Letter to editor
IT was just over three years ago when the whispers of a corporate deal began to circulate – whispers that soon turned into headlines.
The privatisation of MMC Corp Bhd (MMC) port assets was finalised in 2021, quietly slipping through regulatory corridors under a valuation deemed unfair – much like the recent Malaysa Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) privatisation.
The only difference here is that a single individual was to benefit from privatising MMC at a low price, perhaps not without the support of the Government of the time.
Now, in 2025, the story takes an unexpected turn. News reports on initial public offering (IPO) plans suggest a valuation of RM25 bil for MMC’s port assets – once acquired at an estimated RM3.2 bil.
This stark contrast raises fundamental questions about the transparency of privatisation.
This isn’t just a story of numbers – it’s a tale of power, privilege and a privatisation play that raises more questions than answers.
The price of privatisation
When MMC was privatised, minority shareholders were told that the fair value of its port assets ranged between RM5.3 bil to RM5.6 bil.
Yet, the acquisition price was set at a steep 40% discount, allowing the major owner to take control of these strategic assets at a fraction of their worth.
For some, it was merely another corporate manoeuvre; for others, it was a stark reminder of how privatisation in Malaysia often pans out – where a few benefits at the expense of the many.
Now, as the IPO looms, we are being told that these same assets have somehow ballooned in value to RM25 bil. How did this happen?
The justification game
Some may argue that increased port throughput, infrastructure investments and new revenue streams justify the valuation jump.
A deeper look, however, reveals a far murkier picture. Could market conditions alone justify such an astronomical rise?
Even if the valuation were based on aggressive and prolonged tariff hikes, such an assumption would be irrational at best. Are banks and advisors simply crafting a narrative that suits their mandates and incentives?
In international markets, such drastic valuation jumps often signal something more than organic growth – it signals a transfer of cost, where the burden of inflated prices eventually falls on industry players, port users and ultimately, the rakyat.
The question, then, is not just how this happened but who stands to gain and who will be left paying the price?
A deal benefitting the few?
At the heart of this deal lies one major benefactor: Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, the controlling force behind MMC.
Unlike public institutional investors that manage assets for national interests, this deal was orchestrated in a manner that placed strategic infrastructure into the hands of a single individual.
The government, holding a “golden share” – a controlling stake with veto power – could have ensured these assets remained under state-linked institutions to safeguard national interests. Instead, it allowed them to be privatised, raising concerns about governance, oversight and accountability.
The minority shareholders were already advised by the independent advisor (IA) that the offer was not fair during privatisation. It was at a 40% discount to fair value.
Surely the government linked investment corporation (GLIC) investor, Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), must have known better than to accept the offer.
At the time, PNB’s Board of Trustees was chaired by the then prime minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, alongside finance minister Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz as the deputy chair.
The duo should have known better and ensured that the privatisation was handled in the best interest of the rakyat.
And what of the minority shareholders? Many accepted the privatisation offer, likely unaware of what lay ahead.
If the RM25 bil IPO valuation holds, minority shareholders – who once held a 48% stake – have potentially lost out on more than RM10 bil. This isn’t just a footnote in corporate history; this is a staggering transfer of wealth that echoes the scale of past financial scandals.
Where is transparency?
This isn’t just about MMC or its IPO. It’s about how privatisation is conducted in Malaysia, how independent advisors and financial regulators oversee such deals, and whether our markets are truly functioning in the interests of the many rather than the privileged few.
If minority shareholders were shortchanged, if valuations were manipulated, and if governance oversight was lax – what does this say about our financial institutions?
And if Malaysia’s capital markets continue to operate in a way that favors insiders, what message does this send to international investors?
The Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) must ensure that market rules are followed not just in letter but in spirit. There should be no room for regulatory arbitrage, no gaps that allow valuations to be crafted to suit those in power.
What happened here? Who was responsible? Were the necessary checks and balances in place? These are questions that demand answers – not just for investors but for the rakyat whose economic future is tied to the integrity of our financial system.
If Malaysia is to build a globally respected financial market, such deals cannot become the norm. The rakyat, the minority shareholders and even future investors deserve nothing less than full transparency.
And until that happens, stories like this will keep repeating – where the few walks away with billions – and the rest are left wondering how they let it happen again. – Feb 14, 2025
Disgruntled Investor
Petaling Jaya
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
