Blast from the Past: Pan-Electric (3)

I wrote before about the Pan-Electric scandal, here and here.

I wrote before about the divorce battle of Khoo Kay Peng and Pauline Chai, here and here.

As expected in a bitter separation, lots of mud is being thrown at each other.

This blog usually doesn't focus on toilet seats nor about the number of shoes that one person has (Telegraph).

But another, more interesting revelation reveals a new link between the two above cases. From the Malaysian Insider website:

"Tycoon hubby sought Canadian citizenship to avoid arrest, ex-beauty queen claims".

Some snippets:


Billionaire Tan Sri Khoo Kay Peng had asked for a Canadian citizenship in the 1990s to avoid arrest by the Singaporean authorities, which was investigating a company belonging to him in the island state, his wife Pauline Chai told the High Court here today. Speaking during the couple’s highly publicised domicile trial here, the former Miss Malaysia claimed that Khoo had wanted to apply for permanent residency in Canada because the country had no extradition co-operation with Singapore. She said the tycoon had then feared for his life after some of his colleagues were arrested by the Singaporean authorities over allegations of mismanagement involving his company, Pan Electric Industries. “We had first stayed in Australia but when the Pan Electric fiasco (happened), two of his friends got investigated so we moved to Canada because they had no extradition laws there.

According to her affidavit that was sighted by Malay Mail Online, Khoo’s lawyers had first advised him and his family to move to Australia, where he, Chai and his children eventually settled down. But Chai claimed her husband fell into depression, as he was not certain if Australian laws could still prevent him from being extradited to Singapore.


This seems to be a new twist in the Pan-Electric case. What was known is the below information.

There are references in this newspaper clip from the Straits Times, some snippets:

A detailed article from The Ant Daily can be found here:

"The forgotten corporate high-flyer"

It appears that, due to the high-profile divorce case, the high-flyer is not that much forgotten anymore. If he likes that kind of attention is another matter.

The Pan-Electric case still seems to attract quite some attention, after all those years. And probably rightly so, it was the only case that brought the share markets of both Singapore and Malaysia to a halt for three days.

Blast from the Past: Pan-Electric (2)

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in Singapore has responded to the claims from Glenn Knight. It should be noted that Tan Koon Swan had pleaded quilty and that 14 other charges were not proceeded. This case will not be re-opened, as far as I can see, but still interesting that this old but very important case suddenly popped up again.

..... the AGC pointed out in its statement that CJ Yong had noted in his judgment that there had been no arguments about the correctness of the charge against Mr Tan when it was made.

The AGC said CJ Yong "did not go into any detailed discussion of Mr Tan Koon Swan's case or Mr Knight's conduct of the case. Specifically, CJ Yong did not express any opinion that Mr Tan was wrongly charged".

The AGC also stated that although CJ Yong might have disagreed with the view of the law in Mr Tan's case, his decision "could not and did not overrule" the decision in Mr Tan's case, as both cases had already been decided by the High Court, said The Straits Times.

"Differences in the courts' pronouncements on the law occur, especially in legal systems based on the common law," said the AGC. It added that the public prosecutor had decided to charge Mr Tan based on the evidence against him and the law. Mr Tan's lawyers had not taken issue with the charge or his conviction based on the law and facts.

Said the AGC: "Mr Tan Koon Swan was convicted on the basis of his own plea of guilt, based on the law and facts as was accepted by his own counsel."

There were 14 other charges not proceeded with against Mr Tan, who had already pleaded guilty to criminal breach of trust.

The AGC added: "It was said that the judgment in Cheam Tat Pang meant that Mr Tan Koon Swan had been wrongly convicted and that he was technically an innocent man. Mr Tan Koon Swan’s conviction stands, and he remains guilty of the crime that he had admitted to."

The AGC also highlighted another error made by Mr Knight in his book. He had said "the sentence imposed as including a fine of $1 million". The correct fine was $500,000, said the AGC.

When contacted by The Straits Times last night, Mr Knight said as there were two differing High Court judgments on the same issue, the matter should have been referred to the Court of Appeal for a clarification.

"At the end of the day, after CJ Yong's judgment in 1996, nobody has been charged since then under that particular section, to my knowledge."


For Malaysia, it was another case of mixing business with politics. Another old (updated) case is reported in the SCMP.

Some snippets:


UNITED NATIONS negotiator Razali Ismail has won praise for his efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar. He also is being criticised over a business deal his firm was clinching with the military regime as he was in talks for the release from house arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The former Malaysian ambassador was not doing anything unusual, observers said. The links between politics and business in Malaysia had become so entwined that such practices were common.

Malaysia experts interviewed by the South China Morning Post were split on whether Mr Razali, who has denied any conflict of interest, may have harmed the process of returning democracy to Myanmar. Pro-democracy activists and Western analysts - while stressing the details of the deal brokered by the Malaysian company Iris Technologies and the junta were not known - said such practices were wrong.

The Malaysian system has also been dragged into focus and activists said Mr Razali had highlighted an area needing reform.

Ms Gabriel said the revelations embarrassed Malaysians.

'This practice is something that human rights activists in Malaysia and I'm sure many other parts of the world are very concerned about,' she said. 'This uneasy mix of business and playing public roles as various personalities in negotiating for freedom or leading a country or being kept in an administrative role carries a very serious threat.' She called for Mr Razali's resignation from his UN post.

