MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat yesterday complained about the “topsy-turvy” world of corruption where those who order e investigations into corrupt practices become the “accused” while the corrupt continue their wrongdoings scot-free with impunity from the law (Sin Chew).
Instead of talking in riddles, can Ong return to his former characteristic style of direct, frank and forthright speech and explain whether he is complaining two things – the injustice of being an “accused” although he had ordered full investigations to expose the very bottom of the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal while those responsible for mega-corruption are allowed to go scot-free enjoying impunity from the law?
If so, then let Ong answer two things:
- why after repeatedly promising the nation that he would “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal and that those responsible for the “mother of all scandals” would be exposed and brought to book, why did he limit the scope of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) investigations into the PKFZ scandal to the Port Klang Authority (PKA) level instead of going all the way even to the Cabinet level?
- Who are these corrupt in the PKFZ scandal who continue to go scot-free to enjoy impunity from the law?
I had not withheld my praises for Ong when he exposed the RM30,000 “leakage” in the renovation SJKC Kung Yu in Muar in 2006, but I will not be sparing in my criticism of Ong for spearheading a cover-up of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal by limiting investigations to PKA and PKFZ levels – cordoning off all inquiries into the higher reaches of the decision-making process on the PKFZ scandal, especially the Cabinet level.
Last month, Wall Street swindler Bernard Madoff was handed a 150-year jail sentence, the maximum sentence possible and the forfeiture of his over US$170 billion in illegally obtained assets whose ruined victims lost homes, inheritances, stock portfolios and life savings in one of the biggest financial scams of all time.
But in Malaysia, those responsible for the series of mega financial scandals in the past three decades, including the PKFZ “scandal of all scandals”, have all gone scot-free enjoying impunity from the law.
If Ong is really serious in wanting to stand out as the first MCA Minister who takes an uncompromising stand against corruption and all forms of misuse of power, is he prepared tomorrow to ask the Cabinet to lift “immunity” for prosecution of two former Transport Ministers Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy for the unlawful issue of four “Letters of Support” which has landed the nation in a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Ong is to appear before the Public Account Committee on Thursday in the PAC investigation into the PKFZ scandal.
Is Ong prepared to “tell all” to the PAC about the sorry tale of the PKFZ scandal going back to its genesis a decade ago, including every decision taken by the Cabinet right from the very beginning, or is he going to tell PAC that he is bound by the Official Secrets Act and cannot divulge any information about the Cabinet decisions and discussions on the PKFZ, whether the present or the past?
There is no use of Ong appearing before the PAC only to tell it that he cannot say anything about Cabinet decisions on the PKFZ scandal, going back to the very beginning.
Ong should get full clearance from the Cabinet tomorrow for the declassification of all Cabinet decisions, papers and memorandum about the PKFZ so that the PAC has all the facts necessary to make its PKFZ inquiry useful and meaningful.
I will decide after Ong’s appearance before the PAC on the PKFZ on Thursday whether to continue my daily questioning of Ong on the “mother of all scandals” in Malaysia!
#1 by taiking on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 1:02 pm
“Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat yesterday complained about the “topsy-turvy” world of corruption where those who order e investigations into corrupt practices become the “accused” while the corrupt continue their wrongdoings scot-free with impunity from the law (Sin Chew).”
Yawn. Yawn. Old news which somehow seems like bigtime news to some ignorant people. Look no further than Lim Guan Eng and his fight for justice for that little girl in malacca who was raped by a big gun of the state.
If tee keat is disgusted, then he should leave mca or even better lead mca out of bn altogether.
#2 by artemisios on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 1:15 pm
request them to voluntarily give up their ‘immunities’.
A clean man needs no ‘immunity’ from the law.
It’s that simple
#3 by ekompute on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 2:00 pm
“Will Tee Keat ask Cabinet to lift “immunity” for prosecution of two former Transport Ministers for the unlawful issue of four “Letters of Support” which has landed the nation in a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?”
What a rhetorical question! In Malaysia, it seems like you can commit statutory rape, a clear-cut criminal offence, and get away, if you have the right connections. What then is this PKFZ case which is not as clear cut? Proving exactly how much is taken may prove to be a problem, what with so many layers of proxies and middle-men.
#4 by ALLAN THAM on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 2:18 pm
What immunity we are talking about? Immunity because of national service? immunity because of national security? Immunity because they have to do it to protect the good name of Malaysia internationally?
What a laughing stock. This is what we call BN semua boleh. They can think of all excuses and justification to protect their own cronies!
It was sickening and rotting beyond any redemption as far as corruption abused of power is concern. And until now it is still talk and keep talking, promise and keep promises and no real actions to bring those to book.
#5 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 2:40 pm
In the first place, structurally there should not be any immunity from the PAC. Not showing up and not answering should be contempt and jailable offense.
#6 by the reds on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 2:40 pm
Don’t expect Ong Ta Kut to back-stab his former superior! He simply does not have the courage! How can a coward fight for Malaysia?
