Crusader Ong did it all for justice

Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:14

By Teoh El Sen

KUALA LUMPUR: Ong Tee Keat is no stranger to controversy. In fact, he is well-known for his crusade against corruption in the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) "mother of all scandals".

In this second part of a recent interview with FMT, Ong answers several questions related to the many scandals and controversies he has been, in one way or another, involved in.

Ong said more big names are still unaccounted for in the PKFZ scandal, in which five people have been charged, but up Dr Ling Liong Sik came as a surprise to him.

PKFZ, the commercial and industrial project, was initially conceived as a RM1.82 billion venture constructed over 1,000 acres but the costs ballooned to RM12.5 billion. After the project's financial records were audited, allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and breach of trust surfaced.

On the controversial Automated Enforcement System (AES), the nationwide speed cameras system set to be implemented, Ong said he had dealt with the matter when he was transport minister.

The AES has come under fire for allegedly awarding the project to "crony companies", but Ong questioned why the disgruntled companies had not complained sooner but had cried foul to him later on.

He said though he did not know the details prior to his ministerial position, the marks the companies had received (in live demonstation of the AES in 2007) were clear answers, and he stood by his decision to follow the test results from the tender process on the companies that scored the highest.

In the interview, Ong also condemned the sacking of two senior executives and a deejay in Chinese-language 98.8 FM radio station, but declined to say if he thought MCA (which owns the station) and its president Dr Chua Soi Lek were behind it, as was widely speculated. He chose instead to say that the facts of the case speak for themselves.

Excerpts of the interview are as below:

FMT: On the Port Klang Free Zone scandal, are you satisfied with the recent developments wheres culprits are being brought to book, especially the charging of Dr Ling Liong Sik?

Ong Tee Keat: Charging anybody came much to my surprise, especially in terms of timing and the wording of the charges itself.

Based on the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) audit report released on May 28, last year, I set up three independent panels to probe into the areas of concern raised by PWC. One was to zero in on all the doubts raised in the PWC report, the second was to institutionalise good governance within the statutory bodies, especially under ministry of transport; and lastly to turn around the PKFZ project.

The reports were submitted to me by two of the panels on Aug 10 last year. I handed them over to the government, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and commercial crime police. I presume (the reports) had been very useful to the authorities.

They say there are more people involved in the PKFZ yet to be charged, some say even politicians from Umno?

When we first conducted the PWC audit and later (set up) the independent panels, one salient point I told the panels was that no political interference should ever be allowed, not even from the minister's department or even my office.

We made sure the reports remained uncensored, not even a word -- and we did it.

To answer your questions if other individuals were involved or implicated... certainly (there were people named) in the reports submitted to me that I subsequently handed over to the government. (Those people) cut across partisan or racial lines, because we don't look at that. Whoever is being named would never be given any due consideration on their social status or party affiliation.

So there are more names not yet charged?

Yes, a few other names were mentioned in the audit report...

But Ling Liong Sik's name was never in the audit report, right?

The report was more focused on the development work whereas the land deal took place quite some years ago. When I first started the investigation, I started from scratch. I couldn't get any documents or information really. And a lot of things were not within the scope of my knowledge. In Ling's case, it was related to a land deal and my investigation was focused on the development of PKFZ.

What do you mean when you say you were surprised by the timing of the charge?

It's because it took place after such a long time, after the submission of my panel reports. It's already been one year plus. All of a sudden Ling was charged. That certainly caught everybody by surprise.

Do you regret bringing up the PKFZ issue?

Never. But perhaps I should have chosen a different timing. But honestly at that point of time, I was duty-bound to clear it up.

How has the case against Tiong (where Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd chief executive officer Tiong King Sing claimed that he gave Ong RM10 million last year for the party's activities) affected your credibility?

I must say I don't know if the belated clearance (from MACC) helps or not. But if you say there is no effect whatsoever from those allegations, it's not true. Suffice to say, I have gone through such an ordeal especially at the height of the MCA crisis; this issue was time and again used as ammunition by detractors.

