- June 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- August 2016
- May 2015
- November 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- January 2005
- September 2004
Here is the full story as reported by The Star newspaper on 9 March 2017:
GEORGE TOWN: The grandson of the late tycoon and philanthropist N.T.S. Arumugam Pillai claimed trial in a Sessions Court on a charge of using a forged document as the will of his grandfather more than 20 years ago.
Datuk N. Vasantharajan (pic), who is also the Malaysian Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MICCI) Penang president and former Queen Street Mariamman Temple committee chairman, was charged with fraudulently using a document, which he knew was or had reason to believe to be a forged document, as a genuine will of the late tycoon.
Vasantharajan, who operates a trading and travel agency, allegedly committed the offence at the High Court in George Town Court Complex in Light Street on June 26, 1990.
He denied the offence as the charge was read out in Bahasa Malaysia and translated into English by a court interpreter.
The offence under Section 471 of the Penal Code, read under Section 467, carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years and fine upon conviction.
DPP Lim Saw Sim proposed bail at RM50,000.
Vasantharajan’s counsel Dev Kumaraendran and Datuk Gobal Krishnan, said they had no objection and agreed to the proposed bail without condition.
Sessions judge Irwan Suainbon allowed bail at RM50,000 with a surety and fixed mention for April 10. Bail was posted.
Arumugam had owned huge tracts of land in the northern region including the Taman Ria land in Sungai Petani (formerly UP Estate)
On the island, he owned land in Gelugor including the present Minden Heights.
He was also the Penang MIC chairman for a brief period when Tunku Abdul Rahman was Prime Minister.
He was a pioneer in selling land through fragmentation in the 60s from which he built his wealth.
This is a list of 14 registered Trust companies in Malaysia which are related to Unit Trust schemes, that is, offering Trust services to Unit Trust companies, as provided by the Securities Commission. This list is effective as at 31 July 2016:
ABB Trustee Berhad [208904-W]
17th Floor, Menara Affin
80 Jalan Raja Chulan
50200 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2055 9000/2055 9063
Fax : 03-2031 6067
AmanahRaya Trustees Berhad [766894-T]
Tingkat 2, Wisma TAS
21 Jalan Melaka
50100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2036 5000
Fax : 03-2072 0320
AmTrustee Berhad [163032-V]
Level 15, Menara AmFIRST
1 Jalan 19/3
46300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Tel : 03-7954 6862
Fax : 03-7954 6595
CIMB Commerce Trustee Berhad [313031-A]
Level 21, Menara CIMB
Jalan Stesen Sentral 2
Kuala Lumpur Sentral
50470 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2261 8888
Fax : 03-2261 9894
CIMB Islamic Trustee Berhad [167913-M]
Level 21, Menara CIMB
Jalan Stesen Sentral 2
Kuala Lumpur Sentral
50470 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2261 8888
Fax : 03-2261 9894
Deutsche Trustees Malaysia Bhd [763590-H]
Level 20, Menara IMC
8 Jalan Sultan Ismail
50250 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2053 7522
Fax : 03-2053 7526
HSBC (Malaysia) Trustee Berhad [001281-T]
Bangunan HSBC, 13th Floor, South Tower,
2 Leboh Ampang
50100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2075 7800
Fax : 03-2026 1273
Maybank Trustees Berhad [5004-P]
34th Floor, Menara Maybank
100 Jalan Tun Perak
50050 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2078 8363, 2070 8833
Fax : 03-2070 9387
Pacific Trustees Berhad [317001-A]
Unit A-9-8, 9th Floor
Megan Avenue 1
189 Jalan Tun Razak
Off Persiaran Hampshire
50400 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2166 8830
Fax : 03-2166 3830
PB Trustee Services Berhad [7968-T]
17th Floor, Menara Public Bank
146 Jalan Ampang
50450 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2176 6000
Fax : 03-2164 3285
RHB Trustees Berhad [573019-U]
6th Floor, Plaza OSK
50450 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-9207 7777
Fax : 03-2175 3288 / 2161 6159
SCBMB Trustee Berhad [1005793-T]
Menara Standard Chartered
30 Jalan Sultan Ismail
50250 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2721 5047
Fax : 03-2711 6060
TMF Trustees Malaysia Berhad [610812-W]
10th Floor, Menara Hap Seng
1 & 3 Jalan P.Ramlee
50250 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2382 4288
Fax : 03-2026 1451
Universal Trustee (M) Berhad [17540-D]
1 Jalan Ampang
50450 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2070 8050, 2070 9470
Fax : 03-2032 3194, 2031 9385
Sigh …. why must it be so complicated? Let me set the record straight, since I’m well aware of the history of Rockwills Corporation, having been associated with this estate planning business since 1996.
