In response to recent media coverage of an open letter by former PRG Holdings Berhad (“PRG” or the “Company”) group executive vice-chairman Dato’ Lua Choon Hann, Dato’ Ng Yan Cheng said he welcomes any genuine effort for discussion, but cautioned that calls for the parties to “bury the hatchet” must not become an excuse to bury unresolved governance, financial and management questions.
Dato’ Ng said the current situation cannot be accurately reduced to a personal disagreement between PRG’s two largest shareholders. It involves legally enforceable shareholder advances, unresolved creditor exposures, an ongoing independent review of historical transactions and an attempted change in board control. Describing these matters merely as a feud risks diverting shareholders from the more important questions: how PRG reached its present financial position, who was responsible for the failed Picasso Residence project in 2019, the failed teak wood plantation project in recent years, and whether every relevant party will be subjected to the same standard of scrutiny.
Dato’ Ng Yan Cheng said, “The petition did not arise overnight, nor does it erase the years in which I provided liquidity to help PRG meet its obligations. A creditor who has waited, negotiated and remained unsecured is entitled to protect his legal position. The action is not intended to damage PRG, but to address an unresolved debt after restructuring discussions did not produce an agreement. As a major shareholder and creditor, I remain invested in a fair and sustainable outcome for the Company.”
A CALL FOR UNITY CANNOT REPLACE ANSWERS
Dato’ Ng noted that Dato’ Lua served on PRG’s board from November 2013 and remained group executive vice-chairman until September 2024. Former managing director Dato’ Wee Cheng Kwan likewise served on the board from August 2013 until March 2025. Their lengthy senior leadership roles mean that they cannot be treated as detached observers when shareholders are seeking answers concerning PRG’s historical performance, governance and commercial decisions in the past.
Public financial records show that PRG recorded losses in several years during the previous leadership period, including from 2018 to 2021 and again in 2023, while material impairments and further losses were recognised in 2024. These figures do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing by any individual. They do, however, reinforce why decisions, transactions and unresolved exposures arising during the former leadership’s tenure must be independently examined before shareholders are asked to simply move on.
Dato’ Ng Yan Cheng said, “I am not opposed to dialogue, and I do not believe corporate disputes should be prolonged unnecessarily. However, peace without accountability is not stability; it is merely silence. Shareholders deserve to understand how PRG reached this position before anyone asks them to put the matter behind them. If governance remains the stated concern, Dato’ Lua, Dato’ Wee and Dato’ Sheah should support and allow the independent review that Dato’ Sheah himself demanded to be completed without interference before any discussion on theof changing of PRG’s board or leadership.”
Dato’ Ng said Dato’ Lua’s appeal cannot be viewed in isolation from Dato’ Sheah Kok Fah’s concurrent effort to appoint himself and his nominees to PRG’s board. If Dato’ Lua, Dato’ Wee and Dato’ Sheah share the same stated concern for governance and PRG’s future, he said all three should publicly support a complete and independent review, preserve and provide all relevant records, and permit scrutiny of material decisions made during the former leadership period. A change in board control before the review is completed could affect how its findings are received, pursued or communicated. While this does not by itself establish an improper motive, the sequence and alignment of these actions raise a legitimate governance concern that shareholders should not be asked to ignore.
Dato’ Ng also expressed disappointment that a well-known media organisation had presented the open letter largely as a conciliatory intervention without equivalent examination of Dato’ Lua’s long-standing executive role or seeking Dato’ Ng’s clarification before publication. He said established media organisations have significant influence over market perception and should take care not to present the views of an interested former office-holder as detached commentary without the full historical and commercial context. Repeated coverage that appears closely aligned with one side’s framing risks creating a perception of imbalance and prejudicing public opinion before the relevant facts have been independently established.
Dato’ Ng Yan Cheng added, “If Dato’ Lua, Dato’ Wee and Dato’ Sheah genuinely wish to protect PRG, they should support a complete and independent review that follows the evidence wherever it leads, with no current or former director placed above scrutiny. I remain open to constructive dialogue, but unity cannot be achieved by closing the file before shareholders receive the answers they deserve.”