Moving on to the 98.8 FM radio station and the recent incident where DJ Jamaluddin Ibrahim was asked to go on leave and CEO Wong Lai Ngo and senior programme manager Tan Chia Yong suspended(all three have since been sacked). Is it politically motivated?

I know the development of the entire episode, which I noted with great concern. The only thing I want to say is what I experienced and what I know.

When I was the president of MCA, there had been numerous cases of complaints against certain DJs and certain programmes of 98.8 and I was urged to interfere. Some programmes were deemed detrimental to the image of certain leaders. But I chose not to interfere because I did not believe in such a move. I refrained from doing it because that would set a bad precedent of political interference.

But you wouldn't say if this is being done now?

Yes, I noted it with great concern. I was watching what was going on. But I want to make no specific comments.

But do you think there is something more than meets the eye here, not just a normal turnover?

To my understanding, a show-cause letter means that whoever is accused of doing something would have an opportunity to defend his case. A show-cause letter is not tantamount to sacking. I am saying this in general, and not referring to Jamal's case per se.

Do you think Jamal was treated unfairly then?

Let the facts speak for themselves, whether the case is being handled justly or not. The public perception and judgment speak volumes.

Could we move on to the controversy concerning the purchase of China CSR Zhuzhou Electric Locomotive Co Ltd train coaches? You have replied this in a blog post. Are there any further developments on this?

No. I've said what I had to say... and that was prompted by the mere fact that certain individuals did not seem to have done sufficient homework.

Raising doubts is one thing, but in raising doubts you must substantiate with convincing facts and figures, and you must understand the subject matter well. This applies to anybody... the whistleblower could be partisan or non-partisan, but you must get it right. If at all you want to pursue a case, in the name of justice... you want to make sure justice prevails. If you can't get it right, you are misguided and went in the wrong direction. Then at the end of the day, even if it was a genuine scandal, people might go off tangent. If at all it is a real case, the perpetrators, if any, could very well go scot-free because you didn't do it right.

Just like in the case of PKFZ for instance; no doubt, the first whistleblower -- the opposition politicians -- they made a hue and cry. But the problem is when I first took over the portfolio, I had no choice but to read over what I could find and resurrect the issue. Honestly, I couldn't make any inroads at all, because apparently they cried foul just by suspecting something was amiss, but crying foul alone, you may end up with nothing. I experienced that.

Another issue that was raised was the Automated Enforcement System (AES), the speed camera system. There are allegations that there are inconsistencies in the tender process. Another complaint was from a local company that said it was sidelined eventhough its AES was homegrown technology and scored high marks in the tender process (live demonstration of the AES). What was your role in this?

On the AES, a live demonstration was conducted in 2007 before I came in (as transport minister). The demo or test enabled all the bidders to demonstrate their competitive edge. I was told and shown evidence that each and every bidder had its own performance assessed, and the marks they secured in the test.

What happened was that the sore losers then cried foul later on, even to me. In the first place, why didn't they cry foul at that material time? They couldn't asnwer me why they didnt raise their objections then.

The live demo itself was attended by a independant panel of judges, including from the judiciary, and representatives from the Anti-Corruption Agency (now MACC).

At that material time, it was not under me but under my predecessor (Chan Kong Choy). When I took over, I based everything on the findings of the live demo; of course I had to proceed. I strictly followed the outcome of the demo, which was supervised and overseen by the panel of judges, that's all. I made no fresh recommendations.

So you agreed to award the two companies?

Because that's the only thing we could fall back on. We cannot simply overrule certain things without solid reasons.

You are saying that when you were the transport minister, those companies complained to you but you couldn't find anything wrong?

So far I think there were two companies which complained. The problem was: why did you score low marks? If at all you thought the modus operandi was unfair, you could have raised objections then.

Making allegations against others is different from putting up your defence to justify your cause. The simple question was, "Why didn't you raise this then?"

But hypothetically, if they were right about the possibility of favouritism, is it possible for a review of the tender process?

I did grant such a latitude by revisiting the live demo, especially the results of the live demo. But the conclusion was that the marks scored by the complainants could in no way prompt a decision to overrule what has been decided.

Also read: