RM12.5 billiion PKFZ scandal – Parliament entitled to know the reasons why the Cabinet chopped and changed week-by-week its decision in October/November 2002 on the PKFZ land issue

Today’s Star under the report “PKFZ probe under wraps for now” reads:

Malaysian Anti-Corruption (MACC) is not obliged to disclose the progress of investigations into the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

PAC member William Leong (PKR-Selayang) said MACC Commissioner had informed the PAC that the PKFZ issue was still under probe and Section 29 of the MACC Act 2008 does not allow the commission to disclose any information about the investigation to the PAC.

Unfortunately we were unable to get any information as to the situation of the investigation, when the investigation will end and whether any action would be taken against anyone,” he said.

Leong said he was disappointed with MACC’s reply, adding that several reports over the PKFZ were lodged with MACC, or ACA, since w2004.

Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Hamdan had spent an hour at the PAC meeting yesterday but did not reveal the investigation into the alleged irregularities in PKFZ.”

What the MACC Chief Commissioner had committed is no less than parliamentary contempt in refusing to co-operate with the PAC in its investigations into the PKFZ scandal.

Why is Ahmad suddenly so shy about reporting the progress of MACC investigations into the PKFZ scandal when he had no hesitation to go to the public about MACC investigations into the allegations of abuses of power and corrupt practices against the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor Mentri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim over cars and cows?

The MACC should rightly stand for “Malaysian Agency for Cars and Cows”!

The MACC has proved its utter lack of independence when it could be dragooned into serving the Barisan Nasional political agenda in its illegal power grab in Perak to harass the legitimate Pakatan Rakyat Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar.

The Star today has another report, headlined: “Lim Know the facts, say Ong“, which reads:

PETALING JAYA: DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang deliberately misled the Dewan Rakyat on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) issue despite knowing the facts of the project, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat said.

Ong said Lim knew about the RM25 per square foot land purchase as he was engaged in the debate in Parliament, in 2007.

“He rudely interrupted my ministerial statement by accusing me of not referring to the Cabinet decision on Oct 23, 2002, that the land should be acquired at a lower price of RM10.16 per square foot.

“What Kit Siang conveniently omitted to mention was that the decision on Oct 23, was subsequently superseded by the Cabinet in its meeting on Nov 6, 2002,” he said in his blog (www.teekeat.net) yesterday.

Ong challenged Lim to admit that he had deliberately misled and confused the public by failing to disclose the full and proper account of Cabinet decisions on the PKFZ project.

“The DAP leader may not be a Cabinet member but the Parliamentary Hansard, dated Sept 4, 2007, clearly recorded that the decision of the Cabinet on Oct 2, 2002 to purchase the land at RM25 per square foot continued to stand for the reasons mentioned in my parliamentary statement,” he said.

Ong said Lim knew this and he was in fact engaged in a debate on this matter on Sept 4, 2007.

“He even posted excerpts of the Hansard in his blog the very next day.

“And yet he chose to suppress this important fact from the public for the sake of a political gimmick bent on rescuing his fading political career,” Ong said.

I find this accusation by Ong, more appropriately referred to as the Minister for Air Shows, most astounding.

It must be the first case not only in Malaysia but in Commonwealth parliamentary history where a Cabinet Minister accuses an Opposition MP for not telling the whole truth about Cabinet decisions on a project, in this case the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal!

Ong claims to be incensed that I had not mentioned the Nov. 6, 2002 Cabinet meeting when he was presenting his Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday.

How could I do so when even to mention the Oct. 23, 2002 Cabinet decision, there were so many protests and objections from the Barisan Nasional Ministers and MPs, led by Ong himself.

Did Ong allow me to talk and reveal more? Didn’t he take the position that with regard to his ministerial statement, no question or interruptions were allowed?

Yes, I knew about the November 4, 2002 Cabinet meeting, but it was Ong who misled Parliament with a selective account in his Ministerial statement while refusing to allow me to say anything to correct him.

This is why I had challenged Ong to give a full account of all the Cabinet meetings and decisions in connection with the PKFZ project all the way back to 1999, especially the Cabinet decisions of October/November 2002 and July 2007.

