See the schematic diagram of the PKFZ Fiasco : The Business and Political Connections

pkfz fiasco

Press Statement by Member of Parliament Klang Charles Santiago in Klang on 29th May 2009

1. We welcome the unveiling of the Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) audit report into the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) fiasco.

The contents of the report lends greater credibility to claims that have long been reported but swept aside by the government–that serious shortcomings, irregularities and abuses have from the very beginning plagued the public-funded project.

Among the facts confirmed by PwC is that PKFZ has been plagued by inflation of costs, weaknesses in the governance over and management of the project, improper and poor decision-making, and conflict of interests by PKFZ and other officials.

2. However, we question the manner in which the PwC report has been unveiled: Why is the report available only until June 10? Why restrict the number of hard copies available to only 15?!

It is also incredulous that PwC has not only stated that it is not obliged to respond to any queries from, and does not owe a duty of care to, any party other than PKA, but has also stipulated that readers are not authorised to use or rely on the report to arrive at any conclusion!

If PwC is so afraid of being identified with even the conclusions people reach on the basis of its own report, is PwC standing by its own auditors or not? Why is there no party willing to stand by the integrity of the document?

3. We welcome the decision to submit the document to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

Will there be serious action taken against all of the persons responsible for the shortcomings, irregularities and abuses and/or benefited from them? If there is such action, to what extent and to what level will action be taken against the said persons?

4. We call on the government to freeze the bank accounts of all persons implicated in the fiasco – those in government positions should be immediately suspended – until the investigations by the MACC have been completed.

This may include – but should not be confined to – government and MCA and Umno figures, Members of Parliament, those who were Selangor executive councilors during the time under consideration, former or current Port Klang Authority (PKA) and PKFZ officials, developers, lawyers and consultants, as well as the various shareholders and directors.

5. Among the pressing questions for the government to answer pertains to the issue of the project costs: Assuming the project costs RM7.453 billion – and will balloon to RM12.453 billion by 2051 – where will the government find this kind of money?

Given the global and financial crisis that has hit Malaysia’s shores and affected her workers, RM7 billion is already the total amount allocated in the government’s first package to stimulate the national economy! RM12.453 is one-fifth of the second RM60 billion stimulus package!

How will this affect plans to address the crisis staring at us now?

6. In light of the many failures and breach of regulations brought to light by PwC, what do the domestic regulators have to say for themselves?

  • The Department of the Auditor-General was instrumental in early on revealing the ballooning of costs of the PKFZ and the financial inviability of PKA to undertake the project. Could it not have done more? To what extent did it warn the government about the heavy price that taxpayers would pay when the PKFZ bubble explodes?
  • Is the Department of the Auditor-General satisfied with merely crunching accounts numbers and stating these in its annual reports? How does the Department of today compare with the times during the likes of such vibrant, vigorous and vigilant auditors as the late Tan Sri Ahmad Noordin Zakaria? The RM2.5 billion BMF scandal that Ahmad Nordin investigated is nothing compared with the gargantuan RM12.5 billion we are faced with today.
  • How far did the Attorney-General’s Chambers go to ensure that legal procedures, provisions, practices and standards were adhered to? Were there no steps taken once it was determined that it was by-passed by PKA officials?
  • Could the Bar Council not have played a role in probing the possible breach of legal ethics – such as the element of conflict of interest – by lawyers involved in the PKFZ project? What can be done regarding lawyers who are supposed to represent the interests of the state – and thus its citizens – and yet act contrary to them?
  • When in 2006 Bursa Malaysia merely “reprimanded” the PKFZ developer when it failed to inform the Exchange or inform and obtain the consent of its shareholders about the disposal of the land, was that the furthest the Bursa could have gone?
  • What did the Ministry of Finance do when it was determined that many Treasury regulations and procedural requirements had been trampled upon?
  • Did Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee play its role when probing the PKFZ? Why did the investigations end with the exit of Shahrir Abdul Samad as its former chairperson? Is the PAC truly serving as a watchdog of the public accounts or merely posturing as one?
  • Reiterating the issue facing MACC: Its predecessor, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), had also gone through the motions of “interviewing” PKFZ officials and carted files of documents away from PKA. Needless to say, nothing came out of that.

After 15 years since the first police reports were lodged on the PKFZ, should the MACC be taken seriously?

7. Scandalous as it is, the significance of PKFZ lies not only in the billions of ringgit of public funds involved, especially in such times as these when a global financial crisis of unprecedented scale is looms over us.

The long-term implications of this debacle are equally troubling given the crucial and critical role that should be played by the nation’s regulatory agencies – such as the Department of the Auditor-General, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Securities Commission. It is partly due to dismal failure to perform their job that this scandal has exploded in our hands.

The country’s viability and prosperity lies in the hands of regulators such as those above. If they cannot be trusted to serve their roles as regulators, then what are they doing in the positions they occupy?

Among the main factors said to have caused the global financial and economic crisis is the failure of US regulators to monitor and control the increasingly risky and adventurist instruments and activities of financiers and bankers.

Given the failure – or unwillingness – of Malaysia’s regulators and enforcers to do their job, it looks like we’re headed towards a similar disaster.

