CMS FACES GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS AS LEGAL DISPUTES AND COSTS MOUNT ( Part 1 )

 

PART ONE: WHO IS ADVISING THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE COMPANY?

When the roof starts leaking, you don't blame the rain before checking the ceiling. Follow the money, read the fine print, and sooner or later the people behind the curtain start mattering.

Which brings us to Cahya Mata Sarawak Berhad ( CMS )...

One name that repeatedly appears in CMS's legal affairs is Alvin Chong & Partners Advocates. The firm was identified as CMS's legal adviser at both the 49th AGM in 2024 and the 50th AGM in 2025.

Now, let's not get carried away.

A lawyer representing a company does not automatically mean the lawyer or the company has done anything wrong. Lawyers represent clients. That is literally what lawyers do.

But governance is about asking questions before the “house catches fire”.

And when a listed company becomes entangled in disputes involving directors, shareholders, confidential information and access to company records, asking who is advising the board, what role those advisers are playing and what those legal battles are costing shareholders is entirely legitimate.

That is not a conviction… That is governance 101… The Numbers Need Context…

CMS is a listed company. Its accounts, decisions and governance are therefore matters shareholders can reasonably scrutinise.

But there is an important distinction here: rising administrative expenses do not automatically prove rising legal costs.

So rather than jumping from A to Z, let's ask the boring question that sometimes matters most:

What exactly is inside the number?

If administrative expenses are rising, shareholders should be able to understand the major drivers whether those are salaries, professional fees, technology, restructuring, compliance, litigation or other corporate expenses.

And when litigation is running through the company's boardroom, those questions become even more relevant:

How much is being spent on legal advisers?

How much on litigation?

How much on external professional services?

How much on internal legal resources?

And, perhaps most importantly, are shareholders being given enough information to understand the financial consequences of these disputes?

Because every ringgit spent defending a corporate battle is still a ringgit leaving somewhere.

“The devil, as they say, is in the details…”

THEN THERE IS THE ALVIN CHONG QUESTION

In 2013, Global Witness published its investigation “Inside Malaysia's Shadow State”, which included covertly recorded conversations involving Sarawak lawyers, including Alvin Chong, concerning land transactions and related matters.

The episode triggered public controversy. The Advocates' Association of Sarawak said Chong and another lawyer would face an inquiry over possible professional misconduct, while a police investigation was also reported. Global Witness later said the MACC had raided Chong's office and seized documents as part of an investigation.

But let's keep our heads screwed on.

An investigation is not a conviction.

A disciplinary inquiry is not proof of guilt.

And allegations made through an undercover investigation should not be magically transformed into established fact simply because they make a good headline.

Chong's side disputed aspects of the allegations and said discussions about tax avoidance were hypothetical. Global Witness, meanwhile, stood by its investigation.

That is the responsible way to tell the story.

Not “he was guilty.”

Not “nothing happened.”

But: this episode happened, it entered the public record, and the allegations and responses surrounding it remain part of the history of the lawyer now appearing in CMS's current legal affairs.

History doesn't disappear just because the calendar moves.

THEN THE BOARDROOM MOVES INTO THE COURTROOM

And this is where things get much more interesting.

In 2025, CMS deputy group chairman Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib filed an originating summons seeking access to CMS's accounts and those of five subsidiaries. CMS said he had requested an inspection but that it needed time to arrange the inspection, while Mahmud proceeded with the legal action.

That dispute did not simply disappear.

By 2026, the broader legal fight had expanded, with CMS pursuing action against Mahmud over alleged handling of confidential company information, while Mahmud was represented separately. CMS's legal team in those proceedings has included Alvin Chong.

And there is the uncomfortable sentence that deserves to be read slowly:

A CMS director went to court seeking access to company records.

That does not, by itself, establish that CMS did anything improper.

It does, however, raise a serious governance question.

Why did a dispute over a director's access to company information become a court matter in the first place?

What happened inside the boardroom before the lawyers entered?

What information was being requested?

Why was there disagreement over access?

And ultimately, how much are shareholders paying for a corporate dispute that has moved from the boardroom to the courtroom?

Those are not questions to be shouted like a verdict.

They are questions to be answered.

Because when the people supposed to govern a company start fighting over access to the company's own records, something bigger than personalities is at stake.

It is the machinery of governance itself.

And that brings us to Part Two.

Because the real question is no longer simply:

“Who is CMS's lawyer?”

The harder question is:

“Why did a director have to go to court to seek access to information about a company he was appointed to help govern?”

Now that's where the rabbit hole begins…