Misleading report misleads?
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