Abdullah should make public the Scomi Group report for scrutiny and verification that the company in which his son Kamaluddin has interest  had not taken advantage of the special relationship with him as to raise conflict-of-interest issues

________________
Media Statement
by Lim Kit Siang  
___________________

(Parliament, Saturday) :  The Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has said that he did not mislead Malaysians over Scomi Group Bhd contracts in his TV3 interview on August 7 and that �Latest reports he received on the matter indicated that �the company in which his son Kamaluddin has an interest, did not win local contracts through special favours but through open tenders�.  (New Straits Times)

Abdullah said: �I would like to point out that what I had said about the company was correct. No project was given to Scomi with my knowledge and I have not personally given any kind of permission to grant favours or, for that matter, projects (to Scomi)�.

The previous Saturday, Abdullah had said that he had called for a report from Scomi Group and that he would  apologise to the people if he had inadvertently erred when he spoke about the Scomi Group during a recent TV3 interview.

Abdullah�s claim that he did not mislead the people over Scomi in the TV3 interview does not stand up to close examination.

There are two issues here. Firstly,  what did Abdullah actually say in the TV3 interview � did he say that Kamaluddin and Scomi did not obtain government tenders or did he qualify it by saying that  they did not get government contracts �through special favours but open tenders�.

It is clear from the translation of the  transcript of  Abdullah�s TV3 interview  that he said the former and not the latter, viz:

23.Q: In your capacity as the Finance Minister, has his (Kamaludin)  company obtained government tenders?

A: No, not at all. To my knowledge, he has not received any. He does not manage the business and is only the major shareholder and had made a move to buy a Singapore company with 188 ships to transport coal.

Abdullah�s answer was very specific and definitive, that Kamaludin and Scomi Group had not �obtained government  tenders�.

On this first point, Abdullah had misled the people over the Scomi issue. Accepting his bona fides that he had not intended to mislead Malaysians, the question that naturally arises is who had misled the Prime Minister �to mislead the people� on the matter.

Abdullah  raised the second issue when he said yesterday that �No project was given to Scomi with my knowledge and I have not personally given any kind of permission to grant favours or, for that matter, projects (to Scomi)�.

As Prime Minister who is leading  an administration which gives importance to integrity, he should know that under the principle of ministerial responsibility, no Minister can  disclaim  responsibility for any decision taken by the Ministry � regardless of whether the Minister  has personal knowledge or otherwise of the matter.

In the case in point, as Finance Minister, the plea of ignorance is neither credible nor acceptable to shirk or avoid responsibility  for any decision taken by the Finance  Ministry affecting  Kamaluddin and Scomi, whether contracts or projects.

He cannot resort to the simple expedient of �washing his hands� whether on the ground of ignorance or that he had not �personally given any kind of permission to grant favours or, for that matter, projects� to Kamaluddin and Scomi, so long as they come within the purview and jurisdiction of the Finance Ministry.

Abdullah�s  statement yesterday was very self-serving and without credibility.  He should make public the Scomi Group report which was submitted to him two days ago for  parliamentary and public scrutiny and verification that the company in which his son Kamaluddin has interest  had not taken advantage of the special relationship with him on government contracts as to give rise to conflict-of-interest issues.

During the budget debate in Parliament on Monday, I had raised five questions about Abdullah�s TV3 interview, viz:

• Why must Abdullah ask for a report from Scomi Group when he should be calling for a full report from his own Government, the Prime Minister�s Department and  the Finance Ministry which together have responsibility for all government and government-related entities.

• Why did it take the Prime Minister almost one full month to realize that he did not have proper �information� about Kamaluddin and Scomi�s business activities involving the government, leading him to make a false statement to the public in a television interview? 

• Why must he learn of this error  from a letter from the public when such information are easily available in the public domain and are  in  the possession of the government even before his TV3 interview.

• As his TV3 interview was pre-recorded and not live, why wasn�t he informed of the mistake by his advisers so that there could be a re-recording of the interview to prevent the humiliation of the Prime Minister being caught giving a false answer and being accused of lying in the television interview, undermining his credibility and authority?

• And even more basic, as he would be answering questions about Kamaluddin�s business activities vis-�-vis the government, why wasn�t the Prime Minister given a full and thorough briefing by his advisers and subordinates, and why didn�t he ask for such a full report?

Abdullah is not   inspiring  public confidence that we have a world-class public serive  costing taxpayers RM112.9 billion next year in operating expenditures, with a million-strong civil service,  when it is  so incompetent, inept and irresponsible as to leave the Prime Minister so  uninformed and vulnerable in  a very one-sided and domesticated  TV interview!

There were also other  inaccurate  information which the Prime Minister made in the interview, as in his defence of the highly controversial multi-million ringgit  loan-and-acquisition of  shares of ECM Libra by his son-in-law,Khairy Jamaluddin  and  his denial that no Malaysian company was  being controlled by a foreign company, although private hospital operator Pantai Holdings was at the time controlled by Singapore-based Parkway Holdings Ltd.

Abdullah should come out with a full and proper explanation of the misinformation and contradictions which he had made in his TV3 interview on August 7 in order to restore his credibility and authority.
 

(09/09/2006)