Media Statement (2) by Lim Kit Siang in Petaling Jaya on Friday, 14th August 2009:
30-member MACC task force into PKFZ scandal – public inquiry needed why MACC (previously ACA) failed to charge anyone although the first report on PKFZ was lodged some four years ago
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has announced a 30-member task force to investigate corruption in the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.
In announcing this, MACC Deputy Commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamad said the MACC task force would investigate the findings of an earlier special task force set up to probe the legal and financial aspects of the controversial project – the 370-page report with 2,500 appendices made by the special task force comprising Skrine partner Lim Chee Wee, PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services (PwCAS) managing director Chin Kwai Fatt and PwCAS senior executive director Lim San Peen.
The special task force found that there was possible fraud, unsubstantiated claims and over-charging by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, the PKFZ turnkey developer, ranging from RM500 million to RM1 billion.
The immediate response of everyone reading Abu Kassim’s announcement is the question why the MACC (and previously the Anti-Corruption Agency) had failed to charge anyone for the PKFZ scandal although the first report on the PKFZ scandal was lodged with the ACA some four years ago!
The ACA and later MACC had the opportunity to “clean house” in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal but it failed in a colossal manner.
Can the MACC Chief Commissioner furnish any satisfactory explanation for such a colossal failure?
A public inquiry is fully warranted as to why MACC (previously ACA) failed to charge anyone although the first report on PKFZ was lodged some four years ago.
Furthermore, the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat should explain why the report of the special task force into the legal and financial aspects of PKFZ, on the basis of which the Port Klang Authority (PKA) had lodged a police report, had not been made public in accordance with the principles of accountability, transparency and integrity?