Her observations were backed by Mr Rasiah, who said the proximity of political interests and business was so common in Malaysia that sometimes it was not seen as a problem.

He did not believe the majority of Malaysians supported the system, but they could do little about it.

'There's not much scope to criticise the political leaders and to stop them,' he said.

Blast from the Past: Pan-Electric

In 1985 Pan-Electric Industries collapsed, causing lots of mayhem especially for its 5,500 shareholders who lost all their money in the company. Article from Wikipedia:

"Pan-Electric Industries was a Singapore-based company that specialised in marine salvage work, and had 71 subsidiary companies, including hotel and property interests, with a market capitalization of S$230 million. The company collapsed in 1985 due to unsettled forward contracts, forcing the stock exchanges of both Singapore and Malaysia to shut down for three days. At its demise, the company had a total debt of S$480 million, and all its shares held by 5,500 shareholders were found to be worthless overnight. As of 2000, it remains the largest corporate collapse in Singapore's history, and the only instance where the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) had to close. The Malaysian Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange was also forced to close for three days as a result.

In the aftermath of the collapse, key people in the company such as Peter Tham, Tan Kok Liang, and Tan Koon Swan were prosecuted and given varying jail sentences. The collapse of the company shook public confidence in the SES, causing prices of stocks to plunge. New securities laws were introduced in March 1986 to ensure that stockbroking firms can protect themselves against credit risks."


An amount of S$230 million corrected for inflation would now be worth about RM 1.3 Billion.

On (the excellent) website stocktaleslot "Bulls and Bears, Tales of the Zoo" a much longer description, also indicating the political consequences for Malaysia, since Tan Koon Swan was the President of the MCA.

It all looked like history, although very important, until suddenly the following news appeared on The Edge:


Koon Swan not "saying anything soon" on Singapore's wrongful prosecution:

Businessman Tan Koon Swan, the president of  the MCA in the early 1980s and founder of Multi-Purpose Holdings, told  theedgemalaysia.com he would not "say anything soon" on the mistake by  the Singapore government in prosecuting him during the Pan-El crisis in  the mid-1980s.

"I don't know whether I will do something. I am  overseas now. I will probably return tomorrow and maybe I will meet the  press then. But don't write anything that will put me in trouble. It's  very unlikely I will say anything soon," Tan said from Hainan when  contacted on his hand-phone.

In the just-published book "Glenn Knight, The Prosecutor",  the writer Glenn Knight — who was the famous prosecutor then —  confesses to having wrongly prosecuted Tan in 1985 and in the chapter on  the Pan El crisis, he mentions his apology to Tan Khoon Swan — a fact  hitherto unknown for 27 years.

Glenn slapped Tan with 15 charges  after the collapse of Pan-El Industries which caused the Singapore stock  exchange to halt trading for three days. Among others, Tan was alleged  to have committed criminal breach of trust (CBT) and share manipulation,  and a guilty finding sent him to Singapore's Changi Prison for 18  months.

In his book, Glenn has suggested Tan to seek "pardon"  from the Singapore President to wipe out his criminal record so that it  would mean he had not been convicted of any wrong-doing legally in this case, which also rocked the Malaysia stock exchange.

In response  to this, Tan declined to commit himself to any action. He said: "No, I  am not going to say anything." He also declined to say whether he would  sue the Singapore government for compensation for ruining his reputation  and his future.

The incident not only forced Tan to quit as MCA  president but also the collapse of his huge Malaysian-Singapore business  empire which comprised at least three listed companies then.

And  posting bail for Tan while waiting for the trial of the century was  Robert Kuok, Malaysia's richest man. Due to this high profile  prosecution, Glenn was awarded the Public Administration Gold Medal by  the Singapore government. But in 1990, Glenn himself was charged for CBT  and later jailed in Singapore.

The wrongful prosecution of Tan  was splashed on the front pages of two leading Chinese newspapers — the Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew on Monday.

Nanyang said Glenn told Tan about his mistake in prosecuting him apologised to Tan when they met at a function two years ago.

Quoting a unnamed aide of Tan, Nanyang also said Tan has been advised to be cautious in his comment.

In previous interviews with this writer, Tan did say that he felt "cheated" during the Pan-El crisis.

He  said he was advised by "people in power" to admit guilt to get a light  sentence which would amount to a fine, but he was horrified to hear the  jail term when the verdict was read out in court.

But as a born-again Christian, he had tried to forgive all those who had caused hardship and agony to him.

Tan  is now a property developer with a lot of developments in China. He has  been made an "honorary citizen" of Hainan for his contributions there.


It still is an intriguing case, and this might be another, new twist in the story. However, details are still patchy (why does Glenn Knight think that Tan was wrongfully prosecuted?), so we have to wait for more news to draw any conclusions.

PS: another article in The Star, with a rather twisted logic that is hard for anybody (except legal people) to understand. Anyhow, I don't like the word "stealing" in the next sentence:

“Chief Justice Yong was of the opinion that the section I had charged Koon Swan with was wrong in law for we could not charge a person for stealing from a company because as a director, it was not a breach of the law in that sense,” he wrote.