PKFZ concerns not only the Transport Ministry but also the Finance Ministry. I hereby ask the Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Dr. Awang Adek, who was also the Deputy Finance Minister in 2007, to give a full account in his reply of all the Cabinet meetings and decisions on PKFZ right from the very beginning.

In particular, Awang should state whether he could confirm the following Cabinet meetings and decisions:

  • On 2nd October 2002, Cabinet agreed to the purchase of the land for the PKFZ project based on Transport Minister’s information that the project was viable and did not require any government financial assistance and that legal issues surrounding the land concerned had been resolved.
  • On 9th October Cabinet agreed to defer implementation of the Oct. 2 decision, pending reports by Finance Ministry and Attorney-General’s Chambers.
  • On 16th Oct. 2002, Cabinet informed of Attorney-General’s position that the land had too many encumbrances and “willing buyer, willing seller” transaction not proper. Finance Ministry asked to submit report.
  • On 23rd October 2002, Cabinet agreed that land be acquired by Transport Ministry under section 3(1)(a) of Land Acquisition Act 1960 at RM10.16 psf. Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) to be given the opportunity to level and build basic infrastructure at a price to be negotiated and to be finalized by the Finance Ministry if it is above RM100 million. Among the reasons why the Cabinet reversed the Oct. 2, 2002 decision were:
    1. The land has too many encumbrances with at least eight charges and five caveats and that Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSD) had made misrepresentation which may be fraudulent misrepresentation;
    2. That the issue of “willing buyer and willing seller” does not arise as KDSB was unable to transfer title free from encumbrance to the government;
    3. That from corporate information, KDSB was a company with bank liabilities.
  • On 6th November, 2002 Cabinet reversed its decision of Oct. 23, 2002 and upheld its Oct. 2, 2002 decision.

Parliament is entitled to know what were the reasons which caused the Cabinet to chop and change week-by-week its decision on the PKFZ land question, which has landed the country with a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

  1. #1 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 3:38 pm

    Parliament is NOT ENTITLED to know.

    In Malaysia, the hierarchy of control is as follows:

    UMNO, Kitchen Cabinet, Barisan Nasional, PARLIAMENT!

    This is a mockery of democracy and BN must be voted out in next GE. Period.

  2. #2 by rabbit on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 3:42 pm

    Words can be twice n turn, can the PKFZ account be change? MACC is trying to do his job.. who know the back door is open again. over all, the picture can see is, slow down the time for somebody. so they can play magic. so DAP members… you guys got free magic show to watch. hahahai think..bn is the winner in the end of the day. lets sit down n enjoy our durian. yump yump

  3. #3 by dawsheng on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 3:55 pm

    Sekarang Ong Ta Kut kata Lim Kit Siang yang salah, ini bererti selepas tahi terkena kipas, nampaknya bukan saja kerajaan BN yang busuk, seluruh rakyat Malaysia juga berbau lain macam, boleh? Boleh! Malaysia kan boleh!

  4. #4 by Godfather on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 4:14 pm

    Cabinet says if we do compulsory acquisition, there isn’t enough to share around, so let’s do the commercial arrangement where the price would be doubled. Then we can share share lah. MCA – a big “aye”. UMNO – a big “aye”. SDPP – a big “aye”. So the motion was carried with no objections.

    I think a relevant question now is why didn’t MIC and Gerakan, who were represented in the cabinet at the time, make any noise with respect to their share of the spoils ? Were Semi Value and Keng Yaik asleep at the time of the cabinet deliberations ? If so, that was a real missed opportunity for these parties.

  5. #5 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 5:49 pm

    Here is another imminent issue which Pakatan Rakyat can talk to Umno, that is, to remove Ahmad Said from the post of Director-General of MACC due to his incompetency to find any clue about the case of PKFZ scandal after about six years’ invetigation and his failure to catch the big fish in the suspected case of abuse of official power and to replace the vacancy of MACC Director-General with a new candidate of high personal integrity and high work efficiency, who is to be recommended by Pakatan Rakyat!

  6. #6 by donplaypuks on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 6:47 pm


    At the same time, I think you should re-visit the $8.5 billion investment in Silterra by Khazanah and MoF. Things have gone very quiet.

    Don’t let it simmer to the point where we end up with another fiasco like PKFZ!!

    You m ust not let this UMNO/BN Govt reduce our national reserves to ZERO by th etime 2013 comes.

  7. #7 by TomThumb on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 6:53 pm

    yb lim should not resort to theatrics as theatrics tend to deflect the seriousness of what he’s saying. remain calm, cool and collected and drive your points home. that will cause the speaker to intervene on your side. less use of cynism.

  8. #8 by the reds on Thursday, 25 June 2009 - 11:49 pm

    Malaysia is a rotten country! UMNO cover every scandal and subsequently abuse their power to suppress people from questioning. This is how 1Malaysia works!

  9. #9 by House Victim on Friday, 26 June 2009 - 1:07 am

    If the MACC Bill was passed as laid out above, SOLE DISCRETIONS beyond Fair and against possible Check & Balance can be found.

    1. Section 6
    PM to decide
    a) who to be appointed
    b) with Terms and Conditions at his discretion,
    c) including employment beyond Retirement Age,
    d) at the “pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong”. This is not even applicable to PM or CM. This is unconstitutional.
    2. Section 7. The officers of the Commission shall have the following functions:
    (a) to receive and consider any report of the commission
    of an offence under this Act and investigate such of
    the reports as the Chief Commissioner or the officers
    consider practicable;

    FOR A DISCIPLINARY BODY CODE OF PRACTICE IS FUNDAMENTAL – and should be be as per “consider practicable”.

    3. Section 9. Officer deemed to be always on duty
    Is MACC hiring Robot on 24hour shift. This allow any of the officers to have “Authority” even when they should be off-duty.

    4. Section 10. Power of Officer of the Commission
    This will surely caused a confusion to the Public and the adminsitration of both MACC and the Police.
    My question is,
    Will this turn MACC into a Secret Police?

    5. Section 11 -15
    A) Duties of officers of the Commission
    Section 11 (2) 2) The Chief Commissioner shall make an annual report on the activities of the Commission to the Special Committee on Corruption.
    B) Standing orders
    Section 12. The Chief Commissioner may issue administrative orders to be called “Standing Orders”, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,…….. (THIS IS NOT ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF POWER OUTSIDE THE LAW!!) –
    C) Section 13 – Anticorruption Advisory Board – Look like an RCI.
    Section 14- Special Committee on Corruption
    Section 15 – Complaint Committee

    The overall is the function of the Parliament, especially the Opposition, as a monitoring Body cannot be found here. The Power of PM is over-exaggerated. Appointment by Yang di-Pertuan Agong is siding the Rights of Parliament who are representing the People. His Rights should be under RCI if that is to be established.


    5. Skipping until
    Section 46
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall require an advocate and
    solicitor to comply with any order under that subsection to the extent that such compliance would disclose any privileged
    information or communication which came to his knowledge for
    the purpose of any pending proceedings.


    6. Skipping the rest, until
    Section 71, 72 – are nonsense to Allow PM to amend and make Rules and Regulations. And, the employee of MACC to have Immunity.
    When MACC is an Act with so many Loopholes (I believe one can find more!!), will it perform fairly?
    PK MUST STUDY IT WELL and let People know, where and how they are Abusing and Contradicting with the Parliament and Legal System!

  10. #10 by House Victim on Friday, 26 June 2009 - 1:22 am

    1. Since FRAUDULENT is the basic on the Matter where MACC should not be a Party to deal with. What should be obliged by MOT, MOF and other parties concerned should still be valid. They should have copies of documents that should answers Parliament inquiries.

    2. Since PM is under Parliament, and MACC is under the PM, The Parliament should act on PM to press MACC. Same to press the Special Committee or the Complaint Committee.

    IF PM AND THOSE COMMITTEES CANNOT PROVIDE WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE PARLIAMENT. The MACC Act will be another piece of Rubbish – proposed by someone and approved by the Parliament!!

    Basically, the ACT is BIAS and easily overruled when Common Law and Constitution (a Fair one) is to be applied.