Long ago, which was some 20 years in the past, Rockwills Corporation was working with BHLB Trustee to provide executorship facilities to their clients. Clients that chose to write their wills with Rockwills Corporation could choose to appoint BHLB Trustee as their executor instead of individuals.
For a long while, this worked fine for both parties. Fine until in 2001, BHLBank was taken over by Southern Bank. The takeover meant that BHLB Trustee as a subsidiary company of BHLBank became owned by Southern Bank too. After Southern Bank was in turn acquired by CIMB Bank in 2006, BHLB Trustee changed its name to CIMB Commerce Trustee.
For five years, from 2001 to 2006, Rockwills Corporation continued to work with Southern Bank-owned BHLB Trustee but as time progressed, it became clear to Rockwills Corporation that the focus of Southern Bank was not the same as the old BHLBank. Furthermore, Rockwills Corporation realised that if the company wanted to progress further in the estate planning business and fend off new companies that were eyeing the same business, they would need a trusted partner that could move forward in pace with them, and BHLB Trustee just wasn’t keeping up.
As a result, Rockwills Trustee was set up by Rockwills Corporation in 2006 to take over the estate administration and trust services from BHLB Trustee. Since then, clients who write their wills with Rockwills Corporation now have a choice to appoint either individuals or Rockwills Trustee to be their executors.
All the past clients of Rockwills Corporation that had appointed BHLB Trustee previously were advised to write a new will and make a new executorship appointment. A majority chose to do so but there were also a considerable minority numbers that stayed put with BHLB Trustee, not willing to re-write their wills. Anyhow, CIMB Commerce Trustee is still around and though their main focus today is on offering trust services to Unit Trust companies, they will still assume the role of an executor if the need arises.
A story from Digital News Asia today regarding the future direction of JobStreet.com:
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 28 — It was in March of 2013 that Mark Chang, Jobstreet.com founder and chief executive officer (CEO), first mooted the idea to Andrew Bassat, CEO and cofounder of SEEK Ltd, the Australian online recruitment company that already owned a 22 per cent stake in JobStreet.com.
“Since he already owned our competitor JobsDB [with an 80 per cent stake at end-2011], I thought it made sense for him to consolidate and merge resources,” says Chang, who first spoke to Digital News Asia (DNA) in New York while attending the Nasdaq listing of MOL Global on Oct 9, with follow-ups after he had returned to Malaysia.
That was of course the sale of JobStreet.com’s online business to the Australian Securities Exchange-listed company, first announced in February and concluded on Nov 20. SEEK also owns 20 per cent of the listed company.
While some in the market speculate that he sold the Internet assets of JobStreet.com because of the looming threat of competition from LinkedIn, Chang waves aside that speculation.
“LinkedIn … you name it, competition could have come from anywhere and as an entrepreneur, you have to respond,” he says.
Indeed, in a May 2013 interview with DNA when JobStreet.com first crossed the RM1-billion market capitalisation mark, he made the observation that if JobStreet failed, it would only have itself to blame. “It means we failed to reinvent and make ourselves relevant to the market.”
But responding to competition and staying relevant, he notes, can be costly as it involves the redevelopment of new products and services, and the requisite dedication of engineering resources.
“But once you have consolidated resources, it makes more sense to respond,” says the Malaysian entrepreneur, who is known to be frugal both in business and in his personal life, and is also a DNA Digerati50.
Be that as it may, that suggestion in March 2013 was the catalyst for Basset to eventually pull the trigger on the US$568-million (RM1.9-billion) acquisition.
There were various factors that compelled Chang to sell, and he won’t say if any one was stronger than the rest, but the almost 20 years he had been an entrepreneur was a key factor as well for the low-key founder who has always been a bit uncomfortable with the responsibility of being a CEO.
This he admitted to DNA as much in our May 2013 story above: “The CEO job is NOT (emphasis Chang) an easy role for me.”
And while he will be looking forward to the next 10 years where he aspires to help create the next 10 hot billion-ringgit startups with his personal funds, he will still be running JobStreet.com Bhd, the Malaysian-listed entity that even after selling off its Internet assets, will have other assets worth around US$100 million.
These assets are a combination of cash, physical assets and stakes in four existing businesses in the region, starting with Innity Bhd (22 per cent) in Malaysia, 104.com (22 per cent) in Taiwan, Asia Travel (four per cent) in Singapore, and 1010.com, a printing business in Hong Kong serving the China market.
Of course there will have to be a name change and then it will have up to a year in which to find a new business to focus on. While Chang does not discount buying out an existing listed entity, it has to be in the technology space and specifically, “be a consumer Internet” company playing in Southeast Asia.
Interestingly, in terms of timing, Chang cautions shareholders that they will see little action from JobStreet for the first 12 to 18 months, at least until his senior management team has been fully deployed back in the listed entity.
“Till then, we have a one-year commitment to help SEEK manage the transition,” he says.
That team however is lean, with the listed entity only consisting of 10 people.
Whether or not JobStreet ends up buying an existing listed company, investing in emerging ones is certainly on the cards.
“We will focus on startups from Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines,” says Chang. “That is where our core competency lies – that is, knowledge of South-East Asian markets.”
But the companies have to be scalable, with revenue, a proven product and a team in place, he emphasises, “because larger competitors can swamp you if you are just a single-country play.”
What JobStreet will not be doing is focusing on particular verticals. The idea is to keep its options open and to let entrepreneurs come and convince Chang and his team of the viability of their ideas and market opportunity.
And if Chang and his team feel they have the skills set and experience to help the entrepreneurs, they will make the investment.
Provided, that is, that the valuation is fair. Chang shakes his head at some of the deals he has seen, both in the United States and in the region.
“Valuations are way too high,” he says declining to highlight examples in Southeast Asia, as “the investors are friends and people I know,” he says, laughing.
This is also why he feels coming in as an investor in 2016 would be sweet timing as by then, valuations will have come back down.
So, if anything, he will be even busier running his private seed fund and ensuring shareholder value is enhanced in the listed company. No short break to bask and reflect in the satisfaction of building a RM2-billion company over the 11 years it was listed.
Chang is fine with that. “I need the momentum to be there as I build something meaningful over the next 10 years.” — Digital News Asia
This excerpt is extracted from the JobStreet.com Annual Report 2013 which explains the rationale behind the company’s decision to sell their online job portal business to Australia’s SEEK Asia Investment Pte Ltd.
SALE OF THE ONLINE JOB PORTAL BUSINESS TO SEEKAs referenced above, the online job portal market has evolved into an increasingly competitive and complex industry environment with new competitors and social media being increasingly used as a recruitment platform for candidates, employers and head hunters alike. Against this backdrop and an uncertain global economic environment, our Board has been constantly evaluating the long term growth strategy of the business.Over the past few years, JobStreet.com, led by the present management team, has enjoyed tremendous growth. Our online job portal business has expanded from a Malaysian company into a regional firm with operations in 8 countries in the Asia-Pacific. While the business continues to deliver strong performance, we feel that we have now approached a strategic crossroad. Against an evolving global environment where competition has no physical boundaries and limited barriers to entry, JobStreet.com would need the resources and capabilities to take the next leap forward. Acquisition by a larger player like SEEK, will allow Jobstreet.com’s online job portal business to continue to develop market depth, deliver innovative products and ensure best-in-class services for our customers.The sale of the online job portal business would allow the Group to immediately unlock substantial value in the business which is consistent with the Company’s intent of maximizing returns to shareholders. The Board views the sale as an attractive offerforshareholders to realise the value of the business, by selling it to a larger global player and distributing the proceeds to shareholders.SEEK is a multinational company with a global footprint as well as a presence in the region built over many years. SEEK would have sufficient financial resources, economies of scale and management depth to strategically take on the global competitive threats. SEEK has been our shareholder since 2008 and it became our single largest shareholder in 2010 with a 22% slake. As you might be aware, in the same year, SEEK acquired a 60% stake of our primary competitor, Hong Kong based JobsDB, which was subsequently increased to 100% in late 2012.The sale price of RM1.73 billion represents an EV/EBITDA ratio of approximately 22.2 times based on the proforma consolidated EBITDA of the disposal companies of RM77.9 million for the financial year ended 31 December 2013 and a PE ratio of approximately 30.7 times based on the proforma consolidated PAT of the disposal companies of RM58.6 million for the financial year ended 31 December 2013. We believe this is a fair and attractive price for our shareholders.After due consideration and having considered all aspects of the sale, the Board decided that acceptance of the offer from SEEK would be in the best interest of shareholders. lt is with a tinge of sadness, but more than anything, a great sense of pride, that we see how the JobStreet.com job portal business has come of age, from a start-up in 1995, into a business courted by venture capitalists in 1999, to an IPO on the MESDAQ market in 2003 and the subsequent migration to the Main Board in 2007 before being valued at RM1.73 billion for the proposed sale.At the time of writing, you as our shareholders have approved the sale at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on 14 May 2014. The proposed sale is still pending the approval from the Competition Commission Singapore.
It has been two long years since I wrote my last chess column. I thought that I had been forgotten by the people in The Star until one day in February when one of their sub-editors emailed me to ask whether I would agree to be interviewed for the 30th anniversary of their Star2 pull-out. “Not all our present or past columnists will be featured,” she told me almost apologetically, “and we’d like to include you in. Your stories have been so fascinating.” Below are the interview questions and my response:
Q: Start date and end date of the column:
A: I am what you may call an accidental chess columnist. I never thought that I would or could write anything about chess but it all began in 1980 when out of curiosity, I answered an advertisement in The Star for freelance writers. The column began in August 1980 and ended in March 2012. Thirty-two continuous years in all, except for three short breaks in contribution.
Q: Can you tell us a little about the sorts of content you used to write when you first started, and how that evolved over time?
A: When the column first started, it filled a much-needed void in the Malaysian chess scene. This was during the pre-Internet and early Interney days when news about local and international chess events was almost impossible to get in Malaysia. Luckily, I had contacts with some big overseas chess organisers in Europe and the United States and they were kind enough to send me detail results of their tournaments, sometimes on a daily basis, by airmail and fax. Local organisers then began sending me announcements of their forthcoming tournaments for inclusion in the chess column. So yes, for the first two decades of the column, I concentrated more on tournament reports. But in the final decade of the column, circumstances had changed. With Internet access now everywhere, overseas tournament reports were readily available. As a result, my strategy changed to writing more opinion pieces about chess development in the country. But I still wrote extensively about important world chess events.
Q: Do you think your column in the Star has served as a good platform for you and those interested in the chess world over the years?
