Urgent fax to PM - Under-performing ministers in Parliament
(Continued from previous post - Deputy finance minister’s reply a real washout and a shame)
I have this afternoon faxed a letter to the Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi asking him to ensure that the commendable example of Ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament shown since 2006 budget presentation on September 30 should be maintained and not be allowed to slacken or deteriorate as during the winding-up of the Finance Ministry committee stage by the Deputy Finance Minister yesterday.
It was most shocking that Tengku Putera refused the opportunity of a further 15 minutes after the normal adjournment time at 5.30 pm as provided for under the Standing Orders to allow a Minister or Deputy Minister to complete his speech and yet able to deal with the many issues which he had not been able to touch on hitherto.
Deputy Speaker Datuk Lim Si Cheng intimated this when he pointedly asked Tengku Putera how much time he needed to complete his speech. In case Tengku Putera did not understand that he had the leeway of another 15 minutes, I stood up to pointedly draw the Deputy Minister’s attention that he should avail himself of the 15-minute extension so that his reply could be more comprehensive and satisfactory.
I have not yet come across a Minister or Deputy Minister refusing extra time when reminded that he had an additional 15 minutes to address the many issues he had not covered in his reply, and Tengku Putera will go down in Malaysian parliamentary history as the band of one so far who preferred to leave many important issues unanswered instead of availing himself or the additional 15 minutes.
Right on the dot of 5.30 pm, Tengku Putera simply stopped his speech and sat down.
Although Tengku Putera promised to give written reply to issues which he failed to touch upon, this is completely unsatisfactory as MPs raised issues in Parliament to get a personal and direct reply which could be scrutinized immediately and not to get a written answer. Otherwise, there is no need for Parliament to meet at all and all MPs can operate from their houses.
It is for MPs and the Malaysian public for draw their own conclusions why Tengku Putera behaved in so unparliamentary a fashion, although all these conclusions cannot but be adverse to the Deputy Finance Minister.
On many important issues raised by MPs from both sides of the House, Tengku Putera either gave a most unsatisfactory reply or ignored them altogether. In the former were the RM700 million Bank Islam scandal; greater EPF accountability, transparency and good governance; the long-standing Perwaja scandal; Petronas accountability; GLCs (government-linked companies) and the preparation for the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on January 1, 2007.
Among the issues which Tengku Putera ignored completely were: the Financial Services Resources Centre (FSRC), the billion-ringgit losses by EPF subsidiary Malaysia Building Society Bhd (MBSB) and the serious allegation in June that Hong Leong Bank Berhad had manipulated share prices on the stock market by refusing to provide margin financing to a list of well-managed and cash-rich companies.
Let me briefly enumerate some of the issues which I had myself raised in the debate but which had either been ignored in Tengku Putera’s reply or received a most shabby and unsatisfactory answer:
(1) RM700 million Bank Islam scandal
I was dissatisfied with the second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop’s written reply on Monday on the RM700 million Bank Islam scandal, which gave the vague explanation that the Bank Islam losses were the result of loans given to “non-relevant parties”.
In my speech yesterday, I specifically asked: “Who are these ‘non-relevant parties’, when and what are the sums and who made the decisions for these ‘irrelevant’ loans? When were the RM700 million Bank Islam losses first discovered?”
Tengku Putera’s reply yesterday was even worse and opaque than Nor Mohamad’s answer on Monday, giving the meaningless assurance of “no cover-up” while proceeding to cover up. As for my call for a White Paper on the Bank Islam scandal, the Deputy Minister totally skirted the issue.
(2) Greater EPF accountability, transparency and good corporate governance
To my proposal for the appointment of a MTUC representative to the EPF Investment Panel, as workers should have a say through their representative about how to invest their EPF monies, Tengku Putera gave a meaningless answer that “if necessary, the proposal will be taken up with the authorities”!
On my second query on the billion-ringgit losses and billion-ringgit non-performing loans of Malaysia Building Society Bhd (MBSB), the 63% owned subsidiary of EPF, dragging down the EPF dividend last year to the ludicrous low of 4.75% when the economic growth was 7.1% - as compared to the dividend of 4.5% in 2003 when economic growth was 5.3% - there was total blank from the Deputy Minister.
(3) Financial Services Resources Centre (FSRC)
To my queries why Bank Negara awarded a little-known company, H & I Niaga Sdn. Bhd. , which had not submitted its profit-and-loss accounts to the Companies Commission of Malaysia for the past three years from 2002 with the RM320 million contract to build FSRC, and whether it would not be cheaper to buy over and refurnish one of the many empty buildings in Kuala Lumpur for what is essentially a conference centre, a money museum and an art gallery, there was stony silence from the Deputy Minister.
(4) Allegation of manipulation of shares prices by Hong Leong Bank Bhd.
I demanded to know the outcome of the Prime Minister’s directive to the Securities Commission in June, giving it one month to complete a probe into the serious allegation that Hong Leong Bank Bhd had manipulated shares prices in the stock market by refusing margin financing to well-managed and cash-rich companies. Although this issue was headline news in June, it suddenly disappeared from public sight and nobody knew about the outcome of the Securities Commission investigations into Hong Leong Bank Bhd. Tengku Putera studiously avoided this subject and FSRC, although I specifically reminded him that MPs and the Malaysian public are waiting for the government’s responses to both questions.
(5) GLC CEOs
I specifically asked for clarification and assurance whether the GLCs (government-linked companies) would be run as Malaysian and not Malay entities, and that the principle of “the best man for the job” would apply in the appointment of GLC CEOs, regardless of whether Malay or non-Malay. There was neither answer nor assurance from the Deputy Minister.
