RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal – Hansard account

(From Hansard 4th September 2007 [unedited] on the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal during the winding up of the debate on 2007 Supplementary Estimates by Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek)

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
Yang Berhormat, saya ingin meringkaskan cerita dan saya terus kepada perkara-perkara pokok. Yang Berhormat menimbulkan berbagai-bagai isu tetapi kalau diizinkan saya ingin cantumkan isu-isu Port Klang Free Zone ini kepada empat isu. Pertama, mengapakah pembelian tanah ini tidak dibuat melalui pengambilan balik tanah? Kan Yang Berhormat?

Keduanya, apakah status dan mengapakah Menteri mengeluarkan surat, tidak tahulah Yang Berhormat sebut letter of guarantee, tetapi kita sebut letter of support, surat sokongan. Ketiganya ialah mengenai soft loans, pinjaman ringan, pinjaman mudah. Keempatnya, kenapakah projek ini yang dulunya dianggap sebagai self finance dengan izin, tiba-tiba perlukan kepada pinjaman mudah. Boleh Yang Berhormat, empat itu? Ada lagi?

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:

[Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Macam mana build up pula, saya dah cakap empat tadi, dia setuju-setuju, dia masuk juga …

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]:
 Timbalan Menteri jawab sahajalah, jangan ada tawar-menawar ini, susah.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
Tidak apalah, kita bagi peluang dia, nanti dia tidak puas hati, dia kacau lagi. Kita nak telus, bagi jelas. Kepong ok ya? Jangan kacau Kepong. Jadi pengambilan tanah, mengapa pengambilan tidak dilakukan secara pengambilan balik tanah. Yang Berhormat, mula-mula memang ada usaha untuk diambil tanah melalui pengambilan balik, land acquisition. Land acquisition ini boleh diambil melalui dua cara, satunya berdasarkan kepentingan awam. Biasanya kepentingan awam ini adalah untuk projek-projek sosial, hospital, universiti, ini projek ekonomi. Ekonomi yang besar yang mungkin boleh melibatkan keuntungan.

Keduanya ialah pengambilan balik tanah melalui projek ekonomilah iaitu yang keduaduanya tetapi yang ekonomi ini disyaratkan tidak ada sebelum ini development order, ini ada dalam undang-undang Land Acquisition Act. Sekiranya sudah ada development order maka pengambilan tanah atas dasar ekonomi ini tidak boleh dibuat. Jadi sebab itu timbul masalah sama ada ia boleh dibuat ataupun tidak. Apakah ia boleh dikategorikan sebagai pengambilan untuk kepentingan awam memenuhi projek-projek sosial, projek yang betul-betul perlu rakyat ataupun perlu diambil melalui pelaksanaan projek ekonomi. Malangnya pengambilan melalui projek ekonomi bersyarat dalam akta itu, tidak boleh dibuat sekiranya development order sudah dikeluarkan.

Jadi sebab inilah, maka ia mengambil masa. Pada tahun 2002 Kementerian Pengangkutan telah membawa kertas Kabinet, perbincangan dengan Kabinet. Kabinet bersetuju pada 2 Oktober 2002 supaya pembelian tanah ini dibuat. Ini bermakna ada persetujuan bahawa tanah ini dibeli dengan harga-harga tertentu berdasarkan usaha untuk mengambil balik tanah ini, ada isu-isu berbangkit yang boleh menimbulkan masalah, itu pertama. Keduanya, letter of support, surat. Surat ini sebenarnya bukan …

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Sebelum itu bolehkah saya, sebelum masuk …

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
Boleh saya bagi empat dulu sebab takut ada hubung kait.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Hubung kait, ok baik.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Kemudian Yang Berhormat tanya apa Yang Berhormat ingin tanya. Letter of Support ini diberi dikeluarkan oleh Menteri kepada rating agency (MARK). Mengapa? Ini kerana Syarikat Kuala Dimensi ini melalui sebuah SPV akan mengeluarkan bon untuk membiayai pembangunan ini, Kuala Dimensi ini diberi persetujuan untuk membangunkan projek ini. Jadi dia perlu mengeluarkan bon, bahkan sudah dikeluarkan empat kali Yang Berhormat sebanyak RM3.8 bilion, Kuala Dimensi mengeluarkan kerana dia mahu mengerjakan. Bayaran balik akan diperoleh melalui deferred payment yang akan dibuat oleh PKFZ ini. Letter of support ini hanya menyatakan kepada rating agensi bahawa ini adalah projek kerajaan dan Kementerian Pengangkutan akan memastikan yang bayaran loan ini akan dapat dibuat sebaik mana yang boleh, to the best of the ability dengan izin. Makna ini satu, bukannya letter of guarantee, kementerian tidak berhak untuk mengeluarkan letter of guarantee melainkan melalui Kementerian Kewangan yang mewakili kerajaan Malaysia. Ketiganya, soft loan. Sebelum itu saya pergi kepada yang satu lagi, self finance sebab itu yang memerlukan soft loan ini. Self finance projek ini sebenarnya pada awalnya ia dijangka boleh digunakan wang yang terkumpul daripada kutipan hasil daripada projek yang besar ini, 1,000 ekar yang merupakan hanya satu-satunya di negara kita. Iaitu free zone di kawasan pelabuhan yang merupakan komersial dan juga industrial. Komersial itu ada, di Penang ada, di Tanjung Pelepas ada, tetapi yang komersial dan industrial di sini sahaja, di PKFZ ini sahaja. Jadi, yang menyebabkan ia mengalami masalah kemudiannya untuk menjalankan atas dasar self finance. Pada permulaannya projek ini perlu dilakukan secara dua fasa, two phases, dua pakejlah. Mula-mulanya melibatkan perbelanjaan RM400 juta yang hanya melibatkan sebahagian 500 ekar sahaja dahulu atau 400 ekar,, kemudian yang lainnya yang keduanya. Dijangkakan daripada pelaksanaan fasa pertama ini akan mendatangkan hasil dan hasil inilah yang akan digunakan untuk membiayai fasa kedua. Namun, kerajaan melalui kementerian kemudiannya membawa pakar dari luar iaitu ‘Jaber Ali’ untuk menasihati dan menjadi pengurus projek ini. Ini kerana mereka begitu berjaya di Dubai dengan kawasan 25 ribu ekar, dengan 5,000 buah syarikat dan sebagainya, mereka datang untuk membantu kita. Atas nasihat ‘Jaber Ali’ inilah dirasakan membuat projek ini dua fasa adalah tidak baik, menyusahkan. Pertamanya buat satu, kemudian bila hendak buat fasa kedua akan mengganggu fasa pertama, dengan gerak kerja on the ground lah, keselamatanlah dan sebagainya. Maka dan juga economy of scale dengan izin lebih besar ini barangkali lebih murah daripada dibuat peringkat-peringkat. Maka sebab itu ‘Jaber Ali’ mencadangkan supaya ia dibuat sekali gus, 1,000 ekar. Kerajaan telah meluluskan permintaan ini kerana lembaga pengarah PKFZ pun setuju, Pelabuhan Klang Commission pun setuju, maka dipersetujui. Apabila ia dipersetujui buat sekali gus inilah maka internal fund, hasil daripada fasa pertama, hendak guna untuk fasa kedua ini tidak dapat, tidak ada. Maka sebab itulah oleh sebab ini projek kerajaan dan sebagai tanda bahawa ini all along merupakan projek kerajaan, projek ini sudah pun dimasukkan dalam Rancangan Malaysia Kelapan dengan peruntukan permulaannya RM500 juta kalau tidak silap saya dalam Rancangan Malaysia Kelapan, tetapi tidak dapat digunakan kerana masa yang perlu dan perubahanperubahan yang saya cakap tadi.

Maka sebab itulah akhirnya Kabinet telah meluluskan skim soft loan ini yang mana terma-termanya, syarat-syaratnya masih lagi dirundingkan tetapi secara kasarnya, interestnya adalah 4% dan juga repayment periodnya tujuh tahun bersama satu tahun grace period dan seperti yang saya katakan ini masih lagi perbincangan di antara PKFZ dengan kerajaan untuk memuktamadkan syarat-syarat ini. Ini bukannya bail out, ini bukannya free money. Money with interest, interest 4%, a little bit of differ period given. Kepong, apa dia itu?

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]:
 Hendak bagi jalan Yang Berhormat.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Okeylah, bagi Keponglah, Ipoh Timor sudah banyak kali.

Dr. Tan Seng Giaw [Kepong]
: Mengapa ‘Jabel Ali’ sebagai penasihat? Bolehkah kajian atau laporan ‘Jabel Ali’ diumumkan bagi kita tahu semuanya. Ini kita mesti perhatikan. Yang pertama, LPK selepas kita swastakan mengapa LPK terlibat di dalamnya. Kita sudah swastakan, LPK hendak terlibat lagi sama-sama tidak berpengalaman. Kita pelawa ‘Jabel Ali’ kerana kedua-dua pun tidak berpengalaman. Macam mana dengan projek ‘RM4.6’ bilion ini ada dua agensi yang tidak berpengalaman. Baik kita bagi ‘Jabel Ali’ sekali gus kalau macam itu. Yang pentingnya, yang pertama dengan tanah itu…

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]:
 Yang Berhormat, ada peraturan duduk macam tu ke?

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Yang Berhormat boleh duduk macam itu. Saya pun hendak tegur tadi. Hairan saya macam mana boleh duduk macam itu bercakap, saya ingat sudah habis. Saya pun hendak bangkit.

Dr. Tan Seng Giaw [Kepong]:
 Kalau cokoh itu tidak penting, yang pentingnya LPK beli tanah itu RM25 tetapi pasaran RM12 hingga RM15 sahaja. Bolehkah Yang Berhormat terangkan mengapa dia satu kali ganda harga tanahnya. Ini dua soalan tadi banyak lagilah Yang Berhormat.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
Yang Berhormat, itu pun sudah cukuplah. Soalan-soalan itu pun sudah cukup. Asalkan tanya itu duduk elok-eloklah, jangan duduk tercangkung macam itu tidak eloklah orang nampak. Tambah orang kampung tengok apa Yang Berhormat duduk tercangkung. Ini pertamanya saya tidak tahu Yang Berhormat salah sebut ke dia kata projek ‘RM46’ bilion.

Dr. Tan Seng Giaw [Kepong]
:
[Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Lidah Yang Berhormat keras sedikit, jadi tidak berapa hendak jelas. Saya takut masuk dalam Hansard RM46 bilion, apa pula ini.

Dr. Tan Seng Giaw [Kepong]
: [Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Sebab perpuluhan itu tidak berapa jelas sedikit. Okey. Yang keduanya fasal RM25 ini, ini mula-mulanya pembelian tanah ini paya semuanya. Dia tidak ada tanah ini, 1,000 ekar ini sebenarnya paya. Paya ini tahu tak? Paya ini air, bila pasang dia air paya. Jadi, yang RM10 hingga RM12 ini bila di tambunnya dahulu 500 ekar, tinggal lagi 500 paya. Maka harganya ialah RM10 hingga RM12, tetapi bila di tambunnya 1,000 ekar, 500 campur 500 lagi dan dibuatnya pula infrastruktur asas seperti selain daripada tambun tanah, perparitan, jalan, jambatan dan bekalan air dan dikira pula pembayaran ini dibuat dalam masa 15 tahun. Yang Berhormat 15 tahun, bukannya bayar sekali gus, bukannya bayar tunai. Yang RM10, RM12 itu dikira bayar tunai dan tambunnya pun 500 ekar sahaja. Bila di tambunnya 1,000 ekar, dibuatnya jambatan dan sebagainya dan dibayarnya pula 15 tahun, pada kadar interest 7.5%. Maka sebab itulah dia jadi kepada RM25 sekaki persegi. Jadi ada asas-asasnya. Tidaklah mudah ambil tanah jual dengan keuntungan yang sebesar itu. Okey, boleh saya sambung lagilah.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Minta penjelasan. Kalau sudah habis dengan jawapan kepada Yang Berhormat daripada Kepong. Beri saya penjelasan mengenai empa tempat aspek yang mana Yang Berhormat Timbalan Menteri ada memberi jawab…

Dr. Tan Seng Giaw [Kepong]
: [Menyampuk] Belum habis lagi.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Eh belum habis.

Dr. Tan Seng Giaw [Kepong]
: Laporan untuk ‘Jabel Ali’. Mesti ada laporan Yang Berhormat.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]
: Yang Berhormat, satu-satulah Yang Berhormat.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Ini dua-dua pun tidak boleh bersetuju yang mana satu. Ini masalah ini selalu dua. Saya ingat satu masalah dalaman dalam DAP. Antara Ipoh Timor dengan Kepong. [Ketawa]

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:
‘Jabel Ali’ ya ‘Jabel Ali’.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Ipoh Barat senyum saja, untung dia dua bergaduh dia untung. [Ketawa] Tidak, main-main saja. Kepong ni, kita suka main-main dengan dia. Yang Berhormat Kepong, laporan tidak ada masalah Yang Berhormat. Saya memberi kenyataan hari ini, ini yang di buat, persetujuan ataupun perakuan ini dibuat oleh ‘Jabel Ali’, hendak tanya siapa-siapa pun boleh. Nanti tanyalah kepada Kementerian Pengangkutan nanti bila dia buat jawatankuasa hendak minta laporan, Yang Berhormat tanyalah dia. Tetapi bagi saya sudah pun berpuas hati, saya umumkan dalam dewan yang mulia ini, ini adalah perakuan ‘Jabel Ali’ dan perakuan Yang Berhormat kata expert ini yang mempunyai 25,000 ekar tanah, 5,000 syarikat yang beroperasi di ‘Jabel Ali’ di Dubai yang kononnya mempunyai segala kepakaran. Maka, kita terimalah nasihat dia dan kita mengakui dan kerajaan bersetuju supaya dibuat sebagai satu pakej. Tentang laporan itu, Yang Berhormat tanya nantilah. Kalau Kementerian Pengangkutan hendak bagi, bagilah saya tidak ada masalah.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:
Terima kasih. Yang pertama mengenai tanah, harga dan pembelian. Tadi Yang Berhormat Timbalan Menteri berkata bahawa sebab kenapa tidak menggunakan Land Acquisition Act untuk membeli tanah itu. Oleh kerana ada soalan sama ada ya untuk public purpose, tujuan awam. Bukankah benar bahawa opinion, pandangan Kamar Peguam Negara ialah boleh menggunakan Land Acquisition Act dan haruslah menggunakan Land Acquisition Act untuk membeli tanah tersebut kerana oleh Port Klang Free Zone ialah untuk tujuan awam dan itulah satu rekomendasi Kamar Peguam Negara dan dapat persetujuan daripada Perbendaharaan (Treasury) pun bukankah itu benar. Kalau begitu, kenapa pendirian, cadangan, perakuan Kamar Peguam Negara dan Perbendaharaan diketepikan? Itu pertama. Oleh sebab kalau pembelian ini berasas masa itu harga tanah itu di nilai RM10 kaki persegi, tentulah satu penjimatan akan boleh diperoleh.

Kedua, bukankah benar bahawa apabila satu keputusan dibuat, untuk mengetepikan perakuan Kamar Peguam Negara dan Perbendaharaan untuk menggunakan Land Acquisition Act untuk membeli tanah tersebut, satu jaminan ada dibuat bahawa inilah projek self-financing sustainable dan tidak perlu apa-apa suntikan wang daripada Perbendaharaan. Bukankah itu benar? Kalau begitu, kenapa boleh berlaku sekarang satu soft loan yang ‘vocabulary’ Yang Amat Berhormat Timbalan Menteri tetapi nampaknya akan menjadi satu bail out. Kenapa ini boleh berlaku, dua-dua aspek yang saya kemukakan.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Tidak ada masalah saya boleh jawab. Lepas ini tidak adalah, itu saja supaya kita boleh jawab benda-benda lain lagi. Okey, memang ada pandangan oleh Peguam Negara dan Kementerian Kewangan supaya ianya diambil melalui Land Acquisition Act ini kerana ianya lebih murah tetapi seperti yang saya sebut tadi, ada juga pandangan daripada saya difahamkan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor bahawa ianya tidak sesuai diambil melalui Land Acquisition Act ini. Sebab itulah maka wujudnya pendapat yang berbeza-beza dan sebab itulah ianya dibawa kepada Jemaah Menteri pada 2 Oktober 2002 untuk diselesaikan. Apabila pendirian dibuat oleh satu-satu kementerian, sekiranya ada terdapat pandangan yang berbeza daripada kementerian-kementerian lain, maka ia terpaksa dibawa ke Jemaah Menteri dan Jemaah Menteri telah bersetuju telah membuat keputusan. Saya berdiri di sini mewakili kerajaan kalaupun saya daripada Kementerian Kewangan, kalaupun saya mengaku bahawa Kementerian Kewangan pada satu masa mencadangkan supaya ianya dibuat dalam melalui land acquisition tetapi ianya telah dibincangkan semula, telah pun ditable kan di Kabinet dan dengan kebijaksanaan, kita kena beri pengakuanlah kebijaksanaan keseluruhan Kabinet, maka mereka sudah membuat satu keputusan yang terbaik untuk negara pada masa itu, 2002 bahawa yang terbaiknya untuk mengelakkan pelbagai masalah dan sebagainya, teruskan saja dengan pembelian tanah. Ya?

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]: Ya, mengenai dengan isu ini. Kenapa Kabinet tunduk kepada pandangan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor? Bukankah mengikut Perlembagaan, apa Kabinet perlu ialah mengikut pandangan Kamar Peguam Negara kerana peguam-peguam Kamar Peguam Negara ialah legal advisor, yang pertama. Yang kedua, bukankah benar selepas mesyuarat dan keputusan dibuat oleh Kabinet pada 2 Oktober 2002, betul? Selepas itu, Kabinet ada buat keputusan yang baru untuk ketepikan keputusan itu supaya tanah itu dibeli mengikut Land Acquisition Act . Bukankah itu benar?

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Wah, Yang Berhormat seolah-olah ahli Kabinet ya?

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:
Tak. You, perkara benar tak benar? Itu betullah. Itu pasallah, betul tak betul?

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Nantilah. Saya bukan ahli Kabinet, saya Timbalan Menteri. Saya tak masuk Kabinet. Jadi ya lah, tahu. Saya tahu. Tapi Kabinet, jangan Yang Berhormat kata bila Kabinet buat sesuatu keputusan, maka Kabinet tunduk kepada mana-mana parti. Kabinet ini satu musyawarah, satu majlis yang besar yang mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza tetapi dirumuskan dan kita mempunyai kepercayaan bahawa Kabinet membuat yang terbaik. Saya yakin bahawa Kabinet tidak tunduk kepada mana-mana kepentingan sama ada syarikat ataupun negeri tetapi kepentingan rakyat Malaysia. Jadi, saya tidak hendak prasangka kata Kabinet ini tunduk kepada Kerajaan Negeri Selangor atau mana-mana. Mungkin apabila dibincangkan, apabila diberi penjelasan oleh semua pihak, maka itulah yang terbaik yang dibuat dan pada kemudiannya memang saya pun tahu Yang Berhormat mengatakan bahawa Kabinet menukar pendirian tetapi kemudiannya kembali kepada pendirian asal. Pada 6 November tahun 2002, ianya kembali kepada persetujuan asal pada 2 Oktober. Jadi setakat itu kita terima, maka inilah yang dijadikan.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
:
 [Bangun]

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Tadi kata dah satu, dah cukuplah.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:
 Bukan sudah itu.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
Yang Berhormat, ini banyak lagi ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat lain soalan-soalan ini.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Yang ini mustahak, yang ini mustahak.

Dato’ Paduka Haji Badruddin bin Amiruldin [Jerai]
: Soalan saya pun tak berjawab lagi ini.

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Ok. Nanti, nanti. Berapa? Satu ke berapa ini?

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Sorry?

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
 Saya nak bagi peluang sekali lagilah. Lepas itu cukup, saya bagi orang lain pula.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Ok, kalau beri sekali gus. Boleh sekali gus?

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin
: Ok, sekali saja saya nak.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]
: Sekali gus. Yang pertama mengenai pembelian tanah. Tadi Yang Berhormat ada mengesahkan bahawa Kabinet pada 2 Oktober telah buat keputusan bahawa tanah itu dibeli mengikut Land Acquisition Act seperti yang dicadangkan oleh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor tetapi selepas itu ada membatalkan keputusan itu dan lagi selepas itu adalah balik kepada keputusan yang asal. Apa sebabnya? Apa sebabnya Kabinet bertukar-tukar mengenai keputusannya khasnya apabila tanah itu dibeli untuk RM3 kaki persegi dan untuk RM95 juta sebelum 1999 dan sekarang dibeli untuk Port Klang Free Zone untuk RM1.8 bilion ialah termasuk interest untuk 15 atau 17 tahun ialah satu angka 19 kali lebih besar daripada harga asal yang dibeli oleh Kuala Dimensi untuk tanah itu. Untuk RM95 juta beli, jual untuk Port Klang Free Zone RM1.8 bilion, 19 time. Bukan ini satu rip off? Satu rip off dan kena Kabinet bersetuju apabila pendirian Kamar Peguam Negara ialah menggunakan Land Acquisition Act untuk membeli dengan harga yang lebih rendah.

Kedua, mengenai Letter of Support. Letter of Support, betul yang diberikan oleh Menteri Pengangkutan. Bukankah benar bahawa inilah letter of support digunakan untuk rating agency supaya mengisytiharkan bon-bon yang dikeluarkan oleh Kuala Dimensi ada 3A rating. Oleh kerana dianggap sebagai government guarantee sungguhpun Menteri Pengangkutan yang berkenaan tidak ada kuasa, tidak ada hak untuk buat saringan itu. Kalau begitu, kenapa oleh kerana Menteri Pengangkutan sudah melanggar, mencabuli undang-undang, abuse of power, menelan kuasa pun.

Bukankah Menteri Pengangkutan berkenaan perlulah memikul tanggungjawab oleh kerana letter of support itu, sekarang kerajaan perlu buat soft loan RM4.6 bilion dan inilah bukan wang kerajaan, ini wang rakyat. Itu daripada public coffer. Bukankah ini satu tindakan yang sangat cuai? Seorang Menteri Pengangkutan yang beri satu letter, empat letter of support yang mengikut Yang Berhormat Timbalan Menteri, empat letter of support yang dianggap sebagai guarantee dan sekarang kerajaan dan Kabinet nampaknya sudah bersetuju ini satu guarantee dan sebab itu perlu untuk selamatkannya.

Bukankah ini menunjukkan Menteri Pengangkutan yang bertanggungjawab? Siapa Menteri Pengangkutan? Bukankah Menteri Pengangkutan kini terlibat dan Menteri Pengangkutan sebelum ini iaitu Tun Dr. Lim Liong Sik pun terlibat? Kenapa dua-dua tidak perlu pay the price for the heinous crime kepada rakyat? Ketiga ialah mengenai self financing. Satu jaminan diberi bahawa self financing ini sustainable, tidak perlu RM1 public funding, sekarang perlu RM4.6 bilion soft loan. Bukankah benar bahawa bukan sahaja ada dua aspek masalah tanah, daripada tanah yang menjadi harga RM1.8 bilion. Development Port Klang Free Zone pada asalnya ialah RM400 juta, sekarang nampaknya sudah lompat menjadi RM2.8 bilion. Harga beberapa kali, tanah sampai RM1.8 bilion, development tanah itu RM2.8 bilion, jumlah RM4.66 bilion. Bukankah ini satu rip off yang raksasa dan tidak patut diberi sokongan, perlindungan oleh satu kerajaan yang melaunglaungkan integriti, akauntabiliti, transparensi dan khasnya.

Yang keempat ialah mengenai dua phases. Kita tahulah siapa sebenarnya yang bertanggungjawab. Saya ada melawat Port Klang Free Zone, saya tak tahulah Yang Berhormat Timbalan Menteri ada melawat Port Klang Free Zone. Ini nampak satu ghost town! Apa guna ada four star hotel di sana? Tentulah ini tidak tepat dan tentulah ada 512 unit sana, 10% sahaja digunakan. Tadi kita pun ada dengar ada 30 unit yang ada ambil tempat. Bukankah benar bahawa pada 2002 adalah pengumuman bahawa beratus-ratus pelabur-pelabur tunggu untuk melabur apabila Port Klang Free Zone dibuka. Mana itu beratus-ratus unit? Bukankah akhirnya Port Klang Free Zone akan patut menjadi satu tanda a warning,

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]
: Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:
 … Red light warning bahawa kalau inilah cara kita menguruskan investment kita, projek kita sama ada projek Iskandar, North Corridor, Economic Region dan lain-lain,

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]
: Yang Berhormat, minta penjelasan saja.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:
 … Projek-projek tidak boleh dapat keyakinan pelabur-pelabur

asing oleh kerana ….

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]:
 Ya, cukuplah Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Lim Kit Siang [Ipoh Timor]:
 ….Port Klang Free Zone sudah menjadi the greatest scandal of any Prime Minister in the first phase of premiership di Malaysia.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]:
 Timbalan Menteri kena selesaikanlah kalau tidak…

Dato’ Dr. Awang Adek bin Hussin:
Okeylah, cukuplah sebabnya banyak jadi saya akan bagi jawapan yang saya yakin boleh lagi dipanjangkan di peringkat Jawatankuasa kerana kalau Yang Berhormat hendak tanya tentang Menteri Pengangkutan yang dahulu, yang sekarang dan sebagainya maka peringkat Jawatankuasa saya rasa bolehlah ditingkatkan lagi. Jadi sebenarnya apa yang ditimbulkan oleh Yang Berhormat keempat-empat isu tadi, samalah saya jelaskan tadi.

Soalnya apakah letter of support ini, saya baca sendiri letter of support ini, sebenarnya dia bukan merupakan gerenti hanya sokongan oleh seorang Menteri bahawa projek ini adalah projek kepentingan awam dan sebagai Kementerian Pengangkutan dia akan berusaha untuk memastikan syarikat ini dapat bayar balik. Soal hendak bagi triple A itu I don’t think dengan izin, ini yang ditentukan oleh mana-mana Menteri. Ini rating agensilah apabila menerima maklumat-maklumat ini, surat-surat sokongan dan sebagainya, merekalah yang membuat penilaian, jangan

pula mengatakan bahawa rating agensi mark membuat rating triple A, dua A berdasarkan kehendak mana-mana pihak. Kalau kita beranggapan demikian maka saya rasa tidak adil, tidak adil kepada rating agensi, tidak adil kepada pemain-pemain dalam pasaran kita. Jadi soalnya letter of support is not a letter of guarantee.

Soal sama ada banyak mana pengaruh letter of support ini terserahlah kepada rating agensi untuk membuat. Soal pembelian tanah RM96 juta ini, Yang Berhormat saya ingin sebutkan pembelian 500 ekar pertama dibuat dalam tahun 1994 oleh syarikat ini. 1994 sebanyak 31 juta, tidak ada kena mengena saya kira hubungan dengan, cuma kemudian sahaja bila dia sudah beli, dia cadangkan ini yang perlu dibuat oleh Port Klang dan ini semua telah melalui proses-prosesnya. Apa yang hendak saya jelaskan bahawa kabinet telah membuat keputusan ini dan akhir-akhirnya telah bersetuju. Jadi soal-soal lain itu saya rasa kita tidak berkesudahan Yang Berhormat. Antara Yang Berhormat dengan saya petang ini tidak berkesudahan. Yang Berhormat kata itu saya kata ini. Jadi kita teruskanlah, mungkin jawapan kepada soalan-soalan lain yang boleh saya buat dalam masa yang ringkas ini.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 3:51 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Revoke arbitrary/high-handed directive to cull or remove 6,000 pigs a day from Malacca for 17 days till Sept 21

The Malacca state government directive to reduce the number of pigs in the state to
48,000 heads
 requiring culling or removal of some 6,000 pigs a day till September 21 is most arbitrary, unreasonable and inconsiderate and should be immediately revoked.

Although the Housing and Local Government Minister and MCA President Datuk Seri
Ong Ka Ting
said after the Cabinet meeting yesterday which discussed the pig-farming issue in Malacca that the Cabinet was not stopping the pig-farming activity, such a statement is made meaningless by the high-handed action of the Malacca state government requiring the culling or removal from the state of some 6,000 pigs a day for a 17-day period till Sept. 21.

The mobilization of some 2,000 personnel from various agencies, including the Police  Federal Reserve Unit (FRU), Immigration, Environment, Rela, state and local government authorities resulting in a tense nine-hour standoff with defenceless men, women and children at Paya Mengkuang defending their pig farms which represent their very livelihood, was a major blot which marred the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations not only in Malacca but throughout Malaysia.

It would have taken the authorities a week or two to mobilize some 2,000 personnel from various agencies to launch such a massive operation against the pig farmers in Malacca state.

The question is why the MCA leaders, in particular the MCA elected representatives at the national, state and local government levels were completely in the dark about such a massive operation which would have taken one if not two weeks to organize.

If they had no inkling of such a massive operation against the pig farmers in the state, they are clearly redundant, irrelevant and useless as elected  or appointed representatives of the people at all three tiers of government.

If the MCA national, state and local government representatives had been aware of such a massive operation beforehand and yet did nothing to stop it and to give advance notice to the pig farmers, then they had been guilty of gross dereliction of their political responsibilities.

Either way, the MCA national, state and local government representatives should be censured in the strongest possible terms for their total failure in all three tiers of government, resulting in the nine-hour standoff between a fully-armed 2,000-strong contingent backed by the police riot squad, personnel in “space-suits” and a hovering helicopter on the one hand and defenceless men, women and children on the other out to protect their ricebowls.

The high-handed method in mobilizing a 2,000-strong contingent  to use force to reduce the number of pigs by some 100,000 heads was clearly not the way to resolve the environmental problems of the pig-rearing industry — showing utter contempt not only for the citizenship and fundamental rights of the pig farmers but also the principle of the rule of law in the country.

The environmental problems of the pig-rearing industry in Malacca must be brought back to the negotiation table to be resolved in a way fully respecting the rights of all Malaysians, with the state government abandoning its strong-armed tactics and solutions.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 6 September 2007, 12:57 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion  PKFZ bailout scandal – let Abdullah justify it in the 2008 Budget tomorrow

When presenting the 2008 budget tomorrow, the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should explain the full case for the government bailout of the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal to set an example of government accountability and financial integrity to all Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

This is because for the past two days, both the Deputy Finance Minister,  Datuk Dr. Awang Adek bin Husin and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Ministry,  Datuk Seri  Dr. Helmi bin Yahaya had been misleading Parliament and the nation about the true nature and character of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

In the 2007 supplementary estimates, the Finance Ministry asked for RM260 million for Port Klang Authority without giving any explanation as to its true purpose.

It was from my exchange with Helmi  during the winding-up of the  debate at the committee stage  yesterday  that it emerged that the RM260 million sum was the first amount of the RM4.6 billion government bailout for PKFZ, as beginning this year, the first annual payment of RM520 million for the RM4.6 billion bailout for the bonds raised by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd — the PKFZ  turkey  contractor – has to be made.

It was also only after I had made persistent demand, declaring that this was information that Parliament and Malaysian taxpayers have right to access, that Helmi read out the schedule of repayments in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout, viz:

2007	–	RM510 million

2008	–	RM660 million

2009	–	RM660 million

2010	–	RM772 million

2011	–	RM487 million

2012	–	RM733 million

2013	–	RM170 million

2014	–	RM170 million

2015	–	RM170 million

2016	–	RM170 million

2017  –	RM179 million

Total	–       RM4,681 million

However, Helmi like Awang Adek in Parliament on Tuesday suffered from the denial syndrome and denied that this was a RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout by the government.  Both also refused to answer specific questions which I posed to them.

For instance, I had asked Helmi why the development costs for PKFZ had ballooned from the original RM400 million to RM2.8 billion. Furthermore, whether the escalation of the PKFZ development costs was unlawful as it had not complied with the requirement that there should be Cabinet approval for any increase in development costs which exceeded RM100 million.

In the case of Awang Adek,  he avoided the specific questions which I had raised during his winding-up during the policy debate on the Supplementary Estimates on Tuesday, such as:

	Why the land purchase price for the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ had ballooned about 19 times from RM95 million bought by Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. in 1999 to RM1.8 billion, the price Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd sold to Port Klang Authority for the PKFZ project;

	Why the Cabinet rejected the recommendation of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury that the 1,000 acres earmarked by PKFZ should be acquired by Land Acquisition Act at RM10 per square ft but instead submitted to the pressure of the Selangor State Government to purchase it at RM25 psf.

	Why the former Transport Minister Dr. Ling Liong Sik and the current Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy had abused their powers in unlawfully giving “Letters of Support” to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd to raise RM4 billion bonds, which have now to be borne by the government in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout.

It is no surprise that the Public Accounts Committee which met this morning is not satisfied with the explanation given by Port Klang Authority over the PKFZ bailout scandal — as the true facts are clearly even more shocking and outrageous than what had been admitted by both Awang and Helmi.

This is why the time has come for an end to all the pretences and parliamentary farce of denial over the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

As Finance Minister, Abdullah must come to Parliament when presenting the 2008 Budget tomorrow to give a full accounting as to why he has broken his pledge when he became Prime Minister 46 months ago that there would be no bailout of mega-billion-ringgit “white elephant” projects which end up in benefiting Barisan Nasional cronies  at public expense — by giving his approval for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout.

He cannot just pass the buck to the Deputy Finance Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Ministry who are forced to pretend in Parliament  that there is no RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout — when everyone in the country and the world can see the advent of the first and biggest financial scandal and bailout to start the administration of any Prime Minister in 50 years of Malaysian history.

Lets call a spade a spade. Let Abdullah admit as Prime Minister and Finance Minister  that his administration has embarked on a RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout and explain the justification for such a bailout.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 6 September 2007, 4:52 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Selayang Municipal Council Dog Hunt Competition

Spate of outraged emails over Selayang Municipal Council’s insensitive competition, like this one from Grey: “This is an outrage! When the Americans all over the US and the world are condemming Michael Vicks for promoting animal cruelty by having dog fights, the Selayang council is actually giving cash prize up to RM15,000 to the rakyat for the capture of these creatures!!! That’s OUR Selayang council. Check out their website to find the offending annoucement.”

Here is another:

I bring to your attention the abovementioned matter.

It’s come to my attention via the Selayang Municipal Council’s website

(
http://www.mps.gov.my/default01.htm
) of this very attractive part-time “job”.

I would like to express my uttter disgust and am absolutely repulsed by this barbaric competition which is being held by the council. This competition is not only NOT solving the problem of strays in the area, in fact, I believe it is so easily-abused by greedy citizens. What’s going to stop strangers from stepping into someone’s home, abducting someone’s pet, removing the collar and pass it off as a stray?

The prizes offered are lucrative enough for many to steal in order to receive the top prize. RM15,000, RM13,000, RM11,000 for first, second and third prize respectively.

The Selayang Municipal Council is not only irresponsible, it is downright barbaric! Instead of offering the prize money as an incentive, a better way would be to use the money for spaying and neutering the strays. An even better solution would be to actually donate the money to its local SPCA or PAWS.

I plead to you and your organization to do the right thing and highlight this matter in all ways possible to stop this from taking place. In a country where a dog is deemed unclean by the majority of its citizens, it’s easy for the council to get away but each animal has a right to live and if it has to be put down, it has to be done in a most humane way possible.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

SiewYee

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 6 September 2007, 5:30 pm and is filed under
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


AG’s draft IPCMC bill – make it public for feedback and consultation

The  second draft Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) Bill which has been prepared by the Attorney-General’s Chambers should be made public to allow for public feedback and consultation.

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, has said that the
police is satisfied
 with the draft IPCMC bill prepared by the Attorney-General’s Chambers  as it contained some of the proposals presented by the police.

He said the police is not opposed to an IPCMC but  wanted a fair procedure so that there is no victimization of the police.

Malaysians welcome the change-of-heart of the police on the IPCMC issue, backing down from its  original stand of total opposition.

Malaysians can accept and agree with Musa  that when the IPCMC is formed, no one, including the police, should  be victimized by its operation and function.

As the whole purpose of an IPCMC is to uphold justice, it would be a travesty of justice to create new victims or to  countenance new injustices to be perpetrated under the  IPCMC regime.

The real stand of the police on the IPCMC still await full clarification, as the test of the pudding is in the eating or in the passage of the IPCMC legislation.

As the Attorney-General’s draft IPCMC bill has not been made public, no one knows whether it has kept to the spirit of the key recommendation of the Police  Royal Commission for the establishment of an independent external oversight mechanism to check police abuses of powers, misconduct and negligence in order to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service which could keep crime low, eradicate corruption in the police service and uphold human rights.

No one knows how far the second draft IPCMC bill prepared by the Attorney-General differed from  the first draft Bill prepared and published by the Police Royal Commission.

What is important is that the essence of the recommendation to have an independent external oversight mechanism to effectively  check on police abuses should not be compromised in any manner.

There are two reasons why there  should be a  greater sense of urgency on the part of the government and the police to get the IPCMC established without any more procrastination, viz:

	it is more than a year  since the expiry of the time-line for the  establishment of the IPCMC as recommended by the Police  Royal Commission — which was by May 2006; and

	public confidence in the ability of the police to perform its most elementary duty to protect citizens from crime is even lower than before the establishment of the Police Royal Commission as a result of the galloping crime index with Malaysians feeling more unsafe about their personal safety and that of their loved ones as compared to some four years ago.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 September 2007, 1:17 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.


Pig-rearing crisis in Malacca – utterly meaningless advice by Fong Chan Onn

The Cabinet decision that Malacca pig farmers can apply for aid from Bank Negara’s Fund for Food to install proper waste system is utterly meaningless when MCA Ministers and leaders have agreed to ban pig-rearing activities outside Paya Mengkuang in Malacca and the reduction to 48,000 heads of pigs in the state by Sept. 21.

Yesterday, the Human Resources Minister and MP for  Alor Gajah, Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn told reporters in Parliament that pig farmers from Kampung Bukit Beruang, Kampung Man Lok and Paya Mengkuang in Malacca should apply for aid from
Bank Negara’s Fund for Food
to install a proper waste system.

Can Fong explain what is the use of such advice to the pig farmers in Bukit Beruang and Man Lok as well as other areas in Malacca state  outside Paya Mengkuang when MCA leaders led by him –  totally without consultation, mandate or agreement of the pig farmers –  had agreed in negotiations at the Masjid Tanah Umno headquarters  on Tuesday (4th September)  complied with two demands:

	Ban on all pig-rearing activities in Malacca state apart from Paya Mengkuang; and

	Reduction of the pig population in Malacca state to 48,000 heads by Sept. 21, which involved the culling or removal out of the state of some 6,000 heads a day for the 17-day period.

Fong should explain what was the use of his going to the Cabinet the next day (Wednesday September 5) to get approval to extend Bank Negara’s Fund for Food aid to pig farmers in Malacca to install  proper waste system when he had agreed a day earlier to the ban on all pig farming activities outside Paya Mengkuang in the state?

Wasn’t this a totally empty and meaningless gesture?

Why didn’t Fong secure Cabinet approval very much earlier for all pig farmers in Malacca state to be able to get aid from Bank Negara’s Fund for Food to install proper waste system which would have averted the nine-hour standoff between 2,000-strong multi-agency contingent drawn from Police FRU, Rela, Immigration, state and local government enforcement personnel on the one hand and defenceless men, women and children with the latter forming human barricades  at Paya Mengkuang to defend their very livelihood!

Why didn’t Fong and MCA leaders make it clear at the Sept. 4 negotiations at the Masjid Tanah Umno headquarters that the operation to cull the pig population in Paya Mengkuang should be called off and the whole issue referred to the Cabinet meeting the next day — especially when the “show of force” in Paya Mengkuang  must be condemned as  gross and arrogant abuse of power, not only  without notice and   totally unlawful but utterly shameful for a country celebrating 50th Merdeka anniversary?

The nine-hour standoff between an armed-to-the-teeth  2,000-strong contingent, together with personnel in space-suits, water cannons and a helicopter in constant reconnaissance on one side, and defenceless men, women and children forming human barrcades on the other to  protect their ricebowls, have sent out shock reveberrations to the country and marred the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations.

The question which had been uppermost in many minds in the six-week run-up to the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations on August 31 had bulked even larger with greater poignancy and  urgency– why has Malaysian nation-building gone so  terribly wrong when Malaysians should be even more united in a common purpose to achieve greater heights for the country on the occasion of celebrations of half-a-century of nationhood?

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said in Bentong yesterday that the Malacca State Government should
negotiate
with pig farmers to find the best way to solve the pig farming issue in the state and that any quick action such as culling should be avoided.

Najib said he had asked the Malacca Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Ali Rustam to hold negotiations and Ali Rustam said he was willing to do so.

But Ali Rustam has failed to keep his promise to Najib, passing the buck to his subordinates in the State Exco who were able to get Fong and MCA leaders to comply with unreasonable demands like the ban on pig rearing activities in the state outside Paya Mengkuang and the cap on the pig population to 48,000 heads by Sept. 21.

Why did Fong and the MCA leaders submit so easily to the demands of the Malacca state government, when they should have stood their ground to condemn the unwarranted show of force to conduct an illegal operation to cull pigs in Paya Mengkuang?

In his statement yesterday, Ali Rustam said the operation to cull the  pigs in Paya Mengkuang, Man Lok and Bukit Beruang on Tuesday was halted on the appeal of the MCA President and Housing and Local Government Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting as made through Najib.

Ali Rustam said  Ong asked for time to reduce the pig population in the state to 48,000 heads and this was why he had given the new Sept. 21 deadline.

MCA leaders must explain why without authority, mandate and consultation with the pig farmers in the state, they had agreed to the ban on all pig-rearing activities in Malacca state outside Paya Mengkuang and the cap on pig population to 48,000 heads by Sept. 21.

As the Cabinet has decided that pig farmers are eligible for Bank Negara “Fund for Food” Aid to install proper waste system, this decision should not be made meaningless by  the Malacca State government insisting on a ban on pig farming in Malacca outside Paya Mengkuang and to cap the pig population to 48,000 heads.

All pig farmers in Malacca should be given time to avail themselves of the Bank Negara “Fund for Food” aid to install proper waste system to meet all environmental requirements for the pig-rearing industry.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 7 September 2007, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


2008 Budget — “Unity-driven” or “Prosperity-sharing”

For the first time in 50 years, the annual government budget has been reduced into a “social occasion” with the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi accompanied by his wife Datin Seri Jeanne Abdullah “dropping by’ the Finance Ministry on the night of the eve of the Budget Day for a photo-op.

The 27-page budget read out by Abdullah in Parliament yesterday was themed “Together Building the Nation and Sharing Prosperity” — which contained a slew of goodies with the next general election imminent in the next six months.

DAP presented for the first time an alternative budget, themed “Malaysian First — Unity Driven Equity: Growth & Innovation”.

The main thrust of  the 52-page DAP proposed Budget 2008  would be to establish the conditions of good governance that permits hardworking and talented Malaysians to get on with the business of creating wealth and succeed in life.

More importantly the government must learn to get out of the way and not intrude on the people’s activities unnecessarily. The real win-win solution is where every Malaysian learns together, grows together and reaps the rewards together.

 You can download the PDF copy of the proposed DAP Malaysian First Budget 2008
here
.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 September 2007, 9:47 am and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MCA blames Malacca State Secretary as “Little Napoleon” – another sandiwara

MCA Youth leader and Deputy Youth and Sports Minister, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai yesterday launched a ferocious attack on the Malacca State Secretary, Datuk  Ismail Salleh, labeling him as a “Little Napoleon” responsible for the unilateral, arbitrary, high-handed and insensitive 2,000-strong operation to forcibly cull tens of thousands of pigs in Malacca, forcing a nine-hour standoff with defenceless men, women and children in Paya Mengkuang on Tuesday, Sept. 4.

Liow claimed that Ismail launched the massive multi-agency operation without approval by the Malacca State Government. He described what happened on Tuesday as a  blot to the 50th Merdeka anniversary which could not be tolerated.

In a speech in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, Liow put the whole blame on Ismail in unilaterally resorting to force against defenceless men, women and children when the state government was still discussing how to resolve the pig-rearing problem, stressing that such insubordination by Ismail should not be allowed to recur.
(Sin Chew)

Liow’s speech has come as a shock for two reasons:

Firstly, why he is blaming the Malacca state secretary as “Little Napoleon” for the unilateral, arbitrary,  high-handed and insensitive 2,000-strong operation to forcibly  cull tens of thousands of  pigs in Malacca  on Sept. 4, mobilizing Police FRU, water cannons and even police helicopter, resulting in a nine-hour standoff with defenceless men, women and children,  when the whole operation was clearly on the directive of Chief Minister Ali Rustam?

Secondly,  if Liow absolves Ali Rustam from responsibility (which cast a severe aspersion on his  competence and capability as Malacca  Chief Minister), are the MCA leaders both at national and state levels demanding that serious disciplinary action be taken against the Malacca state secretary — at minimum his immediate removal?

Clearly, a person who could act in  so unilateral, arbitrary, high-handed and insensitive a fashion, committing gross insubordination as well completely  heedless of the sensitivities of a plural society, is not fit to continue a single day in such a high office as the No. 1 civil servant in the state government.

Or was Liow merely indulging in the  latest MCA  “sandiwara” to deflect public attention from the latest  MCA political failure and irresponsibility despite their representation in all  three tiers of government — national, state and local?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 September 2007, 2:12 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal – most improper for Nazri to tell PAC Chairman Shahrir to “shut up”

It was most improper and unwarranted for the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz to tell  Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad to “shut up” about the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) investigation into the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal especially when Nazri is an interested party, being a member of the Cabinet which decided on the bailout.

On Thursday, the PAC had a two-hour meeting on the PKFZ bailout scandal, with a briefing by the Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager Datin Paduka O.C. Phang, who was accompanied by  an accountant and administrative staff and Transport Ministry officials, including its secretary-general Datuk Zakaria Bahari and representatives from the finance, planning and port divisions.

After the two-hour meeting,
Shahrir
 as PAC Chairman told the press that the PAC was “unsatisfied” with how the meeting went.

Shahrir said: “The problem with the Port Klang Free Zone is far bigger than what the papers have reported.  Far too many questions were left unanswered.”

It was over Shahrir’s comments that Nazri blew his top yesterday, telling Sin Chew Daily that Shahrir should “shut up” on the ground that it was wrong to talk to the press before the end of the PAC investigation.

This was not the first time that Shahrir as PAC Chairman had made comments about ongoing PAC investigations in the past three years but Nazri had never voiced any objections in the past.

Why is Nazri so sensitive and high-strung now over the PAC investigation into the RM4.6 billion bailout scandal?  Is it because Nazri has a vested interest, being an interested party as a Minister of the Cabinet which had approved the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout?

It is Nazri who should “shut up” about PAC investigation into the PKFZ scandal and not interfere with the independence of the PAC to carry out its tasks mandated by Parliament as the PAC is answerable to Parliament and not to Nazri, though he is Minister in charge of parliamentary affairs for the Cabinet.

I am disappointed that in his 2008 budget speech yesterday,  the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had failed to assume full accountability  to justify the government bailout of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.

This is all the more regrettable as for the whole week, both the Deputy Finance Minister,  Datuk Dr. Awang Adek bin Husin and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Ministry,  Datuk Seri  Dr. Helmi bin Yahaya had been misleading Parliament and the nation about the true nature and character of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

In the 2007 supplementary estimates passed by Parliament on Thursday, the Finance Ministry asked for RM260 million for Port Klang Authority without giving any explanation as to its true purpose.

It was from my exchange with Helmi  during the winding-up of the  debate at the committee stage  that it emerged that the RM260 million sum was the first amount of the RM4.6 billion government bailout for PKFZ, as beginning this year, the first annual payment of RM510 million for the RM4.6 billion bailout for the bonds raised by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd — the PKFZ  turnkey  contractor – has to be made.

It was also only after I had made persistent demand, declaring that this was information that Parliament and Malaysian taxpayers have right to access, that Helmi read out the schedule of repayments in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout, viz:

2007	–	RM510 million

2008	–	RM660 million

2009	–	RM660 million

2010	–	RM772 million

2011	–	RM487 million

2012	–	RM733 million

2013	–	RM170 million

2014	–	RM170 million

2015	–	RM170 million

2016	–	RM170 million

2017  –	RM179 million

Total	–       RM4,681 million

I fully agree with Shahrir that  there are definitely more questions than answers about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal, which does not reflect well on the accountability, transparency and integrity of the Abdullah administration.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 8 September 2007, 12:58 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Critical Theory for our varsities

by Azly Rahman

The recent announcement by the Ministry of Higher Education to reconstruct the ideology and modus operandi of our public universities interest me. It seems to provide a good declaration for the nation to embark upon this long walk to academic freedom; for the removal of acts, administrators, apparatuses, and activities that are anathema to the meaning of a university.

The announcement seems to promise a better sense of leadership and scholarship as a response to criticisms on the waning and weakening of purpose of the Malaysian public university.

But how do we reconstruct the consciousness of our higher education institution, so that its body politics can create a holistic sense of beingness — a Ying Yang of intellectual longevity? How do we remove the structures that are caging the mind and soul of the university? What do we need to do to create this “apex” university in perhaps a hundred years to come?

“First things first,” as the Management “feel-good guru” Stephen Covey would say. “Think lateral,” as the global corporate marketer of thinking skills Edward deBono will advise.

Critical Theory of society

Our developmentalist ideology needs a critical analysis. This ideology has become a shibboleth in itself and one we are trapped in, and one that has driven our nation to the brink of political, economic, social, and cultural chaos on the eve of our 50th. Year of Merdeka. Our Independence needs a radical critique.

If we can step outside of this ideology of race-based, hypermodernised system of evolution of a corporate-nation-state and put this worldview in a crystal ball, we will be able to see something different. We will be able to see a world of alternatives to the one that is falling apart. But what do we need to critique this ideology we are trapped in?

A critical theory of society – that’s what we need in this post-half-a-century of the nation’s independence. We need a new paradigm of looking at ideology and how to deconstruct it.

What is a critical theory of society? Where do we begin to germinate the seed of this kind of education?

Many of our university leaders still cannot and will not understand the difference between the concept of hegemony and totalitarianism as opposed to education and liberation. To them, it is a place to exercise total control of the mind, body and the soul.

Critical thinking, which is supposed to be made to permeate all disciplines, all curriculum, all written and spoken discourse is flushed down the drain of academia, replaced with the structures of mental oppression, making human beings merely cogs in the wheels of Kapital as these replacements serve the weakening and failing corporatist Malaysian nation-state. Whether an university is run via a “faculty” or “college” system,  is not the matter.

What is key is the manner critical discourse is made to permeate all the disciplines and into the minds of the faculty and the students. What is important is to celebrate critical thinking and to honor radical minds that can help construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct society so that any government that no longer serves the needs of the people and the environment can be replaced by the work of the thinking university. Nothing lasts forever but perhaps, the Earth and Sky.

What is the value of this mode of thinking?

Critical thinking will help in the process of removing the structures that are shackling the nation; structures that are making us unable to clearly see the issue of race, class, ethnicity, political-economy, controlling interests, and ideological domination in a newer light. These structures will continue to help facilitate the role of the universities as instrumentally-relevant institutions useful to the survival of the deteriorating Asian-Despotic corporate-nation state.

Structures of a vulture-culture

These structures are built with clear awareness of their usefulness; true to what the French thinker Louis Althusser called “ideological state apparatuses”. In mission statements of our public universities, absent is “critical thinking” as one of the skills to be infused into students and as an educational/pedagogical process to create a thinking citizenry. We do not see a conscious effort to promote the skills of critical thinking about society, to teach students to name the oppressive strictures in it, and to make radical changes to impact progressive and peaceful well-beings of citizens. In these mission statements, there is no declaration of the need to respect and encourage the free flow of ideas however radical they are — in the name of academic freedom and the allegiance to truth through scientific inquiry, rather that allegiance to state-designed totalitarianism through all levels of indoctrination and the monitoring and molding of student thinking.

Our universities have become a “conveyor” belt to produce one-dimensional human beings who will help ease the way for young-hooliganistic leaders who are claiming a continuation of neo-colonialism as their “birthright” – leaders who are beginning to employ even rougher, rowdier, more brutal “mat-rempitized” brigades (the grandchildren of Merdeka/Independence) to achieve their goals, as the Black nationalist Malcolm X would say, by whatever means necessary.

Human capital re-evolution?

What a waste of human resource and human talent, what a subtle form of oppression – for those ruled, reproduced, and be made to repeat and regurgitate what the Official and Packaged Knowledge System tells their brain to respond to. When during interviews graduates cannot string together a good sentence in English let alone provide a synthesised/integrative analysis of what they have learned, we have got a problem with what goes on in the classrooms and the nature and culture of critical thinking we have cultivated. Continue to keep the emerging middle class passive and docile in their thinking – this will be good for total control so that this nation and its generations will be lobotomised of its critical sensibility.

But there is still hope for our nation. Like Albert Camus would say of Sisyphus, we will continue to roll the rock up on the hill and at least imagine ourselves happy.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 9 September 2007, 11:23 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Batu Burok riot – immediate independent public inquiry warranted

(Speech on the 2008 Budget in Parliament on Monday, 10th September 2008)

I must start with the shameful episode to the nation, which marred not only the presentation of the 2008 budget but also the 50th Merdeka Anniversary celebrations — the police firing live bullets at a ceramah crowd at Batu Burok, Kuala Terengganu on Saturday night and wounding two and the ensuing confrontation between the crowd and the police.

In 24 hours, the minimal “feel good” effect created by the 2008 Budget had been destroyed by two incidents – the police contempt for human rights and excessive use of force in Batu Burok on Saturday night and the latest Auditor-General’s Reports highlighting continuing widespread and incorrigible government inefficiency and waste of public funds.

All Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or political beliefs, are shocked by what happened in Batu Burok on Saturday night, especially with the mainstream media carrying screaming headlines like
“750 pembangkang merusuh, rosakkan harta awam di Terengganu”
 (Utusan Malaysia),
“4 polis cedera rusuhan di Kuala Terengganu”
 (Berita Harian),
“RM1m damage, 23 held in riot”
 (New Straits Times),
“Ceramah clash”
(The Star),
“23 held and 7 injured in riot”
(The Sun).

Why did a traditionally peaceful ceramah organized by Bersih, a coalition of political parties and NGOs campaigning for free and fair elections degenerate into a confrontation between the police and the crowd, turning it into a “riot” with police firing live bullets, resulting in four being hospitalized and 23 arrested?

Isn’t it a reflection of failure of the police to uphold law and order when what would have been a peaceful ceramah ended up into a “riot” between the police and the crowd?

Who must bear responsibility for the disgraceful incident in Kuala Teregganu — the police or the ceramah organizers?

The police has only itself to blame when its official account, giving full publicity by the mainstream media, both printed and electronic, are suspect as history has shown that official accounts, whether police or that of other authorities, could give distorted and very one-sided accounts.

The best example was the Kesas Highway Incident on 5th November 2000, where I was personally present, with the members of the public who had gathered peacefully for a rally treated like criminals by the police, which indiscriminately fired tear gas and water cannons.

Suhakam conducted a public inquiry in 2001 and these were some of its findings:

	There was an application of double standards on the part of the Police in relation to public assemblies.

	If the rally had been allowed to take place at the Bukit Jalil Stadium, as applied for by the organizers, with Police exercising traffic and crowd control, no untoward incident would have occurred.

	It was the police roadblocks that initially caused the traffic congestion on the Kesas Highway. As a result of the roadblocks, several people not involved with the gathering were held up and subsequently arrested.

	Insufficient time was given for the crowd to disperse. Police personnel continued to chase people even when they were running away from the scene or, in other words, trying to disperse.

	The Suhakam inquiry found that police force was used to stop persons attempting to get away from the scene rather than to overcome resistance to the order to disperse as allowed by law.

From the Suhakam inquiry, it is clear that the Police must bear full responsibility for the Kesas Highway incident. What actually happened in Batu Burok, Kuala Terengganu on Saturday night that a traditionally peaceful ceramah could be turned into a riot with the police firing live bullets at the public?

We do not countenance violence but the full facts must be established whether police mishandling of the situation had largely been responsible for the breakdown of law and order.

Is this another example of what had been mentioned in the Report of the Royal Police Commission — “a peaceful demonstration that turned into rioting was not caused by the action of the demonstrators but on the provocation of the police”? (p. 306)

DAP calls for the immediate establishment of an independent public inquiry into the Kuala Terengganu riot on Saturday night to establish its full facts and circumstances.

Such a public inquiry is imperative as the Kuala Terengganu incident seems to have provided the final proof that all the three major objectives of the 125 recommendations of Royal Police Commission for world-class police service – to reduce crime, to eradicate corruption in the police force and to uphold and respect human rights – had been completely disregarded.

The Kuala Teregganu riot would not have happened if the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to the police to respect human rights in particular with regard to the fundamental right to hold assemblies, meetings and processions had been taken seriously.

The Royal Police Commission held that the right to hold assemblies, meetings and processions “is one of the most basic and indispensable of the fundamental freedoms necessary for the functioning of a democratic society and is provided for in the Federal Constitution”. (Chap. 10 — 2.3.2i).

The Commission made specific recommendations “to ensure that the rights of any person engaged in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent are not limited by the OCPD and to ensure that the exercise of that right shall not by itself be considered as prejudicial to security”.

If these recommendations of the Royal Police Commission, the country would have been spared the disgraceful episode in Kuala Terengganu and the police saved from another severe blow to public confidence as to how it could have allowed a peaceful ceramah to degenerate into a riot.

The mainstream media have reported that in the riot yesterday, home-made bombs and Molotove cocktails were hurled at the police.

Such accounts are highly suspect unless there are independent verification of the facts, which is why an independent public inquiry must be established.

This is because there were very biased media reports, spreading even falsehoods, over the nine-hour stand-off last Tuesday between a 2,000-strong multi-agency contingent including police FRU, immigration, environment, state and local authorities, backed by riot gear, water cannons, personnel in “space suits” and a helicopter in constant reconnaissance on the one hand and defenceless men, women and children on the other in a most high-handed and unlawful operation to destroy tens of thousands pigs in Malacca.

Some media, especially TV3 alleged that the Paya Mengkuang pig farmers hurled Molotov cocktails at the enforcement officers in the stand-off, when this was a downright lie — but up to now there had been no correction, retraction or apology from TV3 or the media concerned.

Was there an excessive use of force and unreasonable demands in Kuala Terengganu on Saturday night as happened in Paya Mengkuang last Tuesday — with 2,000 personnel from various agencies mobilised to destroy tens of thousands of pigs without any notice whatsoever and subsequently arbitrarily demanding that 90,000 heads of pigs must be culled or removed out of the state in a 17-day period till Sept. 21?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 10 September 2007, 1:50 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


AG’s exposes of fund mismanagement – “chicken-feed” compared to RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal

In his budget speech, Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  said raising the level of performance of the civil service is critical in sustaining the competitiveness of the nation, especially in the context of globalization. He said it is timely for best practices and the culture of high performance to be adopted in the civil service to drive further improvements in performance.

However, the  2006 Auditor-General’s Report on the third full year of the Abdullah premiership with its litany of waste and abuse of public funds running into tens and hundreds of million of ringgit shows that far from an improvement, there is probably a worsening, in public service culture — with Parliament being reminded  constantly  with the disgraceful leakage despite RM200 million renovation, with a small waterfall at the media room yesterday.

Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said on Sunday that ministries must answer for the instances of mismanagement disclosed in the Auditor-General’s Report and the Second Finance Minister, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop ordered all departments in the Treasury to check cases highlighted in the Auditor-General’s Report.

One Minister after another is trying to rebut he strictures contained in the Auditor-General’s report, like the payment of RM224 for a RM32 set of screwdrivers,  paying RM1,146 for a set of pens costing RM 160, paying RM5,700 for a car jack worth RMN50, the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) paying RM5.59 million in advance to 4,183 students who did not apply for a loan  and other horror stories.

All the reactions  by Ministers are not only locking the stable door after the horses have bolted, but empty public posturings — including that of Najib as he is also Defence Minister who has to fully explain the largest single case of misuse of funds in the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report — the RM6.75 billion scandal of six Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) that have either not been delivered or not operational and  the increase of their contract price twice from RM4.9 billion to RM6.75 billion or 38 percent.

In actual fact, the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report was completed on 28th June 2007 and would have been submitted to the government shortly after.

Why are Cabinet Ministers only beginning to wake up now to the gross mismanagement, waste and abuse of public funds more than two months of the completion of the Auditor-General’s Report?

Would the Ministers reacted to these gross mismanagement of public funds if no publicity had been given to the Auditor-General’s Report?

Were all the Ministers aware  of and had approved  the explanations which the various government departments had given, some most ridiculous and most unacceptable, to the strictures of the Auditor-General’s Report and which had been tabled in the House?

Is every Minister prepared to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to personally assume responsibility for the mismanagement of public funds highlighted in the Auditor-General’s Report?

The proposal announced by the Prime Minister that Secretaries-General of ministries and Heads of Services will be offered three-year contract and their performance rewarded based on KPIs sound good on paper, but from the abysmal failure of the government to “walk the talk” of its commitment to efficiency, excellence and integrity in the past four years, there is little confidence that any major changes in civil service performance, accountability and integrity would ensue.

The reason is very simple — if the Cabinet can be so irresponsible and unaccountable as to approve a RM4.6 billion bailout of the Port Klang Free Zone scandal, without the former Transport Minister Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and the present Finance Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy having to assume any responsibility although both of them had unlawfully without Cabinet authority and Treasury approval given government guarantee for RM4.6 billion bonds issued by Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd — the beneficiary of the exorbitant land transaction as well as turnkey contractor —  and causing the Cabinet recently to give retrospective approval for the “unlawful government guarantee”, the mismanagement of millions or tens of millions of ringgit by public officials in the various ministries were  mere “chicken-feed”!

How could any action be taken against errant public officials when Ministers enjoy a culture of impunity for their crimes and  misdeamnours?

If Abdullah wants to send a clear message that there should be no more hanky-panky with public funds in government, then charge and prosecute Liong Sik and Kong Choy in court for their abuses of power in forcing the government to bailout the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal with their unauthorized and illegal issue of implicit government guarantee for RM4.6 billion bonds without Cabinet authority and Treasury approval.

Otherwise, the horror stories of abuse and mismanagement of public funds running into tens and hundreds of millions of ringgit  in the Auditor-General’s Report will continue to be an annual national  shame and tragedy.

(Speech 2 on 2008 Budget in Dewan Rakyat on September 11, 2007)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 11 September 2007, 2:47 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


E-kesihatan – another parasitic rent-seeking monopoly?

The medical profession is up in arms against the latest e-Kesihatan scheme which was officially announced by the Road Transport Department (JPJ) deputy director-general Solah Mat Hassan yesterday, requiring drivers of commercial vehicles from next month to pass a medical test done at clinics appointed by an associate company  of Fomema Sdn. Bhd, Supremme Systems Sdn Bhd.

Supremme Systems Sdn. Bhd has been awarded a monopoly to carry out such medical tests which would enable it to make profits in the region of hundreds of millions of ringgit in the 15-year monopoly awarded by the Transport Ministry.

This appears to be the latest example of a parasitic rent-seeking rip-off at the expense of the public as there is already a system in place to provide medical tests for commercial drivers involving medical practitioners with the JPJ directly, which can be further improved to deal with abuses or weaknesses instead of creating a new system which is more rent-seeking in nature than entrepreneurial.

I have received an  email from an infuriated medical practitioner on  the letter of registration sent by Supremme Systems Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of Pantai Holding Sdn Bhd to primarycare doctors in the Klang Valley to pay RM100.00 as registration fee and requesting particulars of each clinic.

The letter states that to participate in the medical examination of Goods Drivers Licence (GDL) and Public Service Vehicle (PSC) licence renewal annually by commercial vehicle drivers, the private doctors must  use their ICT. This letter demands reply  and payment within 10 days.

The email continued:

“This company is a monopoly and has infringed on patients confidentiality and also on the security of this data.

“Currently, the annual renewal is done using a gateway which is linked to ekesihatan of JPJ. A user friendly  gateway system  was proposed to Ministry of Transport.This gateway which protects the Malaysian citizens of their confidentiality and the  doctors Hippoctaes Oath of secrecy and only payment of Ringgit Two is traffic charge to transmit the medical certification with a encription code used by each doctor to JPJ  via the gateway. There is a breach of medical confidentiality of patients medical records to third parties when Pantai Supremme becomes a third party to collect the data and there is a breach of the Malaysian citizens human right.

“The proposed system demands payment of RM80 at the post office by the driver. Pantai Supremme charges a service fee of RM 30 per driver, Laboratory test for urine cannibinoids, ATS and Oppiates RM20.  Payment to doctors for medical examination RM 30.00  after 90 days.

“There are 1,200,000 commercial vehicle drivers and the active drivers are approximately 1,000,000 in number. Pantai Supremme will be entitled to siphon off RM28 million per year after  deducting RM2 Ringgit per driver  as their overhead cost expenses.

“We are perturbed about the status of the drivers vis a vis  the laboratory report.The verification of these results and the poor standards of batch entry  and quality control used by laboratories  to conduct the urine for substance abuse test is questionable.The laboratories use this method to save cost. Is there a mechanism to rehabilitate these driver and how long will these drivers be suspended and what is the grievance mechanism?”

At present, commercial drivers have to pay RM50 for new applications and RM20 for renewals for medical tests, which will now go up RM80 for renewals under the Supremme Systems monopoly.

I understand that Koperasi Doktor Malaysia Bhd had submitted a comprehensive proposal to the ministry last year with two scales of fees, much lower than the Supremme Systems monopoly.

Instead of giving the Koperasi Doktor Malaysia Bhd proposal serious consideration, the Supremme Systems has come into the picture and been awarded a monopoly, which seems to be institutionalizing a system of rent-seeking middle-men system to add to the costs of doing business and making a living in the country.

I call for the suspension of JPJ’s 15-year e-Kesihatan monopoly  concession to Supremme Systems Sdn. Bhd  to conduct annual medical tests for commercial drivers to ensure that it is not the  latest example of parasitic rent-seeking rip-off in the region of hundreds of millions of ringgit at public expense to the benefit of a handful of cronies of the present government system.

(Speech 3 on 2008 Budget in Dewan Rakyat on September 11, 2007)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 11 September 2007, 2:56 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Liong Sik’s last act as Transport Minister on May 28, 2003 – unlawfully signing first  of four “Letters of Support” for KDSB bonds resulting in RM4.6b PKFZ bailout scandal?

The Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi began his 2008 budget speech reminding Malaysians of its significance and historic circumstances — on the occasion of the nation’s 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations and the first Budget as the nation enters the second 50-year phase as an independent state.

To me, the 2008 budget was even more significant — as it was an acid  test as to whether the Prime Minister was finally going to “walk the talk” of his National Integrity Plan and keep his pledge to Malaysians that he would lead a clean, incorruptible, accountable, transparent, trustworthy  and responsible administration and that he would not countenance  the culture of impunity among his Ministers and public officials — or whether he would  break his final pledge that he would not approve mega-billion-ringgit bailout of “white-elephant” projects  (as all his other pledges of good governance have already been broken).

I was very disappointed by Abdullah’s 2008 Budget, for he had failed this acid test.

There was not a word about the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal — the largest financial scandal at the start of any Prime Minister in Malaysia, even bigger than the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal which led off the Mahathir premiership more than two decades ago.

Tun Dr. Mahathir had said at the time that the RM2.5 billion BMF scandal was a “heinous crime without criminals”.  Are we having another bigger “heinous crime without criminals” in the form of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal under the Abdullah administration?

Abdullah had failed as both Prime Minister and Finance Minister in not giving a full and satisfactory accounting of  the government bailout of the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal to set an example of government accountability and financial integrity to all Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

This is because in  the past two weeks, the Transport Minister, Datuk Chan Kong Choy (before he suddenly went on medical leave, sparking political speculation whether he is  resigning from the Cabinet), the Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek bin Husin and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Ministry, Datuk Seri Dr. Helmi bin Yahaya had been misleading Parliament and the nation about the true nature and character of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

In the 2007 supplementary estimates totaling  RM11.9 billion approved by Parliament last week, the Finance Ministry asked for RM260 million for Port Klang Authority without giving any explanation as to its true purpose.

It was from my exchange with Helmi during the winding-up of the debate at the committee stage that it emerged that the RM260 million sum was the first amount of the RM4.6 billion government bailout for PKFZ, as beginning this year, the first annual payment of RM510 million for the RM4.6 billion bailout for the bonds raised by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd — the vendor of the controversial sale of 1,000 acres of land to PKFZ and its turnkey contractor – has to be made.

It was also only after I had made persistent demand, declaring that this was information that Parliament and Malaysian taxpayers have right to access, that Helmi read out the schedule of repayments in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout, viz:

2007 – RM510 million

2008 – RM660 million

2009 – RM660 million

2010 – RM772 million

2011 – RM487 million

2012 – RM733 million

2013 – RM170 million

2014 – RM170 million

2015 – RM170 million

2016 – RM170 million

2017 – RM179 million

Total – RM4,681 million

However, Chan, Awang and Helmi were all part of a conspiracy to mislead Parliament and nation in denying that there was a RM4.6 billion bailout scandal — Chan in his reply to my question on August 28, Awang in his reply in Parliament on 4th September and Helmi in his reply on 5th September 2007.

In failing to give a full accounting to justify the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal in his budget speech on Friday, Abdullah as Prime Minister and Finance Minister must bear full responsibility for the Cabinet conspiracy to mislead Parliament and the nation on the biggest financial scandal to start off any premiership in the country.

Up to now, there have been no proper accountability on the various issues on the  basis of which I had sought, though unsuccessfully, to adjourn the House to  have an urgent debate on the first day of the current parliamentary meeting on  August 27 on the PKFZ scandal, viz:

 (i) Hanky-panky in the purchase of the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ, despite objections by the Finance Ministry and the Attorney-General’s Chambers;

(ii) mismanagement resulting in the pull-out of Jebel Ali Free Trade Zone (Jafza) from the project, which could become a “white elephant”; and

(iii) questionable cost-overruns of the PKFZ, ballooning to RM4.63 billion from the original estimate of RM1.1 billion.

 The unlawful and unauthorized Transport Ministry issue of four “letters of support” which were used by the turnkey contractor – Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) – to raise RM4 billion bonds and get an AAA rating from the Malaysia Rating Corporation Bhd. for the PKFZ project.

 Why the government and the 26 million Malaysians must now bear responsibility if there is a RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout despite earlier assurances that the PKFZ project would be feasible, self-financing and would not involve a single ringgit of public funds.

 Why the Prime Minister is breaching his undertaking of no bailout of mega-billion-ringgit “white elephant” projects — set to be the biggest financial scandal at the beginning of any Prime Minister.

I regret that Awang in his reply during the winding-up of the 2007 Supplementary Estimates policy debate last Tuesday was most guilty of half-truths and even falsehoods about the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

I call for a public inquiry into the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone  scandal in the model of the Ahmad Nordin public inquiry into the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal two decades ago, and among the issues which  the public inquiry should focus on are:

(1) Port Klang Authority (PKA) purchase of  RM1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land from Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd.  for PKFZ at RM25 psf when Treasury and Attorney-General’s Chambers have proposed acquisition under Land Acquisition Act at RM10 psf

This raises the question whether PKA and the Transport Ministry were acting in the best interests of the country or in the interests of Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) and  a select group of individuals instead.

There had been a long and intense battle over the price that should be paid to KDSB for the 1,000 acres of land, which the company had acquired for RM95 million in 1999, or about RM3 psf.

Ranged on one side were the Treasury and the Attorney-General’s Chambers who wanted the land to be acquired “for public purpose” under the Land Acquisition Act at RM10 psf while the Transport Ministry and PKA wanted to buy the land at RM25 psf on a “willing seller, willing buyer” basis.  I understand that the Transport Ministry and PKA had made this “willing seller, willing buyer”  commitment with  KDSB. as far back as 2,000, totally without authority of the Treasury or the Cabinet!

The Attorney-General’s Chambers in particular had objected to the “willing seller, willing buyer” pitch by the Transport Ministry and PKA, as apart from the much lower price valuation under the Land Acquisition Act,  the 1,000-acre land were not free from encumbrances with several charges and caveats, which would tantamount to a “misrepresentation” or even “fraudulent misrepresentation”.

However,  the PKA and the Transport Ministry finally had their way to conclude the “willing-seller, willing-buyer” land deal at RM25 psf after the then Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik gave  the Cabinet the categorical assurance that the PKFZ project was feasible, self-financing and would not require any government funding.

Why should the taxpayers be now responsible for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout after the PKA and the then Transport Minister had rejected the proposal of the Treasury and the Attorney-General’s Chambers that the land be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act at RM10 psf.   If the Treasury and the Attorney-General’s Chambers advice had been accepted, and  some RM370 million public funds  used to acquire the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for the PKFZ, the country would not be faced with the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal today.

With the land price shooting up some 19 times to RM1.8 billion from what KDSB paid (RM95 million in 1999), who were the beneficiaries at such  inflated price?   This should be the special objective of the public inquiry into the PKFZ scandal — whether  personalities from MCA, Umno as well as the BN MP for Bintulu, Datuk Seri  Tiong King Sing, who is kingpin  of KDSB and who had even  threatened to institute legal proceedings over government failure to allow PKA to honour its agreement to pay RM25 psf for the 1,000 acre Pulau Indah land.

(2) The ballooning of the PKFZ cost from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion and its development costs from RM400 million to RM2.8 billion.

When PKFZ proposal was first mooted as a feasible and self-financing project, the development costs mentioned was RM400 million. But the development costs  have ballooned to RM2.8 billion, although the Transport Ministry and PKA have tried to camouflage such an escalation by the  sleight of hand by  taking out  RM1 billion to be categorized separately as “interests, professional fees and variation order” which were previously incorporated as part of development costs, as in the previous Auditor-General’s report.

The RM2.4 billion excess in development costs from the RM400 million originally approved by the Cabinet were unlawful as they were made without approval and authority from the Cabinet and the Finance Ministry.

There is a pathetic attempt to blame Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (Jafza) for the escalation of the development costs from RM400 million to RM2.8 billion for suggesting that both phases be developed at the same time — which  not only lacks credibility but reflects very poorly on the professionalism and competence of the PKA officials.

(3) The four “letters of support” by Transport Minister  for the RM4.6 billion bonds issued by KDSB through special purpose vehicles

The issue of four “letters of support” by the Transport Minister for the RM3.8 billion bonds issued by KDSB, which were regarded as government guarantees, resulting in 3A ratings by Malaysia Rating Corporation Berhad (MARC).

This is unlawful and gross abuse of power as only the Cabinet can authorize such government guarantee for bonds and which can only be issued by the Finance Ministry. The four letters of support had never been authorized by the Cabinet.

The first letter of support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ling Liong Sik and the three others by Chan Kong Choy.

It is regrettable that Awang had misled the House on the “Letters of Support” issued by the Transport Minister.

Awang said: “Saya baca sendiri letter of support ini, sebenarnya dia bukan merupakan gerenti hanya sokongan oleh seorang Menteri bahawa projek ini adalah projek kepentingan awam dan sebagai Kementerian Pengangkutan dia akan berusaha untuk memastikan syarikat dapat bayar balik.” Or as he earlier said:  “Letter of support ini hanya menyatakan kepada rating agensi bahawa ini adalah projek kerajaan dan Kementerian Pengangkutan akan memastikan yang bayaran loan ini akan dapat dibuat sebaik mana yang boleh, to be best of the ability dengan izin.”

What Awang said is untrue. The “letter of support” of the Transport Minister for the KDSB bonds  provides implicit government guarantee to investors  although the Minister concerned has no power to do so, as it reads:

“… We shall at all times in the future ensure that PKA (Port Klang Authority) is in the position to meet (and do meet on a full and timely basis) their liabilities in respect of the Repayment Amount for so long as an amount in respect of the  Repayment Amount remains outstanding… ”

The implicit guarantee is clear from its contents and there is no need to argue over it, leaving  the question why Awang tried to mislead the House by giving a completely wrong picture.

I challenge any Cabinet Minister to deny that it was precisely because the government  accepts that the Transport Minister’s “letters of support” were tantamount to government guarantees for KDSB’s RM4.6 billion bonds that the the Cabinet has recently given retrospective  approval to the unauthorized government guarantees to the KDSB bonds based on the four letters of support of the Transport Minister.

As a result,  the Cabinet also approved the RM4.6 billion bailout of the PKFZ scandal.

The question is why no  punitive action had been taken against the Transport Minister concerned who had unlawfully issued letters of support for KDSB’s RM4.6 billion bonds, which have forced the Cabinet to give them retrospective approval and the  RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout.

Was there an independent audit as to how the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal could have occurred, resulting in the Malaysian taxpayers having to bear its costs  while a handful of cronies would have waxed rich with a windfall of millions, tens and hundreds of millions of ringgit?

The first letter of support for the first issue of RM1.31 billion bonds by KDSB was issued by the former Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003 which was his last day as Transport Minister before going on a month’s leave and resignation.

Was the signing of the unlawful letter of support fror KDSB’s first issue of RM1.31 billion bonds Ling’s last act as Transport Minister?  This raises grave questions about propriety and  integrity of Ling in his last day in office as Transport Minister  which must be thoroughly investigated.

Recently, Ling had been having selective memory about his role in the PKFZ scandal which was initiated when he helmed the Transport Ministry.

How can Ling hide his head under the sand and claim that the PKFZ plan to “emulate Dubai’s Jebel Ali Free Zone was a good strategic idea” when it has become a national calamity, requiring  a RM4.6 billion bail-out?

Ling said the intention of PKFZ was to copy Jebel Ali Free Zone, which had 4,500 factories supplying to the whole of the Gulf, by combining port trade with Jebel Ali and bring at least half the factories to PKFZ to supply to Asean.

After spawning the monster of a RM4.6 billion mega-financial scandal, what has PKFZ to show in terms of achieving the target of attracting 2,250 factories from Jebel Ali Free Zone to Port Klang? Has it achieved 10, five or even one per cent of this target so far?

What is worse, the Jebel Ali Free Zone (Jafza) which originally had a 15-year contract to be management consultants of PKFZ to tap into Jafza’s expertise in this field had been driven out of the country because of hanky-panky in the administration and management of PKFZ.

It is intriguing why Ling had brought out the name of the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, specifically saying that the Cabinet meeting chaired by Mahathir had approved his (Ling) recommendation “to acquire the land” for the PKFZ project.

Is Ling trying to pass the buck by implying that it was Mahathir who must bear full and final responsibility for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

However, Ling has a very selective memory about the Cabinet decision on the acquisition of the 1,000 acres of land for PKFZ, claiming that he could not remember the actual price paid for the land. Is this credible?  Would he have also faulty memory about the letter of support which he unlawfully extended for KDSB bonds on his last day in office as Transport Minister on May 28, 2003?

It was most improper and unwarranted for the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz to tell  Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad to “shut up” about the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) investigation into the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal especially when Nazri is an interested party, being a member of the Cabinet which decided on the bailout.

On Thursday, the PAC had a two-hour meeting on the PKFZ bailout scandal, with a briefing by the Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager Datin Paduka O.C. Phang, who was accompanied by  an accountant and administrative staff and Transport Ministry officials, including its secretary-general Datuk Zakaria Bahari and representatives from the finance, planning and port divisions.

After the two-hour meeting, Shahrir as PAC Chairman told the press that the PAC was “unsatisfied” with how the meeting went.

Shahrir said: “The problem with the Port Klang Free Zone is far bigger than what the papers have reported.  Far too many questions were left unanswered.”

It was over Shahrir’s comments that Nazri blew his top yesterday, telling Sin Chew Daily that Shahrir should “shut up” on the ground that it was wrong to talk to the press before the end of the PAC investigation.

This was not the first time that Shahrir as PAC Chairman had made comments about ongoing PAC investigations in the past three years but Nazri had never voiced any objections in the past.

Why is Nazri so sensitive and high-strung now over the PAC investigation into the RM4.6 billion bailout scandal?  Is it because Nazri has a vested interest, being an interested party as a Minister of the Cabinet which had approved the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout?

It is Nazri who should “shut up” about PAC investigation into the PKFZ scandal and not interfere with the independence of the PAC to carry out its tasks mandated by Parliament as the PAC is answerable to Parliament and not to Nazri, though he is Minister in charge of parliamentary affairs for the Cabinet.

(Speech 4 on 2008 Budget in Parliament on Monday, September 10, 2007)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 11 September 2007, 3:48 pm and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.