I find it totally unbelievable to hear the CEO of the National Feedlot Corporation, Wan Shahinur Izmir, making the claim that the NFC 'had the right to use the RM250 million government loan as it deemed fit' as long as it repaid the interest,
I wonder who is he trying to kid. The company obtained a soft loan from the government [read rakyat's money] to go into the cattle rearing business but instead, some part of the money was used for the so-called property investment. One can easily verify this whether such actitivity is stipulated in the company's M & A. I doubt it. Even though, assuming that the property investment business yields good return, but what about the purchase of the Mercedes vehicle and the trip to perform the Umrah? Surely these two could not be considered as good investments as one possesses depreciative value and the other, money gone, except for the memory in Sharizat's head. Therefore, as CEO of the company, where is his sense of fiduciary duty?
Another good example is the BMF scandal in the early eighties. Can a petroleum company be engaged in the banking business? No you can't, not unless it is stated otherwise in the company's M & A. So in 1983, when the BMF scandal was at its height and in order to salvage the situation, an overnight sitting of Parliament was convened to amend the Act to allow PETRONAS to take over the interests of BMF, and voila, PETRONAS was now in the banking business.