This article first appeared in The Edge Malaysia Weekly on September 14, 2026 - September 20, 2026

SINCE its establishment in December 2018, Urusharta Jamaah Sdn Bhd (UJSB) has largely stayed out of public view — a deliberate approach taken by its chairman Datuk Mohd Shukri Hussin to shield its lean team from political pressure and keep it focused on recovering value from assets inherited from Lembaga Tabung Haji. 

That silence became harder to maintain after the release of the Royal Commission of Inquiry report that thrust the Minister of Finance (Inc)-owned special-purpose vehicle into the public eye. 

Following are excerpts from UJSB’s first media interview, in which Mohd Shukri defends its record and explains its investment decisions.  

The Edge: On the restructuring of sukuk 1, was it difficult to negotiate the coupon rate?

Datuk Mohd Shukri Hussin: No, it was based on the market. We went to the board, and the board said: market. Tabung Haji might insist on 4%, but the market says 3.8%. Why should you pay more than the market? Our team also did their study on what kind of spread [was appropriate]. After the study, we negotiated the spread. The spread basically [determines] the coupon.

Aside from being what the RCI is recommending, why did UJSB switch from a zero­-coupon sukuk structure to an annual coupon?

Now that we have gone through a number of years, we think we have the capacity. In those days, we were trying to settle down. After six years or so, we think we can do it. We did not know it was part of the RCI recommendation.

But kalau 10 tahun tak dapat (if Tabung Haji does not receive anything for 10 years), people will say [something]. If you pay a coupon, it is different. It demonstrates the willingness and the commitment. Also, for us, the discipline of paying the coupon is something else. The KPIs (key performance indicators) and everything will be measured on that basis.

It is not easy. We have to make sure the investments in our portfolio are those that give good dividends. Not only that, [we must determine] how much to set aside and how to liaise with the external fund managers so that they can take some [of the funds] and accumulate enough to pay.

Among others, UJSB took over 106 listed equities from Tabung Haji. Who decided which investments would be transferred?

I will give you the history: the cabinet. We were only created later, so it (the selection of investments) had nothing to do with UJSB. We received the list of assets and the values. We went to the board and obtained approval.

We are not the people you should question. We were told those were the criteria decided on at the time. Because if we did not do this, there would be no rescue. Go back to our key messages (UJSB was created to address the legacy challenges Tabung Haji faced). You have to understand what we are doing and why we are doing it.

The RCI recorded that UJSB had divested 75 of the 106 transferred positions by the time of its review. How different is the position today?

I understand the question. The disposal and purchase of shares are all market-driven. Why do we have to explain individual transactions? Why? Why? Judge us by the results. Test whether the assets have improved. Test whether the returns have gone up. Period. Why the details?

I outsource to Aberdeen. I outsource to Templeton. I do not ask them: ‘Why did you buy this? Why did you sell that?’ Those decisions are at their discretion. Our mandate is to generate enough [returns]. And right now, we have to service the coupon. Period.

We understand that these are commer cial decisions, but the public may still want to know which of the investments UJSB took over produced the biggest gains and losses. 

Investments [must be] detached from emo tion. If you think you have to cut losses, you cut losses. If you think you have to switch into another one, you switch. Why do we have to explain? EPF does that all the time. It even sells good shares because it has already made good money. It cuts some shares because it is cutting losses. It goes back to commercial decisions. 

Has UJSB completed the rebalancing of the inherited portfolio?

No. Investment is never-ending. Markets change. This is an ongoing and dynamic process. Leave it to the investment team and the external fund managers. They will decide what to buy and sell.

For our global mandate, we are asking for additional money to invest offshore. We think the returns are better offshore and we are able to manage the risk. As for the future, that is all I can say — what we want to buy or sell, we do not know.

There have been allegations that UJSB transferred certain shares or assets to Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador. What is your response?

At the end of the day, it is a market decision. We only sell if we think the value is not there. Whether it is Farhash, who cares? It is a commercial decision. We have not been instructed to sell [quoted shares] to anybody. We have not been asked to buy from anybody.

