Archive for the ‘Scandal’ Category

Chan Kong Choy on-the-run again

November 20, 2007


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









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。


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。













‘Runaway’ Chan under fire for missing PKFZ debate
Yoges Palaniappan
Nov 20, 07 2:54pm

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’


Smart tunnel: They can only bluff the PM

June 26, 2007

This must be the joke of the century!

You don’t need to inspect the lowest level of the Smart system to know that MMC-Gamuda or the DID have not tested it for flood mitigation.

That’s not because they have admitted so but simply because they have not found a solution for desiltation.

What’s desiltation? You see, flood water being flood water, it’ s not clean. In fact, it is always full of mud (silt) and rubbish. That’s why after every flood, the biggest headache is washing the mud away (desiltation).

So, if the concessionaire or the DID really test the lowest level of the Smart system for flood mitigation, the entire level will be filled with mud. They have not thought of how to clean up the tunnels.

By now, you must have understood why they have not tested it earlier. And more so because both the inlet and outlet of the tunnels were not completed when Kuala Lumpur was hit with three flash floods all within two weeks in early June.

The authority has just announced that the entire tunnel is now completed on 23 June 2007 ( after heavy shelling by the PM one night after his new marriage). But that’s another “bullshit”. Why do I say that?

Just make a trip to Taman Desa and you would know what I mean.

They could only bluff the PM, who’s now away in Italy.

Two weeks ago, right before I went to inspect the Smart tunnel for the first time with other DAP MPs and engineers, I was having lunch at the restaurant next to the Danau Desa pond. At that point of time, the pond, which is part of the Smart system, was not ready for flood mitigation.

Even today, the pond is far from ready. It would not be ready in another 3 months according to the experts whom I have consulted.

This evening, I saw the workers were still busy widening and deepening the pond. And guess what, they have not even completed the outlet ( leaving the pond into Sg Kerayong).

Out of fear of another flash flood, as a temporary measure I guess, the contractors has just fixed some 10 GI (galvanised iron) pipes of various sizes to drain the water from the pond with the help of water pumps. Guess what, the water flows from the pond to a normal monsoon drain (only 2 feet wide by 4 feet deep) parellel to the main road, before discharging the water to a U-Culvert drains some 100 meters away. This U-Culvert drain is connected to the Sg Kerayong some distance “downstream”.

It appears to us that if there is another flash flood hitting KL in one of these days, the authority may really open up the lowest level of the Smart tunnel to test it out, and then relying on these pipes to drain the water to the normal monsoon drains (with the help of water pumps) and then to the U-Culvert drain before flowing into Sg Kerayong. So do not be too surprise if the entire road from Danau Desa to Old Klang Road area will be flooded ( the normal monsoon drains certainly could not cope with such influx of water from the pond).

Earlier, I was talking about how difficult it would be to do desiltation for the Smart tunnel. If they really open up the second level (and even the third level), imagine what would happen to the lightings, equipments and road furniture on these two levels, not forgetting about the desiltation works after the flood.

I would bet with bloggers that the authority may not have the guts to test the Smart system for water mitigation. Not even the lowest level if you asked me. Am I saying the authority may not even test the tunnnel for flood mitigation at all? You bet!

Last Saturday, at a briefing in Universiti Malaya on the Smart tunnel conducted by the DID chief , he obviously was embarrased by the DAP Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai who played the video clips (showing the massive leakages ) of the tunnel in the meeting.

Out of frustration, he made a “stupid” and irresponsible remark; he said that ” those who think the Smart tunnel was not safe, don’t use it.”

This fler also “bullshit” by saying that all the cost of building the Smart tunnel came from the concessionaire and “it’s ok ” to let them go bust!

In fact, the concessionaire only paid about RM600 million for the tunnel; the rest of the RM 1. 5 billion came from Malaysian taxpayers! If you asked me, he ‘s as arrogant as the great Samy.

Tomorrow morning at 11 am, DAP Bukit Bintang MP Fong Kui Lun will move a motion to debate on ” why the ‘Smart’ tunnel is actually not very smart”!

