The reasons why Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy chickened out from personally appearing at the Transport Ministry press conference on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) on Thursday seem to have become clearer — that he not only wanted to avoid hard and embarrassing questions about his role and responsibility in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal, but he also wanted to evade questioning on the Transport Ministry’s five-page statement on PKFZ.

This is because more and more questions are surfacing over the accuracy and correctness of the statement, which strangely was issued anonymously, without the Transport Minister or anyone of his deputies daring to put their name on it!

Some of these questions include:

Firstly, was the Transport Ministry right in putting the whole blame of the ballooning of the cost of the PKFZ from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion on Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (Jafza), the former PKFZ operator?

Was Jafza responsible for the scandalous price of RM1.8 billion or RM25 psf paid by Port Klang Authority (PKA) for the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ from Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd which had four years earlier bought it for RM95 million or RM3 psf?

The Transport Ministry has failed to explain why it insisted on paying Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. RM25 psf in the teeth of opposition of the Finance Ministry and the Attorney-General’s chambers which proposed that the land be acquired compulsorily at the market value of RM10 psf.

The Transport Ministry said the PKA’s purchase price was reached because of work done on the site, including land reclamation, drainage, construction of access roads, installation of street lights, water services and payment to various utility agencies.

If the recommendations of the Finance Ministry and the Attorney-General’s Chambers had been followed, the price of the 1,000 acres for the PKFZ would be RM720 million instead of the exorbitant RM1.8 billion — an astronomical difference of RM1.1 billion.

Is Chan really justifying the RM1.1 billion difference in the land price on the ground of “work done on the site, including land reclamation, drainage, construction of access roads, installation of street lights, water services and payment to various utility agencies”?

Let Chan make public the costs of such “work done”, whether it was more than RM10 million or RM20 million — when the difference is the gargantuan sum of RM1.1 billion.

Secondly, the Transport Ministry statement said that to further promote the PKFZ, PKA will participate in overseas trade missions, seminars and exhibitions to attract investors. This gives the false impression that such promotion had not been done before, when in fact PKA officials had taken part in previous overseas trade missions, seminars and exhibitions to attract investors with very poor results.

Thirdly, I challenge Chan to give the full list of the 30 companies which had invested more than RM700 million in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), enumerating the investments of each company, as I have been informed that the RM700 million figure is grossly inflated.

Fourthly, on the Transport Ministry announcement that the government has approved a soft loan to the tune of RM4.6 billion to the PKA, will the terms of the soft loan be so “soft” as to tantamount to a “give-away” and bailout as PKA would have no means of repaying the RM4.6 billion government “soft loan”? Furthermore, why is nobody taking responsibility for the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal when the whole project was conceived to be self-financing without having to incur a single ringgit of public funding?

Chan should clarify and respond to these four points so that MPs, whether from the ruling coalition or Opposition parties, would have the necessary information to take part in an informed debate on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout scandal when Parliament reconvenes on Monday, starting with my urgent motion on the subject.

In fact, Chan should seriously consider whether he would have to resign as Transport Minister for his role and responsibility in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal.