PKFZ scandal: Does Ong Tee Keat agree that the Speaker has put the cart before the horse in claiming that there is no point in tabling PwC report on PKFZ and appendices in Parliament without PAC report?

My three questions (No.82 to No. 84 on the 28th day in the current series) to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat on the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal today are:

Question No. 1: The Star today reported the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin as saying that the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report on the PKFZ scandal will only be tabled in Parliament together with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on PKFZ.

Pandikar said that without the PAC report, the PwC report on PKFZ would have no relevance if tabled.

The Speaker is putting the cart before the horse in claiming that there is no point in tabling the Pwc report on PKFZ and appendices in Parliament without the PAC report.

Does Ong agree that without the benefit of the PAC report, there is no point in tabling the PwC report and appendices on the PKFZ scandal in Parliament?

It is unlikely that the PAC report on the PKFZ can be tabled in time for the current parliamentary meeting which ends on Thursday, 2nd July, 2009, and as there is no assurance that the PAC report would be tabled on the first day of the next parliamentary meeting on 19th October 2009, there is therefore a great likelihood that the PAC report and PwC report and appendices are only tabled in November or December 2009 if they not pushed into 2010 altogether!

Does Ong agree that the PwC report and appendices should remain in the vaults of Parliament for next few months to collect dust?

My first question is why is Ong is so afraid of making the PwC report and in particular the appendices freely available to MPs and the public? What is Ong trying to hide?

Question 2: The time has come for Ong to give a full account of the secret meeting of Barisan Nasional MPs at an undisclosed venue on the 5th May 2009 to get a special briefing on the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal.

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?

Question No. 3 – In Parliament on Wednesday, 24th June 2009, I had asked the Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr. Awang Adek Hussain to give a full account to Parliament on all the Cabinet meetings and decisions on the PKFZ, and in particular to confirm or deny the following Cabinet meetings and decisions:

• On 2nd October 2002, Cabinet agreed to the purchase of the land for the PKFZ project based on Transport Minister’s information that the project was viable and did not require any government financial assistance and that legal issues surrounding the land concerned had been resolved.
• On 9th October Cabinet agreed to defer implementation of the Oct. 2 decision, pending reports by Finance Ministry and Attorney-General’s Chambers.
• On 16th Oct. 2002, Cabinet informed of Attorney-General’s position that the land had too many encumbrances and “willing buyer, willing seller” transaction not proper. Finance Ministry asked to submit report.
• On 23rd October 2002, Cabinet agreed that land be acquired by Transport Ministry under section 3(1)(a) of Land Acquisition Act 1960 at RM10.16 psf. Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) to be given the opportunity to level and build basic infrastructure at a price to be negotiated and to be finalized by the Finance Ministry if it is above RM100 million. Among the reasons why the Cabinet reversed the Oct. 2, 2002 decision were:
  1. The land had too many encumbrances with at least eight charges and five caveats and that Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSD) had made misrepresentation which may be fraudulent misrepresentation;
  2. That the issue of “willing buyer and willing seller” does not arise as KDSB was unable to transfer title free from encumbrance to the government;
  3. That from corporate information, KDSB was a company with bank liabilities.
• On 6th November, 2002 Cabinet reversed its decision of Oct. 23, 2002 and upheld its Oct. 2, 2002 decision.

Can Ong confirm or deny these Cabinet meetings and decisions on PKFZ? If the former, can Ong 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?