Connect with us

Current Affairs

Indian media defending LVB shareholders over DBS-LVB merger

Published

on

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which is India’s central bank, has earlier announced to merge the loss-making Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) with DBS India. It has also allowed the entire amount of the paid-up share capital of LVB to be written off. That is to say, LVB’s equity will go down to zero and the original shareholders of LVB will get nothing.

Following the announcement, LVB shareholders filed a petition to the High Court in Madras demanding compensations. The Madras High Court then passed an interim order last Fri (27 Nov) directing DBS India not to take any further prejudicial action against LVB shareholders.

The High Court also asked DBS to furnish an undertaking to compensate LVB shareholders in case the Court rules so at a later stage.

In addition, the High Court mandated DBS to create a separate reserve fund in its books of account to the extent of the face value of shares of the transferor company (LVB) and to maintain the fund in preparation of further new orders from the Court.

“…completely reducing the shares is not an exercise which has happened in the public domain and the shareholders do not appear to be aware of the exact reasons why this is so,” the High Court observed.

Further, the Court added that even if the authorities have the power to reduce the share value during an amalgamation under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, reducing it to zero or negative, prima facie, it cannot be done without very compelling reasons.

Expert: DBS-LVB merger deal unfair to LVB shareholders

Meanwhile, the Indian media has started interviewing “experts” to comment on the DBS-LVB merger.

When the DBS-LVB merger announcement first came out, the Economic Times of India took the opportunity to interview “expert” JN Gupta, who is the Managing Director at institutional advisory firm Stakeholder Empowerment Services.

Gupta said that the LVB shareholders have been forgotten by the RBI while arriving at its merger decision. In its decision, RBI promised DBS that LVB shareholders won’t get anything from the merged entity.

“While the merger of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank with DBS is warranted for the safety and security of the banking system, it seems unfair to the LVB shareholders. Unfortunately, the way the RBI functions, it does not look into the valuation done by other agencies,” Gupta said.

“It seems the regulator has been guided by the fact that the banking system must be saved. It has not taken into consideration the price DBS would have otherwise paid to LVB had it been to create a bank of such size or buy it out on a private basis.”

“The RBI’s decision is purely a regulatory diktat rather than a commercial solution. DBS has got the running bank without any equity value,” he added.

Gupta also criticised RBI, “RBI should wake up. There is a string of financial failures that have taken place in the last couple of years alone (IL&FS, DHFL, PMC Bank, Yes Bank).”

“Thousands of circulars, and regulations exist but the process-driven approach by the regulator is unlikely to yield results when dealing with weak lenders,” he commented.

Case may go to India’s Supreme Court

The Hindu, another Indian mainstream media, reported that LVB shareholders are unlikely to let the matter rest easily. Without quoting sources, it said that parties involving in the current High Court case are likely to “seek relief in the Supreme Court should they lose the case in the High Court”.

Quoting another banking expert V Viswanathan, The Hindu reported that LVB’s “inherent strengths” were not taken into consideration in the merger.

Viswanathan said he wondered if LVB’s inherent strengths – 563 branches and 974 ATMs/CDMs in about 16 States and 3 Union Territories, experienced staff, loyal customers, deposits and advances built over nine decades were taken into account for valuation purpose in the merger with DBS.

“Without factoring these ‘inherent strengths’, the whole exercise appears to have been done based on simple arithmetic of financial assets versus liabilities,” Viswanathan added. “Unless the valuation or acquisition cost is made public, one cannot be faulted, if he strongly feels that the amalgamation favoured DBIL.”

Hostile Indian media towards SIA potential deal 19 years ago

Nineteen years ago in 2001, SIA tried to bid for the loss-making Air India. It was later forced to pull out of the deal.

In explaining its decision at the time, SIA said it was “surprised by the intensity of opposition to the privatization of Air India from various quarters, including certain sections of political groups, trade unions and of the media.”

“In such an adverse climate, SIA is not confident that it can play a useful and effective role,” it added.

But just last week, it was reported that SIA is presently in talks with Tata Group again to jointly bid for the loss making Air India (‘After DBS “rescues” Chennai bank, SIA now in talks with Tata to “save” Air India‘, 28 Nov).

Air India has been incurring losses for quite some time now. In its latest quarterly report, Air India incurred a net loss of about Rs2,570 crore (S$465 million) in the first quarter of 2020-21 as compared to a net loss of Rs785 crore (S$142 million) in the corresponding period a year ago. Air India is also sitting on a debt of Rs58,000 crore (S$10.5 billion).

In any case, it’s not known how the Indian media will see the present DBS-LVB merger, especially when their LVB shareholders are not getting anything out of the merger deal.

 

Continue Reading
11 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

on

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending