance minister, Dato' Seri Jamaluddin Jarjis after this blew open in the PAS organ, Harakah, Tengku Adnan came along. And he bluntly told Dr Mahathir that slot machines were old hat, and the electronic marvels now include every gambling game, including baccarat and roulette. The Prime Minister was not amused. What does his claim that the licence is revoked mean? Who signed the revocation and when was it gazetted? Did the cabinet discuss it? Given the sensitivities about gambling, was the minister in charge of religion and the Prime Minister's religious affairs adviser consulted? Did they approve it? Since the second finance minister issued it, should it not be he who revokes it?

Is it common practice for the National Front (BN) government in the centre to ride rough shod over the state governments it control? The Pahang mentri besar, Dato' Seri Adnan Yaakub, says he knew nothing of it until the Bukit Tinggi resort issued a press statement about it. He has a strange constitutional view of state rights. He says the federal authorities need not inform him when it issues a gambling licence. Yet another crony a few years earlier was told to discuss the gaming licence he wanted in Sabah to discuss it with the state chief minister. Is it the norm for the National Front (BN) federal government to ride rough shod over state governments it controls?

There is a difficulty here. Dato' Seri Adnan lies. A Pahang state investment subsidiary, Pesdec Corporation Sdn Bhd, has 45.546 million shares in the Bukit Tinggi resort. How could he then not know about the licence? Tabung Haji, the pilgrimage fund board, has shares in Pasdec, so it has an indirect interest in the Bukit Tinggi casino. When Tabung Haji insists it would only invest in companies that are "halal", does it now say that liquor and pork is but not gambling? How did the minister in charge of religion, Brig.-Gen (rtd) Abdul Hamid Zainal Abidin, approve it?

What is more shocking is that the minister in the prime minister's department, and the Rasputin in this sordid affair, Tengku Adnan Mansor himself has 63,859 million shares in the resort. Yet it was he who lobbied for the casino licence. Did he declare his interest in it when he pushed Dato' Seri Jamaluddin to issue the licence? He is a Vincent Tan crony. He should have stayed away from any decision referring to it. But he did not. Did the Prime Minister know about this shareholding? Are these shares in a blind trust? Or are ministers now allowed to have the shares in listed companies under his control?

Be that as it may, that he had a self-interest serious enough to stay away. He did not. Another cabinet minister, one Anwar bin Ibrahim, was jailed for misuse of his office. Would the Prime Minister take action and charge Tengku Adnan Mansor for misuse of office? Especially when it appears the cabinet did not discuss it at all. Which is every one is running for cover. Is this why, during UMNO's 57th birthday celebrations, Tengku Adnan led a futile attempt to get the Prime Minister to forget about retirement and continue to serve the people and not throw sand into his and other cronies' rice bowls by retiring from office? As it happened, he was forbidden to. By whom we do not know.

When club houses are granted licences to operate one-armed bandits, it must apply for police clearance, and only after that approval would the government issue it. When did Bukit Tinggi Resort Sdn Bhd apply for one, and when was it approved? It now appears that slot machinese are allowed for the Pulau Tioman resort Tan Sri Vincent owns. He is, as the world knows, a highly principled business man who does not do what other business men do: bribe their way to licences, perks, titles and business opportunities. Three years ago he felt the Taipei city council did not give him a casino licence as had been promised, and took steps to sue it. Now he is in the same predicament. He must now sue the Prime Minister and the Malaysian government for the horrendous losses he could ill afford caused him when he and it revoked the casino licence. For it is now clear he would not get another casino licence in Malaysia in the near future. Or indeed ever.

That the government took a fortnight to react is proof it is caught in a bind. First it ignored it. Then it got Dato' Seri Adnan, who laughed it off, and proved how incompent a guardian of state rights he was. But it was coming closer to home. The deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, was furious, and cabinet ministers and BN state governments felt the heat. Hence the Prime Minister's statement, prompted by a fed question from a senior reporter at a press conference. But it will not go away. So long as Dr Mahathir continues to hem and haw his way about it. He must act against those responsible. He must find other ways of helping his super crony from diving into further debt. But it is not lost on many that it is the first time he has had to chastise - and so embarrassingly publicly - a super-crony. There is more to it than we will ever know. But what we know is bad enough.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my