I argued that what is needed is a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a comprehensive and no-holds-barred investigation into the “mother of all scandals” including relevant Ministerial and Cabinet aspects of the scandal instead of trying to sweep the whole issue back under the carpet.

I also posed the following question:

“In the first place, is Mohd Sidek the most appropriate person to head the super task force on the PKFZ scandal?

“Before Mohd Sidek takes up this appointment, he should explain to the Malaysian public why he had failed in the past two years to carry out the Cabinet decision in July 2007 when it resolved on the RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ, including giving retrospective approval to the four illegal Letters of Support unlawfully given by the two previous Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy, that the Chief Secretary should conduct an inquiry as to how the four Letters of Support could have issued unlawfully and to take the necessary disciplinary actions against the culprits who have now landed the country with a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

“Did Mohd Sidek carry out such an inquiry as not a single culprit had been identified, let alone penalised for the unlawful issue of the four Letters of Support in the past two years?

“Clearly, Mohd Sidek had not carried out the Cabinet instruction or there would not be today a merry-go-round of multiple investigations into the PKFZ scandal, but all without the necessary sweeping powers to get to the bottom of the scandal.

“Can Mohd Sidek succeed where he had failed in the past two years? I hope Parliament is given a specific answer to these questions in the ministerial replies.”

This is the reply that I have received from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz, by way of a written answer as he had promised Parliament during the winding-up of the debate on November 9, 2009 for issues he was unable to reply orally because of the constraints of time.

This is Nazri’s response to my budget speech on the PKFZ scandal:

1.

YB Ipoh Timur mencadangkan agar ditubuhkan suruhanjaya diraja untuk menyiasat skandal Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ). Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat, Kerajaan belum bercadang untuk menubuhkan suruhanjaya diraja kerana satu pasukan petugas khas telah ditubuhkan bagi mengemukakan cadangan untuk tindakan susulan Kerajaan berhubung laporan audit PKFZ tersebut.
2.

YB Ipoh Timur ingin tahu sama ada Y.Bhg. Ketua Setiausaha Negara telah melaksanakan keputusan Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri pada Julai 2007 berkenaan 4 surat sokongan oleh Menteri Pengangkutan ketika itu. Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat, Y.Bhg. Ketua Setiausaha Negara telah pun melaksanakan keputusan Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri yang dimaksudkan iaitu berhubung 4 surat sokongan daripada Y.B. Menteri Pengangkutan ketika itu.

Nazri’s answers are most unsatisfactory and unacceptable, in particular his answer that the Chief Secretary, Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan had carried out the Cabinet decision in July 2007 to conduct an inquiry as to how the four Letters of Support were issued unlawfully and to take the necessary disciplinary actions against the culprits who have now landed the country with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

If the Chief Secretary had carried out the Cabinet decision in July 2007, there would have been no need for him now to head any PKFZ special task force into PKFZ scandal, as those responsible for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and malpractices would have already been brought to court to face the full force of the law.

Last Thursday, Sidek issued his first statement as Chairman of the PKFZ Special Task Force – more than two months after its formation by the Cabinet in early September – stating that it agreed that the Transport Ministry asked the Board of Directors of the Port Klang Authority (PKA) to consider the recommendations by the Corporate Governance Ad Hoc Committee on the PKFZ project created by the Ministry earlier.

Sidek said the recommendations could be implemented without involving any amendments to the law.

This was decided by the Special Task Force in its third meeting held on Nov 2.

Sidek said the meeting was also informed of the action taken by the Royal Malaysia Police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) so far, with the MACC investigation into the PKFZ scandal expected to be completed by the end of the year.

The Cabinet Special Task Force appears to be acting like a postman or reporter than as an alternative to a Royal Commission of Inquiry not only to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal but to bring to book the culprits for landing the country with the “mother-of-all-scandals”.

If Sidek had carried out the Cabinet decision of July 2007 to take all necessary action against the culprits responsible for the PKFZ scandal, including former Transport Ministers and Port Klang Authority officers, the PKFZ scandal would not have reached the present magnitude. Furthermore, there would be no need for the Cabinet to establish any Special Task Force to do what should have been done under the Cabinet decision of July 2007.

Undoubtedly, one reason why Malaysia’s has suffered the ignominy of the worst ranking and score in 15 years in Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2009 must be traced directly to the failure of the Chief Secretary in discharging the task entrusted on him by the Cabinet in July 2007 with regard to the PKFZ scandal.

Isn’t this testimony of the failure, ineffectiveness and impotence of MACC and its predecessor ACA?

These are the questions I posed to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in the ten minutes he touched on corruption in the government winding-up on the budget before he ended his reply for lunch-break today.

I remarked that Nazri was defending the status quo of a worsening corruption problem in Malaysia instead of spearheading an attack on corruption, as is happening in Indonesia.

Nazri was in his classic mode of denial and also disagreed that there is need for a parliamentary motion to adopt the PAC report on the PKFZ scandal for all MPs to take a stand on the PAC recommendations.

Earlier in his reply, Nazri created an uproar when he said that V.K. Lingam of “correct, correct, correct” infamy had not broken any law in brokering the appointment of judges.

As Malaysian Insider reported:

Now Nazri says VK Lingam broke no law
By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 9 — Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz sparked an uproar in Parliament today when he said “judiciary fixer” V.K. Lingam had been let off the hook “because he had broken no law”.

Nazri also suggested that Lingam breached no laws as he might “have just acted to fix the appointment of judges as if he was brokering the appointment of senior judges to impress people”.

“I am not denying that it was Lingam in the tape. But I am also saying that there are a lot of conmen in this world. Who knows he might have just acted when he was calling the so-called judges to impress,” said Nazri in his ministerial winding-up speech on the 2010 Budget debate.

Nazri argued that from the legal perspective Lingam could have merely made a suggestion as to who should be appointed to senior posts in the judiciary.

“I am here to stress that there is nothing to stop the prime minister from receiving suggestions from any parties. Should anyone act to advise the prime minister on the appointment of judges, this act itself cannot be taken as an offence.

“Unless it’s clear that the action (by Lingam) was clearly aimed at conspiring to subvert the judiciary or made to get favours… (but) the findings of the commission found none of this,” said the minister.

Opposition MPs had during the debate session demanded answers as to why the Attorney-General had decided to take “no further action” towards Lingam despite the findings of a royal commission set up to probe the infamous “correct, correct, correct” video recording that allegedly saw the senior lawyer brokering the appointment of judges.

The royal commission had proposed that action be taken against Lingam and several others purportedly involved in the recording including former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, a close friend of former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Nazri revealed that investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on the figures named also found no conclusive evidence that there was any form of power abuse by any of them.

His remarks invited scathing criticism from the opposition benches.

How can MACC convince Malaysians that it is now a Malaysian version of Hong Kong’s ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) when all it has demonstrated is its overzealousness and even abuses of power in investigating a RM2,400 Pakatan Rakyat state assembly constituency allocation resulting in the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock, while it has completely nothing to show and totally impotent in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “mother of all scandals’?

An exchange between Public Accounts Committee (PAC) member and DAP Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua and the MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan at the PAC meeting on 23rd June 2009 highlighted the hypocrisy of the MACC.

This happened when Ahmad Said hid behind the secrecy provisions of the MACC Act to refuse to disclose any details about the outcome of MACC investigations into the PKFZ scandal.

This led to an outburst by Pua protesting at Ahmad Said’s refusal to give any information to the PAC about MACC investigations into the PKFZ scandal, pointing out that Ahmad Said had no such qualms when he had said publicly that MACC had “good and strong evidence” of corruption against the Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid over the “car and cow” controversy.

As Pua rightly told Ahmad Said at the PAC exchange, what the MACC Chief Commissioner did amounted to “contempt” of Parliament.

The PAC report has confirmed and vindicated my statements and allegations about the PKFZ not only as “a can of worms” but a “swamp of crocodiles” that I have made in Parliament since the last session, and raises the question why no action had been taken very much earlier to avoid the rotten state of the PKFZ scandal today.

The PAC report has confirmed that RM645.87 million would have been saved if the PKFZ land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, for then it would have cost only RM442.13 million and not RM1.088 billion before interest.

PAC recommended that former Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy be investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Police for unlawfully issuing three Letters of Support which has landed the country with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, citing the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 14(1) of the Financial Procedure Act 1957 read together with Section 409B Penal Code.

I commend PAC for taking such a clear stand but I cannot wonder what is the use of such a reference to the MACC, when the MACC and previously the Anti-Corruption Agency had been aware of these facts as I had spoken about them many times in Parliament in the past three years.

This is from the verbatim report of the PAC meeting of 23rd June 2009 in the exchange between PAC member and DAP MP for Petaling Jaya Utara Tony Pua and the MACC Director of Investigations Datuk Haji Mohd Shukri bin Abdull:

Pua Kiam Wee : Akan tetapi, sebelum ini, sebelum 2007 pun isu-isu salah guna kuasa telah pun dikemukakan dengan jelas terutamanya mengenai isu letter of support yang telah ditandatangani oleh pihak Menteri pada masa itu telah pun jelas dan telah pun diakui oleh ramai termasuk pihak-pihak daripada kerajaan bahawa seseorang Menteri Pengangkutan tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk memberikan apa-apa jaminan kewangan kepada pihak sesiapa dan apakah tindakan yang diambil pada masa itu? Kenapa pada masa itu tiada siasatan diambil untuk menyiasat sekiranya ada unsur-unsur salah guna kuasa. Sekurang-kurangnya salah guna kuasa dan boleh jadi isu penyelewengan pada masa itu.

Datuk Haji Mohd Shukri bin Abdull : Okey, Tuan Pengerusi dan Yang Berhormat, Letter of Support yang dikatakan dikeluarkan oleh Menteri kepada OSK untuk pinjam kepada Kuala Dimensi juga merupakan salah satu isu yang kita siasat dan kita complete siasatan itu dan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya berpendapat bahawa tiada kesalahan salah guna kuasa berlaku. Itu pendapat yang dikeluarkan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya. Itu satu isu yang kita siasat Tuan Pengerusi.

From the above verbatim record, it is crystal clear that the fact of Chan Kong Choy having abused his powers as Transport Minister and committed breach of trust in unlawfully issuing the three letters of support were not new information to the MACC, as it had investigated them and found that no offence had been committed.

What purpose can be served by PAC recommending that SPRM should further investigate into Chan Kong Choy for the offence of criminal breach of trust when it had already investigated and cleared him of having committed any such offence?

What is urgently needed is a Royal Commission of Inquiry to build on the PAC findings as well as to investigate why the MACC, the Attorney-General and other key institutions and important officials had failed to discharge their duties in allowing the PKFZ scandal to reach the present astronomical scale.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail had appeared before the PAC to reiterate that Chan had unlawfully given an implicit government guarantee in the three Letters of Support which he had no power to give as Transport Minister. The question is why the Attorney-General had failed to take action against Chan for abuse of power or criminal breach of trust in illegally issuing three Letters of Support landing the country with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

Gani Patail should resign as Attorney-General if he cannot give a satisfactory explanation.

Parliament should have a special debate on the PAC report on the PKFZ scandal, but the first step is for MPs to go through the tomb of PKFZ documents tabled in Parliament today.

The Cabinet decision last month to set up a super task force, headed by Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, to take over all investigations into the PKFZ scandal is not a demonstration of political will to get to the bottom of the “mother of all scandals” but the opposite.

I see it as a major step backwards in public accountability and good governance, as it smacks of being a super “cover up” task force for the PKFZ scandal.

What is needed is a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a comprehensive and no-holds-barred investigation into the “mother of all scandals” including relevant Ministerial and Cabinet aspects of the scandal instead of trying to sweep the whole issue back under the carpet.
In the first place, is Mohd Sidek the most appropriate person to head the super task force on the PKFZ scandal?

#

Before Mohd Sidek takes up this appointment, he should explain to the Malaysian public why he had failed in the past two years to carry out the Cabinet decision in July 2007 when it resolved on the RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ, including giving retrospective approval to the four illegal Letters of Support unlawfully given by the two previous Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy, that the Chief Secretary should conduct an inquiry as to how the four Letters of Support could have issued unlawfully and to take the necessary disciplinary actions against the culprits who have now landed the country with a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

Did Mohd Sidek carry out such an inquiry as not a single culprit had been identified, let alone penalised for the unlawful issue of the four Letters of Support in the past two years ?

Clearly, Mohd Sidek had not carried out the Cabinet instruction or there would not be today a merry-go-round of multiple investigations into the PKFZ scandal, but all without the necessary sweeping powers to get to the bottom of the scandal.
Can Mohd Sidek succeed where he had failed in the past two years? I hope Parliament is given a specific answer to these questions in the ministerial replies.

I have always maintained that the MCA, as the party which is most implicated in the PKFA scandal as so many MCA top leaders involved whether as Transport Minister or Port Klang Authority Chairman, should take a stand to ensure that there should be no further cover-up of the PKFZ scandal and give total support in Cabinet and Parliament for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to bring to book all MCA, Umno and BN leaders implicated in the PKFZ “mother of all scandals” – but unfortunately, the PKFZ scandal is being used only as a pawn in the ongoing MCA power struggle.
#

Closure of V.K. Lingam case, as revealed by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz that no legal action would be taken despite the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tapes that action be taken.
#

The crisis of confidence in the key institutions in the country is also highlighted by Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s two days ago, viz:

“To those who walk in the corridors of power, I wish to inform you that I know you are beating up my son in the Sungai Buloh Prison. Every day he is being subjected to beatings to force him to withdraw his not guilty plea and to plead guilty to the various charges he is facing.

“I also know he is being subjected to these daily beatings to force him to withdraw his not guilty plea and instead plead guilty because there is no evidence against him and the charges are merely trumped-up charges.

“Furthermore, I know he is being threatened with six additional charges to the ones he is already facing and he is being beaten up to force him to plead guilty to these charges as well.

“My son has informed me he can no longer stand these daily beatings and he wants to plead guilty to the charges. I have advised him to do so although we both realise that this means he will be spending at least ten years or so in jail.

“My son is aware he is being subjected to this torture to induce me to surface and he is prepared to plead guilty and spend ten years in jail if that means it will save me from the powers-that-be.

“Today, Barisan Nasional is in power so it has the power of life and death over its citizens. Well, who knows, one day Barisan Nasional might be kicked out and Malaysia will see a new government.

“Those behind the effort of torturing my son with these daily beatings had better hope that Barisan Nasional stays on as the government for a long, long time to come. If not, and if Barisan Nasional falls, then rest assured it will be retribution time and all those people who are using my son to get to me will be made to pay for it.

“And, please, this is not a threat. This is a promise. And that is all I wish to say about the matter.”

Parliament and the nation are entitled to a full and satisfactory response to RPK’s blog.

[Speech6 in Parliament on 2010 Budget on 29.10.2009]

DAP MP for Segambut, Lim Lip Eng, had also submitted a question on the PKFZ scandal for the first day of Parliament on Monday, and his question had also be knocked off to Dec. 1, 2009.

I had slated to ask the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in Parliament on Monday “the outcome of 2007 Cabinet decision commissioning the Chief Secretary, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department to look into various aspects of irregularities in the Port Klang Free Zone scandal, including unlawful issue of four Letters of Support”.

Why is the Prime Minister not ready to answer this question on Monday?

This has reinforced my reservations about the Super Task Force into the PKFZ scandal set up by Cabinet in early September, headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan.

