LKS’s 108 Questions to OTK
By Hakim Joe
From end April until July this year, Lim Kit Siang has taken up the PM’s offer to have Ong Tee Keat answer three questions daily in pertinent to the PKFZ scandal. There were 108 questions posed to the Transport Minister by the DAP leader. They are listed as following:
Q.1 Why did OTK break his public pledge made in his first month as Transport Minister on 7th April 2008 that he would “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal, as “the Rakyat has a right to know the truth” by restricting the terms of reference of the PricewaterhouseCooper (PwC) audit inquiry to “a position review” instead of the wide-ranging and all-out investigation into PKFZ scandal?
Q.2 Does OTK agree that the PwC report has exposed the PKFZ scandal as not just a “can of worms” but a “swamp of crocodiles” snowballing from a RM1.8 billion scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than doubling to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister and now mushrooming into the astronomical figure of a RM12.5 billion scandal under OTK’s watch as Transport Minister?
Q.3 Does OTK agree that the RM12.5 billion PKFZ rip-off is a heinous crime and it must not be allowed to be another but bigger version of the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal which the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said 25 years ago as a “heinous crime but without criminals”?
Q.4 Will OTK agree to the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a thorough, in-depth and wide-ranging investigation to bring to book all present and past characters that had played a role in the creation of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ monster scandal?
Q.5 What follow-up actions is OTK taking from the PwC audit report on the PKFZ scandal apart from directing the PKA Chairman to submit a copy each to MACC and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee?
Q.6 Will OTK also audit the buildings that already completed?
Q.7 Why should the Transport Ministry not cut losses instead of continuing to throw good money after bad with another RM5 billion losses to create a RM12.5 billion PKFZ “white elephant”?
Q.8 Will OTK explain what he has done since becoming Transport Minister in the past 15 months to ensure that PKA truly receive value for money from the PKFZ turnkey contractor, Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, giving facts and figures?
Q.9 As OTK has directed the PKA Chairman, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng, to submit a copy of the PwC audit report, complete with the 20 appendices, to the MACC and the PAC, is he prepared to direct the PKA Chairman to give to the DAP Parliamentary team a complete set of the PwC report together with the 20 appendices for thorough study?
Q.10 If PwC had been notified of this RM147 million claim in connection with the PKFZ project, why was it omitted in the PwC audit report as this raises the question of its professionalism?
Q.11 What is the cost of the PwC audit investigation? It is rumoured that the fees paid to PwC is RM3 million. Can OTK give the exact sum?
Q.12 Why is the PwC audit report on PKFZ going to be available online at www.pka-report.com for only a period of two weeks from 28th May to 10th June 2009 only? Could OTK ensure that the PwC audit report on PKFZ remain on the PKA website so long as the PKFZ scandal is not resolved?
Q.13 What guarantee can OTK give Malaysians that his “roadmap to recovery of PKFZ” will not end up like the Myanmese military junta’s “seven-step roadmap to democracy” after six years – as had in fact happened previously to the PKFZ itself, when the PKFZ scandal escalated from a RM1.1 billion scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than quadrupling to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister and now mushrooming into the astronomical figure of RM7.5 billion and even reaching RM12.5 billion scandal under OTK’s watch?
Q.14 Is OTK suggesting that his two predecessors as Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy and the three previous Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairmen, Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon and Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung had all failed to pass this test of taking their trust over billions of Ringgit and the future of our children “seriously” and making “wise decisions based on the best input available”?
Q.15 Is this a confession by OTK that for 15 months since becoming Transport Minister after the March 8 political tsunami last year, he had been “sitting still and playing rhetoric” while doing nothing to put in place a series of action plans to lessen the pain on taxpayers – except to pass the buck to the PwC to do an audit report, which is promptly passed to the MACC and the PAC for public relations effect?
Q.16 As Ronnie’s first report was lodged in December 2004, why had the Commission and its predecessor the ACA taken such an inordinately long time of more than four-and-a-half years and still unable to produce any results? When did the MACC complete its “initial investigations” into the PKFZ and when were the papers handed over to its Legal and Prosecution Division for further action?
Q.17 Why has the MCA not taken any action to suspend the MCA deputy finance minister, Datuk Chor Chee Heung, who was PKA Chairman from April 2007 to March 2008, as the PwC audit report had named him as one of those involved in potential conflicts of interest?
Q.18 Have the present PKA Chairman, Datuk Lee Hwa Beng and the PKA Board members no powers whatsoever to decide on whether to submit the PwC audit report on PKFZ to the MACC and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC), that they have to be led by the nose by OTK who had to issue specific directives to Lee on the matter? If so, what is the use of having puppets as PKA Chairmen and Board members – and isn’t this the strongest proof why it is the MCA Transport Ministers, rather than the MCA PKA Chairmen, who must bear the fullest responsibility for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-Off from start to finish?
Q.19 Why is OTK betraying Najib’s confidence, support, understanding and trust in him by failing to live up to the Prime Minister’s open commitment that the Transport Minister will answer every question on the PKFZ scandal? Is the MCA President letting down the Umno President and Barisan Nasional Chairman?
Q.20 Does OTK agree that he is giving the impression that the PKA Chairman and Board are a bunch of useless lot who have to be micro-managed and micro-directed to seek legal redress, to seek professional advice, to tighten governance, to beef up day-to-day management and not only to submit copies of the report to the PAC, but also the number of copies?
Q.21 Would OTK think such a claim by all these five MCA stalwarts (Ling, Chan, Ting, Yap & Chor) would be acceptable in China? Or would anyone of them end up having to face the firing squad?
Q.22 When will OTK declare whether he is going to direct the PKA Chairman to give LKS a set of the appendices or come out with a refusal publicly, without running away from the question?
Q.23 Does OTK agree with my proposal that the PwC audit report on PKFZ currently available online at www.pka-report.com should not be for only a period of two weeks from 28th May to 10th June 2009, to be removed on Wednesday, but should remain on the PKA website so long as the PKFZ scandal is not resolved?
Q.24 Is OTK prepared to give a Ministerial statement on the PwC audit report on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ Rip-off, to be followed by a parliamentary debate on the Ministerial statement and the PwC audit report on the PKFZ?
Q.25 What are the real reasons for the sudden resignation of OTK’s hand-picked Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager and Port Klang Free Zone Sdn. Bhd (PKFZSB) executive chairman Lim Thean Shiang? Is it also because of the special briefing of Barisan Nasional MPs on the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report on the PKFZ, allegedly without the knowledge or authority of the Transport Minister? Who organized the mysterious briefing of BN MPs on the PKFZ, was it the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club Chairman Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing, who is also the main stakeholder of the PKFZ turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd?
Q.26 As the PcW audit report on the PKFZ had named Chor as one of those who could have potential conflict of interest, will the MCA President and the MCA Presidential Council ask Chor to step down as Deputy Finance Minister or ask the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to suspend Chor from his deputy ministerial post until the full outcome of probe into the PwC audit report on his potential conflict-of-interest in the RM12.5b PKFZ scandal?
Q.27 Can OTK as Transport Minister and MCA President accept that the MCA nominee as PKA Chairman from April 2007 to March 2008 (which is not “short nine months”), could disclaim all responsibility for the PKFZ scandal during his stewardship as the No. 1 man in PKA? How much was Chor paid as PKA Chairman and how much allowance and other payments were made to him during his period as PKA Chairman?
Q.28 Is OTK prepared as MCA President to make a public apology on behalf of MCA to the nation and Malaysians for the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal as it occurred under the watch of three MCA Transport Ministers and four MCA Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairmen?
Q.29 What is OTK’s stand on Chor Chee Heung vis-à-vis his role in the PKFZ scandal?
Q.30 My invitation to OTK to the public forum on “RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal: Will Heads Roll?” at the KL Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 10th June 2008 at 8 pm, stands. Will OTK attend?
Q.31 Who was the MCA President most responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik or Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, who were OTK’s predecessors as Transport Minister? Furthermore, among the MCA Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairmen from the start of the ill-fated PKFZ project, who was the one who must bear the greatest blame – Tan Sri Ting Chew Peh, Datuk Yap Pian Hon or Datuk Seri Chor Chee Heung or were all three blameless?
Q.32 If the board members of PKA and PKFZ had always been such “good teams”, then could how PKA’s accumulated healthy reserves of about RM500 million a decade ago could be so run down completely to the extent that the PKA is today technically insolvent as a result of the ballooning of the PKFZ from RM1.1 billion under Liong Sik in 2002 to RM4.6 billion under Kong Choy and now RM7.453 billion under OTK, and heading towards a grand total of RM12.453 billion rip-off?
Q.33 The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) held two meetings in 2007, Sept. 6 and Sept. 25, on PKFZ and made various observations and recommendations. Can OTK list a full report of the actions that had been taken by the Transport Ministry, PKA and the Port Klang Free Zone Sdn. Bhd (PKFZSB) arising from the PAC report, or were the PAC investigations, observations and recommendations just a big waste of time and public funds as there was just no follow-up actions?
Q.34 When will OTK admit that he had misled Parliament and the nation in denying that Liong Sik and Kong Choy had unlawfully issued the four Letters of Support resulting in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ burden to the Malaysian nation and people and tender a public apology for his Ministerial misconduct in the past 14 months?
Q.35 What action has OTK proposes to take against Liong Sik and Kong Choy as well as government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support”, resulting in the RM12.billion PKFZ burden to the people and nation?
Q.36 Why is OTK not asking Chor to resign as Deputy Finance Minister unless Chor can give proper accountability of his chairmanship of the PKA with regard to the PKFZ scandal?
Q.37 Can OTK explain what he had done in these four months apart from “sitting still and playing rhetoric” to “put in place a series of action plans to lessen the pain on taxpayers” with regard to the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal and why he needs four months just to announce a blue-ribbon Task Force to make some more studies in the next two months to make recommendations “for follow-up actions” to be taken by the Government? Isn’t this a colossal waste of four months after the PwC report on PKFZ?
Q.38 What is OTK afraid of that he is prepared to commit the parliamentary contempt of imposing such a ridiculous condition restricting access of the PwC Report appendices to PAC members which make a total mockery of his ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament?
Q.39 Why is OTK so afraid of a Selangor Exco member sitting on the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Board that he insists on having his own appointee representing Selangor State Government instead of the Selangor State Government’s choice?
Q.40 Does OTK agree that Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid should disqualify himself and step aside in the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal because of conflict of interest as Azmi was Minister in the Cabinet which decided on the RM4.6 billion PKFZ bailout in July 2007 and that the entire PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal should be conducted under the leadership of the PAC Deputy Chairman, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw?
Q.41 Does OTK agree that Parliament should have a special urgent debate on the PKFZ scandal on Monday?
Q.42 Will OTK clip the wings and tie the hands of Low and the committee on corporate governance to prevent them from conducting a full probe into the past PKFZ misdeeds?
Q.43 Will OTK cancel his overseas trip to be in Parliament to account for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal instead of emulating his predecessor as Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy who ran away overseas to avoid parliamentary accounting on the PKFZ in November 2007?
Q.44 Former MCA President and Transport Minister Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik has said that he is prepared to be summoned by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to assist in the investigations into the PKFZ scandal. Does he agree that Liong Sik should not only co-operate with the MACC but also the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.45 As Parliament is periodically asked to approve allocations for the multi-billion Ringgit bailout of PKFZ, is OTK ensuring that every MP gets a copy of the PwC audit report of PKFZ, together with the appendices, to ensure that there could be an informed debate and discussion of the issue in Parliament?
Q.46 Would OTK issue an immediate directive for the three-and-a-half-inch high appendices to be put up online, giving easy access to every Malaysian interested about the “mother of all scandals” to scrutinise and give their input on the documentation involved
Q.47 Will OTK instruct the PKA to remove all the user-unfriendly features of the PwC report on PKFZ on the official website so that interested members of the public can download, print or copy-and-paste? Furthermore, will he instruct the PKA to do the same when the PwC Report Appendices are placed online to ensure that they are equally user-friendly?
Q.48 Is OTK now aware that his paramount duty as Transport Minister is to give satisfactory accounting to Parliament when it meets on issues of national interest, and as the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal is now one such issue, whether he will drop everything in France and take the first flight back to discharge his paramount duty as Minister – to fully account to Parliament on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.49 Did OTK get specific approval from the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to be on the run from Parliament to avoid parliamentary accounting on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, when everybody knows that this will be top on the parliamentary agenda? Did OTK get any indication from Parliament, whether Speaker or Deputy Speaker, that my (LKS) urgent motion to debate the PKFZ scandal today, would definitely be thrown out?
Q.50 Can OTK give an assurance that his Ministerial statement would be followed by a one-day debate in Parliament devoted to his Ministerial statement?
Q.51 is OTK going to apologise for the parliamentary contempt he committed when he restricted access of PAC members to the four-inch high appendices of the PwC report to the 5 total hours when the PAC met on Tuesday and Wednesday and refused to allow PAC members to take back the set of appendices for more detailed study?
Q.52 Will OTK reveal to the Parliament and the Malaysian public his actual programme of activities in Paris and his travel plans?
Q.53 Does OTK agree that this is most embarrassing for a Minister who is also the MCA President that he does not know the right and proper thing he should do in Parliament, i.e. make a ministerial statement on the PKFZ scandal on the first day of Parliament yesterday?
Q.54 Is OTK prepared to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to answer all queries about the PKFZ scandal to set the example to all Cabinet Ministers that they must accept full and final responsibility for their respective ministries – a common feature in developed parliamentary democracies where Ministers have no problem in appearing before their PAC but never done in Malaysia?
Q.55 If the PwC report cannot be relied upon by anyone “to use or rely on…to arrive at any conclusion”, the PwC report is utterly useless. Why then did OTK direct the PKA Chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng to submit copies to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) and the PAC, if not just as a cynical PR (public relations) exercise? Why did OTK rely on the PwC report to set up a Task Force and two committees as a follow-up action on the PwC report? Will MPs be required (as well) to sign acknowledgement of such silly conditions before copies are distributed in Parliament?
Q.56 Is OTK’s choice of Paul Low as Chairman of Corporate Governance was in any way influenced by Paul Low’s MCA past, and what guarantees can OTK give that Paul Low will be given full powers to probe into all abuses of power, conflict-of-interest, malpractice and corruption resulting in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.57 Does OTK agree that Azmi (PAC Chairman) should disqualify himself and step down from the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ because of conflict of interest, and that the PAC Deputy Chairman Dr. Tan Seng Giaw conduct the inquiry?
Q.58 OTK should explain whether it is true that he had on 10th May 2008 as Transport Minister pressured the Prime Minister to approve a RM1.2 billion payment as variation of costs for the PKFZ project and confirm the two letters uploaded on a website?
Q.59 This website also made a very serious allegation – that Datuk Lee Hwa Beng’s tenure as Port Klang Authority (PKA) Chairman ended on 15th February 2009 and that until today, the Yang di Pertuan Agong had never given consent to extend or renew Lee’s term, and that OTK is asking the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, to backdate Lee’s appointment. Is this true?
Q.60 Is OTK prepared to submit to a public opinion poll as to whether he had acted responsibly in going off for a junket to the Paris Air Show instead of being in Parliament on the very first day to account for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.61 Why didn’t OTK bring up this RM1.2 billion PKFZ development cost variation order demanded by KDSB at any one of these eight Cabinet meetings before he shot off his letter to the Prime Minister asking for approval to release the RM1.2 billion payments?
Q.62 Will Paul Low and the PKFZ ad hoc committee on corporate governance be allowed to fully probe into all the past PFKZ misdeeds, misuse of powers, conflict of interests, corrupt practices or all forms of malpractices which landed the country with a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal though it started off as a RM1.1 billion project in 2002 under Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik before quadrupling more than four times to RM4.6 billion in 2007 under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister?
Q.63 Will the PwC report and appendices be given to MPs before the current meeting ends on June 30th?
Q.64 Would OTK ever use legal action as an excuse that he need not give any accounting for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, whether in Parliament or outside?
