PART TWO: Not Every Asset Is a Lost Cause
In Part One, we examined the questions raised in the Dewan Rakyat by former Deputy Minister Datuk Dr. Ahmad Marzuk Shaary - particularly the falling value of CMS shares and UJSB's responsibility to protect the assets inherited from Tabung Haji.
But every file has another page. And sometimes, the next page tells a different story.
This time, the spotlight moves to UJ Estates in Sarawak, where fresh fruit bunch yields have reportedly improved. A useful reminder that not every asset is heading in the wrong direction.
The question is whether these isolated successes can translate into a wider recovery. Let's examine the numbers.
Now, here is where the story gets interesting.
Ahmad Marzuk also brought up UJ Estates in Sarawak, another asset under UJSB's portfolio. According to his statement, fresh fruit bunch (FFB) yields increased from 11.14 tonnes per hectare in 2021 to 18.77 tonnes per hectare in 2025.
The improvement was attributed to measures such as fertilisation and pest control.
In other words, the asset's performance improved. Sometimes, a little proper management can do more than a dozen fancy presentations in a boardroom.
There had apparently been plans to sell the asset, but no suitable buyer could be found. The sale was eventually cancelled during the Perikatan Nasional administration.
Ahmad Marzuk's broader point was that some assets previously held and managed by Tabung Haji had generated profits under UJSB's management.
Fair enough. That deserves to be acknowledged. Good journalism means giving credit where it is due, even when the bigger picture remains complicated.
But let us not confuse one improvement with the whole recovery story.
If one asset performs better, that is encouraging. If another company's share price falls sharply, that deserves scrutiny. Both things can be true at the same time.
Take the good, discard the bad. Ambil yang jernih, buang yang keruh.
And what about CMS?
The questions raised in Parliament do not replace the need to examine its financial position, corporate governance and the ongoing dispute over access to company records. Nor do they establish that UJSB has failed in its responsibilities.
But they do raise a question worth pursuing: how can the value of these assets be protected, and who is accountable when that value declines?
My “diary” remains open. The file is not closed, and the final report has not been written.
For now, the spotlight has shifted to Parliament. Let us see whether the answers are as clear as the questions.
In the world of corporate affairs, everybody can claim to be protecting the assets. The real test is what happens to the numbers.
Comments
Post a Comment