Chan Kong Choy on-the-run again

 

Outside the 512 Gudang, PKFZ

Chan Kong Choy ran away again! He certainly have no answers for the Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang on the subject of RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal. The only way out (at least temporary) for him was to run away to London.

Chan also run away from the Rawang people on the issue of high tension transmission towers. He promised to bring the matter to the Cabinet after much pressure from us; more than a month now but nothing has come out from the Cabinet.

Media Conference Statement by Parliamentary Opposition Leader and DAP MP for Ipoh Timur Lim Kit Siang in Parliament on Tuesday, 20th November 2007:

2008 Budget Committee stage debate on Transport Ministry should be stood down until Chan Kong Choy returns from London next week or this is evidence of the Transport Minister on-the-run to escape accountability for the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone bailout scandal

I was surprised to read a Bernama report last night that the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy has left for London to attend the 25th International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Assembly and will not be back until later next week.

My immediate reaction is that the Transport Minister is on-the-run from Parliament to escape accountability for the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal, as the committee stage debate on the Transport Ministry for the 2008 Budget is scheduled for this Thursday or latest by Monday – when Chan will still be in London.

This is most irresponsible, as Chan knows that the PKFZ scandal will feature prominently in the debate on the Transport Ministry as for the past three months of the parliamentary meeting, no satisfactory answer had been given to the many issues and questions which I had raised repeatedly about the PKFZ scandal.

In fact, last Monday in Parliament during the committee stage debate on the Finance Ministry, I had posed the specific question as to why the government was “on-the-run” on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.

I had protested that government ministers were kicking the issue of the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal from one Ministry to another, evading accountability by refusing to give a direct answer to many pertinent questions which I had posed – with the ball being kicked among the Prime Minister’s Department, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Transport with no one wanting to give a proper answer.

I had even simplified the questions on the PKFZ scandal which cry out for answer, viz:

1. Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.
2. In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development costs of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever been sought for every RM100 million increase in development costs.

3. The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor – to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Kong Choy.

4. Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in mid-year to give retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

5. Why no action had been taken against the Transport Minister, both Liong Sik and Kong Choy, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support”. Kong Choy had said that he did not know that he had no power as Transport Minister to issue such Letters of Support, Was this an acceptable explanation for getting the government embroiled in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz had said that questions on the PKFZ scandal should rightly be answered by the Transport Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Ministry, Datuk Seri Dr. Hilmi Yahya when pressed on the issue last Monday, asked that he be allowed to answer by way of written reply. When asked when the written reply would be given, he declined to give any firm date on the ground that a proper study had to be done. When I persisted in asking whether an answer could be forthcoming in a week’s time, as this was not a new issue and had been raised for over two months, Hilmi said he would try.

More than a week had passed and I have not yet received any written reply from Helmi, while Chan has run away to London on the pretext of attending the International Maritime Organisation meeting in London.
Chan should be reminded that while his international commitments are important, they should not be allowed to overshadow his responsibilities to Parliament and Malaysians as Transport Minister.

After all, if Chan is not Transport Minister, he would be nothing in the International Maritime Organisation! This is why he must not forget his roots by running away from his primary responsibilities to Parliament and Malaysian taxpayers to evade answer and accountability for the biggest financial scandal in the Abdullah premiership.

If Chan feels that it is very important that he should attend the International Maritime Organisation conference in London which clashes with the parliamentary schedule for the Transport Ministry in the committee stage debate on the 2008 Budget, he could easily ask for the debate on the Transport Ministry to be changed to a later date when he is back from the London Conference.

Chan must stand accused of using the International Maritime Organisation conference in London as an excuse to run away from Parliament and escape accountability for the PKFZ scandal in the 2008 Budget committee stage debate on the Transport Ministry, especially as Chan’s role in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal is a major and central one.

I have given notice of a RM10 cut motion for the salary of Chan as Transport Minister over his major role in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal – and it will be the height of Ministerial irresponsibility and parliamentary cowardice for Chan to run away to London when the Transport Ministry comes up for debate on Thursday or Monday.

I have written a strong protest to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz, who is in charge of parliamentary affairs for the Cabinet over the absence of Chan in the debate on the Transport Ministry and to ask that the debate of the Transport Ministry should be stood down until Chan has come back from London to “face the music” over the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal.

    Lim Kit Siang

国会反对党领袖兼民主行动党怡保东区国会议员林吉祥于2007年11月20日（星期二）在国会召开记者会发表的声明：

交通部的2008年度委员会阶段的预算案辩论应展期到陈广才下周从伦敦回国后才进行，否则这将成为证明交通部长在逃循，避免交待46亿令吉拯救巴生港口自由区计划丑闻之证据。

当我从马新社昨晚的报导中获悉交通部长拿督斯里陈广才已飞往伦敦出席第25届国际海洋组织大会，将在下周才回国时，我感到很惊讶。

我的首个反应是，交通部长在逃循，他要躲避而不交待46亿令吉拯救巴生港口自由区计划（PKFZ）的丑闻，因为交通部的2008年度委员会阶段的预算案辩论订在本周四或最迟下周一进行，而陈广才届时仍在伦敦。

这是极不负责任之举，因为陈广才知道，PKFZ丑闻将成为交通部辩论的焦点。在过去3个月的国会会议中，尽管我不断的提出这项丑闻，但许多相关的问题都未获得答案。

其实，上周一在国会的财政部委员会阶段辩论时，我就特别提问，为何政府在逃避PKFZ丑闻问题。

我抗议政府将此丑闻从一个内阁部门踢到另一个内阁部门，针对许多相当关键性的问题都顾左右而言他。这个球在首相署、财政部与交通部之间被踢来踢去，没有一个部门给予应有的答案。

我甚至将各项问题简化，即：

1. 巴生港务局及交通部是否真的尽管面对总检察长署及财政部的强烈反对，并建议以每平方尺10令吉价格徵用之下，仍然坚持在”买者愿买，卖者愿卖”的每平方尺25令吉价格下购买浮罗英达的1000依格土地供作PKFZ用途，而内阁已在两个条件下给予批准：(i)交通部长明确地保证PKFZ计划可行及自行融资，不会花半分钱公款；及(ii)PKFZ发展每增花1亿令吉，都必须先获得内阁的批准。

2.结果，首个条件已被违背，PKFZ的经费从11亿令吉暴涨至46亿令吉而需要政府拯救，而第2个条件也被违背，因为在没有每增加1亿令吉都须经过内阁核准程序下，PKFZ的原有成本额从4亿令吉暴涨至28亿令吉。

3.交通部长违法的发出4封信给PKFZ的总承包商Kuala Dimensi有限公司（KDSB），好让后者通过发出债券集资40亿令吉资金，这形同政府向市场作出担保。交通部长并没有权力作出政府的融资担保，只有财政部长在内阁核准后才能作出。首封支持信是由前交通部长拿督斯里林良实于2003年5月28日发出，当天是林良实担任交长的最后一天。其馀3封是由陈广才发出。

4.这4封交长发出的非法”支持信”仍获得政府的担保，因为内阁在年中以追溯方式核准了两名交长在过去4年里非法与未经授权发出的支持信，使政府为了拯救PKFZ而背负了46亿令吉债务，这种说法是否属实。

5.为何政府至今没对付这两名交长，即林良实及陈广才，以及其他涉及非法发出4封支持信的高官。陈广才说，他不知道交长无权发出这种支持信。这是否能作为政府卷入46亿令吉拯救PKFZ丑闻的借口？

首相署部长拿督斯里纳兹里说，PKFZ丑闻的问题最好由交长解答。

当财政部政务次长拿督斯里希尔米上周一在国会被询及有关问题时，要求以书面作答。当被询及将在何时给予书面答覆时，他没给一个肯定的日期，理由是需要时间研究。当我追问答案是否可以在一周内获得（因为这不是新的课题，而且已提出超过两个月时间）时，希尔米说他会设法。

一周时间已过去，我仍未接到希尔米的答覆，而陈广才却已躲到伦敦去，表面上是要到那里出席国际海洋组织大会。

陈广才应被提醒，履行国际任务固然重要，但身为交长的他，不应因此忽略了他对国会及国人的责任。

而且，如果他不是交长，他在国际海洋组织大会上只能靠边站！因此，他不应忘了本身的责任，不应为了逃避阿都拉政权下最大宗的金融丑闻之问责，而漠视对国会及大马纳税人应尽的责任。

如果陈广才认为，伦敦的大会很重要，必须出席，但又与交通部的辩论撞期，他大可要求将辩论展期至他回国后才进行。

否则的话，陈广才将面对借伦敦大会逃循的指责，即他要避开PKFZ丑闻的问责，尤其是他在丑闻中扮演主要的角色。

我已通知议长，将提呈要将交长陈广才减薪10令吉的动议，如果交通部的2008年度委员会阶段预算案辩论在本周四或下周一进行的话，将会是陈广才高度不负责任与不敢面对国会之举。

我已经致函给负责国会事务的首相署部长拿督斯里纳兹里，抗议陈广才缺席交通部的辩论，并要求将辩论展期到陈广才回国，要他亲自交待PKFZ丑闻的来龙去脉。

林吉祥

‘Runaway’ Chan under fire for missing PKFZ debate

Yoges Palaniappan Nov 20, 07 2:54pm Malaysiakini

Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang today demanded for the committee stage of Supply Bill 2008 debate on Transport Ministry to be postponed until the transport minister returns from his foreign visit next week. At a press conference held at the Parliament lobby today, an irate Lim said that Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy was on the run from parliament to escape accountability on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.  Bernama reported yesterday that Chan has left for London to attend the 25th International Maritime Organisation (IMO) assembly and will not be back until later next week. Lim described Chan’s visit as “most irresponsible” because he would still be in London when his ministry is scheduled to wind up the debate on Thursday or the latest by next Monday. “Chan knows PKFZ scandal will feature prominently in the debate as for the past three months of the parliament sitting, no satisfactory answer had been given to the many issues and questions raised about the scandal,” he said. “Last Monday, I had protested that government ministers were kicking the issue from one ministry to another, evading accountability by refusing to give a direct answer to many pertinent questions I had posed,” he added. Answerable to parliament “When pressed on the issue when the Finance Ministry was winding up the debate, the ministry’s parliamentary secretary Hilmi Yahaya asked that he be allowed to give a written reply. “More than week has passed and I have yet to receive any written reply from Hilmi, while Chan has run away to London on pretext of attending the assembly.” Lim reminded Chan that while his international commitments are important, they should not be allowed to overshadow his responsibilities to parliament and Malaysians. He said Chan would be nothing in the IMO assembly if not for his position as the transport minister. “This is why he must not forget his roots by running away from his primary responsibilities to parliament and Malaysian taxpayers to evade answer and accountability,” he said. “If he (Chan) feels that it is important to attend the assembly, he could easily ask for the winding up of debate to be changed to a later date when he’s back from London.” Lim also said that he had written a protest note to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz, who is in charge of parliamentary affairs, over the absence of Chan. Over-priced project “I have asked for the winding-up debate by the Transport Ministry should be stood down until Chan has come back from London to face the music over the PKFZ scandal.” Chan’s role in the grossly overpaid PKFZ project included issuing letters of support to contractor Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd to raise RM4 billion bonds. The minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister after cabinet approval. After a litany of complaints ranging from mismanagement and inflated financial costs, the government said that it would give a soft loan to Port Klang Authority to ensure the success of the PKFZ project. SPECIAL REPORT: Poser over mega ‘ghost town’

Nades fact-finding trip to Brickendonbury

Myth or fact? You decide

Citizen Nades

By R. Nadeswaran
The Sun

They talked about a High Performance Training Centre in Brickendonbury where the Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre stands. They talked …

* about renovating “existing” hostels and facilities;
* about training with Arsenal;
* about “rave reviews” from squash players who used it before competing in Cologne and Amsterdam;
* about “total immersion” with our players getting involved with the local people and inculcate their work ethics and culture. Well done!

They talked and still talk about needing to protect the environment. They talk about global warming. Yet after destroying local forests, they have no qualms of destroying another country’s heritage.

* about submitting four different sets of plans to the Hertford Council on June 14; and
* about “plans being on track”.

Yes, even the Football Association of Malaysia, the much-maligned guardians of the country’s football fortunes boasted on its website: “The Malaysian national under-16 team is settling well at the High Performance Training centre in Brickendonbury.”

Settling well? Someone ought to give those guys at Wisma FAM a Pelanduk dictionary. Perhaps, then they will understand the meaning of “settling well”.

But then, when you are caught with your pants down, the ordinary guy would put his hands up, own up, say sorry and perhaps, in all humility, seek forgiveness.

Malaysian culture dictates that. But that’s not the political culture, let alone sports culture. The best is to be on “denial” mode – just insist the waters on our seas are red in colour. Then over time, people will start believing that their eyes are playing tricks with their brains. But many no longer fall for the old tricks.

So, drop gear and engage in “silent” mode. Let them shout till their throats are hoarse or their fingers numbed by cracking them on the keyboards. Over time, they will get fed up and give up.

No, my friends. Never. When you want to spend RM70 million to “upgrade” or “renovate” non-existent facilities, every right-minded citizen will stand up and demand that every sen is accounted for. After all, wasn’t that the platform our prime minister campaigned on, for which we all gave him a thunderous majority?

No, my friends. When half-truths and misinformation are fed to justify such colossal spending, they should be exposed.

Aren’t all members of the cabinet and the civil service guided by those very principles of good governance where transparency and accountability supersede everything else?

Have they forgotten the slogans they campaigned on and got elected to office? What about the civil servants and their akujanji and oath of office which require exemplary practices?

No, my friends, they are all are aware of their commitments, but sometimes they suffer from selective amnesia.

Yes, my friends, if they are not constantly reminded of what is expected of them, they sometimes tend to slip into permanent memory loss. And that’s why, time and again, they ought to be reminded of their social and moral responsibilities.

Elsewhere on this page, we put the facts on the table so that you, first as a citizen , and second as a reader of this newspaper, can differentiate between myth and fact.

You, dear citizen and reader, be the judge.

Exposing the truth … Nadeswaran visited the TARRC for a first-hand look at the facilities of the “HPTC”. But he was sorely disappointed by what he saw. The football pitch at the TARRC.

On a current note, the national junior squash team, who were the “pilot” team to use the facilities in Hertfordshire when they competed in Cologne and Amsterdam, have sent back initial raving reports of the facilities and competition that were available around the HPTC (in Brickendonbury), which proved very useful as run-up to the actual competitions. – Datuk Dr Ramlan Aziz, the (then) director-general of the National Sports Council, at a “tell-all” press conference, July 14, 2006.

Pilot team using the facilities in Hertfordshire? Hertfordshire is a county and there are plenty of big towns with facilities. But where did the squash players stay? It’s like saying there are several training facilities in Johor. But if you stay in Masai and travel to Johor Baru to train, it makes little sense.

There’s no place to stay in Brickendonbury, let alone the HPTC. They must have stayed in a hotel either in Ware or Hertford or even St Albans. Where did they train? They trained at one of the many private-run courts many, many kilometres away from the HPTC and paid for these facilities in pounds sterling. Around HPTC, you have nothing but farms with horses and sheep. The nearest towns, Hertford and Ware, are more than 10km away.

So, if you are competing in Cologne, wouldn’t it be prudent to stay in that city, close by to where the competition is being staged? What purpose did the HPTC serve? The players might as well have stayed and trained in London instead of heading to Brickendonbury.

If cost is a factor, they could have used St Albans as a base. Unlike Brickendonbury, it has more facilities and better accessibility.

Players can also walk from their hotel to the sports complex.

A total of 22 players will be the first to leave for England tomorrow as the batch of Under-16-year-olds head to the High Performance Training Centre in Brickendonbury. Robert Alberts, the technical director for the FA of Malaysia (FAM) said that the first group will not only train in London but will also play several friendly matches for the stint slated for 6-31 May. – Football Association of Malaysia website, May 5, 2007

Head to HPTC? For what? Other than an under-sized football pitch and a few changing rooms, there’s nothing there. The truth is that the players and officials initially stayed at the Roebuck Hotel in Ware. They travelled to Brickendonbury once a day and trained for two hours in that small field. Other than that, they were holed up in their rooms and attended “theory” classes in the hotel. In between, there were “academic” sessions for the players. Now, coming to the bit of Arsenal. They left Roebuck Hotel on May 10 and checked into the Malaysian-owned Holiday Villa Hotel in London and then on to the Arsenal training ground. The following day, they played a match against Arsenal’s Under-16 team, which they lost 5-0. The “match” was of three “halves” of 30 minutes each. And that was the end of the Arsenal stint!

The HPTC had been initially billed as a place where Malaysian athletes can “immerse” with the locals. But this was never the case. If the players are spending only two hours daily at the HPTC, why send them there at all?

Wouldn’t they have been better off at their hostels in the Bukit Jalil Sports School?

Any claim that the HPTC is “close to” or “trained with” Arsenal is not true. From London, the boys flew to Slovakia for two games there, and then returned to their hotels in Ware. In total, the boys spent no more than 100 hours on the training grounds.

Now here comes the cruncher. During May, the British Meteorological Office reported that temperatures in the day dipped to as low as 13¼C. Did our boys cope with that kind of cold? Probably – with layers of warm clothes.

This is not mere speculation, considering that these are teenagers who hardly ever got out of Bukit Jalil at night.

Malaysia’s proposed High Performance Training Centre to be located at the Tun Abdul Razak Rubber Research Centre (TARRC) in Brickendonbury, Hertfordshire, England, is expected to take off by early next year.According to National Sports Institute director general Datuk Dr Ramlan Abdul Aziz, a presentation of the proposed plan for the HPTC would be made to the East Hertford Council on June 14.“We have had a number of meetings with the relevant authorities from East Hertford Council and the Malaysian Rubber Board on what can be done and what cannot be done, and we have finalised four options to be put forward.” – Bernama, June 2No plans were submitted to the council. The council’s media officer, Nick White, in an e-mail on June 19 said: “Representatives of the Malaysian government and their planning team met with officers at East Herts Council last week. They set out their thoughts on how the facility could be used for training of their athletes in the run-up to the Olympics in 2012. No formal application has yet been submitted to the council, and the meeting represented an early discussion on the issues that this sort of proposal may raise.As the proposals are still in the early stages and no planning application has been submitted, I’m afraid the information I can give you is limited.”

So, where are the “four different plans” Ramlan talked about.

The project from a forward training base in Europe moved to High Performance Training Centre. Now, the impression given to the council is that it will be Malaysia’s preparatory centre for the Olympics.

If that’s the case, we might as well save time, money and effort, and take up the University of Hertfordshire’s offer for our athletes to use its facilities.

The bulk of the money has been paid to St. Albans-based architect and town planner, David Lane Associates which has sent two invoices – one for RM350,000 and another for RM450,000 – for “work done” to apparently transform part of the TARRC into a mini-sports complex.

Asked to comment on this, Ramlan gave his assurance that the expenditure was within limits and had been accounted for. – theSun, Feb 27, 2007

On June 14, a Malaysian team met with the planning officers of the Hertford Council. It was then that a new team of architects entered the scene.

Nick White, in an e-mail to theSun said: “Just to update you both on the meeting that took place last week – there is now a new planning consultancy involved – White Young Green.”

So, now, we have to pay another firm of architects, but the issue is: Who hired David Lane Associates? Why another consultancy change, especially after Ramlan said that about RM800,000 has been paid in fees? How much will White Young Green cost?

Other related stories published in the Sun… http://www.sun2surf.com/search.cfm?q=Brickendonbury&submit.x=7&submit.y=6

Mathematics, Malaysian-style

From a Malaysian… 

Mathematics, Malaysian-style

I find it most alarming that Malaysian schools teach our children the
wrong things. I mean: can the children really apply what they are
taught in school later in life? For example, can you imagine a mathematics
question in a recent examination as follows?“If an egg costs fifty Sen, and if you buy one-eighth of the egg, how
much would you have to pay?”  Who in heaven’s name will want to buy one-eighth of an egg? The shopkeeper will probably think you are crazy and he will be equally stupid to break the egg and measure one-eighth for you. Yet, this is how they structure the questions in Malaysian schools. Why not pose questions that would be more useful later in life when you go out into the world to earn your living?To help Malaysia’s Ministry of Education bet to face the realities of life, we are suggesting some questions they could use in our classrooms. QUESTION 1

If you drive from Kuala Lumpur to Penang along the PLUS Highway and there are four speed traps along the way, and if each speed trap would cost you RM300.00 in fines, how much in fines would you accumulate by the time you reach Penang?

ANSWER (Choose one)

1. I would not suffer any fines as the oncoming cars would flash their headlights and I would slow down before coming to the speed trap. 2. I would only need to pay a total of RM80.00 as I would pay a RM20.00 bribe at each speed trap.
3. I would not be stopped as I am an UMNO Wakil Rakyat so I am exempted from speed traps.QUESTION 2If your Bumiputera company is awarded a RM150 million government contract, and you make a 20% profit, how much profit would be at the end of the contract period?

ANSWER (Choose one)

1. I will not be making a 20% profit as I would have to pay the Minister 10% and UMNO 5%.
2. I would make 30% profit, which is the progress payment I receive,
after which I will abandon the project and let the government call for
 a re-tender.
3. My company will not make any profit at all as I will siphon out all
the profits and show a loss to avoid paying corporate tax.

QUESTION 3

If the ruling party obtained 54% of the popular votes the last
election and won 151 or 80% of the seats, and if it saw an increase of
10% in votes this election, how many more seats would it gain?

ANSWER (Choose one)

1. The ruling party will not show a 10% increase in votes, as it will  stuff the ballot box with another 20% to give it a 30% vote increase.
2. The ruling party will win all the newly created seats in the delineation exercise recently done.
3. The ruling party has already decided it will win 90% of the seats and the votes have nothing to do with it.

QUESTION 4

If the national petroleum company, Petronas, pays a 5% royalty to
Terengganu State and if the amount paid is RM800,000,000 per year,
how much should Petronas have in the bank accumulated over the last 25
years?

ANSWER (Choose one)

1. Nobody is supposed to know as Petronas need not show its accounts to
anyone except the Prime Minister and this information comes under the Official Secrets Act.
2. Petronas earns only 50% of its petroleum revenue from Terengganu so
Petronas’ total income accumulated in the banks over 25 years should be
RM800 billion.
3. Petronas has nothing accumulated in the bank as all the money has
spent bailing out companies and finance mega projects.

AAB’s 83 overseas trips in 44 months as PM

Yes, the PM should stay back to fight corruption, instead of spending too much time overseas. He aslo fails to bring investments back to Malaysia. PM takes ‘too many’ overseas trips Bede Hong Jun 28, 07 4:55pm Malaysiakini Opposition Leader Lim Kt Siang has criticised Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for making over 80 official visit overseas since coming to office, saying the premier’s time should have been better spent fight corruption back home.Lim said Abdullah should spend more time in the country to ensure his trips abroad “do not result in the neglect of his duties” as prime minister, internal security minister and finance minister.In a written reply to Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah), the Foreign Ministry reported that the premier went on 83 official and work-related visits overseas over a period of three years and eight months. Abdullah made 22 trips in 2004, 25 in 2005, 20 in 2006 and 16 in 2007. His most recent visits were to Russia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Italy. “One message from the answer is that Abdullah has not only three portfolios … he has a fourth portfolio as the travelling de facto foreign minister,” Lim told a press conference in Parliament lobby today. Lim said Abdullah should “revamp his time-management” and focus on fulfilling his 2004 general election pledge to create a cleaner, more efficient government. “The most important agenda of the Abdullah Administration to wipe out corruption has fizzled out, highlighted by the ignominious dismissal of the Eric Chia corruption case,” said Lim. Chia, a tycoon charged with running steel company Perwaja in the 1990s, was the first public figure charged for graft in February 2004. Long list of failures  Abdullah had made pledges to fight corruption and cronyism as part of his campaign drive in early 2004. Chia was acquitted by the High Court on Tuesday on charges that he allegedly misappropriated RM74.6 million. Lim added that Malaysia has dropped rank in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index from 37th to 44th placing from 2003 to 2006 and that the country’s crime rate has soared since Abdullah took office. He said the recommendations by the Royal Police Commission to set up the IPCMC was ignored. “Such a list of failures of the Abdullah premiership stems from the hopes and expectations he has raised when he became prime minister … will be quite a long one. “It will include setbacks to nation-building process arising from worsening religious polarisation because of the lack of political will and leadership to restore inter-religious dialogue as in the first three decades of nationhood,” he said.

PKFZ: DAP MPs seek meeting with PKA chairman Chor Chee Heong

港務局超出市價44%買地

林吉祥要求2週內解釋  GuangMing Daily

updated:2007-06-23 20:20:10 MYT

■林吉祥（右3）表示將會把問題呈上國會。右起鄭文福與陳彼得。(放大) （巴生訊）

針對港務局以超出市價44%的18億令吉買下西港約1000英畝的地段來發展巴生港口自由區計劃事件，國會反對黨領袖林吉祥要求直接涉案的3造，即交通部、港務局與發展商在兩週內作出解釋，同時，他也會把此課題呈上國會。

他說，根據調查，有關地點地價每方尺售14令吉，可是以10億令吉購買1000英畝地段，依推算每方尺值25令吉，購價比市價超出接近一倍。

 “此外，有關的發展經費也由原本的5億1900萬令吉，突然增加至13億令吉。” 他表示，這些無故增加的數據，不禁令人對此計劃起質疑。 他週六（23日）前往巴生港口自由區實地瞭解時，如是指出。

陪同者包括行動黨中委劉天球、雪州副主席陳彼得、州委鄭文福等。

林吉祥說，這項計劃耗費巨大，但從目前的發展看來，空置的工廠與貨倉，似乎與“價值”不符。 因此，他希望涉及這項計劃的人士，包括當年的交通部長敦林良實、現任港務局主席拿督曹智雄、現任交通部長拿督斯里陳廣才及有關發展商等，都應該站出來向社會大眾作出解釋。

此外，劉天球說，他們已針對有關問題兩度向警方報案，但至今仍未獲得回應。

他說，巴生港口自由區雖建竣工多年，但在啟用後卻沒有吸引太多投資者前來參與經濟活動，顯示這項發展猶如“白象計劃”。

“區內也設有512間貨倉作為轉運中心，但由於設計不符，空間狹小，以致毫無吸引力，至今僅有兩間貨倉啟用。”

（光明日報•2007.06.23）

高價購地設港口自由區 林吉祥促3造解釋

Sinchew Daily News

updated:2007-06-24 12:48:47 MYT



■林吉祥（中）實地巡視巴生港口自由區的發展近況。右起鄭文福與劉天球。左二為陳彼得。(放大)

（巴生訊）國會反對黨領袖林吉祥限定交通部、港務局與發展商，在兩個星期內，解釋高價購地設港口自由區的事件。

他說，港務局以超出市價44%的18億令吉，購下西港約1000英畝的地段，發展巴生港口自由區計劃。
他說，根據調查，上述地點地價每方尺售14令吉，可是上述高價則顯示每方尺值25令吉，購價比市價超出接近一倍。

“此外，發展經費也由原本的5億1900萬令吉，突然增加至13億令吉。”

他表示，如果三方無法作出解釋，他會把這課題帶上國會。

他是週六（23日）前往巴生港口自由區實地瞭解時，這樣指出。陪同者包括行動黨中委劉天球、雪州副主席陳彼得、州委鄭文福等。

兩次報案無回應

林吉祥說，這項計劃耗費巨資，但從目前的發展看來，空置的工廠與貨倉，似乎與“價值”不符。

此外，劉天球說，他們已針對上述問題，兩次向警方報案，但至今仍未獲得回應。 （星洲日報•2007.06.24）

PKFZ land deal: Liong Sik “over-spent” by 19 times!

Whe I meet up with the Commercial Crime Department next week, I would demand the police to arrest Liong Sik and other involved suspects! PKFZ price-tag shoots up to RM4.11 billion Fauwaz Abdul Aziz Jun 23, 07 6:01pm Malaysiakini The price tag for the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) has shot up to an all time high of RM4.11 billion, for which the Port Klang Authority (PKA) has to begin paying for this year by coughing up RM510 million to the seller and developer of the free zone.This was revealed in a May 2006 report of the Auditor-General on PKA for the financial year ended Dec 31, 2005. Based on various media reports and statements by PKA, malaysiakini had earlier placed the PKFZ price tag at RM2.4 billion: RM1.09 billion to acquire the 405ha of land on Pulau Indah, and at least RM1.3 billion to build it up. For that amount, eyebrows were already raised in view of the project’s questionable viability. The Selangor Freight Forwarders & Logistics Association described PKFZ as an example of a mega-project into which a lot of money, but not enough thought, was put. Supplementary agreement Six months after its completion, PKFZ resembles a ghost town, with only about a dozen tenants instead of the anticipated crush of clients. A May 2004 report of the Auditor-General revealed, however, the purchase of the land to have been higher at RM1.81 billion (inclusive of 7.5 percent interest) by RM720 million. The report also said that while the development cost agreed upon in 2003 was RM519 million, this was raised to RM1.3 million following a “supplementary agreement” with the developer, Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd. The increase in development cost was not explained. The report also said PKA then did not have sufficient financial resources to meet the RM2.9 billion obligation after having already paid an initial RM208.85 million (RM108.85 million for the purchase and RM100 million for the development of the land). The Auditor-General’s subsequent remark that PKA “informed that the financing of the project will, from the year 2007, be under the 9th Malaysia Plan or through the formation of Malaysia Ports Commission (MPC)” fueled speculations that the derelict project was slated for a major government bailout. Industry sources, when contacted, described as “scandalous” the use of the proposed MPC – while in principal a sound idea given the need for a central national port authority – to bail out a troubled public authority such as PKA. The Auditor-General’s May 2006 report on PKA left out any mention of the MPC. He adds, however, that the Authority “is planning to obtain loans from financial institutions with the guarantee of the government of Malaysia as well as requesting grants to finance the project.” To pay from 2007 to 2017 The Auditor-General also revealed that in 2005, the development cost increased by RM1.21 billion to RM2.51 billion due to “additional development works, professional fees and interest.” Following the payment that had already been paid by PKA to Kuala Dimensi, the balance of RM4.11 billion shall be paid from 2007 until 2017 with an annual payment ranging from RM130 million to RM733 million, reads the report. The initial payment for the land and development amounting to RM510 million shall be paid this year. The Auditor-General also revealed that, as PKA’s liquidity at December 2005 consists of cash in bank and fixed deposits amounting to RM231.75 million and its surplus after tax was RM26.63 million, the Authority “needs to look for sources of financing to meet its capital obligation.” Commenting on the matter today, Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang said the whole project raises a question mark on the “viability, feasability, and integrity” of the whole project. During a visit to the PKFZ this morning, the DAP supremo told reporters that the authorities and figures behind the project must explain its state of affairs. This, said Lim, includes the Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy and PKA chairperson Chor Chee Heung. Both Chan and Chor have to explain how the latter’s appointment in view of Chor’s position as deputy chairperson of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd (WBGB) – which is behind the sale and development of PKFZ. Lim also invited WBGB chief executive officer Tiong King Sing – who has claimed there is no connection between his company and Kuala Dimensi – to give a full disclosure on the matter. Malaysiakini had earlier reported Chor as saying the issue of conflict of interest does not arise. ‘There is no connection’ According to records in the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM), Kuala Dimensi is owned by an investment holding and management firm Wijaya Baru Holdings Sdn Bhd (WBHSB). At the same time, in WBGH’s 2006 annual report, Kuala Dimensi is listed as an “associate company” from which it derived “contract revenue”. CCM documents show Tiong to be a director and shareholder in both WBGB and WBHSB, but he maintained that “there is no connection” between these companies either. WBGB, WBHSB, and Kuala Dimensi occupy the same premises at Wisma Wijaya in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. In September last year, WBGB was actually slapped with a “public reprimand” by Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd for failing to make an announcement to the Exchange in relation to “the disposal of the Pulau Indah Land”. WBGB had failed to send a circular to its shareholders pertaining to the transaction and obtaining the approval of its shareholders prior to the transaction being completed, said Bursa Malaysia Securities in a statement. Bursa Securities said, however, that it has not found any of the WBGB directors to have caused or permitted the breach of the Bursa Securities Listing Requirements (LR) and only directed WBGH to “maintain appropriate standards of responsibility and accountability”. PKA general manager OC Phang – who is also PKFZ managing director – did not respond to requests for comments. 政府以19倍价钱买二手地 31亿元西港自贸区成白象 ■日期／Jun 23, 2007   ■时间／07:22:49 pm ■新闻／家国风云   ■作者／Merdekareview陈慧思 【本刊陈慧思撰述】1990年代售价9400万元的巴生港口自由贸易区地段，在2002年转手卖给政府时，地价竟然飙升到18亿元1000万元，涨幅高达19倍！国会在野党领袖林吉祥促陈广才和巴生港务局主席曹智雄作出全面的解释。 此外，竣工半年余，巴生港口自由贸易区乏人问津，全数512间的货仓只有区区两家公司租用，缔造马来西亚版杜拜嘉贝阿里自由贸易区（Jebel Ali Free Zone）传奇的梦想，几乎遥不可及。 林吉祥今日率民主行动党领袖前往巴生美丽岛（Pulau Indah）参观了与西港毗邻的巴生港口自由贸易区之后直抨：“这看来是个失败的计划，一个失败的计划怎么可以成功？” 巴生港务局以成绩斐然的自由贸易港—杜拜嘉贝阿里自由贸易区为蓝本，2004年起在西港港口附近的沼泽地带开拓巴生港口自由贸易区。可是，从巴生港口贸易区冷清的景象看来，杜拜嘉贝阿里自由贸易区的梦想仍旧非常遥远。 今日林吉祥率众进入在保安区内的货仓地段视察，发现全数512个单位的货仓，只有两家公司租用，即Score Asia和R&R Engineering & Services，其余单位皆无人问津；相信是货仓过剩的缘故，一些货仓甚至为工地工人所占用。另外，举目所及，作为出租用途的空地，只有一家名叫Aker Kvaerner的公司设厂。 林吉祥质疑地价及发展额 为了在美丽岛达成这个美丽的梦想，巴生港务局先是耗资18亿1000万元从Kuala Dimensi私人有限公司手中购入一片1000英亩的土地，随后把价值13亿元的发展计划颁布给这家公司，总投资额高达31亿元。这项土地买卖的价格和发展计划的投资额皆具争议性。 林吉祥质疑，政府是否值得花31亿元在西港发展自贸区。他参观自贸区之后向记者表示：“交通部长陈广才必须回答，巴生港口自由贸易区是否实际可行，为何只有两家公司租用货仓？这个发展计划是否值13亿元？地价是否值18亿元？相信无人会认同这块地值这个价钱。” 同行的民主行动党非政府组织局主任刘天球指出，原地主鲁姆岛发展合作社（Koperasi Pembangunan Pulau Lumut）在1990年代先后以1元37分每平方尺和2元98分每平方尺的价格出售该1000英亩的土地予Kuala Dimensi，总售价约9400万元，可是后者在2002年将该地段转售港务局的价格竟高达18亿1000万元，相等于每平方尺41元55分，比原价高出了19倍！ 但是，Kuala Dimensi董事兼国阵民进党民都鲁区国会议员张庆信早前接受《独立新闻在线》电访时表示，Kuala Dimensi并非一次过收钱；在巴生港务局缴还欠款的期限中，该土地必然会一直升值，因此，把土地售价与2002年市价作比较并不公平。 此外，他也指出，该地售价不应与当地的市价作比较，因为Kuala Dimensi出售的土地经过了一番特别处理，乃增值后的土地。 新加坡的《商业时报》（Business Times）在2005年引述我国的国家稽查局针对巴生港务局截至2003年年底的财政年所作的稽查报告指出，巴生港务局首期只需付Kuala Dimensi公司10%的地价和10%的建筑费，2007年以后的10年内便须缴还其余欠款。 曹智雄有商业利益冲突 根据注册公司资料，Kuala Dimensi私人有限公司四名董事当中的两名董事都是国阵领袖，其一为张庆信，另一名则是自2004年出任巫统总财政阿都阿欣（Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi）。 注册公司资料显示，Kuala Dimensi为Wijaya Baru Holdings私人有限公司所有，张庆信在这两家公司皆出任董事，他也同时是Wijaya Baru Holdings的股东。 另外，张庆信与刚在今年4月19日出任巴生港务局主席的曹智雄都是上市公司Wijaya Baru Global有限公司的董事；曹智雄也身兼这家公司的副主席职（deputy chairman）。 林吉祥指出：“曹智雄是自由贸易区发展商的副主席，与其港务局主席的职位有利益冲突，此外，张庆信是土地的卖主和发展商，首相应该回应，为何会出现这样的利益冲突？” 他认为，曹智雄应该辞去港务局主席或Wijaya Baru Global副主席一职，而早前揭露砂拉越黑帮猖獗现象并呼吁行政透明的张庆信应该确保土地交易透明。 无论如何，早前张庆信接受《独立新闻在线》电访时表示，Kuala Dimensi与Wijaya Baru Global和Wijaya Baru Holdings没有任何关系。 张庆信透露，将西港发展成为另一个杜拜嘉贝阿里是他向政府提呈的建议，经过多年的游说，最后政府才决定推行这项发展计划。他认为，西港绝对有发展潜能，人民必须向前看，而非在原地踏步。 促陈广才曹智雄解释 无论如何，林吉祥认为，从现况看来，西港并无发展自由贸易区的潜能。他将寻求机会把此事带上今届国会，促陈广才及曹智雄予以全面的解释。 另外，他也希望民主行动党国会议员将在两周内走访巴生港口自由贸易区，并与巴生港务局高层会面。 去年11月竣工的巴生港口自由贸易区是巴生港务局旗下的一项发展计划。 刘天球在2004年就是项土地交易向皇家警察的商业罪案调查组报案，质疑这宗交易是否牵涉贪污及失信问题。迄今，反贪污局仍没有作出任何交待；当时的交通部长林良实也不曾回应此事。 刘天球在获知该地段售价高达18亿1000万元，比2004年所公布的10亿元高出8亿元之后，在今年6月11日再次前往警局报案。 交通部署下的巴生港务局是巴生北港和西港的管理机构。目前该局负担高达马币30亿元的庞大债务，国家稽查局针对巴生港务局截至2003年底的表现所作的报告指出，“若无马来西亚政府的扶助，巴生港务局自2007年起便无法承担高达马币30亿元的庞大的债务”。