Q.65 Will there be a reply by OTK to this query by http://www.malaysiafreenews.com/ in his Ministerial statement in Parliament on Monday?
Q.66 Does OTK think that his commendable stand in 2006 to expose the “leakage” of 90 per cent or RM27,000 of public funds in a RM30,000 school renovation is sufficient to justify his failure to “investigate all” and “tell all” about the RM12.5 billion PKFZ “mother of all scandals”?
Q.67 Will OTK’s Ministerial statement contain answers to the Five Questions on the PKFZ which LKS had posed to him on 9th April last year?
Q.68 Will these eight MCA leaders who had variously occupied important positions as Transport Minister or PKA Chairman in the history of the PKFZ scandal come out with a Joint Memorandum on the role played by everyone of them in the “mother of all scandals”?
Q.69 Can OTK explain his Ministerial inefficiency and incompetence in allowing the post of PKA Chairman to remain vacant from March 31, when he should have known that it is important to either re-appoint Lee or appoint a new Chairman so that no one could make the excuse that no decision could be made during the month of April on the publication of the PwC report on PKFZ scandal as the post of PKA Chairman is vacant?
Q.70 Will OTK admit that he had deliberately misled Parliament about the Cabinet decision on the land acquisition of the PKFZ by failing to give a full and proper account of Cabinet decisions on the PKFZ project, and whether he would apologise for such parliamentary contempt and breach of privilege?
Q.71 Is OTK suggesting that the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – five times the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal – is a “heinous crime without criminals”?
Q.72 Is OTK prepared to give a second Ministerial statement in Parliament tomorrow or later this week to give a proper and satisfactory account of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.73 Will OTK explain why he continues to support Chor to evade and avoid responsibility and accountability with the latter’s stance that he had done nothing wrong or improper and need not resign or be suspended as Deputy Finance Minister?
Q.74 Does OTK agree that he has been caught red-handed telling an untruth on the PKFZ scandal? (for violating Standing Order 36(12) in deliberately misleading the House when he said that the Cabinet, on Oct. 2, 2002, made the decision to allow the Port Klang Authority (PKA) to purchase 1,000 acres of land for RM1.08 billion at RM25 psf based on the position of the Selangor state government that the land could not be acquired under Section 3(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 because PKFZ was not a public project.)
Q.75 Is he prepared to come clean and admit that he had misled the House and had not given a full, proper and accurate account of the Cabinet decisions over the years on the PKFZ project?
Q.76 If OTK is claiming that I had misled Parliament, dare he move a motion to refer me to the Committee of Privileges?
Q.77 Is OTK prepared to present a second Ministerial statement by Monday on all the Cabinet meetings and decisions on the PKFZ scandal right from the beginning, including the Cabinet meetings on the PKFZ on Oct. 2, Oct. 9, Oct. 16 and October 23 as well as on Nov. 6, 2002 as well as in July 2007 when the Cabinet decided on the RM4.6 billion bailout of the PKFZ scandal, which has turned out to be grossly inadequate as it has topped RM7.453 billion and heading towards the astronomical cost of RM12.453 billion?
Q.78 Will OTK propose at the Cabinet tomorrow that Ling and Chan be charged in court for gross abuses of power resulting in the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.79 Will OTK explain whether he is so useless and powerless a Transport Minister that he cannot ensure that the 300 copies of PwC report and appendices on RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal be tabled in Parliament on Monday instead of collecting dust till end of the year?
Q.80 As OTK also accused me of misleading Parliament, has he submitted a motion to refer me to the Committee of Privileges? Shall we jointly approach the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin, to ask that both these motions of privilege be given top priority so that they are debated next Monday and that both motions, his and mine, be debated together?
Q.81 Former MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr. Ling Liong Sik signed the first of four unlawful Letters of Support forcing the Cabinet in July 2007 to decide on a RM4.6 billion bailout of PKFZ which has now ballooned into a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal. Does OTK know why Ling signed the Letter of Support on May 28, 2002, which was his last act on his last day as Transport Minister? Did he ever ask Ling for the reason?
Q.82 Why is OTK is so afraid of making the PwC report and in particular the appendices freely available to MPs and the public? What is OTK trying to hide?
Q.83 Whose idea was it to organize such a special and secret briefing for BN MPs even before the PwC report was made public, who were the MPs who attended, whether from Umno, MCA, MIC, Gerakan or the Sabah and Sarawak Barisan Nasional component parties, who gave the briefing, who paid for the briefing, and were the BN MPs assigned to defend the PKFZ issue in Parliament?
Q.84 Can OTK confirm or deny these Cabinet meetings and decisions on PKFZ? If the former, can OTK explain why the Cabinet had “flip-flopped”, chopped and changed week-by-week on its decisions on the PKFZ question, landing the country with a RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.85 Why is OTK continuing to evade the issue that up to now despite two weeks of parliamentary meeting, MPs have not received copies of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) audit report and appendices on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.86 Can OTK explain why he was so unprepared and unready to answer and “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal, as he had promised when he became Transport Minister after the last general elections 15 months ago?
Q.87 Will OTK and the MCA Ministers, Deputy Ministers and MPs agree to an amendment to the parliamentary Standing Orders barring Deputy Ministers from replying on behalf of Ministers in Parliament, making it compulsory for every Ministerial reply to be given by the Minister concerned?
Q.88 Or in the case of Hwa Beng, why has OTK forced the PKA Chairman and former three-term Selangor State Assemblymen to betray his shocking inability to know the difference between submitting 300 copies of the PwC report to Parliament and tabling them in Parliament? In the former, the 300 copies of the PwC report are physically handed to Parliament but can get lost in the vaults of Parliament to collect dust for the next few years, which is of no use to anybody; while ‘tabling in Parliament’ means placing a copy each on the table of every MP who will be able immediately read and study it. Lee does not know this important difference after being a Selangor Assemblyman for 12 years but why would OTK want to humiliate Lee by exposing such ignorance himself?
Q.89 On behalf of MCA officials, will OTK undertake to stop bullying and manipulating them to hide his inexcusable political failure to honour his pledge when he became Transport Minister 15 months ago to ‘tell all’ about the PKFZ scandal!
Q.90 Does OTK dare to agree to my proposition to offer to support, and get the 83 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, to support Teng’s motion (fathered by OTK) to refer me to the Committee of Privileges on the quid pro quo that OTK persuade Barisan Nasional MPs to support my motion to refer the Transport Minister to the Committee of Privileges?
Q.91 Why is OTK running away from such a public debate series to “nail the liar”, when it is the liar who should be running away from any public debate and here, why is OTK doing the running, all the way to Paris?
Q.92 Can OTK explain why he is setting such a dubious and shameful record for a MCA President (first time in 60 years) and Malaysian Cabinet Minister to be “on the run” from Parliament and outside on the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal?
Q.93 Will OTK answer me (LKS) whether he agrees with my proposition that Pakatan Rakyat MPs support his motion, submitted through his proxy Tebrau MP Teng Boon Soon to refer me to the Committee of Privileges for misleading Parliament on the PKFZ scandal about Cabinet meetings and decisions on the PKFZ with the quid pro quo that Barisan Nasional MPs submit my motion to refer OTK to the Committee of Privileges last Wednesday?
Q.94 Will OTK explain why he has changed so much in a short period of eight months after he became MCA President last October in his stand on accountability and integrity as compared to his past two decades in politics?
Q.95 Will OTK order a halt to all payments to KDSB until a full inquiry and parliamentary accountability on the PKFZ scandal is completed?
Q.96 Does OTK agree with Karim Raslan (to come clean on issues like the Port Klang Free Zone).and what does he proposes to do about it?
Q.97 If OTK claims credit for the latest decision on the deferment of the RM660 million payment to KDSB, will he be prepared to take responsibility for all the other decisions of the PKA Board? (As he cannot choose to claim credit for praiseworthy PKA decisions while disclaiming responsibility for deplorable PKA decisions!)
