One Perak!

by
Martin Jalleh

One man’s catchphrase of reform – “the culture of change” is in reality one potent chicanery and concoction of 4Cs – Corruption, Coercion, Crossovers and Coups. The self-proclaimed “people’s Prime Minister” with his recycled One Malaysia slogan, robs in broad daylight the people of Perak of their right to determine their State Government.

One haughty political party humiliated in the last general election and by a series of by-election losses, hangs on to power desperately. It hijacks a state government by high-handed, hideous and heinous means such as money politics, mysterious disappearances, mobs and manipulative manoeuvrings of the nation’s democratic institutions.

One fraudulent State Government is formed by the crossovers of two assemblymen charged with corruption, one assembly woman who compromised and reduced the price of democracy to cash and Camry – a threesome who made themselves “independent” of the will of the people – and the double-crossing over of one Umno assemblyman.

One – hand-in-glove with its political (pay)master, the one-sided Election Commission (the supposed paragon of democracy) – panders and plays to the tune of and remains pliant to Umno and its power grabbing  to prevent the people of Perak from being the one paramount arbitrator to overcome the State’s political deadlock.

One farcical State Government – made up of an overwhelming 27 Umno assembly members, one MCA assembly member and three ‘independent’ hoppers – is portrayed as a strong representation of multiracial unity and governance! The people are expected to believe that the most divisive force, led by the most devious of characters, will make Perak one!

One interfering and intimidating show of force by the police force, assisted by Umno’s thugs and a spineless State Secretary is brazenly displayed to prevent the Menteri Besar (MB) and the Pakatan Rakyat Assembly members from entering the State Assembly. The partisan police who pathetically fail to arrest the rising crime rate in the country rise to every occasion to protect Umno’s “internal security”.

One “small boy” in the Prime Minister’s Department calls the Speaker a “boy speaker” The latter has in fact been amongst the very few who are man enough to stand up to the taunts, threats, tricks of Umno and refuse the tempting offers to commit treachery – in sharp contrast to the Minister who is well-known for his childish temper tantrums and theatrics in Parliament.

The only and only judiciary!

One open-court-shy probationary judge is chosen to decide on a constitutional matter of such monumental significance. He rules that the genuine MB must be represented by the State Legal Advisor – which means that the two political adversaries fighting for the MB’s seat have the same lawyer in the same court case! It was one historic judicial farce!

One further bizarre leap of logic, the “arrogant novice” takes. He extends his judicial purview to the proceedings of a state assembly – which the Federal Constitution clearly forbids. He issues a court order restraining the Speaker from holding any assembly meetings. The trainee judge had his contract extended for another two years! Alas, it pays to be arrogant and asinine in the judiciary!

One jaundiced judgment leads to another. Constitutionally, a Speaker or his acts in a Legislative Assembly cannot be questioned in court. Yet, one High Court judge in Ipoh dismisses the Speaker’s application to strike out the summons of the three turncoat assembly members who sought a declaration that the Speaker’s order to declare their assembly seats vacant was illegal.

One Federal Court of five unanimously myopic judges declares that the three turncoat assembly members are still members of the Perak State Legislature and that the Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak State Legislature and the authority to declare a seat vacant, and not the Speaker.

One bad judgment it surely was when seen against  a clause in the Perak Constitution which states: “It is only upon receiving the decision of the Legislative Assembly will the Election Commission be able to establish that there is a vacancy.” As respected and retired Court of Appeal judge N. H. Chan commented: “The Federal Court has put the cart before the horse – in this case, just the cart without the horse.”

One unanimously errant Federal Court five-judge panel declares that the Speaker’s decision to suspend the illegitimate MB and six others was null and void. As was pointed out by the abovementioned “inconvenient” former judge, it was a “perverse ruling”, an “ineffectual thunderbolt”. Or in the infamous words of Justice Augustine Paul – “irrelevant”!

One dead constitution the Federal Court leaves behind. It disgracefully disregards and discards constitutional provisions to treat the doctrine of separation of powers with deference. This dastardly desecration of the Constitution is in stark contrast to the five occasions wherein the Courts had ruled that the judiciary has no jurisdiction over decisions made in legislative assemblies.

Umno & the Police are One

One black day Bolehland will never forget. A fracas takes place in the Perak State Assembly. A fraudulent State Government grabs power. One fake Speaker is installed. Police trespass into the State Assembly, forcibly drag out the Speaker and detain him for about 90 minutes against his will. Public disgust was best captured by one Umno leader, Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, who called it – “high-handedness at its foulest.”

One silly excuse after another the Home Minister dishes out in parliament for the police’s unlawful and disgraceful action. He says: “The police were merely following the instructions of the ‘new Speaker’ ” – one who was illegitimately installed! In short, the long arm of the law aided and abetted with an illegal Speaker whom Umno smuggled into the State Assembly – a perfect start to a Police State!

One more spin by the humbug Home Minister – “what the police did was in accordance to the law”. As reputed lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar would highlight, the Perak imbroglio has made manifest the fact that the BN “took the law into its own hands”; the BN “appears to see no limits to what it is permitted to do to achieve its objectives” and the BN “considers itself a law unto itself”. The BN, Umno and the police are of course ONE – especially in Perak!

One sad, scandalous and shocking day it was indeed, when the Executive literally laid siege on the Legislature resulting in the death of the Perak and Federal Constitution and the democratic rights of the rakyat of Perak. But one Hishammudin Hussien was “thankful” that no “serious incidents” took place in Perak that day! One more Minister suffering from a very serious deficiency in intelligence!

One big constitutional mess

One new judge (only one month old) in the Court of Appeal continues the judicial circus. He is a one-man panel and grants the usurper MB a permanent stay of the Kuala Lumpur (KL) High Court’s ruling that Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin  (Nizar) is the lawful MB. Why choose a new man and a one-man panel when the Court of Appeal has 22 judges?  Why stay a declaratory order which is not normally done?

One question crops up after another. Why the “indecent haste” to grant the illegitimate MB a stay? Why was the application of the lawful MB not treated with equal urgency? The court gave a verdict as fast as about only two-and-a-half hours after the usurper made his application. Nizar had to wait eight days before his application was heard! Why?

One further major judicial misstep the Court of Appeal takes by allowing an appeal by the illegitimate MB. In a five-minute oral judgment, the appellate court reversed the brave decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court that declared Nizar the rightful MB. For many “(t)here was no reasoned grounds of judgment but mere findings of the Court of Appeal” (Lim Kit Siang).

One big constitutional mess the learned judges leave the country in. One grave implication of the judgment is that a Sultan can sack his MB without a no-confidence vote in the State Assembly. The Agong can now sack the PM at his pleasure (and surely much to the pleasure of Bolehland) without a motion of no-confidence in Parliament!

One initial shocking piece of news was that there would be no written judgments by the “extraordinary judges in Malaysia with extraordinary abilities” in the cases related to the Perak constitutional crisis. Disturbed perhaps by their pangs of conscience, two federal Court panels explained in writing how each of their solemn mockery was arrived at.

One written judgment by Augustine Paul that the Speaker does not have the power to suspend the usurper MB and his band of six from attending the assembly, is reduced by N. H. Chan to pages of “gobbledegook”. Another by Nik Hashim bin Nik Abd Rahman that it is the EC and not the Speaker which determines a vacancy, Chan rubbishes as the “regurgitation of not administering justice according to law”.

One clear evidence from both the written judgments says N. H/ Chan, is that the Federal Court judges have brought the Judiciary into disrepute or brought discredit to it, by not administering justice according to law (a “besetting sin”). They should be removed from office under the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994. Alas, they have reduced the judiciary to one big joke!

One month has passed since the Court of Appeal had allowed the appeal by the usurper MB to reverse the KL High Court decision that declared Nizar the rightful MB of Perak. The presiding judge has failed to keep his promise made after his five-minute oral judgment that the written judgment would be given in “one week”.

One working day before the 30-day appeal deadline expires, Nizar files his application for leave to appeal – without the two written grounds of judgment of the Court of Appeal that removed him as MB. He poses one pressing question: “If High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim managed to write his 78-page judgment within four days, how come these judges cannot provide the written grounds of their judgments (after one month)?”

One colossal failure

One Perak – a State with two MBs, two Speakers, two State Governments and a police force and judiciary without the two essentials of manhood that would make them bold enough to stand up to Umno’s shameless display of belligerence, brazen high-handedness and unbridled arrogance of power.

One colossal failure it is by the PM and the illegitimate and delusional MB who compares his political struggle to that of Mandela and Gandhi. Tengku Razaleigh hit the nail on the head (of the government) when he declared: “The Perak power grab had reduced Perak into a failed state…(it) is a tragicomedy of errors and bad political judgment that reflects a failure of political leadership.”

One and only way for Perak to move forward is to go back to the people! It of course depends very much on the failed PM and also on His Royal Highness (HRH) Sultan Azlan Shah who has made it very clear that “rulers are above all politics”, and yet, prior to that HRH had very ironically made a decision above all human understanding and logic.

One MB with an indomitable spirit, one Speaker who has become an inspiration to many, one retired judge intensely committed to the law, one intrepid High Court judge who administered justice according to the law – each one of them together with every significant individual and unsung hero – represents a tiny ripple of hope when in continued synergy will surely serve as a surging and unstoppable wave of change…one day!

25 June 2009

(The above is an improved and expanded version of an article which first appeared in the latest issue of Aliran Monthly)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 28 June 2009, 8:08 am and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ong Tee Keat has won the right to get into Guinness Book of Records twice, the second time for being the first MCA President in 60 years to be on the run, from Parliament and outside, on a national scandal

My three questions (No.91 to No. 93) on the 31st day in the current series) to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

Question No. 1 – In response to my challenge to him yesterday to five public debates on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Penang, Malacca and Johore Baru, where he could be assisted by the two former Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as well as MCA leaders who had served as Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman, Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon and Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung, Ong responded that I was not qualified to debate with him.

What arrogance and “high-and-mighty” attitude after becoming a “small Minister”!  What would he not do if he becomes a slightly “bigger” Minister?

A day after the release of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report on the PKFZ scandal on May 28, 2009 the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak publicly directed Ong to reply to all questions about the PKFZ scandal.  Has Ong forgotten the Prime Minister’s public directive, and if not, is he avoiding the 90 questions I have asked in the past 30 “three questions a day” as well as afraid of a public debate on the PKFZ scandal?

Ong has accused me of telling endless lies about the PKFZ scandal. If so, isn’t a five-venue public debate the best place to publicly nail all the lies I have been telling about the PKFZ scandal, instead of running away from such a debate challenge?

In fact, Ong should counter-challenge me to a 12-venue public debate on the PKFZ scandal to fully exploit the opportunity to prove to all and sundry the alleged litany of lies I have been telling about the PKFZ scandal. Let me tell Ong that he if dares to challenge me to a 12-venue debate (say including Seremban, Kuantan, Kuala Terengganu, Kota Baru, Alor Star, Kuching, Kota Kinabalu), I would accept without hesitation.

Why is Ong running away from such a public debate series to “nail the liar”, when it is the liar who should be running away from any public debate and here Ong is doing running – all the way to Paris!

Can Ong answer this question. This is my first question today.

Question No. 2 – Ong has won the right to get into the Guinnness Book of Records for a second time. Yesterday, I said Ong qualifies to get into the Guinness Book of Records in becoming the first Cabinet Minister not only in Malaysian parliamentary history but in the history of Commonwealth Parliaments, to accuse an Opposition MP for not telling the whole truth about the Cabinet meetings and decisions about a major financial scandal.  What is shocking is that Ong could come out with such utter nonsense that an  Opposition MP should know  everything about what happened in the Cabinet over the PKFZ scandal!

Ong has won the right to get into the Guinness Book of Records for a second time,  as the first MCA President to be “on the run” from Parliament and from the country (Malaysians will never forget that he ran away to France, purportedly for the Paris Air Show, so that he need not appear on the first day of the June meeting of Parliament to give a satisfactory accounting for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal).  Of course, he was not the first MCA leader and Minister to be “on the run” to avoid ministerial accountability and responsibility. Former Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy did the same thing, to be “on the run”,  in November 2007 – all the way to the United Kingdom – to avoid Ministerial accountability and responsibility to Parliament, but he was only MCA Deputy President.

Can Ong explain why he is setting such a dubious and shameful record for a MCA President – first time in 60 years –  and Malaysian Cabinet Minister to be “on the run” from Parliament and outside on  the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

Question No. 3 – I am still waiting for Ong’s answer whether he agrees with my proposition: that Pakatan Rakyat MPs support his motion, submitted through his proxy Tebrau MP Teng Boon Soon to refer me to the Committee of Privileges for misleading Parliament on the PKFZ scandal about Cabinet meetings and decisions on the PKFZ with the quid pro quo that Barisan Nasional MPs submit my motion to refer Ong to the Committee of Privileges last Wednesday.

I am giving Ong 48 hours to say yes or no, and not to continue to run from my questions, which he had been doing for my 90 questions in the past 30 days.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 29 June 2009, 1:12 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


What can SIAP do with regard to R K Krishnansamy on the police non-action on the murder of his father, former Tenggaroh Assemblyman and Johore MIC leader Datuk S. Krishnansamy on 11.1.08?

This is the email from Raj Kumar Krishnansamy on the murder of his father Datuk S. Krishnasamy, former Tenggaroh assemblyman and Johore MIC leader Datuk S. Krishnasamy on 11th January 2008, (with various names deleted).

I want to ask what SIAP could do with such a complaint as it is likely to be utterly helpless and powerless to do anything, unlike the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as proposed by the Royal Police Commission as the key of the 125 recommendations to create a Malaysian police service which is efficient, professional, incorruptible and world-class.

R.K. Krishnasamy’s email  on the murder of his father Datuk S.Krishnasamy reads:

Below is a synopsis of the case since Jan 11, 2008.

My father was the state Deputy MIC Chairman. A week before his murder, there was a lot of newspaper articles(Malaysia Nanban) that my father is planning to challenge the current Chairman, Datuk KS Balakrishnan and become the next state chairman. Datuk KS Balakrishnan’s son is Pannir Selvam. He was appointed by Datuk Bala to be the state MIC youth deputy chief. This was a move that my father objected as his son did not have the right character for the position. Both father and son could not go along with my father.

My father went into the lift after lunch at abt 2.20pm. He received a call while he was in the restaurant,then he left the restaurant to the office. Who called him, still a mystery till today as police do not want to reveal it.

Upon arrival, he went into the lift. It was in the lift that he was shot.

We do not know who shot him as the security guard was sent to the next building. Why the next building? The guard was sent to give something to Datuk Bala’s personal secretary. The one who sent the guard was [deleted]. She is also the MIC office clerk and Datuk Bala’s “close friend” for 20 years. She specifically told the guard to sent the letter and buy food for her at 2.20pm. Lunch time was at 12noon, why sent him at 2.20pm. The police does not want to answer to this. Why use the guard to sent a letter to Datuk Bala’s secretary when Datuk Bala would be in the office at 2.30pm, the police do not want talk about it.

Surprisingly, the gunman knew the MIC building very well. Who brought him in there? How did he know about a meeting that is only known to bahagian leaders only? Police does not want to reveal.

She was arrested under remand for 2 weeks and surprisingly, she could afford to hire the best defense lawyer[deleted] along with 8 other lawyers to defend her from the police. Who paid for the 9 lawyers remain a mystery as police do not want to reveal it. Why the “big shot” paid for the 9 lawyers? Why did she send the security guard off at that time, police do not want to answer it. The police has been tight-lipped from day one.

My sister and her husband went to JB police station every week to ask about the case. But during one of her trip there, she was followed by 3 indian guys in a 4 wheel drive. They would park outside her apmt and ask worund the neighbours about my brother in law. The guys were caught in the security CCTV camera and a report was launched with Johor police. But surprisingly, after the CD and report, no action was taken. Who are the 3 guys, why were they harassing my sister and her family, why are the police so quiet about the 3 guys till today?

Then the guy from Kluang, [deleted] a MIC leader was arrested. He was having some problem with my father before and a very close friend to Pannir and Datuk Bala. However, he was released after 2 weeks. This guy, after being released, bragged to his friends in Kluang, how the police was scared of him and how powerful he is in Johor. When we asked police about this, the only answer that we got is that they will look at it again.Till this day, there is no answer from the police.

Then Pannir got arrested under remand and after his remand, he got arrested under EO. Within a few hours of his arrest under EO, he was released middle of the night. But when we called police, they told us “No Comments”. That was when all the other suspects were released and the police told us that they lost the case. They will wait till any new evidence comes in.

The police has never told us anything about the progress of the case. Everytime we meet the police, it must bad news like the fingerprints were not usable, but they do not tell us why. The bullet could not help at all, i do not why as well.

The prime suspect [deleted] was recently appointed MBJB as a city councillor.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 29 June 2009, 4:37 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A powerless SIAP in place of IPCMC

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 9:04 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Penang High Chaparral Issue, statement by Penang CM

By
Lim Guan Eng

Hindraf Must Wake Up And Realise That Kampung Buah Pala Is Still Standing Today Because The Penang Pakatan Rakyat State Government Had Successfully Prevented Them From Being Evicted In The Middle Of Last Year.

The Penang Pakatan Rakyat state government has never consented nor approved any demolition of Kampung Buah Pala. Any action taken is by the private developer via a court order issued by the relevant courts.

Up to RM200,000 per family was offered by the developer to the residents which was accepted by many families but not by those remaining in Kampung Buah Pala. The state government respected the decision of those remaining in Kampung Buah Pala to reject any compensation offer and to fight it out in courts.

If the state government had not been sympathetic to the plight of the residents, then the developer would have evicted the residents in the middle of last year when a court order was obtained. Only the determined preventive efforts by Penang DCM2 Professor P Ramasamy and Penang State EXCO Abdul Malek stopped the developer from entering the village with bulldozers several times last year.

All parties must therefore realise that it is only because of the efforts of the present Pakatan Rakyat state government that the Kampung Buah Pala residents are still living there.

Koh Tsu Koon Owes The Public A Full Explanation Why He Sold The Kampung Buah Pala At A Cheap Price Of Only RM10 Per Square Feet In 2007 And Without consulting the residents.

The state government land of Kampung Buah Pala was approved to Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang twice by the BN Penang state EXCO led by Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon on 18.8.2004 and 8.6.2005 with a premium of RM6.42 million or RM20 per square feet. I can not understand neither the rationale of approving this project without consulting the residents nor selling it at such a low price.

Worse Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon’s EXCO reduced the premium further by 50% to RM3.21 million or only RM10 per square feet on the recommendation of the UMNO Deputy Chief Minister. Koh Tsu Koon owes the public a full explanation why he sold Kampung Buah Pala at a cheap price of only RM10 per square feet in 2007 when the market price in this prime area is many times over and without consulting the residents.

The Penang State Government Should Not Be Unfairly Victimised And Targeted By Hindraf For Helping The Kampung Buah Pala Residents.

It is BN, Gerakan, MIC, UMNO & MCA that are the main culprits for causing, abandoning and even selling out Kampung Buah Pala residents.

The Penang state government regrets the highly irresponsible and irrational actions of Hindraf in targeting the Penang state government over the actions taken by the developer to evict residents in Kampung Buah Pala. Hindraf wants the state government to act against the court order obtained by the developer to evict the residents. This the state government can not do as Pakatan Rakyat governs under the rule of law and is compelled to respect any court order issued.

On the other hand, there have been suggestions that the Penang state government forcibly acquires the land under for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act. Doing so would play into the hands into the developer who would be able to reap enormous profits without putting in a single cent. Much as the Penang state government would wish to do, cancelling the project and forcibly acquiring the land would incur costs beyond the financial capability of the state government.  We are NOT talking about millions of ringgit or tens of millions of ringgit here!

Clearly Hindraf is unable to distinguish who its friends are by likening such actions to UMNO’s tearing down of Hindu temple. And yet Hindraf does not organise nation-wide protests for the recent tearing down Hindu temples in Kuala Lumpur. The Penang state government should not be unfairly victimised or targeted by Hindraf when we have assisted the residents and also not involved with the tearing down of any Hindu temple in Penang.

Why is Hindraf not demonstrating against UMNO or Gerakan or MCA or even MIC who are the main culprits and perpetrators behind Kampung Buah Pala? This begs the question whether Hindraf has now been infiltrated by collaborators of MIC and BN when it should be demonstrating against those who demolish temples and not the Penang state government seeking a fair deal for the Kampung Buah Pala villagers.

Hindraf should realise what the Penang state government has done for the Indian community, temples and Tamil primary schools. Not only was the first Indian Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang appointed but the 28 Tamil primary schools were given a yearly allocation of RM1.5 million along with other Chinese primary, Sekolah Agama Rakyat, missionary schools and Chinese independent secondary schools. Further Penang put up the FIRST Tamil road signs in the country alongside with Arabic, Chinese and English bilingual road signs in Georgetown. Even Hindraf never even raised the issue of Tamil road signs.

By going against the Penang state government, Hindraf is indirectly helping UMNO and BN and putting all the achievements made by the Penang state government at risk. There will be no Indian DCM2, no yearly allocation of funds to Tamil primary schools and no more Tamil road signs or bilingual road signs. Hindraf should use reason not emotions of rage or anger and think again who are the real opponents and the real friends of the Indian community.

Most important of all, the Penang state government treats all Indians together with Chinese and Malays as Malaysian citizens, where a Chinese leader can look after Malays a Malay leader can look after Chinese and an Indian leader can look after all citizens. DAP and the Pakatan Rakyat government will not back down or be cowed by BN, UMNO or Hindraf who continues to look at problems from a narrow racial spectrum of Chinese, Indian of Malays. DAP and the Penang Pakatan Rakyat government believes that the issues of Indians are not Indian problems, the issues of Chinese are not Chinese problems nor the issues of Malays not Malay problems but a Malaysian issue.

We should be uniting together as Malaysians around the principles of justice, truth, freedom, democracy and welfare of the people to ensure that we fight corruption to both generate growth and prosperity as well as ensure that everyone shares equitably.

However despite regretting the unwarranted targeting of the Penang state government, Hindraf leaders have the right to exercise the basic human rights of peaceful assembly by demonstrating no matter how unreasonable they are. I have instructed my officials to respect their rights and accept any memorandum submitted in line with non-violent principles of Mahatma Gandhi that,  “violence begets violence, an eye for any eye would leave everyone blind.” I also urge the police not to take any action that would lead to untoward actions.

The state government will also not be affected by the actions of the residents in suddenly turning against the state government despite all the assistance offered. The state government will continue to assist the remaining residents of Kampung Buah Pala, including if the residents so wish, that the developer of Kampung Buah Pala continues with its offer of up to RM200,000 compensation per registered family to the residents. The state government has also not given any consent or agreement to the developer to demolish any buildings as the developer is acting on his own under the court order from the High Court and Federal Court.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 10:00 am and is filed under
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ scandal – why has OKT changed so much in 8 short months after becoming MCA President?

My three questions (No.94 to No. 96) on the 32nd day in the current series to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal today are:

Question No. 1: Ong, who had to abscond all the way to Paris to avoid ministerial accountability to Parliament for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal on June 15, specially came to Parliament yesterday to repeat to reporters at the Parliament lobby that I am not qualified to challenge him to a public debate on PKFZ scandal.

What courage!

Ong, having become MCA President, now regards himself as ‘No. 1 under the skies”. His ego must have reached the skies as he has been named “World’s Most Outstanding Chinese Leader”!

Ong is undoubtedly the “World’s Most Outstanding Chinese Leader” in running away from ministerial accountability to Parliament and the electorate, running all the way to France and away from Parliamentm stubbornly refusing to take his stand in Parliament to fully account for the “mother of all scandals”, and now running away from a series of public debates to “nail the liar”.

Referring to me yesterday, Ong said:

 “He asked for the inquiry and the inquiry was made. The result of the inquiry has also been shared to everyone and he was one of the first to get all the information. He also raised the same questions which were raised three years ago. He has asked and the questions have already been answered.”

Yes, I had called for a full inquiry into the PKFZ “scandal of all scandals”  – in fact a Royal Commission of Inquiry. I never agreed to a PKFZ inquiry which is so narrow and restricted in scope like the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit inquiry to the extent that the PwC report admitted in its own words:

“We were not asked to and we have not advised on any strategy, valuation, legal implications, tax, operational effectiveness, staff competencies or process improvement. No investigation to detect any wrongdoing or audit to form an opinion on any financial information, including any forecasts and projects, has been undertaken.”

The first question I want to ask Ong is why he had changed so much in a short period of eight months after he became MCA President last October in his stand on accountability and integrity as compared to his past two decades in politics?

Question No. 2: The second question to Ong is whether he had directed the Port Klang Authority (PKA) to stop the next drawdown of RM360 million from the government’s soft loan of RM4.6 billion to pay the PKFZ turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. (KDSB)  for the PKFZ land and construction.

The Finance Edge had reported that PKA is also to make another drawdown of RM300 million next month to meet the next scheduled payment to KDSB.

KDSB had received a payment of RM510 million in 2007 and RM660 million last year.

Will Ong order a halt to all payments to KDSB until a full inquiry and parliamentary accountability on the PKFZ scandal is completed?

Question No. 3: Karim Raslan in his Star column “CERITALAH” giving his diagnosis as to what Umno and Barisan Nasional should do to regain support of Malaysians, said:

“Second, the administration has to come clean on issues like the Port Klang Free Zone. A zero tolerance to corruption and mismanagement is a sure vote winner, look at how Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has focussed on the issue.”

Because of Ong’s snowballing and sabotaging of all efforts to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, both Ong and the PKFZ scandal have become the symbols of the refusal of the Najib premiership to have zero tolerance to corruption and mismanagement.

Does Ong agree with Karim and what does he proposes to do about it?

(Media Conference Statement by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang in Parliament on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 11 am)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 3:27 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Public Forum – RM12.5b PKFZ Scandal: No Competency, No Accountability & No Transparency

Live webcast :
http://tv.dapmalaysia.org

Title: “RM12.5b PKFZ Scandal: No Competency, No Accountability & No Transparency”

Date: 1st July 2009 (Wed)

Time: 8pm

Venue: Civic Hall, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) [
MAP
]

Inquiry : 016-5941995

Panelists:

Lim Kit Siang, DAP Parliamentary Leader

Tony Pua, MP for Petaling Jaya Utara

Charles Santiago, MP for Klang

Ronnie Liu, ADUN for Pandamaran, Selangor State EXCO

Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, MP for Kuala Selangor

View
DAP’s Point of Interest
 in a larger map

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 30 June 2009, 4:51 pm and is filed under
Announcement
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


If The Tang Hak Ju Land Scam Involving Undeveloped Quarry Land For A Period Of 15 Years May Finally Cost The State Government RM 40 Million, Forcible Acquisition Of Kampung Buah Pala Involving Developed Land Would Be Of A Frightening Magnitude

By
Lim Guan Eng

If The Tang Hak Ju Land Scam Involving Undeveloped Quarry Land For A Period Of 15 Years May Finally Cost The State Government RM40 million (RM29 million + Interest), Forcible Acquisition Of Kampung Buah Pala Involving Developed Land Would Be Of A Frightening Magnitude.

The Penang state government wishes to rebut the lies of Hindraf leaders and collaborators of BN and MIC who claims that acquiring Kampung Buah Pala would cost at the most RM30 million or even very much less. Where is it stated in the land acquisition laws or approved by the courts that government can acquire land for the public interest at a sum far below the market price?

If the Tang Hak Ju land scam involving undeveloped quarry land for a period of 15 years may finally cost the state government RM40 million (RM29 million + interest), forcible acquisition of Kampung Buah Pala involving developed land would be of a frightening magnitude. The Penang state government simply does not have the financial capability to afford the acquisition of Kampung Buah Pala. We are not talking of millions of ringgit. Neither are we talking of tens of millions of ringgit here!

Any lawyer or even law student knows this. Clearly these Hindraf leaders and BN collaborators are trying to spin a web of deceit and deception to paint the Penang state government as uncaring of Indians. Hindraf may deceive those from outside Penang but those in Penang knows our achievements that we have taken a different path of looking not only after Indians but also after Malays and Chinese as well.

Penang Pakatan Rakyat State Government Fights For All Races And Will Never Become A Single Racial Or Religious Entity.

As with all communities, we have given dignity and respect to ordinary Indians. The first Indian Deputy Chief Minister II of a state in Malaysia was appointed in Penang, all the 28 Tamil primary schools were given a yearly allocation of RM1.5 million along with other Chinese primary, Sekolah Agama Rakyat, missionary schools and Chinese independent secondary schools. Further, Penang put up the FIRST Tamil road signs in the country alongside with Arabic, Chinese and English bilingual road signs in Georgetown. Even Hindraf had never raised the issue of Tamil road signs.

Hindraf and the BN collaborators must see that the Pakatan Rakyat Penang state government treats all Indians together with Chinese and Malays as Malaysian citizens who desire justice and detest corruption. Unlike Hindraf and the BN collaborators, we fight for all races and religions and will never become a single racial and religious entity.

Hindraf should not stray from its chosen path of defending the victim against the bully or fighting those who are helping the victims. Many Malaysians whether Indians or non-Indians are upset that Hindraf has chosen to pick on the Penang state government instead of the real culprits who sold out Kampung Buah Pala – BN and Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon.

Lest we forget, it was Koh Tsu Koon and BN that sold out Kampung Buah Pala at a cheap price of only RM10 per square feet in 2007 and without consulting the residents. Why has Hindraf lost the courage to oppose the real culprits?

Regrets Unruly Behaviour Of Hindraf Demonstrators

However despite regretting the irrational and unjustified targeting of the Penang state government, Hindraf leaders have the right to exercise the basic human rights of peaceful assembly. I have instructed my officials to respect their rights, accord them full respect and accept any memorandum submitted.

I had also urged the police not to take any action that would lead to untoward incidents. Instructions have also being given that should the police chose to act, then the demonstrators should be led to a place safe from police action in the air-conditioned Komtar government auditorium on the 5th floor. This gesture should serve as a contrast to a BN government that would never have invited demonstrators to the air-conditioned Komtar government auditorium in the 5th floor but would have used violent force instead to disperse them.

The Pakatan Rakyat Penang State government’s restraint against Hindraf demonstrators yesterday at Komtar despite extreme provocation demonstrates our commitment not only to help Kampung Buah Pala residents but also in upholding the fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly.

I feel sad at the unruly behaviour of those present who called my political secretary and ADUN Komtar Ng Wei Aik “an office boy”. Or even asking for two graves of 2X6 and 4X6 to be dug for Sri Delima ADUN Rayer and Penang DCM2 Professor Ramasamy.

Pressure The Federal Government And Dr Koh Tsu Koon To Correct Their Grievous Mistake By Acquiring Kampung Buah Pala.

Despite such  consideration on our part for their safety, there were calls by demonstrators inside the air-conditioned Komtar government auditorium that they would vote for BN and against Pakatan Rakyat in the next general elections.  It is clear that Hindraf has been infiltrated by BN and MIC collaborators and should return to its original goal of fighting BN who have shown in Kampung Buah Pala as in countless cases of selling out the people’s rights.

Hindraf can start off this process by pressuring the Federal government and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon to correct their past grievous mistake by acquiring Kampung Buah Pala and returning back the land to the people. What the state government can not afford financially is definitely within the means of the Federal government!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 July 2009, 10:58 am and is filed under
Hindraf
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is OTK prepared to convene a emergency MCA general assembly to secure endorsement for his handling of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal as it is going to be Ong and MCA’s Achilles heel in next general election?

My three questions (No.97 to No. 99) on the 33rd day in the current series to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

Question No. 1: I welcome the announcement by the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng on the withholding of RM660 million in the next drawdown of the government’s soft loan of RM4.6 billion to pay the PKFZ turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. (KDSB) for the PKFZ land and construction.

Only yesterday, I had asked whether Ong would order a halt to all payments to KDSB until a full inquiry and parliamentary accountability on the PKFZ scandal is completed.

A week ago, I had publicly called on the Cabinet to stop making further payments for the troubled PKFZ until all issues related to the accountability and integrity of the project are  resolved.

This was reported in the Edge on June 24 under the report:  “
Kit Siang: Govt should consider stop making payments on PKFZ
”, which states:

The project to develop a transhipment hub hogged the limelight for the wrong reasons after its cost escalated from an initial estimate of RM1.96 billion to about RM4.5 billion. The owner of PKFZ — Port Klang Authority (PKA) — is unable to meet its debt obligations on bonds raised to finance the development, prompting the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to provide a RM4.6 billion soft loan to ensure PKA meet the obligations.

The next drawdown of the MoF soft loan is scheduled next week.

On this, Lim said the cabinet should meet to decide whether to stop payment or consider other available options.

“The cabinet should meet to decide if it should stop payment and consider all angles of accountability, integrity,” Lim told reporters in the Parliament lobby.

When pressed, Lim said the cabinet should know the next course of action it can take in relation to the project.

“The cabinet should know. They must do something… they cannot do nothing. Something must be done. What should they do I don’t know unless I get all the facts,” Lim said.

A recently released PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report on the transshipment hub stated that the total project outlay for PKA could hit RM7.45 billion, including interest costs on the government loan.

Two days ago, DAP Secretary-General Lim
Guan Eng openly called on Ong to stop all payments of the RM660 million to KDS
B if the Transport Minister is committed to cleaning up the PKFZ scandal until the culprits responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal are arrested and charged in court.

I note that the voices of DAP leaders on how the PKFZ scandal should be handled are beginning to be taken more seriously by those in authority.

But I want to ask Ong whether I should commend him for the
latest PKA decision to defer the RM660 million to KDSB
, and whether this decision was the result of Ong’s directive? If so, I will give credit where credit is due. But if this decision has nothing to do with Ong, then giving credit to him would be doing an injustice to the PKA Board.

However, if Ong claims credit for the latest decision on the deferment of the RM660 million payment to KDSB, he must be prepared to take responsibility for all the other decisions of the PKA Board, as he cannot choose to claim credit for praiseworthy  PKA decisions while disclaiming responsibility for deplorable PKA decisions!

The ball is in Ong’s Court to explain this, which is my first question to Ong today.

Question No. 2 – Yesterday, Ong made a political attack on me and Guan Eng at the Klang MCA Delegates Conference, accusing the “father and son” of telling lies and distorting truths, particularly over the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

But Ong has yet to explain why it is he who is running away from the debate to a nation-wide series of public debates, as it is invariably the liar who runs away from a public debate.

Ong cannot even convince the ordinary MCA membership that PKFZ is not the “scandal of all scandals”, which is why to date there is not a single MCA resolution of support for Ong on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

Is Ong prepared to convene an emergency meeting of the MCA General Assembly as the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal is going to be Ong and MCA’s Achilles Heel, just as the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak is going Najib and Umno’s Achilles Heel  in the next general elelction – even making the difference between toppling or retaining Barisan Nasional as the  federal government.

Question No. 3: Tomorrow is the last day of the current parliamentary meeting. Ong’s motion to refer me to the Committee of Privileges for misleading Parliament on the PKFZ scandal (which he had submitted through a proxy, MCA MP for Tebrau, Teng Boon Soon) is not even on the Order Paper as it requires 14 day’s notice and would therefore lapse.

This shows that Ong was never serious about this motion to refer me to the Committee of Privileges but only wanted to respond to my motion which I submitted two days earlier to refer him to the Committee of Privileges for misleading Parliament on the PKFZ scandal.

Furthermore, Ong was not sincere or serious when he told the press in Johore on Sunday that he welcomed the opportunity for both of us to go before the Committee of Privileges for an  “accounting” as to who had actually misled Parliament.

This followed my offer to get 83 Pakatan Rakyat MPs to support the MCA motion to refer me to the Committee of Privileges on the quid pro quo that he get Barisan Nasional MPs to support my motion to refer him to the Committee of Privileges, together with government greenlight for both motions to be passed before the current meeting of Parliament ends tomorrow.

There are still 24 hours to go and Ong can still get the two motions passed by Parliament tomorrow to refer both of us to the Committee of Privileges.

Can Ong deliver or is this just another one of his dishonest and hypocritical political “tai chi”?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 July 2009, 11:31 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Penang Kampung Buah Pala controversy – Koh Tsu Koon should speak up as to whether he would make amends for his decisions as Penang Chief Minister by securing Federal Government grant to Penang State Government to resolve issue with “a stroke of the pen”?

The former Penang Chief Minister and now Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon should speak up as to whether he would make amends for his decisions as Penang Chief Minister in the Kampung Buah Pala, Penang controversy by securing a Federal Government grant to Penang State Government to resolve the issue with “a stroke of the pen”?

The Penang Pakatan Rakyat government is now caught in a vice created by Koh’s administration although it had prevented the eviction of the residents in the area since the middle of last year.

Firstly, Koh must explain why as Chief Minister, his Executive Council had approved the state government land of Kampung Buah Pala to Koperasi Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang, first time on 18th August 2004 and second time on 8th June 2005 at a very low  premium of RM6.42 million or RM20 per square feet.

Secondly, why Koh and his Exco subsequently halved the premium to RM3.21 million or only RM10 psf on the recommendation of the Umno Deputy Chief Minister – far below the market price of the prime land.

Thirdly, why Koh and the Penang State Government had not consulted the residents concerned before alienating the land which is now to be developed into the 14-storey
luxury-living Oasis project with a Gross Development Value of RM150 million
, comprising 490 condominium units (priced from RM240,000 to RM290,000) on the 2.6 hectare site.

It has been said that the Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng can resolve the Kampung Buah Pala issue with “a stroke of the pen”. Yes, it can be resolved with “a stroke of the pen” but involving compensation for the RM150 million Oasis project.

Can the Penang State Government afford such a compensation?

Is Koh prepared to raise in Friday’s Cabinet meeting that the Federal Government make a grant to the Penang  State Government for the amount needed to resolve Kampung Buah Pala issue with “a stroke of the pen” by the Penang Chief Minister?

Time has come for Koh to speak up or he will be failing his own KPI although he is the Cabinet monitor to oversee the KPIs of all Ministers.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 July 2009, 12:56 pm and is filed under
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


100 reasons why Malaysia needs a new Inspector-General of Police

The passage of the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (SIAP) Bill by Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday is the last nail in the coffin of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) proposed by the Royal Police Commission more than four years ago in May 2005.

It also marks the failure of the Barisan Nasional government and the police leadership to fully honour and implement the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission set up by former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi during his “First 100 Days” to revamp and reform the police, which had raised such high hopes and expectations among Malaysians creating such a national euphoria that Abdullah won an unprecedented landslide victory in the March 2004 general elections winning over 91% of the parliamentary seats!

Who must take the greatest responsibility for such a great national letdown and disappointment, if not the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan?

This is why I said more than once in Parliament in the debate on SIAP Bill that there are over 100 reasons why the country needs a new Inspector-General of Police to set the police force on a new course of direction, with new commitment and vision, which can win public confidence where Malaysians regard the police as their friend and protector – a sentiment Malaysians have lost for over a decade since their loss of two fundamental rights, the right to be free from crime and to be from the fear of crime!

What are the major failures of Musa as Inspector-General of Police?

The three core functions proposed by the Police Royal Commission of Inquiry reflect the three biggest failures of Musa as IGP.

In its report in May 2005, the Police Royal Commission proposed “As an immediate measure, PDRM should target a minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category within 12 months of this Report’s acceptance and implementation.”

The latest statistics available to the Police Royal Commission at the time was the 156,455 incidence of crime in 2004, which was an increase of 29 per cent from 121,176 cases in 1997.

This was what the Police Royal Commission said:

“The increase seriously dented Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country. Malaysians in general, the business sector and foreign investors grew increasingly concerned with the situation. The fear was that, if the trend continues, there would be major social and economic consequences for Malaysia. A survey of 575 respondents from the public carried out by the Commission clearly demonstrates the extremely widespread concern among all ethnic groups and foreign residents. Between 82.2 per cent and 90 per cent of the respondents, or 8 to 9 persons in every 10, were concerned with the occurrence of crime.” (3.1 p.108 Report)

From the latest statistics given in Parliament, crime index have galloped to break the 200,000 mark, with the incidence of crime shooting up to 209,582 in 2007 and 211,645 in 2008.

Instead of achieving the Police Royal Commission’s target of reducing the intolerably high incidence of crime of 156,455 cases in 2004  by 20 per cent in 12 months (i.e. 125,164 cases), the reverse took place.  In the four years after the Royal Police Commission Report, crime index kept “reaching for the stars” . In the seven years from 1997 to 2004, crime index increased by  29%, but in the four years from 2004 to 2008 crime index increased by 35.5%.

How can an Inspector-General of Police who presided over such a deterioration in the crime situation demand an extension of this renewed term of Inspector-General of Police in September?

On the second core function to eradicate corruption, Musa Hassan has also failed. In fact, I had called Musa in Parliament as a ‘lobbyist” for mega-contracts, whether for a proposed RM20 billion police helicopter project or the RM4.2 billion “E-Police Force Solution”, and I have not received any satisfactory answer from Home Minister.

On the third core function to uphold human rights, clearly the Police Royal Commission’s proposal that the police officers should undergo human rights “sensitization” orientation courses have fallen on deaf ears, with police violation of human rights in recent months most blatant and flagrant – with indiscriminate police arrests of Malaysians for wearing black, lighting candles, singing birthday songs and the deployment of hundreds of police personnel  who should be catching criminals but were dispatched instead to frustrate the holding of DAP dinners,  creating the new phenomenon firstly that Malaysians can eat but cannot talk and later that Malaysians cannot even eat!

I said that more than a hundred reasons can easily be given as to why the country needs a new IGP and a new police leadership, especially in his shocking failure to lead an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class police service as proposed by the Police Royal Commission!

I welcome Malaysians to come to my blog to give their reasons why the country needs a new IGP and a new police leadership, so that Malaysians, visitors and investors can feel safe again in this country!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 July 2009, 3:46 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Crucial to resolve conversion issues without delay: Lim

The Sun | Giam Say Khoon

KUALA LUMPUR (July 1, 2009) : Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) wants parliament to convene an emergency sitting to pass amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 not relating to Islam.

He said the announcement of Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz on Tuesday that laws on conversion would be indefinitely put on hold pending a decision of the Conference of Rulers was a great disappointment and setback in the resolution of such a “burning issue”.

“I call on the cabinet on Friday to take a bold decision on matters arising from unilateral conversions … these must be resolved without any delay,” Lim said.

“The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act has nothing to do with Islam, and I call on the cabinet to make a decision so that parliament can convene an emergency sitting in July or August, specially to deal with this problem which has become so polarising and dividing,” he said at the parliament lobby.

Lim said that when parliament adjourns tomorrow, it would sit again only three and a half months later, and “I would not know how many conversions will take place in three and a half months and create family pain, children’s agony and national disunity”.

On the issue of the eviction of residents of Kampung Buah Pala in Penang to make way for development, Lim said former chief minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon should speak up on whether he would make amends for his decisions in relation to the village by securing a federal government grant to enable the Penang government to resolve the issue.

“The state government is now caught in a vice created by Koh’s (now minister in the Prime Minister Department) administration, although it had prevented the eviction of the residents since the middle of last year,” Lim said.

He demanded Koh explain why the former state government had approved the sale of the land to Koperasi Pegawai-Pegawai Kerajaan Pulau Pinang at the low premium of RM6.42 million and later halved this to RM3.21 million.

Lim said Koh must state why the former state government had not consulted the residents before alienating the 2.6ha of land, on which a 14-storey luxury condominium is now to be built.

“It had been said that Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng could res-olve the issue with ‘the stroke of a pen’. Yes, it can be resolved, but it will involve compensation for the RM150 million project.

“Can the state government afford such compensation?”

On the withholding of a RM660 million payment to the Port Klang Free Zone’s turnkey developer, Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, by the Port Klang Authority (PKA), Lim said: “I welcome the decision, but if Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat claims credit for it, he must be prepared to take responsibility for all the other decisions of the PKA board.”

He reminded Ong that he (Ong) still had a day before parliament adjourned to get motions passed to refer all concerned to the Privileges Committee to  determine who had actually misled the House.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 July 2009, 10:45 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PAC decision to summon Liong Sik, Kong Choy, Attorney-General to testify on RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal lauded though belated

My three questions (No.100 to No. 102) on the 34th day in the current series to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

Question No. 1 – This is the second day that I am starting my “three questions a day” with a welcome.

Yesterday I welcomed the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Board decision
 on the
withholding of RM660 million in the next drawdown
 of the government’s soft loan of RM4.6 billion to pay the PKFZ turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. (KDSB) for the PKFZ land and construction.

Today I welcome the
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) decision yesterday to summon in a fortnight the two former Transport Ministers
, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, as well as the Attorney-General, to testify over the PKFZ scandal.  The PAC is also to summon the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) and MP for Bintulu Tiong King Sing, who is also the CEO of KDSB.

Last Wednesday, 24th June 2009 ,
during the debate on the government bill to reallot the 2009 Budget
 arising from the Cabinet reshuffle by Datuk Seri Najib Razak when he became Prime Minister, I had stressed that the Public Accounts Committe (PAC) should not be a “cover up” for the PKFZ scandal, berated the PAC Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid for opposing the summoning of Liong Sik, Kong Choy as well as other MCA big-wigs like Chor Chee Heong and Yap Pian Hon.

I in fact reiterated that Azmi should disqualify himself from the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal as he was a Minister and party to the July 2007 Cabinet decision to give retrospective approval for the four unlawful Letters of Support issued by Liong Sik and Kong Choy and were the cause of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

I welcome the PAC decision to summon Liong Sik and Kong Choy and other big-guns for this is the first time that the PAC is acting seriously and responsibly in its inquiry into the PKFZ scandal.

Question No.2 – Today is the last day of the current three-week parliamentary meeting and the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report and appendices on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal have not been  tabled in Parliament so that MPs from both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat can study, deliberate and debate them.

Something is wrong with the Ministerial capability of Ong and his commitment to accountability and responsibility to Parliament when three weeks after parliamentary meeting and his junket to France for the Paris Air Show, Ong has not been able to table the PcW report and appendices in Parliament
although 300 copies of the PwC report and appendices have been sent to Parliament
!

MP for Ipoh Barat, M. Kulasegaran questioned at the beginning of the Parliament sitting today why MPs have not yet received the PwC report and appendices but to no avail.

We have now the ridiculous situation where 300 copies of the PwC report and appendices have been sent to Parliament and are hidden away somewhere in the Parliament building away from the sight of MPs, on the ground that they have been hijacked by the Public Accounts Committee and would only be tabled in Parliament together with the PAC report on the PKFZ.

If we have an efficient and responsible PAC Chairman, it is Ok, but we have here a PAC Chairman who is prepared to play the unprecedented role of hijacking and obstructing the access of MPs to the PwC report and appendices on the PKFZ scandal – which is the first case of its kind in Commonwealth parliamentary history.

Both the Transport Minister and the PAC Chairman are seriously remiss in their parliamentary responsibilities.

Let me tell Ong that if he could not ensure that all MPs are immediately given a copy of the PwC report and appendices, then he is not fit to be a Minister.

Let me ask Azmi whether he is unaware that the PAC is being used as an excuse by Ong to deny access of the PwC report and appendices to MPs? Why has the PAC Chairman done nothing to ensure that PAC is not used as a “scapegoat” by Ong to block the release of the PwC report and appendices to MPs?

A responsible PAC Chairman could have resolved this obstruction and sabotage of parliamentary accountability very simply, by submitting a preliminary PAC report to Parliament together with the PwC report and appendices, informing Parliament what PAC has done on the PKFZ scandal – which will allow the PAC to continue with its further inquiries and deliberations including summoning  MCA big-wigs like former Transport Ministers, Liong Sik and Kong Choy and former KPA Chairmen like Chew Peh, Pian Hon and Chor Heung to give testimony.

What is Azmi not doing this?

My second question to Ong is what is he doing to ensure all MPs can get immediate access to the PwC report and appendices, by making the PwC report and appendices available to MPs?

If the PwC report and appendices have been hijacked by PAC and are under “lock and key” in Parliament, is he prepared to make them available to MPs directly, such as through the Transport Ministry in Putrajaya  or Port Klang Authority in Klang?

Question No. 3: My third question today is with regard to the RM1.2 billion variation order by the PKFZ turnkey developer, Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd and Ong’s May 10, 2008 letter to the Prime Minister seeking the latter’s approval.

Ong’s attempt to distance himself from
KDSB’s RM1.2 billion variation order
, claiming that he just a postman forwarding the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Board’s decision, had been disproved by the contents of his May 10, 2008 letter which very clearly stated:

 “6. Oleh yang demikian, saya pohon pertimbangan serta kelulusan YAB Datuk Seri ke atas perkara seperti tersebut di perenggan 3(i) dan 4.”

Perenggan 3(i) and (4) referred to KDSB’s RM1.2 billion variation order.

The third question I want to ask Ong is whether it is not true that PKA Board in February 2008 had not taken the final  decision to approve the RM1.2 billion KDSB variation order but had referred the whole matter to the Transport Minister for a decision, although the PKA Board recommended approval but the decision was to be taken by the Transport Minister.

If this is correct, then the decision to approve the RM1.2 billion KDSB variation order – which is even higher than the original cost of the PKFZ project as it was estimated to cost RM1.08 billion in 2002 – was taken solely and squarely by the Transport Minister,  either by Kong Choy who was Transport Minister before the March 8, 2008 general elections or by Ong himself after the March 2008 general elections.

Can Ong answer?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 July 2009, 12:26 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Relativism and the Politics of Absolutes

 By
Farish A. Noor

Studying Malaysian politics is a chore in itself, but rewarding for the simple reason that it is one of the most plural, complex and complicated countries in the world. Among all the countries that I have worked on, it is Malaysia that continues to challenge my capacity to think (and relax) for the simple reason that its communitarian mode of sectarian politics is an odd blend of modernity and primordialism that is seldom equalled anywhere else.

At present the opposition coalition known as the Peoples Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat) is once again in a state a crisis – or rather manifold crises – as the component parties bicker over the mode of governance in the states that they won after the elections of March 2008. Bringing together the predominantly Chinese-Malaysian Left-leaning DAP, the multiracial PKR and the overwhelmingly Malay-Muslim Islamists of PAS was never an easy task; and it was said from the outset that the coalition was an instrumental one.

Today however the coalition is once again at breaking point after the DAP threatened to leave the coalition over a dispute over the destruction of a pig abattoir in the state of Kedah, disputes over contracts awarded to development projects in Penang and Selangor, and the lingering fear that the Islamists of PAS will push their Islamisation agenda in the states that have come under their control. Seemingly trivial matters such as the sale of pork and alcohol have forced all three parties to the defensive, with each party holding steadfast to its stand.

Now for political scientists such as myself, situations such as these – which are by no means unique to Malaysia – are worthy of further study as they raise the question of how a mode of representative politics can be developed and institutionalised in the context of plural societies with ethnic, religious and linguistic differences enshrined in the constitution as well as the institutions of state. For this reason what happens in Malaysia is of interest to others in countries like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Singapore, South Africa et al.

The root of the problem seems to be this: Despite the introduction and imposition of modern tools of statecraft such as the Parliament, the Constitution, the Judiciary etc. the operative mode of politics in Malaysia – like in many other post-colonial societies – is anything but modern. Feudal, essentialist and primordial loyalties to race, religion and culture predominate and determine the norms of political praxis, and are still being used by all political parties to maintain the support of their respective sectarian constituencies. Hence the Islamist party’s preponderance to defend and foreground causes deemed relevant to Muslims; while other ethnic-based parties continue to foreground the interests of their respective ethnic communities.

Despite decades of rhetoric about building a united plural Malaysia, none of the political parties and political elite of Malaysia have done much in terms of bridging the cultural, religious and ethno-linguistic gulfs between them. Hence the predominance of a mode of absolutist politics where no single party or leader can even begin to accept the idea of genuine difference and alterity in their midst.

It is for this reason that trivial matters like the sale of pork and alcohol have become so contentious in states like Selangor, and why even the simplest of things like linguistic differences can make or break the fragile coalitions we see in the country.

The question that has to be raised is this: how long will it take for the leaders of Malaysia’s political parties to realise that difference and alterity are living realities in a complex world, and that successful politics arises when parties can accept these differences and transcend them? At present, it is clear that some of the parties in the country have yet to learn the lesson. The Islamists of Selangor, for instance, are still bent on pursuing their mode of religiously-inspired politics with all its attendant dangers of moral policing. While all the parties of the country talk on and on about the much-lauded image of Malaysia being a diverse and plural nation, we see little respect for pluralism on the ground level. Religious minorities such as the Shias and Ahmadis are routinely described as deviants and deprived of their status as Muslims, moral policing is still the norm; and now even the sale of pork for non-Muslims has become an issue.

What holds true for the conservatives among the Islamists also holds true for the representatives and leaders of other parties as well, and as long as this situation pertains then there can be little hope for a genuinely plural and democratic politics in Malaysia.

Plural societies on the other hand are not the best place to play out a politics of absolutism, with its maximalist ambitions. In so many developing countries today, the hope of creating a singular national vision with a singular narrative has been eclipsed by the very real fact that these societies are too complex to be simplified and essentialised. There can be no singular image or identity to Malaysian society today any more than there can be a singular Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian or even American nation, for the simple reason that the processes of social differentiation have grown so far advanced that the appeal of a singular unifying narrative is lost.