PKFZ: Opposition Leader to raise hell at next Parliamentary session

 From Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang’s blog…

Port Klang Free Zone – Forlorn and pathetic air of another failed multi-billion ringgit mega-project

This morning, together with Ronnie Liu, Peter Tan, Tee Boon Hock and other DAP Klang leaders, I visited the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), which has been shrouded in such secrecy despite being open to operation more than six months ago on November 1, 2006.

The PKFZ has the forlorn and pathetic air of another failed multi-billion ringgit mega project and Malaysiakini reporters Fauwaz Abdul Aziz and Sabrina Chan are right in coining the term “mega ghost-town” for it.

The PKFZ offers 512 standardised warehouse units, 260 ha of open land and four blocks of eight-storey office complexes. After seven months of opening, there are only signs of two of the 512 warehouse units being taken up but not yet utilized. The only company that has visible presence of operations is the Norwegian oil and gas company Aker Kvaerner. Otherwise, the 1,000-acre PKFZ is an expanse of empty office blocks, warehouse units and land blocks.

There is no vibration of activity or even sense of commercial life!

No wonder the authorities concerned were so upset when they received word that I was going to visit the Westports and a security detail was very rude in demanding to know what I was doing at PKFZ, inviting an earful as to why a visit by the Parliamentary Opposition Leader should be regarded as akin to trespass especially when Parliamentary sanction will have to be sought if there is to be a billion-ringgit bailout of the failed PKFZ.