Q.98 Is OTK prepared to convene an emergency meeting of the MCA General Assembly as the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal is going to be OTK and MCA’s Achilles Heel, just as the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak is going Najib and Umno’s Achilles Heel in the next general election?
Q.99 Can OTK deliver (on his threat to refer LKS to the Committee of Privileges for misleading Parliament on the PKFZ scandal) or is this just another one of his dishonest and hypocritical political “tai chi”?
Q.100 Yesterday I welcomed the Port Klang Authority (PKA) Board decision on the withholding of RM660 million in the next drawdown of the government’s soft loan of RM4.6 billion to pay the PKFZ turnkey developer Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd. (KDSB) for the PKFZ land and construction. Today I welcome the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) decision yesterday to summon in a fortnight the two former Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy, as well as the Attorney-General, to testify over the PKFZ scandal. The PAC is also to summon the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) and MP for Bintulu Tiong King Sing, who is also the CEO of KDSB. Last Wednesday, 10th April 2009, during the debate on the government bill to re-allot the 2009 Budget arising from the Cabinet reshuffle by Datuk Seri Najib Razak when he became Prime Minister, I had stressed that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should not be a “cover up” for the PKFZ scandal, berated the PAC Chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid for opposing the summoning of Liong Sik, Kong Choy as well as other MCA big-wigs like Chor Chee Heung and Yap Pian Hon. I in fact reiterated that Azmi should disqualify himself from the PAC inquiry into the PKFZ scandal as he was a Minister and party to the July 2007 Cabinet decision to give retrospective approval for the four unlawful Letters of Support issued by Liong Sik and Kong Choy and were the cause of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal. I welcome the PAC decision to summon Liong Sik and Kong Choy and other big-guns for this is the first time that the PAC is acting seriously and responsibly in its inquiry into the PKFZ scandal.
Q.101 Will OTK explain what he is doing to ensure all MPs get immediate access to the PwC report and appendices (by making the PwC report and appendices available to MPs)? If the PwC report and appendices have been hijacked by PAC and are under “lock and key” in Parliament, is he prepared to make them available to MPs directly, such as through the Transport Ministry in Putrajaya or Port Klang Authority in Klang?
Q.102 It is not true that the PKA Board in February 2008 had not taken the final decision to approve the RM1.2 billion KDSB variation order but had referred the whole matter to the Transport Minister for a decision, although the PKA Board recommended approval but the decision was to be taken by the Transport Minister? Can OTK give an answer whether it was Chan or himself that approved it?
Q.103 Does OTK agree and approve of Tiong’s attitude or does he thinks that Tiong should not only appear before the PAC and give his full co-operation as KDSB CEO but that the time has come for Tiong to relinquish his post as BNBBC Chairman so that BN MPs are not compromised in the PKFZ scandal by taking a stand blindly supporting Tiong because he is BNBBC Chairman?
Q.104 Is OTK prepared to submit to the PAC all the Cabinet decisions, minutes and papers on the PKFZ scandal right from the start of the ill-fated PKFZ project? If there is any problem with the Official Secrets Act, is he prepared to get Cabinet approval to declassify all Cabinet minutes, papers and all other official memorandum on the PKFZ, whether from the Finance Ministry, Economic Planning Unit, Attorney-General’s Chambers or the Transport Ministry so that all Cabinet and official papers are submitted to the PAC for a full “tell all” probe into the PKFZ scandal?
Q.105 What has OTK got to hide in the PwC appendices into PKFZ, which even now PAC members cannot take them home to study?
Q.106 Can OTK explain what is happening that he could lose out to Tiong in his macro and micro management of the PKFZ scandal? Is his position as Transport Minister and Lee’s position as PKA Chairman any longer tenable?
Q.107 Will OTK as MCA President and Transport Minister ensure that Tiong be referred immediately to the Committee of Privileges parliamentary contempt so that when Parliament meets on the first day of the budget meeting on Oct. 19, there would be a motion from the Committee of Privileges recommending the form of disciplinary action that should be taken against Tiong?
Q.108 Will OTK sit down to give a detailed question-by-question answer to my 108 questions on the PKFZ scandal?
Can anyone guess how many of the 108 questions OTK answered?