  11. #11 by House Victim on Friday, 26 June 2009 - 1:39 am

    Shouldn’t PAC get information from the Parliament, MOF and MOT all information pertaining to
    1. What had been officially approved to be supported by all reports, minutes of the Parliament, Cabinet and Ministries for the Project?
    2. All documents, meeting in answering the queries or problems raised by PWC report.

    Why jumping over the bridge when Ministries are answerable to PAC?


    The National Accounting Committee is elected at the beginnning of each Parliament to check:

    Government’s accounting and fund allocation APPROVED BY THE PARLIAMENT as having met the state expenditure;
    Any accounting of national administrative bodies and other associations that handle state fund tabled in council;
    National accounting STATEMENT TABLED in the Proceeding Council as per article 107 of the Constitution;
    Any other matters that the Committee THINKS SHOULD BE CHECKED, or other matters handed by this Council.
    This Committee has the power to SUMMON the presence of anyone or request the issuing of letters, records, and to issue statements to the Councial from one time to time.
    So, if PKFZ falls under any categories to be checked by PAC?
    If YES, why don’t they SUMMON the parties Concerned??
    Are we watching a Ping-Pong show?

  12. #12 by House Victim on Friday, 26 June 2009 - 2:04 am

    YB, Thanks for the Chronoligical events on the Cabinet meetings!

    1. The Cabinet already violated the Principle of approved any project
    a) involving KDSB, which are disqualified by the finding of AG.
    b) to allow the topic to be discussed without even knowing the cost of basic infrastructure but to grant a lump sum of 100million. And, put it in the hand of MOT who obviously did not present what was necessary under PAA.
    c) Did Parliament approved land acquisition with basic infrastructure (with details) over 100 million so that the Cabinet can decide? But, isn’t it against the rules and regulations for seeking approval in Parliament? Or, had any approval be finalized with details submitted? Such that Payment can be proceeded?

    As long as approval on any project with details are sought from the Parliament, the “approval” had been manipulated (away from Rules & Regulations), they should be deemed NULL & VOID). Those violating the Rules & Regulations should be responsible!!

    Violation should mean they are NOT LAWFULLY ACTING on behalf of the Government!! (Immunity – not applicable!!)

  13. #13 by House Victim on Friday, 26 June 2009 - 3:51 am


    “As long as approval on any project withOUT details are sought from the Parliament…..”

  14. #14 by ekompute on Friday, 26 June 2009 - 3:59 am

    “Malaysian Anti-Corruption (MACC) is not obliged to disclose the progress of investigations into the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).”

    Well, it is true. They are they, the rakyat is the rakyat. Nothing to do with public accountability or PAC . We claimed to be a democracy but actually, we are not. Our mentality is still very feudalistic. To the BN government, the PKFZ money is UMNO’s money, not the people’s money. Does that explain why Petronas’s accounts is private and not publicly accountable? Who knows whether UMNO is treating it as their piggy bank!

  15. #15 by monsterball on Friday, 26 June 2009 - 4:20 am

    hahahahahaha…When I read TomDumbo message..I was thinking he is talking about those UMNO ministers.
    He is accusing LKS play acting!
    Anyway..if that’s the case and he got Penang under control by DAP….LKS should continue his play acts…..to take more States….hahahahaha
    We know UMNO are experts in play acting….so good…that they became not real themselves.
    Is LKS a hypocrite….dumbo?
    UMNO play act to dress up with false titles and rob tax payers money.
    Do LKS rob one sen of our money?
    “1 Malaysia”….is to unite Malaysians into one?
    Are we not “I Malaysia” 53 years ago?
    Are we united?
    So you see…Najib is the biggest play actor……playing with race and religion………yet TomDumbo cannot see?
    TomThumb…what is “1 Malaysia”?

  16. #16 by House Victim on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 - 11:23 am

    June 26th, 2009 (4 days ago) at 01: 07.45

    If the MACC Bill was passed as laid out above, SOLE DISCRETIONS beyond Fair and against possible Check & Balance can be found.

    1. Section 6
    FOR A DISCIPLINARY BODY CODE OF PRACTICE IS FUNDAMENTAL – and should NOT be be as per “consider practicable”.

You must be logged in to post a comment.