#7 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 2:41 pm
There’s no way MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat (OTK) will ask Cabinet to ‘lift immunity for prosecution of two former transport ministers for the “unlawful” issue of 4 letters of support’.
Yes, the 4 letters of support were initially unlawfully issued for being issued without MoF’s approval. However they are no longer “unlawful” now because the cabinet/government had retrospectively ratified them. This ratification makes them as good as government guarantees meriting the 3A ratings by Malaysia Rating Corporation Berhad (MARC) earlier given. As if to buttress this “retrospective ratification” MoF further granted PKA a 20-year soft loan of RM4.632 billion.
Way back I have commented before on this issue: “It is ironical that if a bank officer exceeds his authority in a loan approval by a few hundred thousand Ringgit he can be prosecuted under Banking and Financial Institutional Act for jeopardizing public funds but where a minister exceeded his authority committing public funds measured in terms of billions of Ringgit he is not only not held accountable but the government ratified his unauthorized acts”.
But what to do? Once retrospectively ratified by Cabinet, the “unlawful” issue of 4 letters of support’ has changed to become now valid and lawful. This being so, the question of unlawful issuance warranting prosecution does not arise at all for the further issue of immunity to be relevant and raised!
So why repeatedly harangue OTK/MCA over this issue when the circle of complicity for this “mother of all scandals” is far wider covering players far more powerful than OTK or MCA?
One may direct questions to the Cabinet as to why it should retrospectively ratify the initially unlawful/ultra vires 4 letters of support; and to continue support of this controversial PKFZ proposition and even pump a further a 20-year soft loan of RM4.632 billion instead of allowing it to die naturally by winding up, and given burial, with the gain or loss placed at where it falls??? If the government would not even at this juncture withdraw support of PKFZ for reasons it knows best, why would it ever listen to anyone including OTK to sek accountability from former ministers (probably acting with acquiescence of then cabinet)?
They had done what they did with implicit blessings of the then cabinet. Issuing the letters of support could be a mere oversight – a big omission, as it turns out in hindsight – on the part of two Transport Ministers. They forgot technical procedures in their hurry to facilitate the PKFZ deal. If they had not been so remiss, and had waited a trifle longer and followed MoF procedures, there is also no saying that the government, and MoF, in particular might have then also issued government guarantees or government guaranteed bonds, and today’s result would be non the better!
The difference in the situation is that cabinet/government now has an excuse in ratifying the 4 letters of support : the then Ministers of Transports in their position as ministers represented the government’s position to the markets/banks, and as such their commitment has to be upheld or else sovereign ratings will be downgraded by the market/banks, not to mention MARC ratings for all past deals will be also called in question.
MCA people may be implicated but their role may be proportionately less significant than others not in the spotlight.
Now a reply to OTK’s elliptical riddle: in this the “topsy-turvy” world of corruption the reason why those who order investigations into corrupt practices become the “accused” while the corrupt continue their wrongdoings scot-free with impunity from the law is because, according to perception of many, it is the corrupt who hold the prerogative of who and what to investigate!
#8 by limkamput on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 6:27 pm
The culprit is not the letters of support. It is useless and most bond investors know that. It was the guarantee letters which gave the bond holders an almost risk free investment. If PKFZ is a commercial entity, any borrowing or bonds issued by this entity should rightly be based on risk-return trade off. That is how commercial deals are usually done. Government guarantees, in most cases will give rise to moral hazard problem – a situation where bond holders does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of their investment knowing that if the project fails, the government will pay. This in fact explains why PKFZ must fail, it is meant to be! All roads lead to Rome; I said it many times already. But if the eunuch chose to defend his master, so be it.
#9 by limkamput on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 6:35 pm
The issue is would the bondholders subscribed to the bonds issued by PKFZ if there was no government’s guarantee. They probably would, but they would be very careful and usually there would be due diligence and what not done. However, once the bonds are guaranteed, all prudence and due diligence are thrown out of the window. It is an investment that gave them higher than risk-free return but carried no risk at all. Now you know who is paying for the free lunch.
#10 by Woof on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 - 8:24 pm
What the towkay is saying is not hard to understand.
Thieves must be accorded constitutional ‘protection’ of equality before the law.
#11 by HJ Angus on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 - 12:44 am
This is one area where we beat Singapore hands down.
Over there the Auditor-General complains about a million dollar tender that was awarded before the tender period was over but over here we don’t deal with such peanuts.
Such is the spendour of Malaysia’s wealth to be squandered by our political leaders.
But then bribery and blackmail as seen by the DPM’s election promise in Manek Urai.
#12 by i_love_malaysia on Thursday, 16 July 2009 - 11:00 am
Why VO??? dont tell me that they dont know what they want in the first place and decided to add or change for few billions ringgit only after the project had started!!! If this is not the case, I’m 100% sure these VOs were generated to make tons of profit!!!