So perhaps a healthy dose of relativism – tempered by the awareness that relativism per se cannot be a licence for all sorts of cultural particularism of the Taliban variety –  is required to get us out of the present impasse that stands before most plural societies. In the Malaysian context this may be more difficult for those political parties that use religion as the basis of their ideology, and who think of themselves as God’s politicians on earth who are here to gain control over the Parliament of Heaven. But sooner than later all politicians who claim to be representative – rather than authoritarian – will have to accept the fact that not all communities live and believe as their own, and that dealing with difference is part and parcel of modern constitutional politics today.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 July 2009, 9:24 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Call on Najib and Hishammuddin to respect public opinion on the need for a new IGP who can translate the Police Royal Commission’s vision of “an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service” into a reality

Yesterday, I said that
the country needs a new Inspector-General of Police
 to provide new leadership and vision to regain public confidence in the ability of the Malaysian police to live up to the benchmarks set by the Police Royal Commission Report in 2005 to be an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service with the three core functions to reduce crime, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights.

Instead, the current IGP, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, is lobbying support for another renewal of his term as the No. 1 police officer of the land instead of gracefully allowing a new IGP to take over the Malaysian police force.

No Minister or MP disputed me when I said in Parliament earlier this week that it is easy to give more than a hundred reasons why the country needs a new IGP and why Musa should not succeed in his lobby to get another term of renewal as IGP.

Foremost among the reasons, undoubtedly, is
the burial of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC)
 proposal, the key recommendation of the Police Royal Commission  set up by former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to create a people-friendly and effective police force to keep crime low, clean-up corruption and protect human rights.

The funeral rites for the IPCMC were performed when Parliament passed the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (SIAP) Bill on Tuesday – creating a completely diluted, powerless and visionless Commission as far as creating a world-class police force is concerned.

The call for a new IGP to lead a completely make-over of the police, whether in terms of effectiveness in fighting crime or its  public image as a friend and protector of the people, has struck great resonance from the people.

One visitor to my blog, for instance, has volunteered 12 “not exhaustive” reasons why there should be a new IGP, viz:

Imagine an OCPD shouting through a loud hailer, 1, 2, 3, tangkap, tangkap, tangkap.

Storming the Perak State Assembly with firearms and dragging (Perak Speaker) Sivakumar like an animal out of the assembly hall and illegally detaining him for more than an hour.

Attending Fathers’ Day Dinner without invitation and bringing along 2 water cannon water trucks.

Arresting lawyers who act for their clients.

Arresting people wearing black attires.

Arresting people holding a birthday party.

Arresting people holding and presenting birthday cake.

Not allow to direct traffic.

Lighting candles.

Arresting people attending Hari Raya Puasa open house.

Arresting elected representatives who attend to the people in time of need.

Creating unnecessary roadblocks causing traffic jams.

I call on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to seek and respect public opinion on the need for a new IGP to translate the Police Royal Commission’s vision of “an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service” into reality.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 July 2009, 1:26 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Federal intervention is only way out in Kampung Buah Pala, says Kit Siang

The Malaysian Insider

By
Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, July 3 — The DAP wants former Penang Chief Minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon to solve the Kampung Buah Pala fiasco by lobbying for federal intervention.

Lim claimed that Koh, now a federal minister, was responsible for the controversy as it was during the Barisan Nasional (BN) government’s rule of Penang that the decision was made to alienate the land concerned to a private developer.

“I think the only solution is for Koh Tsu Koon as the former chief minister, who is responsible for this problem in Kampung Buah Pala, to take it up with the federal government and ask the federal government for an allocation or a grant to the Penang state for an amount necessary to have a win-win solution,” he said.

A small number of families in Kampung Buah Pala, in the Glugor area of Penang, are facing eviction after a private developer won outright ownership of the land recently.

But a number of Hindu Rights Action Front (Hindraf) activists have seized on the residents’ predicament, and turned the dispute into a racial issue.

Today, Lim urged all parties to be calm and not to go overboard.

“The issue of Kampung Buah Pala is that the people are being evicted because the previous Penang state government had acted in breach of total trust to the people,” he said.

Lim stressed that the problem was complicated than it appeared because the state government could not afford to acquire the land as a new development project had been planned for the location.

“Although people say that the issue could be solved with a stroke of the pen, it needs a compensation of more than RM150 million.

“The Penang state government and the people of Penang cannot afford it and the number of affected families is only 23,” he said.

As such, he said Koh, as the former chief minister, should act responsibly and request the federal government to help the residents of Kampung Buah Pala

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 July 2009, 4:30 pm and is filed under
Finance
,
Penang Government
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Is Ong Tee Keat prepared to get declassification to submit all Cabinet minutes, memo and official papers on PKFZ to the PAC for a “tell all” probe into RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

My three questions (No.103 to No. 105) on the 35th day in the current series to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the
RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
 today are:

First Question. On Wednesday, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) decided to summon Barisan Nasional big-wigs like the two former Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, and the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) Chairman Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing to testify in its inquiry into the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

We read in the press today the announcement by Tiong, who is also the CEO of Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the turkey developer for PKFZ  that he would not attend the PAC inquiry to give any testimony.

This is a most extraordinary turn of events. Yesterday, Parliament just bulldozed through the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee set up to investigate into the intimidation and obstruction of DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor, Karpal Singh from carrying out his parliamentary duties in the parliamentary precincts on February 26 by Umno Youth leaders but which went outside its terms of reference to recommend the punishment of Karpal, myself and six other Pakatan Rakyat MPs for not attending or participating in the Select Committee’s inquiry.

Tiong was a member of the Parliamentary Select Committee and from the
verbatim record of its proceedings
, particularly its meeting of 18th March 2009, Tiong was very insistent in demanding that Karpal, myself and the other six PR MPs should be punished although we had committed no wrongdoing and when such a matter was completely outside the scope, reference and jurisdiction of the Select Committee.

By Tiong’s own demands, Tiong is committed a serious offence and contempt of Parliament not only in refusing to appear before the PAC, but in announcing that he would not co-operate with the PAC, using the excuse that KDSB is instituting legal action against Port Klang Authority (PKA) on the PKFZ scandal.

Tiong arrogantly and insolently said that the PAC should talk to his lawyers instead of wanting him to appear before the PAC.

My first question to Ong is whether he agrees and approves of Tiong’s attitude or he thinks that Tiong should not only appear before the PAC and give his full co-operation as KDSB CEO but that the time has come for Tiong to relinquish his post as BNBBC Chairman so that BN MPs are not compromised in the PKFZ scandal by taking a stand blindly supporting Tiong because he is BNBBC Chairman.

Questions No. 2: Ong has responded differently from Tiong to the PAC summons, saying that he will co-operate if he is called up by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to give his statement on the PKFZ scandal.

Is he prepared to submit to the PAC all the Cabinet decisions, minutes and papers on the PKFZ scandal right from the start of the ill-fated PKFZ project?

If there is any problem with the Official Secrets Act, is he prepared to get Cabinet approval to declassify all Cabinet minutes, papers and all other official memorandum on the PKFZ, whether from the Finance Ministry, Economic Planning Unit, Attorney-General’s Chambers or the Transport Ministry so that all Cabinet and official papers are submitted to the PAC for a full “tell all” probe into the PKFZ scandal?

Question No. 3: Ong’s “So near and yet so far” charade of the  300 copies of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report and appendices into the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

For three weeks, the 300 copies of the PcW report and appendices in PKFZ scandal  had been kept under “lock and key” to collect dust  in the vaults of Parliament although they were allegedly meant for all MPs – and they are to be kept away from any “sight and sound” of MPs for the next three to six months, if not longer.

Ong blames the Parliament Secretary Datuk Roosme binti Hamzah for not releasing the PwC report and appendices on PKFZ to all MPs.

How cowardly and unchivalrous to pass the buck and blame a parliamentary officer, who is the first woman in the nation’s history to become Parliament Secretary, when it is the Transport Minister who must bear the full blame for the “So near and yet so far” charade over the 300 copies of the PwC report and appendices on PKFZ which are withheld from immediate release to all MPs.

Surely, the 14 PAC members do not need 300 sets of the PwC report and appendices!

My third question to Ong is what has he got to hide in  the PwC appendices into PKFZ, that even now PAC members cannot take them home to study?

Is there something in the three-and-a-half inch high appendices which, on very close scrutiny and study, can throw a new light on how a RM1.088 PKFZ scandal in 2002 under Liong Sik as Transport Minister could quadruple to RM4.6 billion under Kong Choy in 2007 and now again double to RM7.453 billion and may even be as astronomical as RM12.453 billion?

In the past three days, One’s lieutenants in MCA have been singing his praises as the only Minister who wants to “tell all” about the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

If so, can Ong really explain why he is behind the “so near and yet so far” charade of sending the 300 copies of the PwC report and appendices to Parliament but not to put into the hands of the BN and PR MPs?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 July 2009, 11:36 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Parliament
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Pakatan Rakyat’s second “crisis of confidence”

(The headline for the Malaysian Insider “
No let-up as Kit Siang continues attacks against PAS ahead of Kedah trip
” is not correct, as it is not reflected in the contents of its report.

It implied that I was continuing to “attack” the Pakatan Rakyat government in Kedah. This is not the case.

It further implied that I had attacked the PR Kedah state government yesterday. This was also not the case.

Pakatan Rakyat is facing a second crisis of confidence and efforts must be made to resolve it.

