I read with interest the letter you carried from one Mr. Shah Prakash in last Sunday’s newspaper. The letter which starts with a reference to Golden Key a hot topic of the day, finally deals more with Mr. Susantha Ratnayake, the present Chairman of JKH. It states that JKH got away, but it is mostly an attack on Mr. Ratnayake, which I feel is unfair.
Reading the letter, one gets the impression that it is not the company but Mr. Ratnayake who is being castigated and regarded as a villain. The purpose of this letter is therefore to place on record that in my opinion, and in that of many others with whom I have discussed the JKH/LMS matter, that letter is unfair by Mr. Ratnayake who is still greatly respected.
The letter refers to Mr. Ratnayake as the Chairman whereas a reading of the judgment shows that the Chairman at that time was not Mr. Ratnayake, but Mr. Lintotawela, who was also ordered to pay the costs of the action (not a fine) along with Mr. Ratnayake and the company. Mr. Ratnayake at that time was a mere Director who happened to be the head of the sector involved in the transaction. Obviously, he would have been reporting to his Board and Chairman while the transaction was taking place and received their support. If at all the Board as a whole should be found fault with.
The writer incorrectly states that Mr. Ratnayake had been asked to step down from the position of Deputy Chairman of the Chamber and that he ‘escaped by the skin of his teeth’. As far as I know, Mr. Ratnayake was not requested by the Chamber to step down and it was the company which was asked to show cause in relation to whether the entity was guilty of unethical conduct in terms of the chamber rules. According to my information gathered from well placed individuals within the Chamber, the ‘behind the scenes actions’ spoken of were by those who were determined to destroy the image of JKH and not the other way around.
There is also every reason to believe that the Chamber did not give the company the hearing it deserved. Apparently several panels sat and finally the three people who sat in judgment after the matter had been shunted around with no one taking the responsibility to give a finding, were left with just one issue against the company, which apparently involved the incorrect filling of an item in the application to the BOI.
When the main committee of the Chamber was finally asked to vote on the this one issue, I am told almost half of the people present to vote on the issue were asked to leave as being people who had some interest in, or with, JKH. Of the half who remained,the votes were divided 15 against 15 and then the Chairman had to exercise his casting vote to break the deadlock.
The 15 who voted for JKH I feel should anyway have carried the day as the balance 15 who voted against included a large number who were openly hostile to JKH. The had conflicting interests, in terms of their bias, and could not have exercised independent judgment and considered the merits of the case in voting (a jury for example consists of independent persons). Personally I think it is a mockery of justice to vote on an issue of this nature as the right thing would be for an independent professional panel to evaluate the facts and then decide whether the company acted ethically or not.
The issue whether there had been collusion between Mr. Ratnayake and Dr. Jayasundera, (who was Chairman of PERC at the time, not Secretary of the Treasury at that time), does not seem to have been the matter voted on at the Chamber!
The final comment that the public should be advised of what the ‘top bosses’ do and that investors interests should be protected, I think is now done scrupulously by the SEC and CSE who seem to have already investigated the company after the Court decision.
The comment about Mr. Ratnayake’s car also shows intent to mischievously show excesses on his part, but I cannot imagine that he has a company vehicle which he does not deserve as a CEO. I am sure if there is extravagance on the part of Directors, shareholders would ask questions at the forthcoming AGM.
I expect the Financial Times which has a reputation for creating fair debate and exposing wrongdoing to do some investigative reporting which is balanced in relation to JKH, which has had its bottom breached by torpedoes fired indiscriminately, denting investor confidence, and which also set the country back in terms of business development. For example, we would like to know how an official such as Dr. Jayasundera who had been reduced in rank at the relevant time after the change of government, was able to influence a major deal which would have had to go through the Cabinet, the President and also be cleared by the Attorney General’s Department, who appeared in the case for the government and seems to have maintained that the deal was above board? Since the Chamber never made an official statement regarding their inquiry, perhaps they would also care to enlighten the public on their rules of ethics, how they operate and how they were applied in this case.
S. Wijesundere,
Colombo 5.
|
E-mail