Sincerely,
Charles Santiago
Member of Parliament Klang
Vice-Chairman of Selangor Democratic Action Party
016-6267797

—————————————————————————————————————–

巴生国会议员查尔斯圣地亚哥文告，2009年5月29日于巴生

巴生港口自贸区丑闻：冻结涉及者户口及停职处分

1． 我欢迎政府公布由普华永道负责的巴生港口自贸区丑闻稽查报告。

报告的内容使我们更为确信一直以来被广泛报导，但是被政府刻意忽视的严重缺失、违例行事以及滥权的现象一开始就充斥这个公共计划。

普华永道确认的事实包括巴生港口自贸区计划承担高昂的利息，治理无方和监管系统失效，不恰当和差劲的决策，以及巴生港口自贸区和其他官员的利益冲突。

2. 公布普华永道稽查报告所施加的种种限制令人不解：为什么该报告只允许查阅至6月10日？为什么仅仅限制15分印刷报告供翻阅？

普华永道不仅声明它没有义务回应任何询问，也无需向除了巴生港务局之外的机构负责，甚至表示读者不获授权使用或从该报告中达致任何结论！这简直是匪夷所思。

如果普华永道如此害怕人们从它的稽查报告得出结论，普华永道是否支持及信任它的稽查员？为什么没有任何一方愿意承担报告的诚信责任？

3. 我欢迎交通部长翁诗杰指示巴生港务局主席李华民把稽查报告呈交给反贪委员会。

但是政府会否采取严厉行动对付所有导致这个丑闻的缺失、违例行事、滥权或从中获利的人士？如果准备采取行动，那将会是如何严厉及到什么程度？

4. 我促请政府马上冻结涉及这个丑闻的人士的银行户口 – 并对那些拥有官职者采取停职处分 – 直到反贪委员会的调查结束。

这些人包括 – 但是不限于 – 政府、马华和巫统的重要领袖、国会议员、当时的雪州行政议员、前任或现任巴生港务局高层和巴生港口自贸区官员、发展商、律师和咨询公司，包括涉及公司的股权拥有者和董事。

5. 政府必须及时回答攸关计划成本的问题 ： 假设这项计划的成本是74.53亿令吉 – 以及可能会在2051年剧增至124.53亿令吉 – 政府该从哪儿找钱交付这笔天文款项？

由于全球经济危机正深刻影响国内工人，这笔巨款应该用来协助人民和中小型企业渡过这个难关。须知70亿令吉乃是政府的第一振兴经济配套的总额！124.53亿令吉是价值600亿令吉的第二振兴经济配套的五份之一！

巴生港口自贸区丑闻将如何影响政府应对危机的计划？

6. 当普华永道的报告列明监管系统的失败和违反条例，这些国内监管者将会如何为他们自己分说？

  • 一开始，国家稽查局在揭露巴生港口自贸区不断增加的成本，以及巴生港务局承担该计划的金融能力方面曾扮演重要角色。难道稽查局不该对此多做功夫？它是否有警告政府当巴生港口自贸区的泡沫破灭后，纳税人将支付巨大的代价？到什么程度？
  • 国家稽查局是否满足于仅仅查阅户口数字和写入年度报告中？今天的国家稽查局该如何与丹斯里阿末诺丁年代的积极焕发和充满活力的稽查员相比？阿末诺丁所调查的价值25亿令吉的土著金融丑闻与今天我们面对的125亿令吉的丑闻完全不能相比
  • 总检察署做了多少工作以确保该计划遵守法律程序、条例和标准？总检察署是否放弃采取行动，当发现巴生港务局官员已擅自做决定？
  • 律师公会难道不该调查违反法律操守的律师楼 – 譬如涉及巴生港口自贸区计划的律师有互相冲突的利益？能否对那些本该代表国家和人民利益，但是反其道而行的律师采取行动？
  • 马来西亚股市在2006年给予巴生港口自贸区发展商警告，因为在没有通知交易所和获得持股人的同意下放弃该片土地，这是否是股市的最大权限了？
  • 财政部能做什么？当它发现制定的条例和必须程序没有被遵守？
  • 国会的公共帐目委员会是否有发挥调查这个丑闻的功用？为什么沙里尔卸下职务后调查也不了了之？公帐会是真正扮演公共帐目监督者的角色还是只是一个橱窗？
  • 重复反贪委员会的问题：它的前身反贪局已经和巴生港口自贸区官员“面谈”和从巴生港务局取得相关文件和资料。无需多言，一点成果也没有。

远在15年前已有关于这个丑闻的警察报案书，反贪委员会难道就不能认真一点？

7. 巴生港口自贸区的丑闻之所以如此严重，不只是涉及数十亿令吉的公款，还因为遇上这场前所未有的全球经济危机而深深影响所有大马人的生活，尤其是弱势群体。

长期而言，这个议题将带来灾难性的影响，因为国家监管机构 – 国家稽查局、总检察署、证卷交易所本该扮演的重要把关角色，已经无法正常发挥作用。

我国的可持续发展和繁荣将有赖于上述的监管者。 如果他们作为监管者的角色受到质疑，为什么他们还盘踞于那个位置？

许多分析指出，导致全球金融和经济危机的主要原因是美国的监管者失去作用，他们无法监督和控制金融机构和银行所鼓吹的高风险和冒进的金融产品。

马来西亚的监管者和执法者的失效，看似我们也正朝向一个类似的灾难前进。

查尔斯圣地亚哥  敬上

巴生区国会议员

雪州行动党副主席

016-6267797