The question that needs answer is what had happened to the Cabinet decision two years ago that the Chief Secretary head an investigation into the PKFZ scandal, including “determining the type of misconduct or criminal element on the part of individuals or entities involved in the project and recommend actions to be taken against them”?

If the Cabinet decision in 2007 could have ended in a blank, what guarantees are there that the Super Task Force set up in September this year would be any different?

I do not want to get involved in the intensifying MCA power struggle but many are seeing any departure of MCA President and Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat as the effective end for any full accountability and transparency of the “mother-of-all-scandals”.

Are all the Cabinet Ministers, whether Umno, MCA or the Gerakan Minister in charge of KPI, prepared to give a categorical commitment that there will be no compromise in the full disclosure of the PKFZ scandal – whatever happens to the MCA power struggle?

The displacement of the two questions Lip Eng and I had submitted on the PKFZ sandal for the first day of Parliament on Monday to some five weeks later in December does not inspire confidence whatsoever that we will head in this direction.

I have just been informed that this question had disappeared altogether from the list of oral questions for Monday’s meeting of Parliament.

Signs of major cover-up of the PKFZ scandal at work?

DAP MP for Segambut, Lim Lip Eng’s question on the PKFZ scandal has also disappeared from the forthcoming parliamentary list of questions.

This is the question on the PKFZ scandal which I had submitted:

This is the question on the PKFZ scandal which I had submitted:

“19th Oct 2009 Monday

“To ask the Prime Minister the outcome of 2007 Cabinet decision commissioning the Chief Secretary, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department to look into various aspects of irregularities in the Port Klang Free Zone scandal, including unlawful issue of four Letters of Support.”

YB Datuk Seri,

I take the liberty through this Open Letter to ask you to avoid conflict-of-interest as former Cabinet Minister in 2007 to disqualify yourself from conducting the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

I had earlier written to you in a letter dated 17th June 2009 asking you to step down as Chairman of the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal as you were a Cabinet Minister from 2004 to 2008, a period when the previous Cabinet had made various decisions concerning PKFZ, including giving retrospective approval for the four Letters of Support unlawfully issued by the two previous Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy to guarantee the RM4 billion bonds issued by the PKFZ turnkey developer, Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) as well as the RM4.6 billion Cabinet decision to bail out PKFZ.

You raised my letter at the PAC meeting the same day on 17th June 2009 and as you subsequently disclosed publicly, the majority of the PAC were satisfied with your assurance that you had no personal involvement in the PKFZ when you were Minister from 2004 to 2008 and that there was no need to disqualify yourself in the PAC inquiry into PKFZ.

I am raising this matter a second time as the issue of conflict-of-interest not personally, but as a Minister in the previous government when it took the decision to approve the RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ, could no longer avoided.

PAC has summoned the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to appear before its PKFZ inquiry tomorrow to give his opinion on the legality or otherwise of the four Letters of Support which had plunged the country into the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.

Wouldn’t the PAC inquiry tomorrow take on the character of a farce and charade with you sitting as PAC Chairman asking for the legal opinion of the AG, when in 2007 you had sat in the Cabinet and received and accepted the very same legal opinion of the Attorney-General that the four Letters of Support were implicit government guarantees for the RM4 billion bonds raised by KDSB in the bond market for PKFZ project – and that they were illegally issued by Ling and Chan and which was why the Cabinet had to give retrospective approval for the Four Letters of Support?

You should in fact vacate from the chair of PAC Chairman in the PKFZ inquiry to testify why you and other Cabinet Ministers agreed with the Attorney-General’s opinion in 2007 that the four Letters of Support were implicit government guarantees for which the Cabinet had to give retrospective approval.

Although late to step down as Chairman of the PAC inquiry, it is still the proper thing for you to do as it is never too late to do what is right, i.e. to stand down and disqualify yourself from chairing the rest of the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal.

That this is a course that you should take has been strengthened by the latest developments of the PKFZ scandal – the final admissions of up to RM1 billion financial irregularities in a report of the PKFZ special task force, described as “tip of the icebert,” and the police reports lodged by the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng against KDSB and BTA Architect over the financial irregularities.

This has proved you were completely wrong when a fortnight ago you blamed the PKFZ scandal on “a group of incompetent people” from day one – as it was not just incompetence but the lack of integrity, from the highest Ministerial level downwards, which must be held responsible for the PKFZ “mother of all scandals”.

The PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal must probe into the various degrees of Ministerial responsibility by the different Cabinet Ministers in the previous government (which includes you) in accordance with the principle of collective Ministerial responsibility.

The decision to disqualify yourself from the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal is one which you have to take on your own conscience as it cannot to passed to the majority of the PAC members comprising Barisan Nasional MPs.

Yours sincerely,
Lim Kit Siang
Ahli Parlimen Ipoh Timor

This appears to be the present line of thinking of the PAC Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid who told the media after the PAC meeting on Wednesday, which was attended by former Transport Minister Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy with his retinue of a lawyer and two aides, that “In general, the huge project was managed by a very incompetent group of people” from day one.

Could the ballooning of the PKFZ scandal from RM1.088 billion in 2002 when Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik was Transport Minister,quadrupling to RM4.63 billion in 2006 under Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister, and now set to mushroom to become a RM12.5 billion scandal under Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat as Transport Minister all because of management by “a very incompetent group of people” from day one?

Was there no heinous criminality in cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of public funds resulting in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “mother of all scandals”, five times bigger than the biggest financial scandal which kicked off the 22-year premiership of Tun Dr. Mahathir – the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal 25 years ago?

Is this the nation’s most “heinous crime without criminals” in 52 years since Merdeka?

Azmi said Chan had appeared before the PAC armed with legal views from local and Commonwealth legal experts.

I stand corrected but I understand that the opinion of a Queen’s Counsel from UK in support of Chan’s position was not tabled at the PAC meeting, in which case, how could it be appended as an official document to the PAC report on the PKFZ inquiry when the PAC report is submitted to Parliament?

What about the opinions of all the other local and Commonwealth legal experts? Have they been tabled officially at the PAC meeting so that they could be included as an appendix to the PAC report for study by MPs?

Azmi said the battery of local and Commonwealth legal experts had given opinions that Chan’s three Letters of Support to PKFZ turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB) to raise some RM4 billion of bonds were not government guarantees but mere support letters for the project.

Will the PAC seek opinion from a Queen’s Counsel from UK that Chan’s Letters of Support were in fact implicit government guarantees and which were so regarded by the bond market?

Azmi said that although the two former Transport Ministers, Kong Choy and Liong Sik who had appeared before the PAC, had denied that the four Letters of Support they issued were government guarantees, these were only the opinions of both of them.

The PAC is calling the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Gani Patail to give his opinions on the two Ministers’ four Letters of Support at the next PAC hearing on August 12.

The PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal is taking on the character of a farce as Azmi as a Cabinet Minister in 2007 was not only privy but accepted the Attorney-General’s opinion that the four Letters of Support were implicit government guarantees for the RM4 billion bonds raised by KDSB in the bond market for PKFZ project, and Azmi was also party to the Cabinet’s subsequent decision to retrospectively approve the unlawful issue of the four Letters of Support by Liong Sik and Kong Choy and the subsequent Cabinet decision on a RM4.6 billion bail-out of PKFZ.

Azmi should vacate from the chair of PAC Chairman to testify at the PAC hearing why he and other Cabinet Ministers agreed with the Attorney-General’s opinion in 2007 that the four Letters of Support were implicit government guarantees for which the Cabinet had to give retrospective approval.

Other Cabinet Ministers in the 2007 decision for the RM4.6 bail-out of the PKFZ project should also be summoned to appear before the PAC inquiry to explain their support for the RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ.

There is a clear and present conflict-of-interest on Azmi’s role as PAC Chairman and former Minister when the Cabinet decided in 2007 on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout – which was why I had earlier suggested he should disqualify himself from conducting the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal, allowing the PAC Deputy Chairman Dr. Tan Seng Giaw to take over the inquiry.

Although late, it is still the proper thing for Azmi to do as it is never too late for him to stand down and disqualify himself from chairing the rest of the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal.

In my statement dated 5th July, 200, I had cautioned Ling against competing with his old boss, Tun Dr. Mahathir in a contest of selective amnesia when appearing before probes into their dubious past – as Mahathir had said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 14 times during his 90-minute testimony before the Lingam Videotape Royal Commission of Inquiry in January last year.

How many times did Ling say “I cannot remember” or its equivalent in his two-hour appearance before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) inquiry into the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal?

I understand that Ling beat Mahathir’s record of selective amnesia at the PAC inquiry yesterday. With his PAC testimony, Ling has formally inaugurated the Three Tuns for Selective Amnesia comprising Tun Mahathir, Tun Ling and Tun Eusuff Chin, the former Chief Justice who said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 18 times in his testimony before the Lingam Videotape Royal Commission of Inquiry last year.

Ling has made a total mockery of his current position as Chairman of the Malaysia Mental Literary Movement (MMLM) which had been making a splash of publicity recently about mind mapping and developing brain power through brain exercises, unlimited potential of the human mind, ways to unleash it to the fullest as way as memory demonstrations by both the young and old on their mental literacy and ability to remember things.

Only last week, at the opening of the fifth Malaysia Festival of the Mind at Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) in Kampar, Nurlina Suraiya Md Sharif 18 and Wong Wan Jiun 24 impressed the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin when they successfully memorised and recalled an extensive series of words and numbers.

Or is the mental literacy promoted by Ling includes the mental prowess to both remember and forget things?

After Ling’s testimony, PAC Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid told a press conference that the former MCA President and Transport Minister maintained that the government’s first letter of support for the PKFZ, signed on the advice of the ministry’s secretary-general and legal adviser, was not a letter of guarantee and did not have financial implications for the government.

If Ling is right, then the whole responsibility for the PKFZ scandal would fall on Ling’s successor as Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, who signed the other three letters of support which landed the country in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “scandal of all scandals”.

Did Kong Choy sign the rest of the three letters of support also on the advice of the Transport Ministry’s secretary-general and legal adviser in each instance?

The Malaysian public are entitled to know who are the respective secretaries-general and legal advisers when each of the four PKFZ letters of support were signed by Liong Sik and Kong Choy from 2003 to 2006.

Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, who will be appearing before the PAC in about four hours at 2 pm, should be able to give the PAC these names and whether the three letters of support signed by Kong Choy were all on the advice of the ministry’s secretary general and legal adviser at the time.

Tee Keat has a most important thing to tell the PAC – which of the three Transport Ministers since 2002 must bear the greatest responsibility for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal or is he taking the position that no one need to be held responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “mother of all scandals” – another “Malaysia Boleh” phenomenon of a “heinous crime without criminals”?

How could Tee Keat, who only became Transport Minister in March 2008 and whose first public statement is to promise to “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal but which he has reneged till today, be involved in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?

This is a question Tee Keat must enlighten PAC and the Malaysian public – especially his answer to my question yesterday, whether he had given the final approval in May 2008 for the RM1.2 billion variation order by the PKFZ turnkey developer, Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd or he merely acted as postman of Port Klang Authority (PKA) to transmit the PKA approval to the Prime Minister for payment.

Is it true that the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Board in its meeting of February 2008 did not take the final decision to approve the RM1.2 billion KDSB variation order but referred it to the Transport Minister, although the PKA Board recommended approval.?

If so, did Tee Keat order a full review as to whether the KDSB’s RM1.2 billion variation order is justified and in order or whether he just approved it blindly by forwarding it to the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi?

If Tee Keat gave the final approval for the RM1.2 billion KDSB variation order and had not ordered a review of its accuracy and validity, why not?