A: Definitely, it served as a good platform for chess education in Malaysia as a whole. I was never in it for the money and anyway, The Star paid me peanuts for a very long time. I looked at my columns as a contribution back to the game which I first learnt while in school and which had given me so much pleasure. For your information, I was never a top player in the country, never a Malaysian champion nor even a Penang champion. But I was good enough to play for the state and country in international events on three or four occasions. I was in the Malaysian team that played in the Asian team chess championship in 1974, the Malaysian contingent that went on a goodwill tour of China in 1978 and the Malaysian team to the World Chess Olympiad in 1982. I learnt a lot and was grateful to be able to encourage adults to return to the game and youngsters to take it up.
Q: Would you get feedback from your readers? And if so, what sort of feedback – what is the most interesting / weirdest / touching communication that you received?
A: Yes, I had all sorts of feedback from readers, even overseas readers. Some chess grandmasters even wrote to me. But the most interesting contact was with the World Chess Federation which once took issue with one of my opinions and asked me to make a clarification. I never realised that my column was sometimes read in high places. Power of the Internet, you see.
Q: Of all your submissions over the decade, has there been a personal favorite/ most interesting/ most impactful/ popular?
A: There were several but my favourite story was also my very last one on 2 March 2012. I was writing about a respected chess administrator and personality in Malaya/Malaysia from the 1940s to 1970s. But nobody among the present generation knew anything much about him, myself included. My story garnered a lot of response from people who knew him as a medical doctor. Through one of them, I managed to establish contact with his family members who helped me fill in many of the blanks and give closure to my own inquisitiveness. Very fulfilling.
My old school friend, Kee Thuan Chye, wrote an interesting piece below on English proficiency that had appeared in the Free Malaysia Today news portal. I am in agreement with his point of view but I would also like to add my own two cents’ worth of comment.
In my opinion, teaching science and mathematics in English alone will not be the solution to become proficient in English and bring our nation forward. But I suppose it is the next best thing to making English the medium of instruction in school.
I had also voiced my opinion a long time ago to people like Dr Toh Kin Woon when he was still an Executive Councillor in the Penang government pre-GE12 that as an experiment, we should press for English to be re-introduced as the medium of instruction for designated schools around the country.
Do it and then gauge its response before expanding the move to more schools. However, looking at the political situation in this country, I wouldn’t hold my breath to see this becoming a reality any time soon.
Thuan Chye’s article continues:
It may be only three years away, but a short deadline can sometimes be as effective as a longer one, if not more so. It’s all about having the will to do it. And speaking of will, students are more likely to find the will to improve their English when they are pushed to do it than when they are led to believe that English is irrelevant to their daily lives or even harmful to their own culture and identity.
Even so, supporters of English are sceptical, and understandably so.
Uppermost on their minds is whether standards might not be compromised to ensure that the percentage of students who fail is kept to a minimum. We have heard stories of the passing mark for difficult subjects like Additional Mathematics being pushed down to as low as 15 or so; would this not be done for English as well? And if it were, what would be the point of the must-pass exercise then?
“If too many students fail, the Malaysian Examinations Board lowers the passing mark as a matter of course,” my friend, a retired English-language teacher, assures me. “Our SPM certificate is now not worth the paper it is printed on.”
She says if we were to look at a sample of the SPM English paper, we would realise that a pass counts for less than nothing by international standards. “That is why candidates with distinctions in English who turn up for job interviews cannot answer simple questions in English.”
Another friend attributes the malaise to what he calls the “rottenness” of our education system. He says it has become rotten because it has been made subservient to political agendas.
“The entire Education Ministry is filled with ‘yes men’ who merely implement policy,” he explains. “One day, I was at a meeting in the ministry and it was suddenly called off because the officers and heads of department had to put in place the machinery to implement a policy that they had read in the morning papers being announced by the minister.
“They were learning about it for the first time and already they had to work out the policy’s implementation! No research, no study, no academic rigour goes into it. No statistics, no projections did they quote to support this latest move. Zero. That’s how things work in our country!”
He fears this may be the modus operandi for implementing the English must-pass policy.
Yet another educator-friend feels the government is rushing things to start the policy in 2016. He thinks everyone will not be ready by then because many teachers are not equipped to teach English – and certainly not properly. This is simply because they themselves are not proficient in the language. Many who graduated with a Teaching of English as a Second Language (TESL) degree can’t even get the basics of the language right.
Last month, a parent complained to me that her son spelt the word “heavy” correctly but his English-language teacher marked it wrong and insisted it should be spelt “h-e-a-v-e”!
When I was editing the page ‘Mind Our English’ for the newspaper The Star, one of the most unforgettably hilarious – and most depressing – letters I received was from a parent telling about an English-language teacher saying to the class, “Chindilella very pooth thing.” Try and figure out what that teacher meant, and think of the scary prospect of having someone like that teach your children English. If your children don’t know better, they are likely to end up with half-past-six English.
Of course English-language teachers need to be well selected. But for a long while now, it seems that many people do not want to study to become English-language teachers. Most people mark other fields of study in their applications for university entrance; it is mainly those who can’t get into courses of their choice who end up studying TESL.
At one time, our universities were accepting TESL candidates who obtained as low as Band 3 (signifying a modest grade) for their Malaysian Universities English Test (MUET). The highest is Band 6. One would think that TESL candidates should get no lower than Band 5. In fact, this should be the measure for applicants from now on to ensure that standards are maintained. We cannot simply accept students for TESL because they don’t know what else to study or are unable to get into other courses.
I think part of the problem with our current generation’s lack of proficiency in English is due to the emphasis being given to teaching English primarily for communication, as opposed to the traditional method of teaching grammar and vocabulary. This has been going on for at least three decades, and it has produced learners who don’t know the basic building blocks of the language. Without such knowledge, they often can’t string correct sentences together.
At a writing workshop I conducted recently, I was appalled, although not surprised, to discover that Malaysians in their forties and younger were not sure what an adjective or an adverb was. Don’t ask them what a phrasal verb is; they didn’t even know the basic sentence structure comprising subject, verb and object.
I admit that learning grammar may be dry and boring to some, but there is no substitute for learning the language well. How else would they be able to understand, say, the confounding, confounded past perfect tense?
My Canadian friend disagrees, however. “In a perfect world, teaching grammar may be the right thing to do,” she says. “But in this country, at this time, with these people in power, with these demographics, I believe that the communication skills needed in most workplaces today – clarity, organisation of thought, collaborative problem-solving, clarification-seeking, concise e-mail writing, etc – are not as dependent on grammar and rich vocabulary as many believe. Confidence and a sense of the language as a mere tool to be used are much, much more valuable.”
And how would they gain this confidence?
“When they are exposed to and motivated by the power of what language is supposed to be: a vehicle to exchange important, interesting and useful ideas,” she says.
I suppose if this is to be accomplished, the Education Ministry must think of innovative and creative ways of immersing our students in English.
It will certainly take more than the number of classroom hours allotted to the subject. It should also include promoting the habit of reading English texts. And what better than texts culled from the rich storehouses of literature written in English – not just from England but also from other parts of the world, including Malaysia?
When I was in lower secondary school, my classmates and I were introduced to literary works in English. I recall reading, as part of our syllabus, abridged texts of novels and poems from the anthology entitled Poems for Pleasure.
Many of us derived pleasure indeed from reading these, and I for one improved my English while doing so.
Much, then, has to be done to improve Malaysians’ standard of English proficiency, and that does not stop with just passing the subject at SPM. But I still maintain that we’re on to a good start by making that compulsory.
It’s important for the government to finally show that it recognises the importance of English, because in a society like ours which is feudalistic, such recognition must come from the top before the minions will accept it.
Now comes the hard work of implementing it right.
Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores. This article first appeared in November 2013 issue of Penang Monthly
This is a short excerpt from my blog post yesterday on the Financial Services Act 2013:
“I am saying this because the policy owner have to understand when consent is needed from the new trustee and when consent is not needed. For example, there are certain circumstances which still do not require the new trustee’s consent when a nomination is changed.”
