Chia: Wee needs to explain why he’s still on firm’s list

PETALING JAYA: An MCA Youth leader has challenged party wing chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong to explain why he is still named as a shareholder in his former company which provided consultancy work in 2005 to conduct a study on Port Klang.

Dr Wee’s name still appeared as a shareholder in consultancy firm Hijau Sekitar Sdn Bhd when he claimed to have divested his stake since becoming Deputy Education Minister in March 2008, said MCA Youth central committee member Chia Seia Yang.

“If that is the case, why did his name still appear as owning 49,998-plus shares in Hijau Sekitar Sdn Bhd out of 100,000 shares , based on a company search dated January 7, 2010?

“The search says the information is updated as at January 1, 2009 — which is some nine months after Dr Wee became a deputy minister,” Chia said in a statement yesterday.

Saying he possessed some documented evidence which might cast a long shadow over Dr Wee’s integrity, Chia pointed out that Dr Wee had to divest or declare his shares as part of his assets to the Prime Minister after he assumed office.

“Since he said he had divested the shares when he took up a Cabinet post, does it mean that he did not declare those shares (still owning) to the Prime Minister?” Chia asked, adding that documents from the Companies Commission of Malaysia “do not lie.”

On Dec 24 last year, Dr Wee said his former company provided consultancy work on Port Klang but denied any link to the controversial Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project.

Dr Wee’s consultancy firm Hijau Sekitar Sdn Bhd, together with four other firms, were appointed by Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd to conduct a study titled ‘’Conceptual design and feasibility study on the need for port development in Port Klang.’’

Wijaya Baru is the parent company of Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (KDSB) which developed the controversial billion-ringgit PKFZ project. Bintulu MP Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing is the chief executive officer of KDSB.

Chia also queried Dr Wee on several other issues.

Among them were Dr Wee’s reluctance to play a more aggressive role in the PKFZ financial fiasco issue; why the deputy minister had previously said his company had done the consultancy work for free but later backtracked his statement, and how Dr Wee had failed to answer whether he had inside information about the massive developments in the PKFZ around 2005.

“The public wants to know whether Dr Wee could live up to the expectations of trans­­parency and accountability,” said Chia, adding that MCA members wanted to know how close was the relationship between Dr Wee and Tiong, and whether this had impacted the crisis in MCA.

Click on the pic to enlarge it . Note the date at bottom left hand corner