I have this afternoon faxed a letter to the Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi asking him to ensure that the commendable example of Ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament shown since 2006 budget presentation on September 30 should be maintained and not be allowed to slacken or deteriorate as during the winding-up of the Finance Ministry committee stage by the Deputy Finance Minister yesterday.
It was most shocking that Tengku Putera refused the opportunity of a further 15 minutes after the normal adjournment time at 5.30 pm as provided for under the Standing Orders to allow a Minister or Deputy Minister to complete his speech and yet able to deal with the many issues which he had not been able to touch on hitherto.
Deputy Speaker Datuk Lim Si Cheng intimated this when he pointedly asked Tengku Putera how much time he needed to complete his speech. In case Tengku Putera did not understand that he had the leeway of another 15 minutes, I stood up to pointedly draw the Deputy Minister’s attention that he should avail himself of the 15-minute extension so that his reply could be more comprehensive and satisfactory.
I have not yet come across a Minister or Deputy Minister refusing extra time when reminded that he had an additional 15 minutes to address the many issues he had not covered in his reply, and Tengku Putera will go down in Malaysian parliamentary history as the band of one so far who preferred to leave many important issues unanswered instead of availing himself or the additional 15 minutes.
Right on the dot of 5.30 pm, Tengku Putera simply stopped his speech and sat down.
Although Tengku Putera promised to give written reply to issues which he failed to touch upon, this is completely unsatisfactory as MPs raised issues in Parliament to get a personal and direct reply which could be scrutinized immediately and not to get a written answer. Otherwise, there is no need for Parliament to meet at all and all MPs can operate from their houses.
It is for MPs and the Malaysian public for draw their own conclusions why Tengku Putera behaved in so unparliamentary a fashion, although all these conclusions cannot but be adverse to the Deputy Finance Minister.
On many important issues raised by MPs from both sides of the House, Tengku Putera either gave a most unsatisfactory reply or ignored them altogether. In the former were the RM700 million Bank Islam scandal; greater EPF accountability, transparency and good governance; the long-standing Perwaja scandal; Petronas accountability; GLCs (government-linked companies) and the preparation for the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on January 1, 2007.
Among the issues which Tengku Putera ignored completely were: the Financial Services Resources Centre (FSRC), the billion-ringgit losses by EPF subsidiary Malaysia Building Society Bhd (MBSB) and the serious allegation in June that Hong Leong Bank Berhad had manipulated share prices on the stock market by refusing to provide margin financing to a list of well-managed and cash-rich companies.
Let me briefly enumerate some of the issues which I had myself raised in the debate but which had either been ignored in Tengku Putera’s reply or received a most shabby and unsatisfactory answer:
(1) RM700 million Bank Islam scandal
I was dissatisfied with the second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop’s written reply on Monday on the RM700 million Bank Islam scandal, which gave the vague explanation that the Bank Islam losses were the result of loans given to “non-relevant parties”.
In my speech yesterday, I specifically asked: “Who are these ‘non-relevant parties’, when and what are the sums and who made the decisions for these ‘irrelevant’ loans? When were the RM700 million Bank Islam losses first discovered?”
Tengku Putera’s reply yesterday was even worse and opaque than Nor Mohamad’s answer on Monday, giving the meaningless assurance of “no cover-up” while proceeding to cover up. As for my call for a White Paper on the Bank Islam scandal, the Deputy Minister totally skirted the issue.
(2) Greater EPF accountability, transparency and good corporate governance
To my proposal for the appointment of a MTUC representative to the EPF Investment Panel, as workers should have a say through their representative about how to invest their EPF monies, Tengku Putera gave a meaningless answer that “if necessary, the proposal will be taken up with the authorities”!
On my second query on the billion-ringgit losses and billion-ringgit non-performing loans of Malaysia Building Society Bhd (MBSB), the 63% owned subsidiary of EPF, dragging down the EPF dividend last year to the ludicrous low of 4.75% when the economic growth was 7.1% - as compared to the dividend of 4.5% in 2003 when economic growth was 5.3% - there was total blank from the Deputy Minister.
(3) Financial Services Resources Centre (FSRC)
To my queries why Bank Negara awarded a little-known company, H & I Niaga Sdn. Bhd. , which had not submitted its profit-and-loss accounts to the Companies Commission of Malaysia for the past three years from 2002 with the RM320 million contract to build FSRC, and whether it would not be cheaper to buy over and refurnish one of the many empty buildings in Kuala Lumpur for what is essentially a conference centre, a money museum and an art gallery, there was stony silence from the Deputy Minister.
(4) Allegation of manipulation of shares prices by Hong Leong Bank Bhd.
I demanded to know the outcome of the Prime Minister’s directive to the Securities Commission in June, giving it one month to complete a probe into the serious allegation that Hong Leong Bank Bhd had manipulated shares prices in the stock market by refusing margin financing to well-managed and cash-rich companies. Although this issue was headline news in June, it suddenly disappeared from public sight and nobody knew about the outcome of the Securities Commission investigations into Hong Leong Bank Bhd. Tengku Putera studiously avoided this subject and FSRC, although I specifically reminded him that MPs and the Malaysian public are waiting for the government’s responses to both questions.
(5) GLC CEOs
I specifically asked for clarification and assurance whether the GLCs (government-linked companies) would be run as Malaysian and not Malay entities, and that the principle of “the best man for the job” would apply in the appointment of GLC CEOs, regardless of whether Malay or non-Malay. There was neither answer nor assurance from the Deputy Minister.
<< Home