Let me offer you four examples of insurance nominations, as related by Rockwills Trustee Berhad at a presentation to us Rockwills Estate Planners on the new FSA2013.
Case One: Policy owner originally nominated wife to receive 50%, son to receive 25% and daughter to receive 25%. Policy owner now wants to remove wife and replace with mother. Consent is needed as the mother is other than a spouse or child.
Case Two: Policy owner originally nominated wife to receive 50%, son to receive 25% and daughter to receive 25%. Policy owner and wife now divorced, wants to remove ex-spouse and replace with new wife. Consent not needed as the new wife is now considered as his spouse.
Case Three: Policy owner originally nominated wife to receive 50%, son#1 to receive 25% and daughter to receive 25%. Policy owner now wants to wife’s share to 30% and give the 20% to son#2 who is illegitimate. Consent not needed as long as can be proofed that son#2 is his child.
Case Four: Policy owner originally nominated wife to receive 50%, son#1 to receive 25% and daughter to receive 25%. Policy owner now wants to remove wife’s share and increase son’s share to 50% and daughter’s share to 50%. Consent not needed because these are still the same groups of people, that is, spouse and children.
However, we were cautioned that this was only Rockwills interpretation and policy owners should seek the final advice from their insurance companies as each company may still look at the FSA2013 differently.
Three months down the road, the situation hasn’t changed much. I was told me a few days ago that the life insurance companies in Malaysia are still taking it easy with regards to the Financial Services Act 2013 which had come into effect on the 30th of June this year. One fellow in the industry told me that very few insurance companies have yet to inform their policy owners about the implications of this FSA2013, which is very true because, as fair as I am aware, only MCIS Zurich has bothered to send letters out.
To compound the lackadaisical attitude, some insurance agents have been going around to tell their clients and prospects that the FSA2013 would affect only new policies and not the old ones which were purchased while the Insurance Act 1996 was still valid.
(A more preposterous story heard earlier what that an agent claimed that the FSA2013 would not affect him because his insurance company had not informed him about it. This is just like the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil or speak no evil, but the evil is there all the same.)
The problem with this misinformation or half-truth is that their clients are deceived into believing that nothing had changed and everything was still all right with their policies when in fact, they will hit certain obstacles later when they try to do a few things with their policies.
I have written about this earlier that one of the effects of the new Act would mean that a policy owner is no longer the trustee of his own policy, assuming that he had bought the policy before 30 June 2013 when the IA1996 was still in force. Of course, if you buy a policy now with the FSA2013, you simply cannot be your own trustee. At the risk of repeating myself, let me expand on this.
If the policy owner had bought a policy then, and nominated his spouse, child or parents (if there was no spouse or child at the time of purchase) as the nominee or nominees under Section 166 of this IA1996, he would have created an insurance trust with himself normally appointed as the trustee of his policy.
Under Schedule 10, paragraph 5(3) of the FSA2013, this trustee appointment is now invalidated. If he was the trustee then, he cannot remain as the trustee now. So who can be the new trustee of his old policy (or trustee of his new policy under the FSA2013)?
The FSA2013 lists down three classes of persons who can be the new trustees of an insurance policy, in order of priority.
- The first class are the competent nominees in the policy. For example, the spouse and the adult children would be considered as competent nominees. Children below 18 years old would be incompetent nominees.
- The second class are the parent of incompetent nominees. For example, if the only nominees in an insurance policy are all minors, then the other parent of these children will be next in line to be the trustee of the policy.
- And the third class is the Amanah Raya Berhad or an appointed trust company such as Rockwills Trustee Berhad. It used to be that Amanah Raya Berhad was the sole choice if there are no parents and the children are minors, but with the FSA2013, well, there is now a choice.
I’m not going to say much about what paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 10 of the FSA2013 means to our insurance policies but I believe all of us who have bought insurance before 30 June 2013 must ask ourselves these questions and have them answered satisfactorily:
- Does the policy owner know who is the new trustee of his insurance policy?
