If only Khalid followed instructions to quit as MB...
As someone who is a Pakatan supporter and have been keeping up to date with political events, but without being privy to any insider news, I think Khalid Ibrahim could have saved himself much trouble and embarrassment if only he listened. Could we be blamed if we suspect he is being tacitly supported by Pakatan's opponents since he played the part of being victimised, and turned to political foes for support?
Anybody in his shoes, having been appointed MB (without holding top position in the party) for more than a term, would have been glad and grateful in giving up his position. Surely he understands the party's and the coalition's bigger struggle and should have given in even if he felt victimised or even humiliated when told about the intention for him to be replaced by Anwar, and later, Wan Azizah. Without knowing his real reasons for not following instructions from party leaders, I cannot see how he could be victimised (having enjoyed being MB of Selangor) or humiliated, when most of the so-called insults came only when he behaved recalcitrant and tried all means to create as much havoc as possible to put PKR and Pakatan into confusion and disarray.
I was aware of the famous 'Dawn Raid' in 1981, a proud event which resulted in Malaysia gaining control of a British company, Guthrie, by surprise, and in which Khalid Ibrahim played a vital role. He was made CEO of the company and when he was dismissed, he was given option to purchase substantial number of shares in it. Who would have thought that what was meant to be a golden handshake turned out to be his biggest mistake and seems to be the main cause of his downfall. It is debatable what could have been: could he have sold the shares and made a tidy profit at the time? I think it was likely, because such share options were usually below prevailing market price. But at the time, I am sure he was more interested in holding the shares and enjoyed being a substantial shareholder. With his money and stature then, he could have easily controlled a lesser company. The main problem was that he borrowed (from Bank Islam) to take up the share option, and presumably badly hit by economic downturn which caused share prices to drop across the board. Put simply, the share price of Guthrie must have gone below his take up price or the interest on the loan had accummulated to such an extent that he could not service the loan and when the bank force sold the shares, he ended up owing tens of millions.
Isn't it ironic that what made him famous in 1981 is turning out to be his 'nemesis' years later?
Link
As someone who is a Pakatan supporter and have been keeping up to date with political events, but without being privy to any insider news, I think Khalid Ibrahim could have saved himself much trouble and embarrassment if only he listened. Could we be blamed if we suspect he is being tacitly supported by Pakatan's opponents since he played the part of being victimised, and turned to political foes for support?
Anybody in his shoes, having been appointed MB (without holding top position in the party) for more than a term, would have been glad and grateful in giving up his position. Surely he understands the party's and the coalition's bigger struggle and should have given in even if he felt victimised or even humiliated when told about the intention for him to be replaced by Anwar, and later, Wan Azizah. Without knowing his real reasons for not following instructions from party leaders, I cannot see how he could be victimised (having enjoyed being MB of Selangor) or humiliated, when most of the so-called insults came only when he behaved recalcitrant and tried all means to create as much havoc as possible to put PKR and Pakatan into confusion and disarray.
I was aware of the famous 'Dawn Raid' in 1981, a proud event which resulted in Malaysia gaining control of a British company, Guthrie, by surprise, and in which Khalid Ibrahim played a vital role. He was made CEO of the company and when he was dismissed, he was given option to purchase substantial number of shares in it. Who would have thought that what was meant to be a golden handshake turned out to be his biggest mistake and seems to be the main cause of his downfall. It is debatable what could have been: could he have sold the shares and made a tidy profit at the time? I think it was likely, because such share options were usually below prevailing market price. But at the time, I am sure he was more interested in holding the shares and enjoyed being a substantial shareholder. With his money and stature then, he could have easily controlled a lesser company. The main problem was that he borrowed (from Bank Islam) to take up the share option, and presumably badly hit by economic downturn which caused share prices to drop across the board. Put simply, the share price of Guthrie must have gone below his take up price or the interest on the loan had accummulated to such an extent that he could not service the loan and when the bank force sold the shares, he ended up owing tens of millions.
Isn't it ironic that what made him famous in 1981 is turning out to be his 'nemesis' years later?
1 comment:
Sorry, he is not the only one who did it. It was common for those offered pink slips to borrow from banks to take up their shares and many got burnt and had to deal with the banks to settle the margin call. It was a risk.
Post a Comment