All the best to you, Sdr Fong.

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

June 24, 2007


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)



 “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。


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。






Sinchew Daily News

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









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!

June 24, 2007
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
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.


■日期/Jun 23, 2007   ■时间/07:22:49 pm
■新闻/家国风云   ■作者/Merdekareview陈慧思


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?”


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 AsiaR&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。


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。


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137分每平方尺和298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4155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。


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 DimensiWijaya 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419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)。


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 DimensiWijaya Baru GlobalWijaya Baru Holdings没有任何关系。









PKFZ: Opposition Leader to raise hell at next Parliamentary session

June 23, 2007

 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”!

Chang Ming Thien Fund Foundation: What has gone wrong?

June 19, 2007

I have made a police report with the PJ police on 23 March 2003, asking the police to investigate why Chang Ming Thien Fund was still not launched 23 years after the late Chang Ming Thien has donated RM10 million to the MCA to set up an education foundation to offer scholarship to needy students in this country. I also wanted the police to find out why the interest accrued as reported by Ling Liong Sik was so little after more than 20 years.

The case was transfered to Commercial Crime Department in Bukit Perdana KL and the investigation has started not too long after my report. I was told that Ling Liong Sik was summoned to Bukit Perdana for a good explanation. And nothing has come out of my report until I received a call from Bukit Perdana last week.

I have just got back from Bukit Perdana a while ago.  I was given to understand that the CCD has completed its investigation and I would soon be given an official report on the outcome of its investigations.

Just a little background for bloggers who were unfamiliar with the case…

Chang Ming Thien Fund Foundation was only registered on 18 April 1990, that’s 10 years after the late Chang has donated the RM10 million to MCA through Multi-Purpose Holdings Berhad ( as part of the deal when MPHB bought over the UMBC bank from General Holdings).

This, to me, is a gross negligence on the part of MCA. Due to the delay of the establishment of the CMTF Foundation, the money was never passed to the Foundation but left in the coffer of MPHB, a company owned by MCA. In fact, MCA only set up the CMTF Foundation after numerous pressure from the DAP and other concerned citizens. But a good 10 years has gone! And what has happened to the interest accrued from the principal sum of RM10 million?

On 16 Dec 1991, the late family of Chang decided to bring MPHB and MCA to courts for not utilising the fund contributed in 1980 through General Holdings. Can anyone blame the late Chang’s family for doing that?

As a result of the lawsuit, CMTF Foundation put on hold of all its operation. The money was still with MPHB throughout the lawsuit. The case was finally over when the appeal by General Holdings was rejected by the Federal Courts on 18 Nov 2002. The money ( RM 9,820,253.10) was then transfered from MPHB to CMTF Foundation on 20 Dec 2002. Again, what has happened to the interest? And why should MPHB deducted some RM179,747 as solicitor’s fee from the RM10 million contribution?

But sad to point out that Board of Directors under the leadership of MCA top guns still do not bother to activate the fund. Such irresponsible act has prompted me to lodge the police report.

I was also unhappy that the interest accrued as reported by Ling Liong Sik was far short of expectation. What has gone wrong in the MCA under Ling Liong Sik? (In my police report, I attached a 20-years interest rate card issued by the Bank Negara to illustrate my point. Even if the lowest interest rate was used as the basis of calculation, the amount should be much higher than what was reported by Ling in the press! )

About one year after my police report, MCA then only decided to launch the CMTF Foundation. That’s about 25 years late (the RM10 million was donated in 1980)! If the MCA leadership did not screw up “big time”, thousands of needy students could have benefited from the Chang Ming Thien Fund.

The police findings so far has not answered my initial question- why the interest accumulated for the past 20 over years falls short of the expected amount (according to the bank intetrest rates declared by Bank Negara)? If the money was not touched or “frozen”, it should be kept in a bank account to bring in interest. No one would keep the RM10 million in hard cash and lock it in a safe. No?

I will study with my lawyer whether we have a case to initiate a civil case against both the BOD of CMTF Foundation and the leadership of MCA for their negligence and mishandling of the fund. Stay tuned.