- Does the policy owner trust this new trustee enough to use the money for his beneficiaries?
- Does the policy owner have control of the appointment of the new trustee?
I am saying this because the policy owner have to understand when consent is needed from the new trustee and when consent is not needed. For example, there are certain circumstances which still do not require the new trustee’s consent when a nomination is changed. I shall talk about this in tomorrow’s post. However, his new trustee’s approval is clearly needed if the policy owner wants to vary the terms of his policy; if the policy owner wants to surrender his policy, he will also need his new trustee’s consent; and if the policy owner wants to assign his policy, he too must seek his new trustee’s consent.
Normally I would assume that there should be no problem but if the new trustee (spouse or adult children) happens to be away for a considerable period – on holiday perhaps, or is now working overseas, or cannot be contacted, or senile or even dead – how long is the policy owner prepared to wait for resolution?
You may say that I am an alarmist but the fact remains that all of us should be well wary of Murphy’s Law which suggests that “if anything can possibly go wrong, it jolly well will go wrong.” Yes, we may get caught up in it one day, and then it will be too late for regrets.
If you don’t already know, Downton Abbey is a critically acclaimed British period drama television series. This series, set in the Yorkshire country estate of fictional Downton Abbey, depicts the lives of an aristocratic family, the Crawleys and their servants in the post-Edwardian era with great events in history having an effect on their lives and on the British social hierarchy.
I must admit that I’ve only managed to watch two or three episodes of this television series but I have friends who watched the shows diligently to follow the complicated lives of the Crawley family.
Just today, an article in the Moneywise website caught my eye:
Luckily, this was only a make-believe situation that you would normally find in a television show, because according to the same news article, Coulson explained that a valid Will must comply with Section 9 of the Wills Act (we are talking about the British Wills Act here) which stipulates that a will must be in writing, signed by the testator who should intend by his signature to give effect to the document, and witnessed and signed by two witnesses.
In Malaysia, we have our own Wills Act 1959 which is modelled after the British Wills Act 1837. As far as the validity of a Malaysian Will is concerned, the document must still be in writing, signed by the testator to give it effect, and witnessed and signed by two witnesses.
The Moneywise website had also revealed on 7 Oct 2013 that more than half of UK adults don’t have a will. The percentage in this part of the world would definitely be even higher. As far back as 1996, Rockwills Corporation and other smaller will-writing companies that emerged later had always suggested that the percentage in Malaysia could be as high as 90 percent.
Although the awareness for estate planning in this country has grown by leaps and bounds in the 16-plus years since then, I would surmise that the percentage of people without a Will would not have dropped much at all.
Without a Will of their own, the assets of the non-Muslims in this country will be subjected to the Distribution Act 1958 (amended 2006), which would mean that when a non-Muslim dies without making a will, his assets will be distributed under rules laid down by the government in this Distribution Act.
If you die intestate, the distribution would very much depend on how much assets you own, how they are held (movable or immovable) and the make up of your family. While you are alive, it is easy to believe that your family would not dispute their portion of the assets but really, the only way to make sure that your assets go the way you intend the family members to inherit is by making a Will. As simple as that.
Rockwills Corporation has a solution for everybody that wants to make a Will. As a Rockwills estate planner myself, I can be contacted at ssquah-@-yahoo.com (but please remove the two hyphens from my email address before you email me. Thank you.)
Finally, I just want to quote two further pieces of advice from Coulson which are also applicable here in Malaysia:
“A will not only ensures your wishes are followed but also provides clarity to those left behind, and reduces the possibility of family arguments. There is a real misunderstanding, particularly among married couples or those in a civil partnership, that everything will pass to a partner or spouse. That is not necessarily correct and can leave all sorts of difficulty for the survivor.”
“Making a will can be very emotive. It can be thought-provoking but it doesn’t have to be difficult. As long as the document complies with the formal requirements of making a valid will it could be written on a scrap of paper. However, it is very easy to make mistakes or to inadvertently write something that might cause real trouble.”