We held about 10% of Datasonic, which is now NexG (KL:NEXG). It was an inherited, legacy position. The key driver of that particular stock’s earnings was government contracts for passports and ICs. This stock has always been a sort of political hot potato. It has been controlled by different people, and everyone always wants to gain control of it. It relies heavily on government contracts.

When we decided to dispose of the shares, which was done — you can check the filing — we sold it on the open market. We did not sell to an individual. The reason was that this particular contract was receiving only six-month renewals.

For a company that relied so heavily on that contract for its earnings, getting only six-month renewals, we thought it was not a great business to be in. We were also hearing rumours that the contract could be awarded to different parties. We did not want to take the risk that it might lose that contract.

Some parties subsequently asked: ‘Why did you sell when you knew a big contract was coming?’ But how would we know? We did not know. If we knew, that would be insider trading anyway, right? We did not know. And we made a loss. If people understand the market and insider trading, they will understand.

We did not have that knowledge. We sold and took a loss because we thought that was it. That is what I meant by cutting a loss. If you have to cut, you cut. Then we redeploy the proceeds.

The Datasonic shares were sold on the open market?

Yes. Then, for the final 3%-to-4% block, an individual came in and asked for the block. It was not Farhash, anyway. We even [issued] a right-of-first-refusal notice to Tabung Haji. When the offer came in, we said: ‘Look, we have an offer to buy this. Do you want it? If not, we are going to sell it to them.’ It was not something we wanted to hold on to, knowing that we were relying on this particular contract being renewed every six months.

You will notice that we never countered that allegation because there was no point. Why would we enter into the debate? All these allegations that we were selling to [particular parties] are noise. We are concentrating on [our] mission.

There have been calls for a forensic audit of UJSB. What is your response?

What is the need for a forensic audit? Hello, the accounts are audited. Period. The audit was done by EY — a clean audit opinion. We were created to solve the problem.

If you want to conduct a forensic audit, do it. What is the problem? Why waste time [in doing that]? The noise is just noise, intended to distract attention from the real messages and the mess that was created.

You are targeting the solution (UJSB). Why? To distract your attention from the mess.

UJSB has a finite life. What is its present deadline or ‘runway’?

Based on the restructured tranche one, it is 2036. Unless the stakeholders say, ‘Here is everything; pay it out,’ habislah cerita (that’s the end of the matter). If MOF decides to pay everything, we will not even last till 2036. That is our runway.

There is a difference between where we were a few years ago and where we are today. By May 2026, we already knew that our runway would run until 2036. But we do not know [what will happen in] 2029. As things stand, the runway is until May 2036 because that is when we have to [settle] everything. That is the company’s runway.

As for my individual runway, I am 72 years old. My runway could be next year; it could be the end of this year. That is why I want to make sure I protect my people, because my runway is short. But my people have a job to do, so I do not want to expose them to all those things.

UJSB was created to take over Tabung Haji’s non-performing assets and became part of the solution to the pilgrims fund’s financial problems. Is there a risk that the government merely shifted the problem into an SPV (special-purpose vehicle) that could itself become problematic?

I cannot answer that. What we have told you is that, for tranche one, this SPV has done everything within its power to address it. As for the creation of the SPV, that is not my issue. It is an issue for the government, which means it has to address tranche two. It is not for me alone to anticipate.

From your perspective as chairman, is UJSB on the right track?

Of course, yes. We have given you the figures. As far as tranche one is concerned, insya-­Allah, we can manage. But even the authorities are aware that tranche two is an altogether different matter. They are aware that they will have to address it.

But if you ask us now what will happen in 2029, give us time to sort it out. By 2028 or 2029, the whole fiscal situation may be different. The outlook, the economy and the liabilities may all be different. Again, at the end of the day, it is sovereign risk. Sovereign risk. They will do whatever is necessary to manage the country’s fiscal position.

Would you describe UJSB as independent even though it is wholly owned by MOF Inc? 