This is why I am not only meeting the Kedah State DAP tomorrow but also have a dialogue with the people of Kedah in Alor Star tomorrow night. (New Straits Times today had wrongly reported that I would be meeting residents in the abbatoir area when I said I would be having a people’s dialogue in Alor Star).

Both the Malaysian Insider and New Straits Times report are reproduced below.)

No let-up as Kit Siang continues attacks against PAS ahead of Kedah trip

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

PETALING JAYA, July 3 — In deflecting suggestions that a trivial issue led to the DAP pulling out of the Kedah Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state government, Lim Kit Siang fell back on a cliche, and argued that the pigs were just “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

In a shocking announcement, Kedah DAP announced on Wednesday its decision to pull out of the state government after local authorities demolished the state’s only pig abattoir.

But Lim said today that the abattoir was not the sole reason for the state DAP’s decision.

He pointed out that the abattoir issue was symptomatic of the PAS-led state government’s failure to perform and take into account the views of the public.

“Personally, I think the issue in Kedah is not about pigs but the people. It is not about the abattoir even.

“The reason for what happened Kedah is that Kedah DAP felt many issues concerning the people of Kedah were not taken account by the state government. The issue of the abattoir was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” he told reporters at DAP headquarters here today.

Lim will be heading to Kedah tomorrow to meet with his party members.

The DAP veteran also plans to meet with the grassroots and gauge public sentiment on the issue.

PR’s crisis in Kedah is just the latest problem to hit the alliance of DAP, PAS and PKR.

PAS is also continuing its flirtation with Umno, and has proposed talks between the Youth wings of the two Malay-Muslim parties.

Such developments have led to an escalation of efforts to quickly bring together the three parties in a more permanent structure akin to the formal coalition of the rival Barisan Nasional (BN).

—–

Another PR “crisis of confidence”

By : Joseph Sipalan

KUALA LUMPUR: DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang said the Kedah DAP’s determination to quit the state government spelled a “crisis of confidence” in Pakatan Rakyat.

He described his party’s latest dispute with Pas as the alliance’s

second such crisis coming after senior leaders in the Islamist party proposed unity talks with Umno.

Lim, the member of parliament for Ipoh Timur, said he was “shocked” by the Kedah DAP’s decision to pull out of the state Pakatan over the razing of an illegal pig abattoir in Alor Star.

He said it was still too early to come to any conclusions as he had not been briefed on the complaint by state DAP chairman Thomas Su Keong

Siong.

Su, however, said yesterday that an official letter had been faxed to party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng confirming the state DAP committee’s decision to leave the Pas-led state government.

He said he expected the party central executive committee to meet on the matter soon.

“We have to wait for the report, though I must admit there is considerable frustration that their (DAP Kedah’s) views are not taken seriously.

“Undoubtedly, this will not be taken lightly. We view this situation with grave seriousness,” he said at a press conference at the Parliament lobby.

Lim said he would go to Alor Star tomorrow to meet the state DAP and residents in the abattoir area for their views.

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said the dispute could be resolved within Pakatan.

“We will consider their (Kedah DAP’s) grouses, but I will also talk to the menteri besar,” he said at the Parliament lobby.

Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak gave no indication yesterday that he would back down from his stand on the abattoir.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 July 2009, 5:19 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Procurement: A call for transparency

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz

JULY 2 — Public procurement is the single most important source of corruption in any country, including ours. This crucial process remains a great mystery to the public at large because it is shrouded in secrecy.

The mystery is heightened by the Official Secrets Act (OSA). The OSA has become a permanent fixture in many jurisdictions, and the Malaysian government is not about to toss it out of the window any time soon. The OSA hides a multitude of sins and it is an impediment to transparency.

The government finds comfort and safety by hiding all of its more questionable and corrupt actions that cannot stand close scrutiny behind the OSA. As we know, without transparency, there is no accountability.

Unethical public officials, including senior politicians whose numbers are growing according to independent surveys, stand to gain from a corrupt procurement system. They are not slow to create the entirely spurious impression that Malaysia operates a fair system, as good as any in the world, and they say that it should be left alone. Why, they point out, change a winning formula? But, is it really? In theory, yes, but the practice is an entirely different matter. The procurement system in Malaysia is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Today, more than at any time in the history of modern governance, ethics has taken centre stage whenever public policy issues are discussed. Many organisations the world over are constantly grappling with the mounting problems of unethical public behaviour, particularly in the procurement process.

Institutions are expending time, energy and resources to develop and promote a common understanding of what constitutes ethical conduct in the work environment. Ethics holds the key to good governance, and an ethical procurement regime cannot take root unless the system that underpins it is supported by individuals who accept the notion of public duty in the public interest.

From my perspective as an anti-corruption activist, the starting point for an ethical procurement regime is good governance, with all that this implies. What this means in effect is that given the right climate, strong political will and principled leadership it should lead to greater transparency and accountability in official business transactions.

On the premise that a system is only as good as the people who operate and manage it, their selection and training is crucially important. A procedure must be developed to weed out the obvious misfits by probing rigorously a candidate’s personal history, his social life and his general understanding of, and attitude to, ethical standards of public service.

Standards determine an organisation’s ethical culture. They are particularly important because they set the tone of the organisation. They define staff behaviour at work, prevent abuses, and serve to remind them as public servants that they have an obligation to exercise the power entrusted to them with the utmost circumspection for the benefit of those for whom, and to whom, they are accountable.

Their decisions must be motivated solely by considerations of public interest, and their actions must be open to public scrutiny. Unethical public service behaviour is always traceable to institutional failures. It makes enormous sense for organisations to set high, but realistic standards.

To ensure the integrity of the procurement process, and the accountability of staff members directly engaged in procurement activities, all procurement officers shall be required to submit a financial disclosure statement on first appointment and thereafter annually in respect of themselves, their spouses and dependent children. A ‘zero tolerance’ policy should be adopted and rigorously enforced.

The United Nations Organisation is at the forefront in the fight for ethical conduct in public procurement, and in 2006 set out a requirement for staff engaged in procurement activities to sign the Declaration of Ethical Responsibilities at the time of recruitment.

Public service is awash with conflict of interest situations that public servants have to be constantly aware of, but often fail to recognise not because they are inherently dishonest but because they really cannot see them and, therefore, fail recognise the danger signs. It is important that as much professional advice be available to all public servants engaged in procurement services. The United Nations Declaration of Ethical Responsibilities is a good example of an attempt to define the standards of conduct demanded, and expected of those engaged in public procurement.

The operating principles embodied in the UN Declaration of Ethical Responsibilities serve two complementary purposes which are to promote efficiency, and discourage corrupt practices. Clearly, corruption, for obvious reasons must be kept out of the procurement system, and experience shows that this can be achieved if there is a desire and a will to do so. In the fight against unethical public behaviour, political will is crucial for success. In Malaysia, this is apparently lacking, a carry over from the Mahathir years.

The notion that corrupt practices can be contained by relying solely on self-regulation is a fallacy. Similarly, experience has shown that depending entirely on legal sanctions will not do the trick either. We have to establish whether a particular ethical problem is institutional or is it attributable to human weakness? If the problems are institutional, punishing individuals without first addressing an institution’s internal weaknesses such as the systems and procedures in place is not going to make any difference to corruption in procurement. That having said, the guilty must be made to face the music, the more discordant the better.

All that notwithstanding, there is a need for a sound and consistent legal framework that sets out the basic principles and practices that have to be observed in public procurement. This can take many forms according to Jeremy Pope of Transparency International fame. There is growing awareness he says of the advantages of a unified Procurement Code incorporating the usual basic principles and supplemented with detailed rules and regulations within the purchasing organisations. Many countries are consolidating existing laws into such a code. A Procurement Code must be predicated on open and transparent procedures and practices for conducting the procurement process.

These are not questions of morality. They relate to principled governance and are intended to assist those responsible for public procurement to shift their focus from the narrow mechanical aspects of procurement and concentrate on broader procurement implications. Public procurement as stated at the beginning of this article remains the biggest and most vulnerable underbelly of corruption.

In the end, in the context of integrity in public procurement, we are not talking about systems and mechanisms per se, important though they may be in themselves, but, more to the point, we are talking about the people recruited and entrusted to operate them. If they are ethically deficient to begin with, then ethics in procurement will be given the run around. It is for this reason that the “right” people must be appointed to serve in key functions, preferably based on an integrity test as a minimum requirement. There is, of course no guarantee any test invented so far will haul in a good catch, but a systematic approach to recruitment will help minimise an outbreak of ethical disasters later on.

Given its dismal record in public procurement activities, the government must give practical effect to the public concerns about the entire procurement regime as developed and applied in Malaysia. It is important for the government to adopt international best procurement practices and close windows of opportunity for corruption to infect the system.

Acknowledgement: I have, in the preparation of this article, relied heavily on Jeremy Pope’s invaluable Source Book 2000 ‘Confronting Corruption: The Elements of a National Integrity System’ – fast becoming a classic in its own right. I am equally indebted to Prof. Charles Samford of Griffith University, Queensland, one of Australia’s leading ethicists for his most generous and helpful guidance, as always.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 3 July 2009, 9:39 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Good Governance
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.