Misleading report misleads?
Your report Businessman clarifies 'misleading' reports (The Jakarta Post, June 26) is in itself an attempt to mislead the Indonesian community regarding the legal dispute between our client, Rowe Evans Investments Plc. subsidiary PT Pangkatan Indonesia, and Rahmat Shah over the contract of sale of a plantation land in North Sumatra.
Shah has, in other publications as well as in his interview with your reporter, continually raised the question of the work permit of Matthew T. Adams and the investment licensing procedure. On the first point, Shah and the Medan District Court have chosen to ignore the evidence of two expert witnesses, one a professor at Gajah Mada University and the other the head of the legal bureau of the Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) who both told the court that the issue of Adams' work permit was not in any way relevant to his ability to sign the contract.
On the second point, Shah neglected to mention that the sale was fully approved by the BKPM in Jakarta although it should be added that the licensing process in the end had to be done by agents for Rowe Evans, since Shah himself reneged on his contractual commitment to do so. Approval for the sale has also been received from the Ministry of Justice, a fact that should leave no doubt that the contract was valid.
Rowe Evans and its subsidiary companies also reject Shah's statement that PT Pangkatan Indonesia "failed to make good on some early commitments, such as repairing facilities". For the record, PT Pangkatan Indonesia spent an initial sum of US$1.3 million to repay a loan from DBS Bank to Shah and on a variety of capital expenditures.
The company has budgeted $162,000 on capital expenditure for 2004 to cover new housing for plantation workers and to improve the water supply, among other items. A further $235,000 has been budgeted for new oil palm planting. Unfortunately, because of the current dispute, some expenditure items, including replacement of the original substandard housing for workers, have had to be put on hold. We also note the erroneous statement of the value of the contract, stated as $3.2 million, when in fact the contracted sale price was $2.3 million.
Shah disputes reports on the case that paint him as a person who would endanger foreign investment in the country. We leave it to your readers to decide whether or not the actions of a person who willingly signed a contract, then decided 18 months later that he wanted the sale nullified, has improved the international perception of legal certainty and the validity of contracts in Indonesia.
KEITH LOVEARD Technical Advisor PT ProAktif Media Servisindo Jakarta