As of 31 December 2025, Pos Malaysia shareholders’ equity decreased to RM82.5 million due to higher accumulated losses of RM988.9 million. Meanwhile, the total share capital amounted to RM1.07 billion.

 

These numbers raised concerns that Pos Malaysia might slip into Practice Note 17 (PN17) status, should the loss-making condition persist.

 

• Given the net losses position, rising accumulated losses and depleting shareholders’ equity, what are the viable strategies to ensure long-term business continuity and sustainability of Pos Malaysia?

 

• Pos Malaysia embarked on a Business Transformation Plan in August 2021 (BTP 2021) with four phases outlined. The Company is currently at Phase 4 of implementation – Delivering a Better Tomorrow, focusing on pursuing sustainable revenue streams, engaging with the government on regulatory matters, including Universal Service Obligation (USO) compensation and changes to the Postal Services Act, and improving cost efficiency through operating model optimisation (page 21 of Annual Report 2025):

 

• What are the key initiatives to be carried out under Phase 4 of BTP based on the three key focus areas? Please disclose the operational key performance indicators (KPI) and regulatory milestones to be achieved.

 

• Notwithstanding the improved metrics, i.e., mail service reliability at 95%, parcel service levels improved to 92%, since the inception of BTP2021, shareholders have yet to see corresponding improvements in the Company’s financial performance.

 

• Net loss widened to RM209.26 million (FY2024: -RM202.66 million), on the back of muted topline at RM1.84 billion (FY2024: RM1.85 billion). Meanwhile, EBITDA, a measure of a company’s core operating performance, turned negative at RM2.9 million compared to a positive RM29.4 million in FY2024, suggesting weakening operational profitability despite the improved KPIs.

 

• In short, there is a divergence between improved metrics and profitability despite the final implementation phase of BTP2021.

 

• Why have the improvements in service reliability and operational KPIs not translated into stronger revenue growth and profitability?

 

• To what extent are the improved service metrics commercially meaningful if they are not translating into better margins, customer monetisation, or revenue growth?

 

• What immediate priorities and strategies does management have to restore EBITDA positivity and achieve sustainable profitability?

 

• With BTP2021 nearing completion, does the Board consider the transformation programme to be on track in delivering its intended financial objectives?

As at 31 December 2025, the ageing analysis of the Group’s trade receivables shows RM5.25 million past due by more than 61 days carrying a loss allowance of only RM454,000, representing a provision rate of 8.65% on this aged category. The relatively low provision rate against a long-overdue balance raises concern over the adequacy of the impairment assessment. No further breakdown beyond 61 days is disclosed (Note 19, Page 186 of the AR 2025).

 

• What is the breakdown of the RM5.25 million balance past due by more than 61 days, particularly the portion past due beyond 90 days? What is the Group’s assessment of the recoverability of these amounts? To date, how much of the RM5.25 million in trade receivables has been collected?

 

• What recovery actions have been initiated against these debtors, and what is the basis for management’s assessment that the current provision rate of 8.6% is adequate given the age of these balances?

The proportion of procurement from local suppliers declined significantly from 69% in FY2023 to 34% in FY2025 as more electronic components were sourced externally. (Source: Page 28 of Annual Report 2025) Given the higher reliance on external suppliers, which countries or regions are the Group’s key electronic components currently sourced from and has the Group experienced any supply disruptions, delays or cost pressures arising from current geopolitical tensions?

GIIB Healthcare Products Sdn Bhd (GHP) is facing a RM14.39 million claim from Glomaxes Latex Glove Manufacturer Sdn Bhd (Glomaxes), which was adjudicated in favour of Glomaxes under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012. The High Court has upheld and enforced the award, and GHP’s attempts to challenge and delay the proceedings have been unsuccessful.

 

A winding-up petition is ongoing, with the next hearing scheduled for 30 July 2026. The case also involves a potential conflict of interest due to overlapping ownership and directorship between the parties.

 

• What is the Group’s ability to settle the RM14.39 million obligation without negatively affecting its operations?

 

• Could the Board disclose the total legal costs incurred by the Group to date, together with the estimated legal expenses going forward?

 

• Please clarify the Group’s contingency plans should GHP be wound up, and how this would affect the Group’s ability to sustain its operations and revenue streams.

 

• To what extent are the Group’s two pending legal cases, namely the abovementioned case and GIIB Holdings Bhd vs Multiple Defendants (including related parties) affecting the Group’s ability to implement strategic plans or turnaround efforts?

• Referring to the unplanned shutdown of the Armada Kraken, please clarify whether the disruption was attributable to a major defect? Additionally, given the asset’s transition to a lower charter rate in April 2025, what is the specific strategy for maintaining profitability if maintenance requirements for aging assets intensify while revenue remains at reduced levels?

 

• Given that Armada TGT 1 accounts for a significant portion of the Company’s remaining firm order book and expires in December 2026, what is the specific contingency plan if an extension is not secured or is offered at a rate that does not meet BAB’s cost of capital?