Independent in the sense that the board is very conscious of its history. At the end of the day, we are 100% owned by the government. We are governed by guidelines. We follow the guidelines. We follow [the shareholder’s] directives and certain policies. We follow the GLC guidelines and procedures. We report our KPIs. We are just like any other government company — independent in the sense that the board is very conscious of its fiduciary duties. That I can confirm. The board is always very well aware of its fiduciary duties under these circumstances. 

Do the board and senior management have a free hand to run the SPV?

So far, I can say, yes, based on the formalities. But the company, management and the board have regular consultations and engagement. Being independent does not mean kita pandai-pandai buat decision (we make decisions as we please). The stakeholders are also aware of the mandate. So far, so good. We have not been criticised for failing to carry out our mandate.

Unfortunately, the Tabung Haji issue has become politicised …

That is why I say — sorry, I have to cut you off — I think the press and the social media are more focused on the messengers. If you focus on the mandate (of UJSB), I do not think there should be any problem.

But you are shooting at a few Tan Sris [including Tan Sri Dr Madinah Mohamad and Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Hussain]. You even go and dig into the history of these Tan Sris. What for? That has distracted from the real issues.

The real issue is, is Tabung Haji in a better position now than before? But it has turned into a public debate about the Tan Sris. It is not necessary.

Judge what Tabung Haji is doing. Period. As for the future, we leave it to MOF to decide. We leave that to them.

Was TH Heavy Engineering among the biggest investment losses?

Yes, but that is a quoted share with its own liabilities and its own set of legal problems, and it is in liquidation. It is not a normal quoted share that you can find [on the market] and it has been delisted. We inherited it. It is a legacy asset. It was transferred to us. You can ask whether we managed it well, all right. But it had its own board and its own management. We tried our best.

Were you involved in running TH Heavy Engineering?

No, never. We’re not running THHE. Although it’s already delisted, they have their own people, their own board, their own management.

So since day one, when you took over, you have been just a strategic investor?

It’s not even investor. It’s a legacy thing … But because of the mandate on the OPVs (offshore patrol vessels), we were running the project, which was under the subsidiary of THHE (THHE Destini Sdn Bhd). That is different because we got the mandate for national interest.

In June 2022, we established the OPV oversight committee to oversee the project progress. That September, THHE got delisted, which made things a lot more difficult. And [there’s] zero recovery for UJSB in terms of the value of THHE.

Initially, of course there was some resistance on this project but given the importance of the OPV, in January 2023, we got a letter from MOF on the mandate to oversee and monitor the completion of the OPV project. That was also when UJSB was instructed to look into a forensic audit of the project. By January 2024, we delivered OPV1.

And you see how proud the country is to have its first OPV. Brand new, Malaysian made, I would say world-class. You can see it’s compatible to the ones owned by Indonesia, to Philippines, to Taiwan.

If you know the history, [a contract for] three OPVs was awarded, but we only completed one. Because there’s no point in us putting money into [OPV2 and OPV3] when the company responsible is under litigation. What’s the point of putting money, then suddenly the creditors are fighting for ownership of the OPVs? But we did our very best. And the decision to surrender the remaining two was endorsed by the cabinet. So it’s no longer our obligation.

In the first place, why was this project given to TH Heavy Engineering?

This project was given well before we (UJSB) came in. How it was given to THHE Destini Sdn Bhd, how money has been spent … it’s not us. We came in [with] legacy [issues]. We were interested in completing [the project]. As for the history, I’m sorry, it’s not us.

In the end, how much did you have to spend to complete the OPV project?

The government injected RM44 million. UJSB put in RM120 million. It was of national interest, so we do whatever it takes. But you can see it’s running now, and already patrolling the South China Sea. In December 2025, we completed all 172 ratifications on warranty items related to OPV1. That was a painful thing, but the point now [is there are] no more obligations on OPV1. We rectified everything.

Read also:
Cover Story 2: Urusharta Jamaah yet to see finishing line
Cover Story 2: Steering legacy assets in the right direction