Many questions swirl around the PKFZ for the past few years without answers, and it is time that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s pledge to lead an open, accountable and transparent administration be respected by his subordinates, particularly the following personalities:

1. The Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy should explain

• the viability, feasibility and integrity of the PKFZ; and

• why he appointed MCA MP and former Deputy Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung as the new Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman in April when he should have known that there would be a conflict of interest situation in view of Chor’s position as Deputy Chairman of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd (WBGB), an associated company with Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd., which sold the 1,000 acres of land for the PKFZ at the very inflated price of RM1.8 billion when it was bought for RM95 million and awarded a RM1.3 billion contract to develop the same piece of land.

2. The PKA Chairman Chor Chee Heung should explain whether he would relinquish either the post of PKA Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Wijaya Baru Global Bhd to resolve his conflict-of-interest.

3. The main beneficiary of the PKFZ mega-project, Datuk Tiong King Sing, the MP for Bintulu, should clear the air over the many questions about the mega-project right from the genesis of the project to its present day. Tiong had made a name for himself for demand for transparency and outspokenness against organised crime in Sarawak. He must show he is fully committed to transparency in the PKFZ deal, as he is the main mover of the project being the person behind Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd and Wijaya stable of companies, directly involved in the RM1.8 billion land sale to PKFZ and the RM1.3 billion contract to develop the land.

The PKFZ was touted as modeled after the successful Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai, to be the regional export and transshipment hub for manufactured goods. After expenditure of over RM3 billion ringgit, the PKFZ has nothing to show except “the forlorn and pathetic air of a failed mega-project”!

Parliament leaks: A challenge to Samy Vellu

Dear Samy, give us the job for half the cost!

I’m in the process of preparing a letter of challenge to the Works Minister S. Samy Vellu on the issue of exhorbitant cost of repair for the leaking Parliament House. We will bring the letter of challenge to him to the Parliament or his office next week.

Basically, we will challenge Samy to give us the job for half the cost he has quoted in the press ( NST Tuesday June 19 2007 Page 16 Prime News section).

 A letter of intent has been given to Jasaman Sdn Bhd by Samy, and the price quoted was RM13 million. But the value of the contract has yet to be finalised. Samy claims that the work would include replacing the waterproof membrane of the concrete roof and replacing the rain water channels.

We call it a “bullshit” because firstly, there’s  no way to replace the rain water channels because they were concealed in the columns of the building. And secondly, the cost quoted was far too high. To repair a square meter of the roof does not cost more than RM50 according to water-proofing experts.

The challenge is based on these simple conditions plus throwing in a few “bonus” for Samy…

1. An inspection of the site and to work out the specifications.

2. To hack the existing water-proof cement rendered.

3.To do water-oroofing from the base that is from top of R.C. slabs.

4. To place water-proof membrane on top of slabs, and to make good all hairline cracks with grouting prior to membrane.

5. Water-proof cement render of panels 4ftx 4ft and in between panels to apply sealants for extensions and contractions due to therma shock.

6. To apply 3 coats of water-proof coating system.

7. All rainwater down pipes to be replaced if the rainwater down pipes can be replaced with upvc pipes.

8. We will give 10-year warranty plus 1 year free miantenance.

9. Price? We only want RM6.5 million, which is half of RM13 million as announced by Samy.

10. And last but the least, we will donate RM1 million to whichever charity, school or temple Samy wants us to contribute.

How about that, Datuk Seri YB Samy Vellu?

If Samy accepts our challenge, it means Malaysian taxpayers will save some RM6.5 million.

It also means that you would not see a leaking Parliament House anymore (or at least for the next 10 years).

And he becomes a Malaysian hero for saving money for the nation and at the same time able to help a charitable cause worth RM1 million in his name.

( Did I tell you that even with half the cost, we would be able to make about RM2 million?)

Please call me at 012 201 3656 if unclear. Hope to see you soon, dear Minister.

Samy, give us the job!

Another “bullshit” from Samy the “Bocor”! He asked for RM13 million to repair the leaking Parliament House after spending some RM100 million in renovation.

A reliable source told me this morning that the cost of water-proofing for the Parliament House would not be more than RM5 million. According to an industry expert, the cost per square meter for such repair works would be no more than RM50.

I challenge Samy to give the job to us at half the price he quoted in the press. On top of that, we will give the Parliament House a 10-year warranty. Plus RM1million as donation whichever school or temple or charity he wants us to contribute!

RM13 million to repair the leaking Parliament House? Stop bullshiting, Semi Value!

19th June 2007

Samy Vellu: Only Toll Concessionaires I Care!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwYGjYa0N8

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJxG7-PuHEk

PKA: Chor Chee Heong must resign as PKA chairman

Two weeks has passed and Chor Chee Heong is still keeping mum on his conflicting positions in Port Klang Authority (PKA) and Wijaya. He must resign from PKA since he wishes to hold on to his deputy chairmanship in Wijaya Baru Global Bhd, a company owned by Ting King Sing, the current MP of Bintulu. Wijaya and Kuala Dimensi ( all related to Ting) were given the contract to develope the Port Klang Free Zone in Westports, which is within the jurisdiction of PKA.

According to a little bird, Wijaya was formerly known as Pacific Chemicals, a listed company owned by the Ekran’s boss, Ting Pek Khiing. Tiong bought over the ailling  Pacific Chemicals from Ting and injected his personal assets (including his 1,000 acres of land in Westports and a few companies) into the company and subsequently changed its name to Wijaya.

If you remember, Ling Hee Leong, the elder son of Tun Ling Liong Sik, once worked in Ekran directly under Ting Pek Khiing. Chor at that time happened to be the Parliamentary Secretary of the Transport Ministry when Ling was the Transport Minister. Do you see the link now?

BTW, Tun Ling is still keeping quite over the questionable PKA/ Westports RM1.81 billion land deal. He must explain why PKA (using taxpayers’ money) bought the 1,000 acres of swampy land in November 2002 at a price very much higher than the market value from Tiong King Sing.

I should be calling the Klang police this week for further actions on my police report made more than a week ago. May be I should also raise the matter with the Securities Commission.